[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
December 7, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-72
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
33-359 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin JERROLD NADLER, New York
LAMAR SMITH, Texas ZOE LOFGREN, California
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DARRELL E. ISSA, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
JIM JORDAN, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
TED POE, Texas KAREN BASS, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho ERIC SWALWELL, California
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas TED LIEU, California
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
RON DeSANTIS, Florida PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEN BUCK, Colorado BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MATT GAETZ, Florida
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
DECEMBER 7, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, New York, Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary............................................... 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Andrew McCabe, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Oral Statement............................................... 6
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
----------
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2017
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Chabot, Issa, King,
Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Gowdy, Labrador,
Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, Buck, Ratcliffe, Roby, Gaetz,
Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs, Rutherford, Handel, Nadler,
Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass,
Richmond, Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal,
and Schneider.
Staff Present: Shelley Husband, Staff Director; Branden
Ritchie, Deputy Staff Director; Zach Somers, Parliamentarian
and General Counsel; Bobby Parmiter, Chief Counsel,
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice; Danielle
Brown, Minority Parliamentarian and Chief Legislative Counsel;
Aaron Hiller, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; Joe
Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations; Arya
Hariharan, Minority Counsel; and Veronica Eligan, Minority
Professional Staff Member.
Chairman Goodlatte. The Judiciary Committee will come to
order, and without objection the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to
this morning's hearing on Oversight of the Federal Bureau of
Investigations, and I will begin by recognizing myself for an
opening statement.
Thank you, Director Wray, for appearing for your first time
in front of this committee and thank you for your service to
our country in your new position. There is much to discuss
today, and we look forward to your answers.
The President recently tweeted that the FBI ``is in
tatters.'' While some will take umbrage with President Trump's
assertion, it does appear to me that, at the very least, the
FBI's reputation as an impartial, nonpolitical agency has been
called into question recently. We cannot afford for the FBI,
which has traditionally been dubbed the ``premier law
enforcement agency in the world,'' to become tainted by
politicization or the perception of a lack of even-handedness.
Questions regarding the FBI's impartiality first came to
light under the Obama administration surrounding the handling
of the investigation into the Clinton email server scandal.
You, Director Wray, have a unique opportunity to repair the
damage of the reputation of the FBI, and we encourage you in
the strongest terms to do so.
Director Comey's decision to weigh in on the fate of the
investigation into the mishandling of classified emails by
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was one that brought
criticism to the Bureau from all sides. The FBI's decision to
recommend no charges against the former Secretary, or anyone
connected to her, continues to raise serious concerns that our
Nation's system of justice applies differently to the rich,
powerful, and well-connected than to everyone else.
Many on this committee have repeatedly called on Attorney
General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein to name
a second special counsel to review the voluminous, unresolved
inconsistencies and perceived improprieties with regard to
normal FBI and DOJ investigatory practice that arose during the
Clinton email investigation.
Despite our requests, the Department has not appointed a
second special counsel. While we still request the appointment
of a second special counsel, we have now also opened our own
joint investigation with the House Oversight and Government
Reform Committee to review FBI and DOJ's handling of that
investigation.
The Attorney General has recently committed to provide us
relevant documents, and I hope to hear directly from you that
you will ensure your agency provides a fulsome response of
documents to enable unimpeded congressional oversight.
Even more recently, reports on the bias of some of the
career agents and lawyers on current Special Counsel Mueller's
team are also deeply troubling to a system of blind and equal
justice. Investigations must not be tainted by individuals
imposing their own personal political opinions. We do not know
the magnitude of this insider bias on Mr. Mueller's team nor do
we have a clear understanding of the full magnitude of bias
reflected in the Russia investigation and prior Clinton email
investigation.
One thing is clear, though: it is absolutely unacceptable
for FBI employees to permit their own political predilections
to contaminate any investigation. Even the appearance of
impropriety will devastate the FBI's reputation. We hope to
hear from you today about an action plan for making sure this
never happens again, that individuals are held accountable, and
whether you plan to reevaluate prior decisions in light of the
prejudice shown by officials in integral roles on past and
ongoing investigations.
Concerning substantive legislative measures, we find
ourselves only weeks before a critical program for our national
security expires--FISA section 702. This committee passed on an
overwhelmingly bipartisan basis a reauthorization of section
702 that maintains the integrity of the program while
protecting cherished civil liberties. We ensured that the FBI
is not hindered by having to obtain a warrant before performing
a search for information that the Agency has inside its
databases. However, we also put in place protections to ensure
that law enforcement cannot short cut Americans' civil
liberties by reading Americans' emails without a warrant when
looking for evidence of run-of-the-mill crimes.
This committee's legislation struck a balance that will
promote national security and civil liberties. So, I hope to
hear from you that you will work with us to make any perfecting
changes to the legislation so that section 702 can be
reauthorized on time.
Needless violence on the home front is also a concern for
all Americans who value and expect safety and security as they
go about their day-to-day lives. We have seen horrific violence
in the past year, including the worst mass shooting in U.S.
history. Violence has hit this very body when our colleague,
Congressman Scalise, and others were shot.
We also see many of our major cities stricken by daily
murders and excessive violence. Is this the new normal? I am
unwilling to accept that. While we have disagreements over
policy for addressing this violence, we can all agree that it
is existentially important for us to understand and address the
underlying causes. If we neglect this duty, we do a disservice
for generations to come.
Director Wray, in addition to punishing individuals who
have already committed criminal acts, I hope the FBI is also
committed to crime-prevention initiatives. I am interested to
know what steps Federal law enforcement is taking to address
the underlying causes of violence, and whether Congress can
offer any additional resources to ensure that we can faithfully
say that we have done what we can to battle gratuitous violence
in all of its forms.
I believe that this committee's Criminal Justice Reform
legislation will help address these problems, including helping
to rehabilitate offenders so that they can become productive
members of society once released.
Notwithstanding the question of the impartiality and
independence of the FBI, I am often astounded by the efforts
that the men and women of the FBI contribute on a daily basis
toward keeping our country safe from foreign and domestic
threats.
There are many successes that never see the light of day
for which the FBI cannot receive public credit due to the
sensitivity of the FBI's methods and operations. We are truly
grateful and hope that the line agents, analysts, and support
staff of the FBI know that their jobs are sincerely appreciated
and greatly valued.
Again, Director Wray, thank you for appearing today, and I
now yield to the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the
House Judiciary Committee, Director Wray.
Earlier this week in a message to your agents and
employees, you gave us your vision of what the FBI is supposed
to be. ``We find ourselves under the microscope each and every
day and rightfully so. We do hard work for a living. We are
entrusted with protecting the American people and upholding the
Constitution and laws of the United States. Because of the
importance of our mission, we are also entrusted with great
power, and we should expect and welcome people asking tough
questions about how we use that power. That goes with the job
and always has,'' from your statement.
I appreciate that sentiment, but it cannot be a coincidence
that you sent this message to your agents just hours after
President Trump launched an online tantrum aimed largely at the
Bureau as an institution and their individual agents. Early
Saturday morning the President tweeted, ``So, General Flynn
lies to the FBI and his life destroyed, while crooked Hillary
lies many times, and nothing happens to her? Rigged system, or
just a double standard?'' He went on, ``After years of Comey,
with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation, running the
FBI, its reputation is in tatters, worst in history.''
These outbursts exemplify two key characteristics of the
administration: a cheapening and coarsening of our dialogue,
and baseless but entirely predictable political attacks against
Hillary Clinton, political opponents, the Department of
Justice, and the FBI.
I fear that this demeaning language has infected much of
our work here on this committee. And I suspect, Mr. Director,
that many of my Republican colleagues will take a similar
approach in attempting to shift the conversation away from
questions they have largely ignored, like obstruction of
justice, election security, and the rise in hate crimes.
Indeed, I predict that these attacks on the FBI will grow
louder and more brazen as the special counsel does his work,
and the walls close in around the President, and evidence of
his obstruction and other misdeeds becomes more apparent.
In this moment, Director Wray, your responsibility is not
only to defend the Bureau, but to push back against the
President when he is so clearly wrong--both on the facts and as
a matter of principle. When he says, ``The FBI person really
reports directly to the President of the United States,'' it is
your job to tell him that the director of the FBI has reported
to the Attorney General since the founding of the Bureau, and
that Presidents should not comment on pending cases.
When he claims that you should focus on, ``crooked
Hillary,'' instead of his closest associates, or when my
colleagues argue for a new special counsel to do the same, it
is your responsibility to remind us that, absent sufficient
evidence of a crime, there is no investigation to which a
special counsel can be assigned.
And when he tells you that you need to ``clean house,''
that your agents are ``phony and dishonest,'' and that your
``reputation, or the reputation of the Bureau, is in tatters'''
and ``the worst in history,'' you should do more than send a
private email to your employees. Your job then is to stand up
to the President of the United States.
As former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has said,
``The only thing in tatters is the President's respect for the
rule of law. The dedicated men and women of the FBI deserve
better.''
Or as former Attorney General Eric Holder said, ``You will
find integrity and honesty at FBI headquarters and not at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue right now.'' Or as Thomas O'Connor,
President of the FBI Agents Association, said, ``The FBI
continues to be the premier law enforcement agency in the
world. FBI agents are dedicated to their mission. Suggesting
otherwise is simply false,'' unquote.
I am curious if you think their defense of the Bureau is
wrong or misplaced, and I hope you will address the matter in
your testimony today. Your job requires you to have the courage
in these circumstances to stand up to the President. That
responsibility is far more than a matter of politics. There are
real consequences for allowing the President to continue his
attacks on the FBI and to continue unchecked in this manner.
For example, FBI statistics released last month show a
marked increase in the rate of hate crimes in the United
States. Your data indicate 6,121 hate crimes against 7,615
victims last year alone. Last week, about 70 of our colleagues
wrote to me and to Chairman Goodlatte asking us to ``convene
immediate hearings to determine what can be done to stem the
tide'' of this violence.
I agree completely. This committee should address the
matter without delay, and I ask that the letter I have be made
a part of the record.
Chairman Goodlatte. Without objection, it will be made part
of the record.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I am certain that more than one
factor is to blame for this rise in violence. But I cannot help
but look to a President who has tacitly, and sometimes
explicitly, created an environment that is more hostile to the
most vulnerable among us.
As a candidate, he denigrated women, characterized
immigrants as rapists, and openly mocked the disabled. As
President, he cracked a Pocahontas joke at a ceremony honoring
the contributions of Native Americans in combat defending this
country, circulated unverified anti-Muslim videos produced by
far-right, fascist extremists in Great Britain, and asked us to
remember the ``very fine people'' among the racists and white
nationalists at Charlottesville. According to reports, he has
even resurrected the question of President Obama's birthplace,
a pernicious, racist lie from the start.
We are looking for leaders who can supply some moral
authority to lead this country. I hope you will be among them,
Director Wray. I look forward to your testimony today. I thank
the Chairman, and I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair thanks the gentleman. We
welcome our distinguished witness, and if you will please rise,
I will begin by swearing you in.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God? Thank you very much. Let the record show that
the witness answered the affirmative.
Mr. Christopher Wray was sworn in as the 8th Director of
the FBI on August 2, 2017. A New York City native, Mr. Wray
graduated from Yale University and subsequently earned his law
degree from Yale Law School. Mr. Wray began his Department of
Justice career in 1997 as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of Georgia where he prosecuted cases ranging
from public corruption to gun trafficking and financial fraud.
In 2001, he joined the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General where he served as Associate Deputy Attorney General
and then Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. In 2003,
Mr. Wray was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve as
Associate Attorney General for the Criminal Division.
At the conclusion of his tenure, Mr. Wray was awarded the
Edmund J. Randolph Award, the Department of Justice's highest
award for leadership and public service. Mr. Wray went on to
practice law before returning to the public sector as Director
of the FBI.
Mr. Wray, your written statement will be entered into the
record in its entirety and we ask that you summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER WRAY, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
Mr. Wray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Nadler, and members of the committee, thank you for
having me here today. This is my first opportunity to appear
before this committee, and I look forward to our discussion.
Let me start by saying that it is, for me, the honor of a
lifetime to be here representing the men and women of the FBI.
There is no finer institution than the FBI and no finer people
than the men and women who work there and are its very beating
heart.
Almost 37,000 men and women with a fierce commitment to
protecting the American people and upholding the rule of law in
all 50 States and in about 80 countries around the world. Men
and women who face the darkest that life has to offer with
unyielding integrity, and honesty, and dedication. And I am
both humbled and inspired to be back in public service working
alongside them.
I would like to take a step back to consider the serious
challenges that we are facing and to remember the millions of
people that we are protecting. On the national security front,
we confront individuals who want to harm the United States in
whatever way they can. Terrorists hellbent on striking us with
IEDs, vehicles, guns, and knives.
For example, as we speak, the Bureau has about 1,000 active
ISIS investigations in all 50 States. We have nation states
actively seeking our technology, our military secrets, our
research and development to build their own economic process
and prowess, and to tear ours down. Cyber criminals who are
using sophisticated means to infiltrate our systems and steal
every piece of data that they can get their hands on. These
threats are real, they are many, and they are a great threat to
all Americans.
But for the people we serve, these are not the threats that
they encounter the most in their everyday lives. Threats like
violent crime and the national opioid epidemic impact everyday
people trying to lead everyday lives. They do not want to have
to worry about a terrorist driving a truck down a busy walkway.
They do not want to worry about an active shooter opening fire
on a crowded public gathering. And they certainly do not want
to worry about whether their kids are safe from gangs and drug
dealers and predators.
We all need to be aware of the world around us and of the
threats we face, but we in the FBI are trying to do everything
we can to make sure that the American people can go about
living their lives while we focus on trying to keep them safe.
I would like to highlight just a couple recent
investigations that illustrate just a small, small part of our
work, together with our law enforcement partners and our
colleagues in the Justice Department. In October, through
Operation Cross Country, which the FBI conducted in 44 States
and the District of Columbia, we arrested 120 sex traffickers
and recovered 84 sexually exploited juveniles, including a 3-
month-old girl and her 5-year-old sister who were recovered
from a family friend who was trying to sell them for sex for
$600.
And through our Top 10 Most Wanted Fugitives program, we
have apprehended just in the last couple of years 10 of the
most particularly dangerous offenders. In late August, we were
able to work with our Mexican counterparts to capture Luis
Macedo, a gang member charged with first degree murder for
beating, then shooting, then setting on fire a 15-year-old boy
in Illinois who refused to show a gang sign.
And then earlier this year, the pressure of being added to
our Top 10 list led fugitive Robert Van Wisse to turn himself
in to FBI agents in Texas for the 1983 murder of a young woman
with a 1-year-old daughter. For 33 years, that little girl, now
all grown-up, had hoped and prayed for his arrest and he was
finally captured on her birthday. A cold comfort, I suspect,
but we hope that his capture provides some measure of peace and
justice to her.
The work that we do is not easy, to put it mildly, but the
FBI is mission-focused and passionate about the work we do. We
are determined to be the very best at protecting the American
people and upholding the rule of law and I, for one, could not
be more proud to be part of it.
I want to thank you and this committee for your support. We
could not do what we do without the funding that you all help
us secure, without the investigative tools and authorities that
you granted us, including, as you noted, Mr. Chairman, section
702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is at
risk and set to expire very soon.
We need every tool and every authority we have got to keep
people safe and to pursue justice. And as always, we are
committed to using those authorities lawfully and appropriately
for the good and protection of the American people. So, thank
you for having me here today and I look forward to your
questions.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Director Wray. I will begin
by recognizing myself for questions. Mr. Director, I am sure
you are aware of the recent media reports indicating that Peter
Strzok, who is a Special Agent at the FBI, changed the words
``grossly negligent'' to ``extremely careless'' in former
Director Comey's statement closing the Clinton investigation.
Are you aware of that?
Mr. Wray. I have heard some of the same information you
have.
Chairman Goodlatte. Great. Do you know, by chance, what the
criminal intent standard is under the Espionage Act? In
particular, 18 U.S.C. section 793(f).
Mr. Wray. I have not studied the statute recently, but I
believe it is gross negligence.
Chairman Goodlatte. That is right. It is gross negligence.
So, would it be accurate to say that a senior FBI official
changed the wording of the director's statement to ensure that
Secretary Clinton was not liable under the Espionage Act?
Mr. Wray. Well, Mr. Chairman, as you may know, the handling
of the investigation into Secretary Clinton is currently the
subject of an outside, independent investigation by the
inspector general, and I think it would not be appropriate for
me to speculate about what the inspector general will or will
not find.
Chairman Goodlatte. That is probably appropriate, but it is
still not at all inappropriate to ask you to draw a legal
conclusion about a standard in the law that was changed in a
statement that your predecessor put out as a justification for
closing the investigation of the former Secretary of State.
Mr. Wray. As I said, Mr. Chairman, I believe the standard
is gross negligence. I leave it to others to conclude whether
extremely careless and gross negligence are the same thing. But
I will say that the particulars of the investigation and the
decisions that were made and whether or not it was handled
appropriately is, as I think it should be, the subject of an
outside, independent investigation by the inspector general. I
look forward to his findings, as I am sure the committee does
as well.
Chairman Goodlatte. In July of 2016, the State Department
revealed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
exchanged on her unsecured private server nearly two dozen top
secret emails with three State Department officials. The
classification ``top secret'' means, in part, the unauthorized
disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause
exceptionally grave damage to national security.
Can you explain to the American people how the FBI could
not be investigating actions taken by individuals like those
named in 2016--Jacob Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, William Burns--
that threatened grave damage to the national security?
Mr. Wray. Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, the handling of
the investigation, and in particular, whether or not decisions
made in that investigation were the product of any improper
considerations is precisely what the outside, independent
inspector general is investigating. And, when we get his
findings, I will look and see what appropriate action we can
take at the FBI in response to that.
Chairman Goodlatte. Can anyone on this committee set up a
private server now and conduct classified business on it, since
not a single person has been prosecuted or held accountable for
the Clinton email investigation?
Mr. Wray. No.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you. Director Wray, what are you
doing to ensure that the top ranks of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation are cleared of individuals who are tainted by
bias or those who have exhibited indiscretion by failing to
demonstrate the integrity Americans expect from their top law
enforcement officials?
Mr. Wray. Well, the first thing I am doing is respecting
the outside, independent investigations that are underway. My
preference is to be one of these people who is not an ``act
first and ask questions later'' kind of guy, but an ``ask
questions first and then act'' kind of guy. And so, I think
these matters are being looked at, as they should be, by
somebody outside the FBI. And, when those findings come to me,
I will take appropriate action, if necessary.
In the meantime, I am emphasizing in every audience I can
inside the Bureau that our decisions need to be made based on
nothing other than the facts, and the law, and our rules and
our processes, and our core values. And not based on any
political considerations by any side of the aisle.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you. Does the FBI obtain a
warrant before accessing and reading Americans' email?
Mr. Wray. It depends on the situation, but yes.
Chairman Goodlatte. So, can you explain why you obtain a
criminal search warrant before reading an email of someone
under investigation for a crime?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
Chairman Goodlatte. Can you explain why you obtain a
criminal search warrant before reading an email of someone
under investigation for a crime?
Mr. Wray. Well, in the situations where a search warrant is
required, and of course, under the Fourth Amendment, there are
plenty of situations where a search warrant is not required.
There are all sorts of aspects to the Fourth Amendment, but in
those situations where we seek a warrant, it is because the
Fourth Amendment requires it.
Chairman Goodlatte. Section 702, as you and I both noted,
is up for renewal within a few weeks. It is a critical national
security tool that must be reauthorized. You and I agree on
that, as well. But it is just that: a national security tool,
not a criminal tool.
Is it reasonable, when accessing content that shows
evidence of a routine crime and is located in the FBI's 702
database, that agents should obtain some process, as is
required in criminal cases?
Mr. Wray. Mr. Chairman, I have appreciated our discussions
on section 702. My own view is that section 702, as currently
drafted, which is the view shared by the courts that have
looked at the question is fully constitutional and lawful. And
I would say to you that our handling of clearing of the
information in the 702 database is clearing of information that
is already lawfully and constitutionally in the FBI's
possession and is most useful at the earliest stages, when
information is coming in in fragments and the Bureau is trying
to make assessments of what do we have?
Is this a real threat? Where is this going? And I would
implore the committee and the Congress not to begin rebuilding
the wall that existed before 9/11.
Chairman Goodlatte. Well, thank you. My time is expired,
but I will add that we share that concern as well. And that is
why we have drawn a clear distinction between national security
and solving domestic crimes.
And when it comes to the query, we allow that to move
forward. But when you then find that there is something related
to the investigation of a domestic crime, then you should go
ahead and get a search warrant. And we have protected the FBI's
ability to access that database for the purpose of a query.
But then, if you are going to take it further and actually
read the contents of the emails if they are national security,
go right ahead, because you may be stopping a terrorist attack.
But if you are solving a domestic crime, whatever it might be,
then I think you need to respect the civil liberties of
American citizens and get a warrant. I now recognize the
gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for his questions.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Let me say part of my statement,
that I totally agree with the chairman in his observations on
702 and on the distinctions we made in our bill between
national security and counterintelligence operations on the one
hand, investigations of domestic crimes on the other. Where you
should get a warrant when you would normally need a warrant.
Director Wray, I would like to ask you for your help
putting events in the last few days into context. To set the
stage, over the summer in an interview with the New York Times,
President Trump stated, ``When Nixon came along, out of
courtesy the FBI started reporting to the Department of
Justice. But the FBI person really reports directly to the
President of the United States.'' Director Wray, you have one
direct report to the Executive Branch. To whom do you directly
report?
Mr. Wray. I directly report to the Deputy Attorney General,
who then reports to the Attorney General.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Has President Trump ever asked you
to sidestep the chain of command and report directly to him?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Nadler. Also over the summer, former Director Comey
testified that during a private dinner President Trump told
him, ``I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.'' Has President Trump
ever asked you for loyalty?
Mr. Wray. I have never been asked by the President to take
any kind of loyalty oath. My loyalty is to the Constitution, to
the laws of this country, and to the, you know, the good men
and people of America.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Last week, former National Security
Advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to one felony count of
lying to the FBI about conversations he had with the Russian
Ambassador. I would like to put President Trump's initial
Twitter reaction up on the screen. I will not read it, but I
will simply say he claims here to have known that General Flynn
committed a crime at the time General Flynn was fired.
There is some controversy as to whether the President
actually wrote this tweet. The White House later claimed that
it came from the President's private attorney. But I am not
sure that it matters who wrote it, given the Department of
Justice's litigating position that these tweets are ``official
statements of the President of the United States.''
A few clarifying questions, Mr. Director. In your
experience at the Department of Justice, have you ever
prosecuted a case involving a charge of obstruction of justice?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Nadler. In Sections 1503, 1505, and 1512 of Title 18,
make it a crime if someone corruptly ``obstructs, influences,
or impedes any official proceeding.'' What does it mean to
corruptly obstruct, influence, or impeded an official
proceeding?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congressman, that would require me to get
into kind of a legal discussion and it has been a while since I
looked at the case law on the subject. I do know, as somebody
who has been both a line prosecutor and a senior Justice
Department official, and a defense attorney that sometimes the
language of that statute can be trickier than folks first
appreciate.
Mr. Nadler. Okay, fair enough. Fair enough. And I am glad
you respect the fact that we have 5 minutes. Does obstruction
of justice require specific intent? In other words, does a
prosecutor have to establish that the defendant had knowledge
of the official proceeding and intended to obstruct it?
Mr. Wray. Sitting here right now, Congressman, I do not
remember the specifics of exactly what the intent requirement
is.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Does it matter that a suspect has
knowledge of a crime when he attempts to waive off criminal
investigators? In other words, if a suspect has knowledge of a
crime and he attempts to waive off criminal investigators, does
that constitute obstruction of justice?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly the defendant's knowledge and
state of mind and intent is a critical element of the offense.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. Later that day, the President tweeted
this claim--open up there--and in effect, he accuses former
Director Comey of giving false testimony. Mr. Comey testified
that President Trump urged him to be lenient with Michael
Flynn, producing a note in which he quoted the President
saying, ``I hope you can let this go.''
In multiple appearances before Congress, Attorney General
Sessions appears to have corroborated both the fact of the
meeting and the gist of the conversation between the President
and Director Comey.
Director Wray, do you have reason to doubt the testimony of
Director Comey or Attorney General Sessions on this point?
Mr. Nadler. Congressman, the questions you are asking go
directly to what Special Counsel Mueller is investigating, and
I do not think it would be appropriate for me to be weighing in
on that in this setting.
Mr. Nadler. You do not think you can say whether you have
reason to doubt the veracity of his statement because that
might be under investigation?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, the question you are asking me--and
I appreciate the reasons for the question--but the questions
you are asking me would be asking me to weigh in on witnesses
in a course of investigation that is ongoing and I do not think
that is appropriate for me to do.
Mr. Nadler. All right. Fair enough. At your confirmation
hearing, you testified that you would ``consider any effort to
tamper with Director Mueller's investigation unacceptable and
inappropriate, that any such effort would need to be dealt with
very sternly and appropriately indeed.'' Since your
confirmation, has the President ever contacted you about the
special counsel's investigation? Has the Attorney General or
anybody else at the White House?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. My final question is: the President's
tirade ended with one final tweet where he says your reputation
is in tatters. And to use--well, Director Wray--it is up there.
We have heard other veterans of the FBI and the Department of
Justice push back against this attack on the reputation of the
FBI. We have not heard from you; with the time I have left,
will you respond to this tweet by the President? Is the FBI's
reputation in tatters?
Mr. Wray. Mr. Chairman, may I have time to answer this
question because it is something that matters to me a great
deal?
Chairman Goodlatte. Yes, go ahead, please.
Mr. Wray. Congressman, there is no shortage of opinions out
there. What I can tell you is that the FBI that I see is tens
of thousands of agents, and analysts, and staff working their
tails off to keep Americans safe from the next terrorist
attack, gang violence, child predators, spies from Russia,
China, North Korea, and Iran. The FBI that I see is tens of
thousands of brave men and women who are working as hard as
they can to keep people that they will never know safe from
harm.
And the FBI that I see is reflected in folks like the new
class of agents that I swore in at Quantico 2 days ago, hard-
charging, high-integrity people. People like the Hostage Rescue
Team and SWAT teams that we send out into all sorts of danger
with almost no notice. The FBI that I see is people, decent
people, committed to the highest principles of integrity, and
professionalism, and respect.
The FBI that I see is respected and appreciated by our
partners in Federal, State, and local law enforcement; in the
intelligence community; our foreign counterparts, both law
enforcement; and national security in something like 200
countries around the globe. That is the FBI that I see.
Now, do we make mistakes? You bet we make mistakes, just
like everybody who is human makes mistakes. And when we make
mistakes, there are independent processes like that of the
outside, independent inspector general that will drive and dive
deep into the facts surrounding those mistakes. And when that
independent fact-finding is complete, we will hold our folks
accountable, if that is appropriate.
Mr. Nadler. That is very fine. Thank you very much. I yield
back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, you
have mentioned that the IG, the inspector general, is
investigating matters related, for example, to the Clinton
email server scandal, et cetera. But is it not a fact that the
IG does not have prosecutorial powers?
Mr. Wray. Well, under certain circumstances the inspector
general works with prosecutors to bring criminal cases.
Mr. Chabot. What about in this case?
Mr. Wray. Well, this is a matter that is under review at
the moment, looking into the facts surrounding all those
decisions.
Mr. Chabot. So, the bottom line is the IG is looking into
the matter and investigating it but has no prosecutorial powers
per se at this time?
Mr. Wray. The inspector general does not, himself, have
prosecutorial power, yes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you. Thank you. The President of the
United States, as the chairman mentioned, recently expressed
the opinion that the FBI's reputation was ``in tatters. Now, as
someone who sat on this committee--the Judiciary Committee that
has oversight of the Justice Department and the FBI--for over
20 years now, such a statement is at least at first shocking.
But when you look at a few facts, it is understandable why the
President might make such a statement.
A former head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, is put in charge
of an important investigation, and who does he pick to be on
his team? Well, you would want people who are experienced, and
smart, and most importantly, unbiased. Because whatever you do
the result is going to be second-guessed. One side or the other
is going to be dissatisfied and critical. So, above all things,
they have got to at least appear to be fair and unbiased. So,
who does Mueller pick?
He picks 16 attorneys. Nine of the 16, more than half, have
given money to the Obama campaign or the Clinton campaign, or
both. And nobody has given a cent to Donald Trump or his
campaign. Does that show a lack of bias? Does that show
fairness? I think the American people can decide that for
themselves.
And perhaps even more shocking, we recently learned that
one of those supposedly unbiased investigators on the Mueller
team was a guy named Peter Strzok. It turns out Strzok was
sending out anti-Trump, pro-Clinton messages. So, he ultimately
got canned from the investigation.
The question is, how did this guy get on your supposedly
unbiased team in the first place? When you consider that this
is the same guy that had a key position investigating the
Hillary Clinton email server scandal, and apparently had a hand
in altering the FBI's conclusion that Clinton was gross
negligent down to extremely careless, so she could escape
prosecution and thus stay in the race against Donald Trump.
And now we learn that the number two guy on Mueller's team,
Andrew Weissmann, is just as biased as Strzok. He made an anti-
Trump communication to the since fired Sally Yates--and the
depths of this anti-Trump bias on the Mueller team just goes on
and on. It is absolutely shocking.
Director Wray, I know all this took place before you took
the helm at the FBI. But none other than the President of the
United States has said that an organization that most
Americans, including myself, hold in the highest esteem, the
FBI, is in tatters. What can you do--what will you do--to
restore confidence in the premier law enforcement agency in the
world?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, I appreciate the question and the
reason for the question. It goes to the heart of whether or not
the Bureau is following its processes, and the rules, and the
guidelines, and adhering to the independence, and objectivity,
and professionalism that we all come to expect and respect from
the FBI. And I think the best way that I can validate the trust
of the American people in the FBI is to ensure that we bring
that same level of professionalism, and integrity, and
objectivity, and adherence to process in everything we do.
As I said at the beginning, I think it is important that we
not jump first and ask questions later. So, the second thing
that I think can be done is when there are fair questions to be
asked about things. Like whether or not some of the decisions
made in the 2016 investigation were handled appropriately or
were subject or based on any kind of improper considerations.
Rather than have the FBI investigate itself, having an
outside inspector general do the investigation and report to
all of us on the findings I think is one of the best things I
can do. And then, based on that information, I will not
hesitate to take appropriate action, based on what it is he
finds.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, and I am almost out of time. But let
me ask you, would you as FBI Director, for example, ever permit
associates of someone under investigation who themselves could
also be under investigation sit and interview with the accused?
Mr. Wray. Well, I will say this, having been, as I said to
Congressman Nadler, both a line prosecutor and a Justice
Department official, but then also a defense attorney, that
that is not my experience as the normal practice. I am also,
however, reluctant to ever answer questions, as you can
appreciate, with a hypothetical about whether I would ever do
something because every investigation is subject to its own
unique circumstances.
Mr. Chabot. I certainly understand it because that is
exactly what happened in the so-called investigation of Hillary
Clinton. And I yield back my time.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Director, for being here today, and thanks to you for your
leadership of this agency and to the men and women who work so
hard to protect our country and to serve the United States. We
all appreciate it, even though we might have a few questions.
My question--my first question--has to do with cyber
security. You know, there is a rapidly growing threat of cyber
attacks at all levels, Federal, State, and local business,
personal level. And I was really concerned to learn in November
of a report highlighting the FBI's failure to notify multiple
government officials that they were the target of a Russian
hacking campaign.
Now, at least according to this report, 500 people were
targeted in the past year, including officials as high profile
as the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
former head of the Airforce Intelligence. Many of these people
still had security clearances or worked for the government.
So, I would like to know, the FBI, as I understand it--
correct me if I am wrong--of these efforts for at least a year.
But I am advised it informed only two of the targets. Can you
explain why these individuals had to learn from the Associated
Press that they were targets of an aggressive Russian hacking
effort, and do we know if any classified information was
stolen?
Were any members of Congress or congressional staff a
target? And what mechanisms or additional resources need to be
put in place so that targeted officials know they are at risk
when there is a foreign operation such as this?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congresswoman, I think I am not comfortable
trying to discuss the specific victim engagements in a
particular investigation, at least in this setting. But I think
what I can tell you, which might be helpful in response, is
that we have very well-established criteria and policies and
procedures for questions of victim notification in cyber
matters.
And the questions--and I probably cannot repeat them to you
verbatim, but I can give you the gist of them. The questions go
to things like number one, can we identify the victim? Which in
a lot of cases, is harder than you might think. Number two, is
the information that we have at that point in the investigation
actionable for the victim? Is there something they can do with
it? You know, could sharing the information actually protect
somebody, prevent a loss, et cetera? We also look at whether or
not sharing the information at the time in question would
potentially compromise or jeopardize an existing investigation
or reveal sources and methods, which is often the case in these
kinds of investigations.
And the last point I guess I would make is that, when you
have a large number of people, it is much easier for us to
provide victim notification when we have official, or
government, or corporate accounts where we can contact the
chief information security officer and then they can
communicate to all the people who are on that server. When you
talk about Gmail accounts and things like that, it gets a lot
harder because a lot of people's addresses do not have, you
know, Wray, C-W-R-A-Y, or you know, Lofgren or, you know.
Ms. Lofgren. Right, but for example, I assume if what you
are describing is the current practice, when the Democratic
National Committee was hacked by the Russians, the FBI
contacted an intern. They never contacted the chairman of the
DNC. She found out, you know, months later. So, hopefully,
those types of procedures have been revised. Do you know that?
Mr. Wray. I think the procedures themselves remain the
same, and the procedures themselves, I think, are pretty sound.
But if you think about what they are, they are questions that
the investigators have to ask in each victim notification
context.
Ms. Lofgren. When we had the Attorney General here
recently, we asked, ``There is an ongoing effort to hack into
the election system. We know that from various reports.'' And
the Attorney General said really nothing was going on. That he
had not been able to pay--I am paraphrasing--he would say, ``It
is really important. We have not spent enough time on it.''
I am getting the sense that that is true across the
government; in fact, we have got systems that were hacked
within a half an hour at DEFCON by State voting systems. What
is the FBI doing relative to preserving the integrity of the
voting structure itself for the next election?
Mr. Wray. Mr. Chairman, I see my time----
Chairman Goodlatte. Yes.
Mr. Wray. May I answer that one? Thank you. Well, I think
the FBI is actually very focused on this subject. It is one of
the things that I have tried to insist on upon arriving. We
have a Foreign Influence Task Force that we stood up that
brings together both our Counterintelligence Division, our
Cyber Division, and our Criminal Division, as well as some
other parts of the Bureau. We are in coordination through that
Task Force with DHS, which of course has responsibility for a
lot of the election infrastructure, along with States.
We are in contact with our foreign partners because, as you
know, efforts to interfere with elections are occurring in
other countries as well. And so, by doing that with our close
relationships with our foreign counterparts, we learn more
about trade craft methods and things like that. So, we are
acutely focused on looking out for signs of interference in the
2018 or 2020 election cycles.
Ms. Lofgren. If I may, Mr. Chairman? I know my time is up,
but I would hope that there is an effort of the Bureau to
communicate with State election officers, who oftentimes have
been kept in the dark, and I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. Issa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, a couple
of questions. One is one that I am sure you are aware of, and I
am just going to ask it as a ``do you agree'' and it is not
hypothetical, but it is nonspecific. Do you agree that persons
should not have their assets forfeited without due process and
a provable link to criminal activity?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congressman, it has been a while since I
looked at the law on asset forfeiture, so I want to be
careful----
Mr. Issa. Well, this is a constitutional not a statutory
question.
Mr. Wray. Well, I believe that in the context of asset
forfeiture we should respect the Constitution.
Mr. Issa. Okay, so it is fair to say that if somebody has
$10,000 in their van, they have it taken from them and they
have to sue to get it back, even though they were never charged
with a crime that would be wrong under due process in the
Constitution?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I am not trying to make this
difficult but, you know, to me, asset forfeiture questions
raise a kinds of complicated case law questions about due
process, et cetera. What I do believe, due process and
adherence to the Constitution are incredibly important in the
asset forfeiture context as in elsewhere.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Director. Now, switching to matter of
Peter Strzok. And I had a long time working with your folks on
the personnel side over at Oversight, where we oversee a lot of
those things--and I just want to make the record straight now
that you are in addition to being the chief, from a law
enforcement standpoint, you are also sort of the ultimate head
of H.R. for those tens of thousands of people who are working
so hard for us. Is an FBI agent allowed to have a political
opinion?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Issa. Is an FBI agent allowed to communicate that
political opinion to their wife or even their mistress?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Issa. So, nothing in a text simply communicating a
political opinion would be cause for firing or any other action
under the ordinary rules of the FBI or any Federal person,
correct?
Mr. Wray. I think each question would have to be based on
its own circumstances. Certainly, I can imagine situations as
you are describing where it would not be, and I can imagine
situations where it might be.
Mr. Issa. So, that brings us to a situation now in which an
individual is key to the question of whether or not there
should be a full de novo review of the FBI's actions as to
Hillary Clinton and a decision not to prosecute her, since he
was actively involved in that.
So, my question to you is, since it is clear that whatever
Peter Strzok did was sufficient to have him relieved, something
that in the ordinary course of simply communicating a political
opinion, would not cause that and would be inappropriate to
relieve somebody simply for having a political opinion. Will
you make available to this Committee upon the Chairman's
obvious request the ability to see any or all of those 10,000
texts sufficient to understand why this individual was
dismissed and how it might be relevant to the question of the
objectivity of Director Comey's investigation and conclusions?
Mr. Wray. Well, there is a couple of parts to your
question, if I might. But first, I want to be clear that the
individual in question has not been dismissed or----
Mr. Issa. He has not been dismissed but he has been
relieved----
Mr. Wray. But what happened was----
Mr. Issa [continuing]. From the duties he had, and he is
now in H.R., which----
Mr. Wray. Reassigned. He was reassigned away from the
special counsel investigation, which is different than
disciplinary action. Second, as to the question of access to
the text messages. We would be happy to try to work with the
committee on that. I want to be sensitive to the fact that
there is an active--very active--outside, independent
investigation by the inspector general. And the last thing I
want to do, and the last thing this committee would want to do,
is somehow compromise or interfere with that.
So, we will have to go through a process to assess how we
can be sensitive to those operational considerations while at
the same time, as we should be, be responsive to Congress and
this committee and its oversight responsibility.
Chairman Goodlatte. Would the gentleman yield on that?
Mr. Issa. Of course, I would yield to the Chairman.
Chairman Goodlatte. I thank the gentleman for yielding. We
have been in communication with the inspector general. We very
much respect the investigation that is taking place there. And
we have asked the Department of Justice and through them, the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, for all of the 1.2 million
documents that have been provided to the inspector general,
minus those that relate to any particular ongoing grand jury
investigation.
Now, I have received back from the Assistant Attorney
General, Mr. Boyd, a letter indicating that they will make a
fulsome response to that request. So, I would like, in
following up with Mr. Issa's question, to hear you tell us that
you will also provide us with honoring of that fulsome request
because most of those documents that the Department has
committed to provide are coming from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Mr. Wray. Sir, I do not mean to suggest that we would not
be fully responsive and cooperative with the committee. I am
simply saying that we would work with the Justice Department in
making sure that we have considered all the appropriate factors
and we need to make sure that we are not doing something in
terms of unintended consequences with ongoing investigations.
But we have no desire to frustrate the very legitimate
oversight request of this committee.
Mr. Nadler. Will the chairman yield for a moment?
Chairman Goodlatte. Yes, I yield to the gentlemen.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I just want to ask the director, can
this kind or does this kind of document request of the
inspector general on an ongoing investigation, could it
interfere with that investigation? Or is it proper to respond
fulsomely? I mean, what are the limitations here?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think a lot of that requires, as the
chairman referenced, us to make sure that we are touching base
with the inspector general, since it is his investigation and
not ours. If the inspector general is comfortable with the
information being provided and it is not going to interfere
with or impede his investigation, then that is one very, very
significant consideration that can be put to the side.
Mr. Nadler. But if he is not----
Mr. Wray. I can commit that our staff will work with the
Justice Department staff and your staff to make sure that we
are doing everything we possibly can to be responsive while at
the same time making sure that we are not in some way
jeopardizing or compromising an ongoing investigation or
revealing something about, you know, a grand jury matter or
anything like that.
Chairman Goodlatte. We asked for it, minus grand jury
material. Obviously, it takes some time to do that. Mr. Boyd
committed to a date of January 15, and he is going to require
your cooperation. So, we want to have your assurance that
cooperation in meeting that date will be forthcoming. We would
tend to follow up with further letters on clarifying this.
But it is very important that we have this information very
quickly. The inspector general is completely cooperative with
us and his investigation, but they are not his documents. They
are the FBI and the Department of Justice. So, the question is
not directed at him, it is directed to the Department, and we
need to have full response.
Mr. Wray. We intend to be fully cooperative with both this
committee and the inspector general.
Chairman Goodlatte. I robbed the gentleman of California a
bit of his time, so I am going to----
Mr. Nadler. I have to say I yield back.
Mr. Issa. I will be brief, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Goodlatte. The gentleman is recognized for an
additional minute.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. Director, at this time, as far as you
know, you are not asserting or believe there is any privilege
as to those documents? Is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, I have not reviewed the however many
million documents that----
Mr. Issa. I am only saying at this time you know of no
privilege?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of it, but I really have not asked
the question yet, to be honest.
Mr. Issa. Okay. I appreciate that. And then, lastly,
since--in the case of Peter Strzok and other statements,
because this information was not made available to us at a time
in which your predecessor, Mr. Comey, specifically said he was
breaking precedent and being open and transparent as to the
investigation of Hillary Clinton's taking from government
possession documents under the Federal Records Act and
classified documents--do you agree that a de novo review at
some point by someone is clearly warranted as to whether or not
the decision not to prosecute was appropriate?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congressman, I think what I would say to
that is there is what I would consider a de novo, outside,
independent review by the inspector general into whether or not
decisions made--including charging or not charging decisions--
in the matter that you are referring to, were based on any kind
of improper considerations or political considerations. And
depending on what the inspector general finds, there could be
any range of possible steps that we or others would have to
take in response to those findings.
Mr. Issa. So, it is not a de novo review by the inspector
general but a review of whether or not impropriety occurred
and, as such, a de novo review of that decision not to
prosecute Hillary Clinton would be the question?
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Wray. I think I can----
Chairman Goodlatte. The director may answer.
Mr. Wray. Yeah, I think I can briefly respond, which is I
think of the inspector general's investigation as de novo in
one sense, which is that it is objective, arm's length, no skin
in the game, if you will. But you are right, the inspector
general is not second-guessing prosecutorial decisions and
things like that.
However--however--the inspector general is looking at the
very important question of whether or not improper political
considerations factored into the decisionmaking. If he were to
conclude that that is what happened, then I think at that point
we are in a situation where we have to assess what else might
need to be done to unring that bell, if you will.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the chairman, and I welcome you,
Director, and I thank you for your service.
I am holding in my hand right now the mission of the FBI
which reads, ``The mission of the FBI is to protect and defend
the United States against terrorists and foreign intelligence
threats, to uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United
States, and to provide leadership in criminal justice services
to Federal, State, municipal, and international agencies and
partners, and to perform these responsibilities in a manner
that is responsive to the needs of the public and is faithful
to the Constitution of the United States.'' Do you adhere to
that mission?
Mr. Wray. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Does that mission include your responding
to the political bias and comments of politicians?
Mr. Wray. I do not think it is part of my responsibility to
respond to opinions and biases, if they are out there by
politicians.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Then forgive me, for the time period that
I have. If Director Comey made a statement that there would be
no prosecution against a former Secretary of State, would that
statement have been reviewed by the Department of Justice?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congresswoman, I think that--how that whole
decisionmaking was handled----
Ms. Jackson Lee. But is that--let me----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Is part of what the inspector
general is looking at.
Ms. Jackson Lee. No. Is that the protocol? You indicated
that you report to the Deputy Attorney General, he reports to
the Attorney General. And so, in the normal protocol, a
statement that you would have made, or any other FBI Director
would have made--Director Mueller, when he was the FBI
directly--reviewed by that protocol? Is that the likely
protocol?
Mr. Wray. Likely protocol, sure.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move on to indicate that it was
stated earlier that the former Secretary disclosed top secrets
into emails and asked the question whether that should be
investigated. The present President disclosed top secret
classified information to the Russian Ambassador and foreign
minister in the Oval Office. Is the FBI investigating those
disclosures?
Mr. Wray. Congresswoman, I would not confirm or suggest the
existence of any ongoing investigation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Just a few years ago, this committee
considered and eventually moved on an obstruction of justice an
element in an impeachment proceeding. Do you believe--yes or
no--can a sitting President commit obstruction of justice?
Mr. Wray. Congresswoman, legal questions, especially legal
questions regarding impeachment, are not something that I am
equipped to answer in this setting as an FBI Director.
Ms. Jackson Lee. This is separate and apart from
impeachment. Do you believe that a sitting President can commit
obstruction of justice?
Mr. Wray. That also is a legal question. And I would defer
to the lawyers on that one. I am a now reformed lawyer, as an
FBI Director.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I understand. Is it your opinion that if a
sitting President commits a crime, then it becomes a noncrime?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry. I could not hear you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If a sitting President commits a crime,
does it become a noncrime?
Mr. Wray. Same answer.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move on to the idea of the quote
from the President of the United States. And do you believe
that the FBI's reputation is in tatters? What impact did that
have on the FBI? If you would move quickly; I know you gave a
long assessment. But what impact would that have on the FBI if
that is a statement made nationally and also to the world, that
the FBI is in tatters?
Mr. Wray. Congresswoman, the agents, analysts, and staff of
the FBI are big boys and girls. We understand that we will take
criticism from all corners, and we are accustomed to that. I
believe, personally, based on what I have seen that our
reputation with our counterparts in law enforcement--Federal,
State, and local--our counterparts in the intelligence
community, our counterparts around the world, the communities
that we serve, the victims that we protect, the judges we
appear before, the scientists we interact with in the
laboratory services space, for example----
Ms. Jackson Lee. I have another question.
Mr. Wray. My experience has been that our reputation is
quite good.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. I want it to be
assured to the American people that Andrew Weissmann and Peter
Strzok, who were removed from their posts, that that will not
sabotage Bob Mueller's investigation into the Trump campaign's
collusion with Russia. Their removal.
Mr. Wray. I am sorry. I----
Ms. Jackson Lee. That their removal--Peter Strzok and Mr.
Weissmann--will not sabotage Mueller's investigation into
Russian collusion. Their removal from the investigation.
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any effort by anyone to
sabotage--or less, even--Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Let me ask the question on the
Clack identity extremists. We have had some conversations. Let
me indicate to you that a report that was done August 14th,
2017 said that during the same period of this report, they
found that rightwing extremists were behind nearly twice as
many incidents--115--and just over a third of these incidents
were foiled than those who might be considered Islamists or
might be considered others. There is a Black extremist identity
report.
Again, I ask the question, would you see that that report
be clarified, and would you take notice that the convictions
dealing with violence are more for the--looking for my chart--
are more dealing with Islamist and leftwing, and less for
rightwing? So, rightwing extremists are not being prosecuted.
Black identity extremists, as declared by the FBI, are, in
fact, subjected to a report.
And if I might say, an FBI that is not diverse, that I know
that we would like to work on to make it diverse, but they are
not being prosecuted the way rightwing. Rightwing has the
lowest amount of prosecutions in the United States. Percent of
domestic terror incidents involving Federal prosecution, the
rightwing is the lowest. The leftwing is prosecuted 100
percent.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Can you explain that?
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
expired; the director is permitted to answer the question.
Mr. Wray. Look, Congresswoman, I have to look at the
statistics that you saw. I can tell you that in our domestic
terrorism program, that the last time I looked, we have about
50 percent more white supremacists--the category we would call
white supremacist investigations--than we do in the Black
identity extremist category.
The other point I would make is that in all of these
context, in the domestic terrorism arena, that we only
investigate if there are three things: one, Federal criminal
activity, credible evidence of a Federal crime; two, credible
information suggesting an attempt to use force or violence; and
three, those things in furtherance of a political or social
goal. If we do not have that, we do not investigate, it does
not matter whether they are rightwing, leftwing, or any other
wing.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like a
report back on that question, please. Thank you very much.
Chairman Goodlatte. The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director,
for your testimony here today, and your service to our country.
A number of curiosities I come here with this morning, as all
of us do. And one of them is that in the FBI interview and
investigation of General Flynn, are there notes from those
interviews? Do you know?
Mr. Wray. Number one, I do not know, but beyond that, I
would not want to comment on an ongoing investigation being run
by the special counsel.
Mr. King. And in a normal circumstance like that, would you
expect there to be notes in any other case?
Mr. Wray. It is our normal practice to memorialize
interviews.
Mr. King. And do so by notes?
Mr. Wray. Well, it usually get reflected in what is called
an FBI-302. How agents go from the process of this spoken
conversation to the 302 varies. And then, there are other
settings where it is a different kind of format.
Mr. King. When one agent sits someone down for that kind of
interview, notes would be normal in most cases. But there also
would be an audiotape recorded?
Mr. Wray. Actually, I think an audiotape would be unusual.
Mr. King. Or a videotape would fit that same category----
Mr. Wray. Likewise, also unusual.
Mr. King [continuing]. Of unusual? Thank you. And--but you
do not know whether they are available for General Flynn. I
bring this up because of the interview of Hillary Clinton. And
when we interviewed some of the members of the former
administration that were familiar with the interview, the
matter, we use their word--and I will call it now the
investigation of Hillary Clinton--and we learned here in this
room that there were no notes available to us, that there were
no audio and no video available to us. And in fact, they had
not been made available to the Attorney General, Loretta Lynch,
and neither had they been made available or at least reviewed
by Former Director Comey.
And it was curious to me that a heavy decision in one of
the highest investigations in the history of this country, the
people who made the decision on it did not review the
materials. They just simply received a briefing of the people
that they had appointed to do the investigation.
I guess I will ask you--you are going to tell me you do not
have an opinion on that--would you conduct similar
investigations in a similar manner? Would not that sound off an
alarm bell to you if that were going on within your department
today?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think what I would say is that I think
investigations are best conducted by taking appropriate
memorialization of an interview. What I will also say is that
in the particular investigation, I think your question goes to
whether or not the handling of the investigation was skewed or
tainted in some way by improper political considerations. And I
think that is what the outside inspector general is looking at,
and I am looking forward to seeing what he finds.
Mr. King. And I believe the question has already been
asked, about the principals that were in the room during that
investigation, and one as counsel, and at the same time being a
subject of the investigation. I will pass that along and put
some more information out here before this committee.
In October 2015, President Obama referenced the lack of
intent on the part of Hillary Clinton, that she would not
jeopardize national security, would never intend to do so. That
was October of 2015. April of 2016, he made a similar
statement, that Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of
State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of
jeopardy. We also noticed that the language has been moved from
``gross negligence'' to ``extreme carelessness.'' That
carelessness was also language that President Obama used in his
public discussions of the matter.
Now, I am going to make the point here that it looks to me
that the get-out-of-jail free card that Hillary Clinton
received is rooted clear back in Barack Obama and his
introduction of the word ``intent'' or ``lack of intent'' as a
requirement for 18 U.S.C. 793(f). And that has been brought up
here.
And so, I would ask you again, surely you have examined the
definition and the distinction between ``extreme carelessness''
and the ``gross negligence'' that is within the statute. You
are really going to tell us today that you do not have an
opinion on that distinction?
Mr. Wray. ``Gross negligence'' is the language in the
statute, I believe. But I believe also that almost anybody who
grabbed a thesaurus would say that gross negligence and
extremely careless are pretty darn close to each other. I will
also say that whether or not the handling, including the
handling of the statement that Director Comey issued is exactly
what the inspector general is investigating. As he should. It
is better that the FBI not investigate itself on this, and I
think that is what the inspector general is doing. So, that
would be my response to that question.
Mr. King. And it does do a clarification to your earlier
response, and I appreciate that. I would like to follow-up with
this, that there is a report that there are investigations
going on, on 27 potential leakers within the FBI.
And I want to also ask if the unmasking that was ordered by
the executive branch of government that took place shortly
before the election--and I will say September, October of 2016
and on throughout the transition period, until the
inauguration, and even beyond, perhaps--of President Trump: has
any investigative committee in Congress had access to the full
list of those unmasking requests? And how much of that is
classified?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, I do not know what access committees
have had to unmasking requests, specific committees. I would be
happy to have my staff take a look at that. I will say that
unmasking requests get made not just by parts of the
intelligence community, but congressional committees themselves
often ask for unmasking so that they can digest the
information.
A lot of times, concerns--legitimate concerns--about
unmasking are really almost more about, to me, a problem that I
take very seriously, which is leaks of information. And that is
something that we have now a dedicated unit, since I have taken
over, that is focused specifically on that.
We have also recently issued a new media policy that clamps
down and tightens up the rules about interaction with the media
inside the FBI. And that is something that I think we take
very, very, very seriously.
Mr. King. Well, thank you. Just, in conclusion, we know as
much about the conversation on the Phoenix tarmac, between
President Clinton and Loretta Lynch, as we do about the
interview of Hillary Rodham Clinton within the FBI.
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Wray. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Wray, we in
Memphis have been blessed with good FBI agents, and I believe
the FBI has an outstanding reputation and has probably, other
than some laws with J. Edgar Hoover, historically had a great
reputation.
In Memphis, I had a situation where there was a county
employee named Mickey Wright, who was murdered. The FBI worked
on that case and saw to it that justice was found, and he got a
life sentence. And it was the FBI that did that.
They recently arrested a man named Costello, Lorenzo
Costello, and got him for 15 pounds of meth--which is the drug
you ought to be looking at, drugs like opioids, and meth, and
crack, and heroin, not so much cannabis--and $4,000, and had 10
people arrested and convicted. And they also got Larry Bates,
who swindled a lot of people in church out of millions and
millions--I think $68 million--and got him 22 years in jail.
So, the FBI has done a great job. After the President
said--which I disagree with--that the FBI was in tatters,
Director Comey tweeted, ``I must let the American people know
the truth: The FBI is honest. The FBI is strong. And the FBI is
and always will be independent.'' Did you welcome his tweet,
and do you agree with it?
Mr. Wray. Well, I believe that description of the FBI
aligns with my own description. As my folks would tell you, I
am not really a Twitter guy. I have never tweeted, do not have
any plans to tweet, and do not really engage in tweeting.
Mr. Cohen. You have been at the FBI long enough to know the
reputation of previous Directors. What was the reputation of
Director Comey within the agents of the FBI?
Mr. Wray. Well, my experience with Director Comey was
that--when I worked with him, which was back in the early
2000s--was that he was a smart lawyer, a dedicated public
servant, and somebody that I enjoyed working with. We have not
stayed in as much touch over the last several years. And of
course, there is now the ongoing investigation. But my
experiences have all been positive.
Mr. Cohen. Do you know the reputation of Director Mueller
within FBI agents and FBI lore?
Mr. Wray. My experience has been that Director Mueller is
very well respected within the FBI.
Mr. Cohen. You were interviewed by President Trump before
you were appointed, is that not the case?
Mr. Wray. Yes. Not exclusively, but yes.
Mr. Cohen. What questions did he ask you?
Mr. Wray. My recollection is the conversations were more
about my background. And, in particular, we talked a lot about
my desire to join the war on counter-terror, as somebody who
had been in the Justice Department and in FBI headquarters on
the day of 9/11 itself, and having met--I talked a lot about my
interaction with the victims of 9/11, and my last law
enforcement experience, and my desire to return to public
service to keep people safe.
Mr. Cohen. He did not ask you any questions about Russia,
or about Mr. Comey, or Mr. Mueller, or any other questions like
that at all?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Cohen. Good. Very good. The FBI concentrates on
situations that presently are a threat to the United States or
to safety of the public. Is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. So, the issues concerning the current President
would be more important to you than the issues concerning the
person who he defeated, who is now not in office. Would that be
an accurate assessment?
Mr. Wray. Well, I am reluctant to try to compare one matter
to another in that way. What I would tell you is that we take
any effort to interfere with our election very seriously. I
take any effort to mishandle classified information very
seriously.
Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you. Benjamin Franklin said that he
gave the American people a Republic, ``if you can keep it.''
You are the heir to the legacy of Griffin Bell, having worked
at King & Spalding. And you have an excellent reputation, if
you can keep it. You will be tested. You will rise to the task,
but you will be tested. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair thanks the gentleman and
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Director, was Agent Peter Strzok the
former deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI?
Mr. Wray. I do not remember his exact title, but I believe
that is correct.
Mr. Jordan. And he is the same Peter Strzok who was a key
player in the Clinton investigation, the same Peter Strzok who
interviewed Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, participated in
Secretary Clinton's interview, and he is also the same Peter
Strzok who now, we know, changed Director Comey's exoneration
letter--changed the term ``gross negligence''--which is a
crime--to ``extreme carelessness.'' Is that the same guy?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congressman, I do not know every step that
the individual you mentioned was involved in. But certainly, I
know that he was heavily involved in the Clinton email
investigation.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. And is this the same Peter Strzok
who was a key player in the Russian investigation and the same
Peter Strzok who was put on Mueller's team, Special Counsel Bob
Mueller's team?
Mr. Wray. I certainly know that he was working on the
special counsel's investigation. Whether or not he would be
characterized as a key player on that investigation, that is
really not for me to say.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. And the same Peter Strzok that we
learned, this past weekend, was removed from the special
counsel team because he exchanged text messages with a
colleague at the FBI that displayed a pro-Clinton bias. Is that
accurate?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. We are talking about the same guy.
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. Well, here is what I am not getting.
Peter Strzok is selected to be on Mueller's team, after all
this history, put on Mueller's team, and then he is removed for
some pro-Clinton text messages.
I mean, there are all kinds of people on Mueller's team who
are pro-Clinton. There has been all kind of stories. PolitiFact
reported 96 percent of the top lawyers' contributions went to
Clinton or Obama.
But Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton
investigation, interviewed Mills, Abedin, interviewed Secretary
Clinton, changed ``gross negligence''--a crime--to the term
``extreme carelessness,'' who ran the Russian investigation,
who interviewed Mike Flynn, gets put on Mueller's team. And
then he gets kicked off for a text message that is anti-Trump.
If he kicked everybody off Mueller's team who was anti-
Trump, I do not think there would be anybody left. There has
got to be something more here. It cannot just be some text
messages that show a pro-Clinton, anti-Trump bias. There has
got to be something more and I am trying to figure out what it
is.
But my hunch is, it has something to do with the dossier.
Director, did Peter Strzok helped produce and present the
application to the FISA court to secure a warrant to spy on
Americans associated with the Trump campaign?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, I am not prepared to discuss
anything about a FISA process in this setting.
Mr. Jordan. We are not talking about what happened in the
court; we are talking about what the FBI took to the court, the
application. Was he involved in taking that to the court?
Mr. Wray. I am not going to discuss, in this setting,
anything to do with the FISA court applications.
Mr. Jordan. Well, let's remember a couple things, Director,
and I know you know this. We have all been made aware of this
in the last few weeks. Let's remember a couple things about the
dossier.
The Democrat National Committee and the Clinton campaign--
which we now know were one and the same--paid the law firm, who
paid Fusion GPS, who paid Christopher Steele, who then paid
Russians to put together a report that we call a dossier, full
of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage.
And it has been reported that this dossier was all dressed
up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court, and presented as a
legitimate intelligence document, that it became the basis of
granting a warrant to spy on Americans. And I am wondering if
that actually took place. It sure looks like it did.
And the easiest way to clear it up is for you guys to tell
us what was in that application and who took it there.
Mr. Wray. Congressman, our staffs have been having
extensive interaction with both intelligence committees on our
interaction with the FISA court, and I think that is the
appropriate setting for those questions.
Mr. Jordan. Here is what I think, Director Wray. I think
Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI; Peter
Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation, did all the
interviews; Peter Strzok, the guy who was running the Russian
investigation at the FBI; Peter Strzok, Mr. Super Agent at the
FBI, I think he is the guy who took the application to the FISA
court.
I mean, think, if this happened, if you had the FBI working
with a campaign--the Democrats' campaign--taking opposition
research, dressing it all up, and turning it into an
intelligence document, and taking it to the FISA court so they
could spy on the other campaign: if that happened, that is as
wrong as it gets.
And you know what? Maybe I am wrong. You can clear it all
up. You can clear it all up for all of us here, all the
Congress who wants to know--and frankly, all of America who
wants to know. We sent you a letter two days ago; just release
the application. Tell us what was in it. Tell us if I am wrong.
But I do not think I am. I think that is exactly what happened.
And if it did, it is as wrong as it could be. And people who
did that need to be held accountable.
Mr. Wray. Congressman, we will not hesitate to hold people
accountable after there has been an appropriate investigation--
independent and objective--by the inspector general, into the
handling of the prior matter. And based on that, I will look at
all available remedies, depending on what the facts are and
when they are found.
As to the access to the dossier, that is something that is
a subject of ongoing discussion between my staff and the
various intelligence committees.
Mr. Jordan. There is nothing prohibiting you, Director. Is
there anything prohibiting you from showing this committee what
was presented to the FISA court? The application you all put
together at the FBI, that was presented to the FISA court, is
there anything preventing you from showing us that?
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The director can respond.
Mr. Wray. I do not believe that I can legally and
appropriately share a FISA court submission with this
committee.
Mr. Jordan. I am talking about what the FBI put together,
not what the court had. What you took there. The process put
together, what you presented, what you took to the court.
Mr. Wray. When I sign FISA applications, which I have to do
almost every day of the week, they are all covered with a
classified information cover. So, that is part of why I will
not be discussing it here.
Mr. Jordan. Director, is it likely that Peter Strzok played
a part in the application presented to the FISA court?
Chairman Goodlatte. The gentleman's time has expired.
However, I do want to follow-up on your last response to the
gentleman. This committee, the House Judiciary Committee, has
primary jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court. So, any request for documents coming to any part of the
Congress should include the House Judiciary Committee.
And if it is classified in any way, shape, or form, it can
be provided to us in a classified setting. But that is
information that we are very much interested in and very much
want to receive.
Mr. Jordan. A question to the chairman. Yeah, I do not
think there is anything prohibiting the FBI from giving us what
they use to put together what was taken to the FISA court. That
is what we are asking for. And there is nothing prohibiting him
from doing that.
Chairman Goodlatte. I do not think there is either. The
time of the gentleman has expired, however. Do you care to
respond to that, Director Wray?
Mr. Wray. No. I think I have covered it.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Director Wray, you have
led a distinguished career as an assistant U.S. attorney for
the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta. We are homeboys on
that part. Justice Department associate, Deputy Attorney
General, even serving as an Assistant Attorney General heading
up the criminal division of the entire Justice Department, and
then as a litigation partner at the international and premier
law firm of King & Spalding.
You headed up the special matters and government
investigations practice group, which involved sophisticated
government investigatory matters, involving your clients. And
also, you even represented Governor Christie during the
Bridgegate scandal successfully, I presume, at this point.
So, you have a long career in criminal law and in matters
involving government. And I find it hard to believe that you
have not pondered the question of whether or not a President
can be guilty of obstruction of justice. You have pondered that
question, have you not?
Mr. Wray. To be honest, it is really not something have
pondered. That is a question that involves complicated
questions of separation of powers. And I have----
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, do you----
Mr. Wray. This committee will not be shocked to learn,
quite a lot on my plate as it is. So, I do not have a whole lot
of time to do a lot of pondering.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Well, let me just ask you the
question. Is it your belief that a sitting President can be
guilty of obstructing justice?
Mr. Wray. That is a legal question that I have not tried to
evaluate.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you, sir. Within
the last few days, the House Intelligence Committee has
requested documents from you and other government officials
from the so-called Steele Dossier. To date, you and other
government officials have refused to comply with the production
of these documents. Why have you failed to produce these
documents?
Mr. Wray. We are having extensive interaction with multiple
committees about these issues. They involve complicated
questions, not just of classification. They also affect ongoing
investigations, in particular the special counsel's
investigation. And in particular, in many instances, we are
dealing with very, very dicey questions of sources and methods,
which is the lifeblood of foreign intelligence and for our
liaison relationships with our foreign partners.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. Director Wray, earlier
this year the FBI opened an investigation into the
vulnerabilities of the State of Georgia's election systems.
Thereafter, Georgia's citizens filed a lawsuit over the
security--or lack thereof--of Georgia's elections systems,
which were then outsourced by Georgia's Secretary of State to
the Center for Election Systems.
Four days after that lawsuit was filed, Georgia election
officials wiped clean or deleted the election data on CES
servers. One month later, two additional servers were wiped
clean.
So, evidence that is critical to the issues raised in the
lawsuit and to the FBI investigation, perhaps, that information
has been destroyed. Can you confirm that the FBI obtained
copies of the data on Georgia's election servers prior to the
data being destroyed by Georgia election officials?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, I cannot discuss what the FBI may or
may not have obtained in the course of any particular
investigation in this setting.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Can you confirm that there is an
ongoing investigation into this matter?
Mr. Wray. Again, I do not want to confirm or deny----it is
important that I put both those words in there--the existence
of a specific investigation.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Would you be willing, upon your
investigation's completion--if there is an investigation--would
you be willing to provide this committee with an update on this
issue?
Mr. Wray. If there is information that we could
appropriately share on the topic that you are answering about,
I would be happy to see if there is something we can do to be
helpful and responsive to the committee.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, sir. The Department of
Justice recently admitted in court that they are treating the
President's disturbing and combative tweets as ``official
statements of the President of the United States.''
Considering the DOJ's position and the President repeatedly
demanding that the FBI investigate his political opponent, do
you consider these tweets to be orders that the FBI must
follow?
Mr. Wray. That is a legal question, and I will be guided by
the lawyers on that one.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. So have your lawyers given you an
opinion as to whether or not the President's tweets are
official statements?
Mr. Wray. Well, without discussing, you know, attorney-
client communications, I am still following the ordinary course
of business, in terms of what orders we follow.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Sir, you have given me every
objection for not answering the questions that is in the books,
and I appreciate it. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Poe. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wray, for
being here. My background, I was a former prosecutor; I was a
judge for 22 years. During that time, in the criminal courts, I
had always thought that the FBI had a stellar reputation.
In the last few years, here, in Congress, I do not have
that belief any longer, and I think your predecessor did a lot
to damage the reputation of the FBI. I do not think that the
FBI has come back around with that stellar reputation, and that
is unfortunate.
You gave us lots of statistics in the opening statement
that you made, about what the FBI is doing. I want to talk
about FISA, secret courts issuing secret warrants, supposedly
to go after terrorists overseas.
A recent Washington Post article made the comment, or
stated, that when information is seized on bad guys, there is
the so-called seizure of information that belongs to Americans.
``Inadvertent,'' as it is called by the legal community.
And in that database are Americans, and non-Americans. And
the Washington Post article says, ``Many of them''--in this
database--``were Americans. Ninety percent of the account
holders whose communications were collected under 702 were not
the intended targets, and about half of the surveillance files
were on Americans.''
So, you have this database that is supposed to go after the
bad guys, and you get that information. But inadvertently, you
pick up all of this information on Americans, who have nothing
to do with terrorism. How many times has this database has
queried--I call the word ``searched''--to find out if there are
identifiers on Americans?
How many times has the FBI or the intelligence agency, or
government, done that?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, I do not have numbers for you here
today. I will tell you that the database that we are talking
about is not bulk collection on anyone, first. Number two, it
is a database of foreigners reasonably believed to be located
overseas, for foreign intelligence purposes. That is what
collected by the NSA----
Mr. Poe. If I may interrupt you----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. The FBI----
Mr. Poe. Reclaiming my time. But I am talking about the
inadvertent seizure of information based on this idea, ``We are
going after terrorists.'' How many people have been queried,
searched, in that big database? That is my question.
Mr. Wray. And Congressman, I do not have the statistics for
you. I can give you one number that may be helpful to you in
answering your question, which is that of what the NSA
collects, that the FBI only receives--much less queries
against--about 4.3 percent of what the NSA collects. And the
individuals that are incidentally collected, the U.S. person
information that is incidentally collected, are people who are
in communication with foreigners who are the subject of foreign
intelligence investigations.
So, like, an ISIS recruiter, if there is a U.S. person
picked up, that person would have been an email contact, for
example----
Mr. Poe. I understand.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. With an ISIS recruiter.
Mr. Poe. I understand that. I am not talking about
terrorism. I am talking about the inadvertent, where there is a
communication with an American, and that American's information
is seized and then later searched by the intelligence community
or the FBI.
The Washington Post said 90 percent of those seizures were
on nonterrorists. Do you agree or disagree with that statistic?
Mr. Wray. I have not reviewed the Washington Post article.
Mr. Poe. All right. This committee has asked for a long
time to give us that information, because we are now coming up
with FISA reauthorization.
My opinion is that the FBI and the intelligence service is
back-walking that information because they know FISA comes up
at the end of this year, and then Congress should just re-
authorize it without knowing how many Americans are searched.
The right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment is guaranteed.
I am sure you believe this. But it is being abused and stolen
by government--in this situation--on what is happening to
Americans. And the search of that database, whether it is the
first query--which is a search--or a later specific search of
that communication, is being done in secret by our government.
And Congress, the Judiciary Committee, is entitled to that
information.
And I will disagree with what you said about, ``Well, it is
classified. I cannot tell you that.'' That is ridiculous.
Congress is entitled. Members of Congress are entitled to every
classified piece of information that is in your possession.
That is our position. That is our right as Members of Congress.
So, government cannot have classified information and say, ``We
are not going to tell you because it is classified.''
We are entitled to it in some type of setting. So, I
totally disagree with you on that. I hope you could provide us
that information before we reauthorize FISA. Otherwise, I am
going to vote against FISA. And I will yield back to the
chairman.
Mr. Wray. Mr. Chairman, may I briefly respond?
Chairman Goodlatte. The director may respond.
Mr. Wray. First off, as to classified information, we are
engaged with the intelligence committees, and we share
classified information with the intelligence committees all the
time. And then, under certain circumstances, as the chairman
noted, we are also sharing classified information with the
authorizing committees, like the two judiciary committees.
As to the question of abuses, every court--every court--to
have looked at the way in which section 702 is handled,
including the querying, has concluded that it is being done
consistent with the Fourth Amendment, as has the independent
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
And there has been no abuse found in the 702 program,
despite oversight by the inspector general, multiple sections
of oversight within the executive branch, oversight by the
Federal FISA court, and oversight by the intelligence
communities.
Mr. Poe. And I disagree with the secret courts on their
interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, as does many other
members of Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair thanks the gentleman, whose
times has expired.
I just want to reiterate, as with the other request, this
is a reasonable request by the gentleman from Texas. It has
been made in varying forms by this committee in a bipartisan
way in the past, and we have not yet received the answers to
those questions. So, I would again point out that this
committee has oversight responsibility of both the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
And we have a very nice skiff, where this all can be
discussed in a classified setting, where documents can be
examined in a classified setting, and we think that you need to
be forthcoming on this. So, thank you, Director.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Deutch, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, I thank you
for being here today and thank you for your service to our
country.
Director, as you know, what separates the United States
from oligarchies and despots around the world is the American
commitment to the rule of law. That means that powerful people
do not get to write their own rules. It means that the
President does not direct law enforcement to target political
enemies or to go easy on political friends; and it means that
judges, police officers, and the FBI agents are not intimidated
by demands, or tweets, or whispers coming out of the White
House.
Director Wray, I want to commend your commitment to the
independence of the FBI and to the rule of law. As to the
President's tweet over the weekend, that the reputation of the
FBI is in ``tatters,'' the worst in history--which sadly seems
to be shared by many of my colleagues on this committee--I
would like to just take a moment to thank the women and men of
the FBI for their hard work, for the work they do investigating
threats of terrorism, public corruption, organized crime,
cybercrime, white collar crime. I would like to thank you and
them for the work they do to combat violent crime. And I would
like to thank you for the work they do to enforce our civil
rights laws.
I also want to thank your agents that are working with the
Mueller investigation, an inquiry that has already delivered
serious charges against the President's campaign manager and a
guilty plea from the President's National Security Advisor.
Back in September, you reviewed the classified reports
compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded that
Russia interfered in the 2016 election and tried to tilt it in
Donald Trump's favor. You said, at the time, ``I have no reason
to doubt the conclusions the hardworking people who put that
together came to.'' Do you still have that view?
Mr. Wray. I still believe, fundamentally, that the
conclusions of the ICA area accurate.
Mr. Deutch. And the FBI continues to focus on the threats
posed by Russian interference in future elections?
Mr. Wray. Yes. As I was mentioning earlier, the special
counsel, of course, is looking backwards. We are looking
forward. We are focused on trying to make sure that any effort
by any foreign power to interfere with our elections is
something that we can try to get in front of, investigate, and
prevent as best we can.
Mr. Deutch. When the special counsel looks backwards on
what happens, it is important that special counsel be able to
do his job. There is legislation, bipartisan legislation, that
has been introduced that, as I understand it, codifies existing
DOJ regulations that a special counsel may only be removed for
misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of
interest, or other good cause. Is that how you understand the
DOJ regulations?
Mr. Wray. I am not intimately familiar with the exact
wording of the regulations, but I have no reason to doubt your
summary of them.
Mr. Deutch. Which is why, Mr. Chairman, we ought to be
doing exactly that. We have sat here for almost 2 hours and
have heard nary a word from my Republican colleagues about
Russian interference in our election or about the efforts of
the Mueller investigation to get to the bottom of it.
And based on the talking points that we have heard that
sound so eerily familiar to those coming from the President of
the United States, it is more apparent than ever that this
bipartisan legislation to protect the special counsel, to
ensure that the special counsel can do his job and can pursue
ultimately the truth, wherever it takes him, has to be brought
up in this committee--must be.
I would urge my colleagues, who are as concerned about the
Russian interference in our last election and the potential
Russian interference in future elections, who are as concerned
as Director Wray and the FBI, and so many of us are to let us
protect the special counsel.
Director Wray, you also said in September--and I quote--
now, you said that you saw no evidence of White House
interference in the probe, the Mueller probe. And you said, ``I
can say very confidently that I have not detected any whiff of
interference with that investigation.'' I want to make sure
that that continues to be your position.
Mr. Wray. Certainly, Congressman. Since I have been on the
job, there has been no effort, that I have seen--going forward,
here--any effort to interfere with Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation.
Mr. Deutch. Director Wray, if the President of the United
States fired Special Counsel Mueller, would that constitute
interference with Special Counsel Mueller's investigation?
Mr. Wray. You know, I am not going to engage in a
discussion of hypotheticals. It would obviously depend on the
circumstances surrounding the firing.
Mr. Deutch. If the President fired the special counsel
without satisfying any of the requirements that currently are
in DOJ regulations, without doing it for cause, but only
because he was concerned about the special counsel getting too
close to him, or his closest advisors, or his family--I think
the answer to that is clear to anyone who is watching today,
and that is exactly why, at this moment, Mr. Chairman, we have
to protect the special counsel. There is legislation to do it.
History is being written at this moment, and what it is
seeing is efforts to obscure the very reality that is taking
place in this country, which is the President's efforts to try
to avoid the special counsel getting too close to him. We can
do something about that to protect this investigation on behalf
of the American people, and I do hope that we will, and I yield
back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Director, we
appreciate you being here. I was so thrilled when I first got
to question Director Comey. I did not realize what direction
that would take. But you are taking an FBI department that was
weakened by Mueller's time. And I am not asking for a comment
on that. But I know, from his 5 year up-or-out policy, as the
Wall Street Journal pointed out, he got rid of thousands and
thousands of years of experience, I came to believe, because he
wanted younger people that were more ``yes'' men.
And so, he got rid of people that could have advised him
against some of the poor decisions he made, whether it is
squandering millions of dollars on software that did not work
and would not work, and people he got rid of knew that. But all
kinds of things. And I came to understand, as a young
prosecutor who knew the law better than some of the older
lawyers, that there is something to be gained from experience.
And so, we lost thousands of years of experience, and Comey
took over a weakened FBI because of what Mueller did. And
Mueller made a lot of mistakes he would not have otherwise. So,
that was rather sad.
Oh, and I will be glad to have my friend across the aisle
know that I am outraged by the government's collusion with
Russia. I was outraged. I did not think President Bush and our
State Department went far enough in condemning the invasion
into Georgia by Putin and the Russians, but they did take some
strong actions to make known their discomfort and their upset
over that.
And of course, the response by the Obama administration was
to send over a plastic reset button with the wrong Russian word
on it. But they made clear, nonetheless, that ``We are not
bothered by your invasion of Georgia. You can invade anybody
you want.'' That was the message the Russians took. And I am
really outraged at the allowing of Russia to buy our uranium,
even though the FBI and the Justice Department had already
found out that they were trying to get our uranium illegally
with bribes, and violating the law, and that has not been
addressed. So, yes, I am outraged.
But as you are aware, Deputy Director McCabe was involved
in highly charged political cases that have been controversial
due to his political leanings. So, I want to ask you if you are
aware of any other senior FBI executives that are aligned with
McCabe's political views. Yes or no? Are you aware of any other
senior FBI executives?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any senior FBI executives who
are allowing improper political considerations to affect their
work with me right now.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. Let me ask you this. I am going to ask
about specific executives, some of whom were promoted by McCabe
within the last few years. So, my question to you, Director, is
are you aware of any of the following people openly aligning
themselves with the political bias expressed by McCabe or
openly speaking against this administration? First, Carl
Ghattas. Yes or no?
Mr. Wray. My experience with Executive Assistant Director
Ghattas has been very positive, and he has been a complete
professional in all my interaction with him.
Mr. Gohmert. But are you aware of him openly aligning
himself with the political bias that McCabe expressed?
Mr. Wray. Well, I am going to quarrel a little bit with the
premise of your question about Deputy Director McCabe.
Mr. Gohmert. All right.
Mr. Wray. But as far as Executive Assistant Director
Ghattas, as I said, he has been a complete professional. And by
that, I mean to include----
Mr. Gohmert. Have you heard him openly----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Apolitical in interaction with me.
Mr. Gohmert [continuing]. Aligning himself with political
bias against the Trump administration?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Gohmert. Mike McGarrity?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Gohmert. Same question. And I will take McCabe out of
it. Are you aware of him openly aligning himself with political
bias against the Trump administration?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Gohmert. Josh Skule.
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Gohmert. Larissa Mincer.
Mr. Wray. I actually do not know who that is.
Mr. Gohmert. Okay. All right. Thank you. Fair enough. Bryan
Paarmann.
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Thank you. And I know you appointed
Bryan Paarmann to the New York field office, counter-terrorism
division, so it is important that we have fair-minded people.
And there has never been a requirement that anybody not be
able to vote or have political beliefs, just that they not let
them affect their output. Well, I got a lot more to ask. But
thank you for your work. I want to be your best friend as long
as you stay on the straight and narrow. Thank you, Director.
Mr. Wray. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from California, Ms. Bass, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Mr. Director, for being here with us today. And I also want to
thank you for the time that you spent a week or so ago with
representatives of the Congressional Black Caucus, following-up
on the black identity extremists.
And I would like to ask you questions following up from
that meeting. We raised a number of concerns; the idea that
that document was distributed to law enforcement nationwide.
And also the concern that the message that that sends to many
local law enforcement agencies and how you distinguish between
what might be problematic behavior, and also what is people
just exercising their First Amendment rights.
And so, one of the questions that we asked you that I
wanted to follow-up on is if you have learned any more about
what criteria, evidence, methodology that was used to even come
up with that category of ``Black identity extremists?''
Mr. Wray. Congresswoman, as I think I may have mentioned in
our meeting, the analysis that occurred there involved--which
is our standard practice for one of these products, and we
issue them across all of our various program categories--is to
take both so-called open source information, which is what the
intelligence community would call it----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. And our own ongoing investigations,
of which there are many, and mesh the two together, with other
information, and try to make sure that the information that we
are speaking on, that those two things align. As to your
concerns--and we discussed them, and I hope--I found the
conversation constructive hearing your concerns and I hope you
did too. We take respect for the First Amendment very
seriously. And in this context, as in every other domestic
terrorism context, we want to be very clear with people, and
all the American people, that we do not investigate rhetoric,
ideology, opinion----
Ms. Bass. Right.
Mr. Wray. No matter who might consider it extremist. What
we do investigate is when rhetoric, ideology, opinion takes
that next step into the category of Federal crime, and a
particular violence.
Ms. Bass. Exactly. And I did find our conversation
constructive. There did seem to be several things that I know
you were going to follow-up on. And so, you were clear about
the three categories that were reasons for investigation. And
one of the things that I mentioned to you is the difference--
and we talked about this--the difference between an
investigation and surveillance. So, you have the surveillance
activity that may or may not lead to an investigation.
And so, what a number of activists are complaining about
around the country is the increase of surveillance, being
visited by FBI agents, having FBI agents come to their house,
leaving their business cards. And so that, you know, was a
concern. And what was that really based on? So, these are
activists that are protesting because of community-police
relations, because of killings that might have happened, a
variety of reasons. Some of this--it might be the, you know,
protests that have taken place in Baltimore, in several of the
cities around the country.
And so, I want to know if there is any additional
information that you have found from that? What is happening in
your offices around the country, where activists are
complaining of this?
Mr. Wray. After our meeting, I did farm out a whole number
of follow-up questions to people. I will confess that I have
been fairly busy lately and have not yet gotten the results of
those, but we will continue to look into those questions.
Ms. Bass. Okay. We really need to do that, because let me
just explain to you that one of the things that all of us would
like to take place in our communities is for our communities to
cooperate with law enforcement.
But at this point in time, to have FBI agents come by
people's house after peaceful demonstrations, I know I cannot
recommend that they speak to the FBI. I have to tell them that
they cannot speak to the FBI. Because if you do say something
and you innocently say something that might not be true, then
that person feels as though they might be entrapped, because
they could be charged with lying to an FBI agent.
And so, to find the information out, as soon as possible, I
think, is really important. I want our community to
participate, but we cannot participate if it is not really
clear, where the FBI is coming from. So, many organizations
have called for the withdrawal of the BIE designation, in
particular, NOBLE; which is the National Organization of Black
Law Enforcement Executives.
And so, in light of the public outcry, including from law
enforcement, I want to know if part of the follow-up from our
meeting is if you are considering retracting that category of
Black identity extremists, and then sending our clarification
to law enforcement around the country that that category really
does not exist.
Mr. Wray. I think what we are doing right now is what we
would normally do with any intelligence assessment, which is we
continue to evaluate the data as it rolls in.
The intelligence assessment in question was a snapshot in
time. And as we get more information that comes in from all
corners, considering all sorts of information, I expect that we
will update that information in an appropriate way. And
depending on what the information shows, it could be anything
from a reaffirmance, to a retraction, to a clarification. It
just depends on what the information shows.
Ms. Bass. Okay.
Mr. Wray. But the one thing we will not do is withdraw
intelligence assessments based on public outcry. I am sure you
can understand why that is not an approach that ultimately will
stand us----
Ms. Bass. Okay. Well, I want to continue to be in contact
with you for this, because I think one of the points that we
made to you--and I really hope you take it seriously--is the
harm that that document is causing. Because it sends a chill to
activists around the country, and my big concern is that local
law enforcement will misinterpret that and will clamp down on
people exercising their First Amendment right.
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South
Carolina, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, Mr. Gowdy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. Director Wray,
somewhere today, a group of our fellow citizens will be asked
if they could be fair, impartial, free of bias before they sit
in judgment of others on a jury--even in the smallest of
courtrooms, where there are nothing but empty seats and no
television cameras.
Somewhere today, those selected to sit in judgment of their
fellow citizens will be told that they must wait until the very
last witness testifies and the last piece of evidence has been
introduced before they can even begin to deliberate on an
outcome.
So, if our fellow citizens should be impartial and free of
bias, and if our fellow citizens must wait until the last piece
of evidence is introduced--the last witness is called--before
they can reach a verdict, a conclusion, and outcome, then I do
not think it is asking too much that the Department of Justice
and the FBI do the same thing.
There is no Member of Congress who holds the Department and
the Bureau in higher esteem than I do. There are others who
hold you in high esteem, but I would take second place to no
one. And I have defended the Department and the Bureau when,
frankly, it was pretty damn lonely to do so.
When my Democrat friends were asking that Jim Comey be
prosecuted for a Hatch Act violation about this time last
year--they now want him canonized--but this time last year,
they wanted him prosecuted for a Hatch Act violation. When your
predecessor sat right where you are sitting, it was embroiled
in a fight with this little tiny start-up company called Apple.
I was on the side of Bureau.
When there are calls for special counsel, even today, I
reject them because I trust the women and men of the Department
of Justice and the Bureau, the professionals that we hired, to
do their job. And the vast majority of line prosecutors and
line agents are exactly what you described in your opening
statement. They are exactly what you described. But
unfortunately, the last 2 years that have not been good years
for the Bureau and they have not been good years for the
Department.
We had an Attorney General meet with the spouse of a target
of an investigation on the tarmac, and asked that an
investigation be called something other than investigation, but
be called a ``matter.'' We have had an Attorney General recuse
himself from the largest, most significant investigation
currently in his office.
We had the director of the FBI appropriate a major charging
decision away from the Department of Justice, because he was
concerned that the public would not have confidence if the
Department of Justice handled that decision themselves. We had
an FBI Director write two politically-volatile letters weeks
before an election.
We had an FBI Director memorialize conversations he had
with the President of the United States because he did not
trust the President's recall of those conversations.
And I think what frustrates some folks is when Director
Comey wanted special counsel for President Trump, he leaked one
of those memos. When he did not have confidence in Loretta
Lynch, we did not hear a word about it. There were no leaks
that prompted special counsel when he did not trust Loretta
Lynch. There were leaks when he decided he did not trust
President Trump.
We have had an Acting AG fired; had the director of the FBI
fired. And we cannot manage to find prosecutors who have not
donated to presidential candidates. Out of all the universal
prosecutors that you used to work with; that I used to work
with, and Johnny Ratcliffe used to work with. We cannot find a
dozen and that have not donated to major political candidates.
And now we have Special Agent Strzok. It was the inspector
general--not the Department of Justice, not the Bureau who
found these texts. It was the inspector general and I share
your confidence in his objectivity; I share it. But it should
not have been the inspector general that had to bring this to
our attention 12 months after it happened. And that same Agent
is the one who reportedly interviewed Secretary Clinton in an
interview that you and I have never seen conducted that way
before. To have potential witnesses and potential targets sit
in on a witness interview.
I appreciate your professionalism and your unwillingness to
want to say how unprecedented that is, so I am not going to ask
you--I will just tell you. It is unprecedented. And that same
Agent is alleged to have been the one that changed the
language.
You are right; they are synonyms. ``Extremely careless'' is
a synonym for ``grossly negligent'' which begs the question,
``Why change it?'' But you and I know why it was changed. It
was changed because the Statute says, ``grossly negligent.''
And if you are not going to charge someone, God knows you do
not want to track the Statute with the language that you use.
That would be stupid.
What is also stupid is to do that memo 2 months before you
have interviewed the target. That memo was drafted before the
last witness was interviewed. Director, it was drafted before
the target of the investigation was even interviewed which
makes people wonder was the decision made before the interviews
were finished?
And now, we believe that that same agent is also involved
in the investigation into President Trump in his campaign and
may have interviewed Michael Flynn. That has not been confirmed
and we do not know what role, if any, he took in the
preparation of documents for court filings.
So, I am going to say this because I am out of time and I
appreciate the chairman's patience with me. You have a really
important job. When all else fails in this country, we want to
be able to look to the FBI. We want to be able to look to the
Department of Justice. All the other institutions we trust,
including Congress, appear to be broken. We want to be able to
look to you. It has been a really bad 2 years.
I am counting on you to help answer our questions to
Congress, our fellow citizens' questions. But I am more than
anything counting on you to go back to work for that
blindfolded woman holding a set of scales. It really does not
give a whit about politics. That is the FBI that I want.
Chairman Goodlatte. Gentleman has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Goodlatte. The director's----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I----
Chairman Goodlatte [continuing]. Going to respond.
Mr. Wray. Just a 30 second response. First, let me say
Congressman Gowdy, I am well aware of your longstanding support
for the Bureau and the Department, and I want you know we
appreciate it.
And second, I want to assure you and every other member of
this committee that there is no scenario under which would have
taken the President's nomination, if I were not committed to
the kind of independent, impartial, objective, and professional
pursuit of the facts. I would not be here if I were not
committed to that; and I can give this committee that
commitment.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Richmond. Director Wray, let me thank you for being
here, but also thank you for the meeting we had a couple weeks
ago.
Let me ask you a question. Because as I think about our
approach to opioid addiction and how we combat this awful
crisis, I also have to think back to our response to the crack
epidemic and how we responded to the crack epidemic, which was
mandatory minimum sentences which led to mass incarceration.
But one thing and a specific example is that when we found
grandchildren in public housing that may have had crack cocaine
or cocaine, we filed eviction notices with housing authorities
to remove them from public housing. That is not what we are
doing with opioid addiction and people that we find in
possession of opioids.
Do you see and are you concerned about a double standard in
our approach to opioid; in our response to crack? And should we
address that in criminal justice reforms so that we treat
substance abuse addiction as the mental health crisis that it
is and that the President declared with his opioid crisis?
So, the question is, should we go back and look at how we
treated crack and reform our old drug laws to better represent
the mental health crisis?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congressman, questions of sentencing
reform, criminal justice reform, I think are better directed to
the other side of the street of the Justice Department than to
the FBI where we, largely, focus on trying to do the
investigations and the intelligence assessments.
But I will tell you that in the context of the opioid
epidemic which is upon us now, that it has become a
sufficiently big scourge on all communities in the United
States that it is clearly going to require a whole of
government type response that involves not just criminal
justice steps; progressive investigation and prosecution, but
all sorts of other outreach, mental health, treatment.
There might have been a time when we could have
investigated and prosecuted our way out of the problem, and
that is clearly going to be a major part of it, but it has
become too big now. We are going to have to do something that
is much more holistic and multidisciplinary.
Mr. Richmond. And, you know, life experiences mean a lot.
And I heard my colleagues on the other side talk about how
great the FBI has been. And how it is held in high esteem,
except for the past 8 years under President Obama; and for my
friend, Congressman Gowdy, he said the last 2 years.
It just amazes me how we just missed the whole COINTELPRO
history of the FBI. And that has to be one of its darkest
moments when it did illegal surveillance and initiated
propaganda in the media to discredit civil rights activists who
were trying to make the country a better place. So, let me just
go there for a second.
First of all--and I know that we just released a batch of
documents from the Church Committee on JFK's assassination--but
have we released and made public, in your knowledge, all of the
documents and actions of the FBI during those COINTELPRO years?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, I do not actually know what
information, specifically, has been provided on the COINTELPRO
era. I know that hearings were conducted, books have been
written, lots and lots of discussion has been had about it.
Certainly, I will tell you that I think I--and everybody in
the Bureau--recognizes the COINTELPRO problems, and that means
different things to different people as one of the darker
moments in the FBI's history. And it is something we are not
proud of, but it also is something that we have learned from.
And during some of the same time period, there is a lot that
the FBI did that we can all be proud of in terms of aggressive
investigation of various civil rights abuses among other
things.
So, we are human. We make mistakes. We have things that we
have done well. We have things we have done badly, and when we
have done things badly, we try to learn from them.
Mr. Richmond. And I would just hope that we expose as much
as we can, so we can learn from it. But who was the director of
the FBI that initiated COINTELPRO and all of those programs
that were the darker moments of the FBI's history?
Mr. Wray. Well, I believe Director Hoover was in place at
the time.
Mr. Richmond. And who was your building named after?
Mr. Wray. Director Hoover.
Mr. Richmond. Some of the darkest times of the FBI history
under Hoover and the building is named after him. With that,
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Wray. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Goodlatte. The director is permitted to respond.
Mr. Wray. I would just say that Director Hoover, like most
of us mortals, did some things that he is probably not proud
of, wherever he is right now. And some things that we are all
should be all very grateful to him for, in terms of building
the FBI into the organization it is today. So, like most
people, he is complicated.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, I
really appreciated your opening statement to this committee.
You and the great men and women of the FBI have an important
and very difficult job.
That is why during the time of the Clinton investigation, I
actually refused to question the integrity of your predecessor.
In fact, I spent dozens of town hall meetings as a Republican
defending the integrity of your predecessor and disagreeing
with some of my constituents about the things that they were
saying. But now, it has become pretty clear to me that my
belief in the integrity of your predecessor was misplaced.
Could you please tell us what the letters FBI stand for? We
know it stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation; but it also
stands for something else.
Mr. Wray. We consider FBI to stand for the words,
``Fidelity, Bravery, and Integrity.''
Mr. Labrador. Mr. Director, I have begun to have serious
doubts about some in the FBI. About serious doubts about the
integrity of some of the highest levels of the FBI because of
actions taken by your agency over the 2 years. And that is so
disappointing because your agency does such important work, as
you expressed in your opening statement and that is to make
America safe and secure and it depends upon most of the work
that you do.
It is a matter of public record that Hillary Clinton's
aids, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, blatantly lied to the FBI
investigators about the existence of Hillary Clinton's private
emails. And we know that an FBI agent, Strzok, investigated
both Clinton and Trump. In fact, Strzok was present at many of
these interviews.
Director, were Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, or any other
Clinton associates ever charged by the FBI for lying to them?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, the handling of the Clinton email
investigation, including all the other participants in that
matter is the subject of an outside independent investigation
which is looking into that.
Mr. Labrador. I understand that is a simple question. Is
what--was anybody charged for lying to the FBI?
Mr. Wray. No charges were filed against anybody in that
investigation.
Mr. Labrador. How many Clinton advisors were granted
immunity during the email server investigation?
Mr. Wray. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. Labrador. But there were several Clinton advisors who
were granted immunity. Is that not correct?
Mr. Wray. I believe that is true, but I do not know the
answer to that sitting here right now.
Mr. Labrador. So, we have recently heard that Strzok was
official who signed the documents that officially opened the
Russia Trump collusion inquiry. How many Trump administration
advisors have been granted immunity during the Russia special
counsel investigation?
Mr. Wray. For questions about the special counsel
investigation, I would refer you to special counsel. I do not
know the answer to that question.
Mr. Labrador. So, if we want to believe in the integrity of
the FBI, explain to me why the double standard? When you have
agents and people who work for the Clinton administration who
were granted immunity, or who lied to the FBI and they are not
charged. Why is there a double standard today?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, we in the FBI are committed to not
having a double standard.
Mr. Labrador. But you have not been committed over the last
2 years. So, are you doing something to correct that?
Mr. Wray. As I think I said to one of your colleagues, in
every meeting that I go to since taking over as Director, I try
to emphasize the importance of following the rules; following
the process; following the law; following the Constitution;
being faithful to our core value and not allowing political
biases to affect our decisionmaking.
Mr. Labrador. I only have----
Mr. Wray. And where there have been situations where there
is----
Mr. Labrador. I only have----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Question there is an inspector
general investigation.
Mr. Labrador. Okay, briefly--one more time. I only have one
more minute left. So can you tell me definitively, whether
Michael Flynn violated the Logan Act?
Mr. Wray. That is not a question I can answer.
Mr. Labrador. I actually believe that the Logan Act is
unconstitutional, by the way. But if we are not going to have a
double standard, can you tell me whether the FBI is
investigating former President Barack Obama for violating the
Logan Act?
He has been spending the last couple of weeks travelling
the whole world complaining about the foreign policy of the
United States. Is the FBI currently investigating the former
President of the United States for violating the Logan Act?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, as you may know, we will not confirm
or deny the existence of any ongoing investigation.
Mr. Labrador. Do you think we should investigate minority
leader, Pelosi, for meeting with Assad, despite objections
from, then sitting, President Bush and Vice President Chaney in
2007?
Mr. Wray. Again, I am not going to comment on speculate
about whether or not there is----
Mr. Labrador. Let's not use----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. An active investigation.
Mr. Labrador [continuing]. An elected official. Should we
investigate Dennis Rodman who went to meet with the North
Koreans? Should we investigate him for that?
Mr. Wray. Same answer.
Mr. Labrador. All right. I want you to help me bring back
the integrity of the FBI to the United States. I love the FBI.
I even considered as a young attorney to join the FBI. I grew
up on the show. And I have great love for the work that men and
women of the FBI do. And I hope that we can do something over
the next 2 years that will counteract what happened over the
last 2 years of the----
Mrs. Roby [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Director for your
service and for the extraordinary service of the men and women
at the FBI who are serving our country and who do important and
dangerous work and risk their lives often in that work.
You hold, in particular, a very solemn responsibility to
protect the integrity and the reputation of the FBI. And you
are clearly proud, as you should be, to lead this agency. And I
think we are seeing an administration which will continue to
challenge the independence of the FBI and in many ways, our
country is relying on your strength and your integrity to
resist that. So, I thank you.
I want to just begin with a couple of short questions. One
is, there has been a lot of question about obstruction of
justice. You are, of course, aware obstruction of justice is a
criminal statute in our Federal law?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Cicilline. And there is no exemption in it for the
President, or any other person in the United States? It applies
to every person in this country?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any statutory----
Mr. Cicilline. Exemption?
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Copout.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay. And I would next like to turn to the
issue of hate crimes. There is Republican report from June of
this year that identified at least 120 Federal agencies that
are not uploading information to the FBI's National Hate Crimes
database.
And I am wondering whether or not the FBI has reached out
to these agencies, so far? If so, how many? Whether your plan
is to reach out to all of them so that this information is
being properly collected? And I would be delighted to work with
you on ways that Congress can help support that work.
Mr. Wray. Thank you, Congressman. We do believe strongly
that more and complete data is really essential to having an
informed dialogue on that topic, just like in other areas of
law enforcement. As you may know, providing that kind of
information is generally voluntary on the part of the State or
locality. We do have all manner of outreach to various agencies
to try to encourage them to provide information.
Mr. Cicilline. This is actually 120 Federal agencies. These
are not local; these are Federal agencies.
Mr. Wray. Oh, you are only asking about the Federal
agencies?
Mr. Cicilline. Yeah.
Mr. Wray. Right.
Mr. Cicilline. So it is not voluntary. I mean, they are,
they are required to do this reporting.
Mr. Wray. Right. So we have interaction with all sorts of
Federal agencies to try to collect their information.
Mr. Cicilline. Right. My question really is, I hope you are
putting together a plan now to reach out to those 120 agencies
to be sure that they are complying with this reporting
requirement. I am happy to work with you in ways that we can
help support that.
Next, I would like to turn to the NICS system, the
background check system. The Pentagon's Office of inspector
general just released a report identifying serious deficiencies
in the reporting system with officials in all four branches
failing to submit final disposition reports in 31 of those
cases. And we have seen a recent incident where that allowed
someone who should not have been able to buy a gun, to buy a
gun and kill a great number of people. Has the Bureau begun to
coordinate with the Department of Defense to fix this very
serious problem?
Mr. Wray. Yes, Congressman, we have been in sort of active
engagement with the Department of Defense. And already a very
significant amount of new records have come to the FBI, and the
number of transactions have already been denied as a result.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Director. Under Federal law,
Director Wray, those individuals who are fugitives from justice
cannot lawfully possess a firearm. After a 2016 inspector
general's report, the Obama administration agreed that the FBI
would use ATS interpretation of the term ``fugitives from
justice,'' an individual with an outstanding warrant who has
travelled across State lines.
Since taking office, Attorney General Sessions says narrow
this definition to include only those who have fled across
State lines to avoid prosecution for a crime, or to avoid
giving testimony in a criminal proceeding. This change resulted
in the removal of almost 500,000 entries from the NICS
database; with only 758 fugitives remaining. Do you agree with
the narrowing of this definition? And do you think Congress
should take steps to define ``fugitive from justice'' to avoid
this kind of action?
Mr. Wray. A couple things. First off, I actually think the
change occurred before the change in administration. And there
was a letter written by the Justice Department under the prior
administration to Congress notifying them of the change, and
essentially inviting legislative attention to the issue.
Mr. Cicilline. But do you do you agree with that?
Mr. Wray. Then the second--as I said, the FBI's position
for years and years have been that the fugitive from justice
interpretation did not require crossing of State lines. I
gather there has been a legal interpretation, which I will
defer to the lawyers on.
I will tell you, though, that as to the 500,000 point,
there has been a little bit of confusion in the reporting on
that. It removed it from one part of the NICS database, but it
is still in the State's warrants database.
Mr. Cicilline. Okay, my final question, Mr. Director. Last
month, a Las Vegas shooting used a bump stock device to
accelerate the reign of the assault weapon discharged that
killed 58 people and injured about 500. Do you support the
bipartisan effort in Congress to ban bump stocks?
Mr. Wray. I have not reviewed the legislation, but
obviously we are deeply concerned about the bump stock issue.
Mr. Cicilline. Do you generally support a prohibition?
Mr. Wray. Well, the FBI does not normally take positions
unless we, sort of, provide operational assessment and I have
worked for the Justice Department on that.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. And Madam Chair, just before I
yield back. I just want to say, Mr. Director, that the rule of
law is really the guardian of our democracy and the President
and this administration are going to continue to test our
commitment as a Nation to this. And you are going to play a
very critical role in defending that; and our country is really
depending on you. And I trust that you will continue to uphold
the integrity of the FBI and the rule of law in this country
because the very foundations of our democracy depend on it. And
with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Roby. The gentleman's time is expired. The gentleman
from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DeSantis. Welcome, Director. Secretary Clinton's emails
were backed up on a cloud by DATO, Inc. and they are now
subject to an order by U.S. District Judge Moss in case brought
by judicial watch. My question is, why did the FBI not search
the DATO device in its possession for Hillary's deleted emails?
Mr. Wray. I believe decisions made in the course of the
Clinton email investigation are all the subject of the----
Mr. DeSantis. But why----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. The inspector general's review.
Mr. DeSantis. Do you know why the FBI did not disclose that
such device was in its possession?
Mr. Wray. I do not know the answer to that.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Was Attorney General Lynch's airplane
cabin monitored when she met with Bill Clinton on 27 June 2016
on the tarmac in Phoenix?
Mr. Wray. I do not know the answer to that and I think that
the tarmac meeting, I think, is part of, or related to the
inspector general's outside and independent investigation.
Mr. DeSantis. Do you know how the meeting came about
though? It is not, like, you are just bump someone in the
shopping mall that you met on a private plane or a plane. Do
you, do you have any insight into that?
Mr. Wray. I would not say that I have any constructive
insight to offer to that. I have read some of the same
newspaper coverage that you have. But as I said, that whole
episode is wrapped up in the inspector general's ongoing
investigation.
Mr. DeSantis. How did the Russia investigation start? Did
Peter Strzok start it?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of who started the investigation
within the FBI.
Mr. DeSantis. Was it started because the dossier was
presented to somebody in the FBI?
Mr. Wray. I do not have the answer to that question.
Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Can you get the answer to that question
for us?
Mr. Wray. Well, if there is information that we can provide
without compromising the ongoing special counsel investigation,
I am happy to see what there is that we can do to be
responsive.
Mr. DeSantis. Was Peter Strzok involved in coming up with
the conclusion that the FBI reached about Russia, whatever
involvement they had when they issued a report after the
election?
Mr. Wray. That is a question that goes right to the heart
of the special counsel investigation, and I do not think it
would be appropriate for me to speculate or comment on that.
Mr. DeSantis. So here is, I think, the problem that you
have. I think you are walking into a contempt of Congress. I
mean, the idea that we cannot conduct oversight over how the
FBI is handling things that are very sensitive, and then you
are going to come to us and say we should reauthorize all these
programs willy-nilly. I just think you are wrong on that and I
do not think you are trying.
I do not know what advice you have got, but we do have a
right to conduct oversight over this. We all can deal with
classified information all the time. So, we have a question
about how this dossier was generated for political purposes. It
ended up in the FBI's possession. What did the FBI do with it?
And your answer to us is you will not give us any information
on that today?
Mr. Wray. My answer has a couple parts to it. Of the
various questions that have been asked here today, there is
some topics that I think it is not appropriate to discuss in
open forum. There is some topics that are----
Mr. DeSantis. This would not----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Classified, or----
Mr. DeSantis. Whether you use it or though is not
classified. Go ahead.
Mr. Wray. There are some topics where even though the
information is classified, we can and do and will share it with
the Committees in an appropriate setting. And then, there are
some topics--it is not just a question of classification--that
goes straight to access to sensitive sources and methods, which
is something that all of us as Americans have to take very,
very seriously.
Mr. DeSantis. Would you--but the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee has a right to that, and you will not
even produce it to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
So, here is the problem. Whether Strzok was involved in
this, that needs to be disclosed to Congress. Whether the
dossier was used to generate surveillance with the FISA Court
on a Trump associate, that needs to be disclosed to Congress. I
do not care about the sources and methods, man. We know where
the sources and methods: it was the Democratic Party paying
Fusion GPS to get the dossier. So, we know that.
The question is, how did your organization use it? You were
not there during that time, but if they were getting this
information from a political party, and then using it for
surveillance against an opposition party candidate; that is a
problem. Do you agree that that would be a problem for the
American people?
Mr. Wray. I do agree, Congressman, that any inappropriate
use of the FISA process for political purposes is something
that we should all be very concerned about and take very
seriously.
Mr. DeSantis. So, we need the answers to that. It is very,
very important. Let me ask you this. Independence from
politics, I agree. But the FBI, like all agencies, need to be
accountable to someone. So let me ask you this. Would it have
been inappropriate of President Kennedy ordered Director Hoover
to stop surveilling Martin Luther King Jr., in say 1962, if he
believed that surveillance was illegitimate?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. DeSantis. Right. So, you would be accountable. Is
customary to draft an exoneration memo long before interviewing
all relevant witnesses, including the target, of that
investigation?
Mr. Wray. Well, I do believe that in any investigation,
final decisions and conclusions should wait until, as
Congressman Gowdy said, until the last witness has been
reached. On the other hand, I also know from having done
investigations--both for the government and in the private
side--that as the investigation develops, you start forming
views about what you are finding; all subject to revision, and
in some cases, withdrawal until you are done.
Mr. DeSantis. Fair enough. Is it acceptable practice for
FBI agents to leak official work product to the media?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Roby. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman
from California, Mr. Swalwell, is now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Welcome, Director Wray. Congratulations on
your appointment, and thank you and your agents for their
service to our country. I think there are fair questions, as
you pointed out, about prior investigations and if there is
evidence of any misconduct, they should be held to account. But
it is sickening to sit here and listen to the good names of
people, like Bob Mueller and James Comey, just be smeared. And
that the work of your agents has become politicized because I
do not believe that is the case. And what I have observed on
the Intelligence Committee and what I have observed just as a
former prosecutor who has had FBI agents on the stand.
But I would like to look forward. And our House
Intelligence Committee investigation, it is early, but it has
yielded some key takeaways, which is that our social media was
weaponized by the Russians. That senior presidential campaign
aides were approached by Russians in a variety of ways to offer
dirt on a political opponent. And that our government response
from the very top to our intelligence officials was probably
not sufficient in how Congress was notified, or how the public
was notified.
Knowing that we have an election coming up in November
2018, what does the FBI plan to do? Whether it is Russia, or
any of the other adversaries that you identify, who would love
to interfere, meddle, or influence an election?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congressman, any effort to interfere with
our elections, whether it is by Russia or any other nation
state, or, really by any nonstate act is something that we, at
the FBI take extremely seriously; and I know our counterparts
throughout the government do, as well.
We are--as I think I may have mentioned--like you, focus on
looking forward. We have created a few months ago, a Foreign
Influence Task Force to ensure that we are bringing the right
kind of focus and discipline to the process. Because we think
this is a multidisciplinary problem, it combines both the
Counter Intelligence Division, and the Cyber Division, and the
Criminal Division and some other parts of the FBI as well.
Our focus is on trying to look for, sniff out, determine
whether or not there are any efforts to interfere with the
upcoming elections. We are, in that effort, coordinating
closely with the Department of Homeland Security, which has a
similar type of body on its end. And----
Mr. Swalwell. Would you be open to working with Congress on
a duty to report law? Whether it is social media companies who
observe interference on their platforms before the FBI does?
Or, whether it is individuals who were contacted by foreign
nationals offering ill-gotten evidence against another
campaign? That there would be a duty to report that to law
enforcement? Would that be helpful for the FBI?
Mr. Wray. I would be happy to have our staff coordinate
with yours to review any legislative proposal, and to give you
sort of an operational assessment of how that might or might
not be helpful.
Mr. Swalwell. Director, again, looking forward, but being
informed by prior conduct: in uncontradicted sworn testimony to
Congress, former Director James Comey described multiple
efforts by President Trump to influence the FBI's Russian
investigation. And that is the only sworn testimony the record
has. Director Comey memorialized President Trump's
inappropriate conduct in a series of memos. Couple of questions
for you. Since being sworn in, have you met one on one with
President Trump?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Swalwell. Has he called you where just the two of you
have talked?
Mr. Wray. I have gotten, maybe one congratulatory phone
call. You know, for example, the day of my installation
ceremony.
Mr. Swalwell. But you have not had to break a date with
your wife?
Mr. Wray. I have not had a, sort of, substantive engagement
that way.
Mr. Swalwell. Now, knowing the prior efforts by the
President to influence a past investigation, going forward, how
will you memorialize or report to Congress, or the public any
improper effort by any President to influence an ongoing
investigation? Have you thought about procedures or methods
that you would take?
Mr. Wray. I would evaluate each situation on its own
merits. I am acutely aware of the importance of trying to take
careful track of conversations; especially important, sensitive
conversations. Exactly what I would memorialize and how and
whether; again, it would depend on the circumstances of the
particular situation.
But you can be confident that in all of those situations, I
would, as I said to the Committee earlier, be guided by my
unwavering commitment to following my duty and my adherence to
the Constitution and the rule of law. And there is not a person
on this planet that can get me to drop a properly predicated
investigation, or start an investigation that is not properly
predicated.
Mr. Swalwell. Do you believe that President Trump is above
the law?
Mr. Wray. I do not believe anybody is above the law.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Roby. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Buck. Thank you. And thank you, Director Wray, for your
testimony today. You have heard a lot about the appearance of
impropriety, or possible conflict of interest, or the
perception that there are some that are tainted in their views.
There is a statute that was enacted years ago that deals with
this, in part, and it is the Hatch Act. And as the former
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and now
the FBI Director, I am assuming that you are familiar with the
Hatch Act?
Mr. Wray. Generally familiar, sure.
Mr. Buck. All right. And as a former Federal prosecutor:
before you started in the Department, the Hatch Act was amended
and it allowed Assistant U.S. attorneys and others to
participate more fully in the political process. But it
specifically did not allow that enhanced participation to apply
to the prosecutors in the Criminal Division and FBI agents. At
least, that is my memory. Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Wray. I would say, I am generally aware that, as you
say, that there were some changes; some loosening under the
Hatch Act at some point. I cannot remember exactly when that
was, relative to my time as a baby prosecutor. And so, the
particulars of exactly when it applies and when it does not and
to whom, unfortunately, I just do not have that committed to
memory here.
Mr. Buck. So, I think it was '93, but I think, again, the
Criminal Division and the FBI, the rules were not loosened as
to those two organizations. And in one of the prohibitions is
against individuals contributing to a partisan political
candidate. And I am, again, I am asking you, are you familiar
with that prohibition? And is that a prohibition that applies
to FBI agents today?
Mr. Wray. I do not know that I can recall right off the top
of my head exactly what the restrictions are on political
participation under the Hatch Act for FBI agents and criminal
division prosecutors. So, unfortunately, I would have to look
at that and see. I can get back to you, if you would like me
to.
Mr. Buck. Or a member of your staff would be, would be
great. I would be interested in that. There is at least one
prosecutor on the Mueller team that was at the criminal
division and donated to Hillary for America, according to a
record that I am looking at right now. And there are a number
of the prosecutors on the Mueller team now that have prosecuted
in the past. I am not sure that they were criminal division
employees at the time they prosecuted.
But my question really is whether we need to amend the
Hatch Act and make it more clear, in light of the perception by
members of the public that there are individuals that are
investigating President Trump and they have an agenda, an
unfair agenda in their investigation. They are a spouse of a
Senior FBI employee, received a large amount of money from the
Democratic Party to run for office in Virginia.
And then, my understanding is the Hatch Act does not apply
to spouses, and has not applied to spouses, and was never
intended to apply to spouses, but it does raise the issue of
whether we should have further restrictions to make sure that
the public has faith and trust in the process that you and I
hold dear. I am just wondering if you would be willing to
comment on that?
Mr. Wray. Well, any specific legislative reform is
something that I would have to look at more closely. I think
the fundamental underlying principle of your point is one that
you and I share, which is that investigations need to be
conducted in a way that political bias does not taint. How much
of that is done through the Hatch Act? How much of that is done
through policies and procedures, and staffing? How much of that
is done through recruiting the right people; training and
promoting the right people? I think it is all of the above.
Mr. Buck. And I think that is a great point. In order to
staff a case in a way that would assure the public that there
was not bias going into the case, you would need to know who
had donated to who, who had participated in some political
activity. Should there be, at least internally--maybe not as a
matter of public record, but internally--within the FBI, a
process where if someone complies with the Hatch Act, but is
still involved in some activity, that they disclose that. So,
that if there is a staffing decision to be made, that the
staffing decision can be made with the assurance of supervisors
that people are not tainted in some way or at least the
perception is they are not tainted.
Mr. Wray. I would have to think about the First Amendment
implications of that. I certainly take the point. You know, my
guess, though, is that you could encounter similar concerns
when you look at individuals charitable contributions, too,
right? You have contributions to particular organizations,
501(c)(3) organizations that have a particular social view, for
example.
So, I think questions of bias and objectivity, back and
forth, and questions of appearance of bias and objectivity,
back and forth, have to be taken very seriously, and I think
you and I share that view. But I also want to make sure that
whenever I am doing it, I am doing it in a way that is
consistent with respecting the fact that FBI employees, just
like all Americans, have a right to have views, both about
politics and about social issues.
Mr. Buck. And thank you----
Mrs. Roby. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Buck. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby. Now, recognize the gentleman from California,
Mr. Lieu, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Director Wray
for being here. I want the American people to know that when
you served in administration of President George W. Bush, you
received the Edmund J. Randolph Award, the highest award that
the Department of Justice gives for leadership and public
service. Not only have you served the American people; you have
served us well. Thank you.
Earlier today, you stated that Donald Trump has not asked
you to take a loyalty oath. If Donald Trump were to ask you
later today, or sometime in the future to take a loyalty oath
to him, would you do so?
Mr. Wray. The only loyalty oath I take is the one that I
took when I was sworn into this job, which is a loyalty to the
Constitution and the laws of the United States.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. That is the right answer. I asked that
same exact question to Attorney General Session's last month;
he did not give that answer. I commend you for understanding
that your loyalty is to the Constitution, the laws, and the
American people; not to whoever happens to be President at the
time. So, thank you for recognizing that.
I would like to ask you about the Intelligence Committee
assessment. I have a document here about assessing Russian
activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections. Chairman
Goodlatte, I would like to enter a document for the record?
Chairman Goodlatte. No objection.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I am going to ask you about 3 specific
findings. This report was released earlier this year. It
states--and this is the FBI, CIA, NSA and others--``We assessed
Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered and influenced
campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.
Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S.
Democratic process; denigrate subject Clinton; and harm her
electability and potential presidency. We further assessed
Putin and the Russian government developed clear preference for
President Elect Trump.'' Does by the FBI stand by that
assessment?
Mr. Wray. As we sit here right now, Congressman, I have not
seen any information that would cause me to question the basic
conclusions of the Intelligence Committee assessment, including
that one.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I am going to ask you about two more.
``We also assessed Putin and the Russian government aspired to
help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by
discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her
unfavorably to him. Report notes that the FBI has high
confidence in this judgment.'' Does that remain true today?
Mr. Wray. Again, sitting here right now, the information
that I have seen up to this point, would not cause me to
question the basic conclusions of the Intelligence Committee
assessment.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. And then, one more. ``Russia
intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of
multiple U.S. State or local electoral boards.'' Does the FBI
stand by assessment?
Mr. Wray. Same answer.
Mr. Lieu. All right, thank you. Earlier this week, the
President of the United States attacked the dedication and
integrity of 37,000 FBI employees. I believe that is
outrageous. It is also factually false. I would like to go
through with you, the extremely high-caliber of the personnel
in your Department. As you know, there are a number of
disqualifiers that keep the FBI from even considering to hire
you.
So first off, you got to be a U.S. citizen to be an FBI
employee, correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Lieu. If you are convicted of a felony, if you violate
the FBI's drug policy, or fail the FBI's urinalysis test, you
cannot be hired as an FBI employee. Correct?
Mr. Wray. That is my understanding.
Mr. Lieu. If you fail to pay court ordered child support;
if you fail to file your taxes; if you even just default on a
student loan insured by the U.S. government, you cannot be
hired as an FBI employee. Correct?
Mr. Wray. I believe that is right.
Mr. Lieu. And all FBI employees, in addition of passing
credit and record checks, have to also pass a polygraph
examination. Correct?
Mr. Wray. I believe polygraphs are applied to almost
everybody in the FBI, yes.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. To be an FBI Special Agent, there are
even more qualifications. You have to pass a phase one test
that assesses reasoning and judgment. Meet in person with FBI
officials. Pass a phase two test that includes a writing
exercise interview with FBI special agents and pass a physical
fitness test. Correct?
Mr. Wray. Again, I believe that is correct.
Mr. Lieu. And then you have to pass a 21-week course at the
FBI Academy in Quantico, correct?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry, what was the length?
Mr. Lieu. You have to pass a 21-week course----
Mr. Wray. Right.
Mr. Lieu [continuing]. At FBI Academy.
Mr. Wray. Twenty-one weeks, exactly. Sometimes the
instructors will tell the new agents that is only 20 weeks and
the agents will quickly point out, ``No, no, no. It is 21-
weeks; we know the difference.''
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I served on active duty in the
military; they have been known to say that, too. Now, that is
why if all these enormous qualifications, if you have to go
through that. Of the 12,000 applications FBI had last year, you
only hired approximately the top 6.3 percent to be special
agents, correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, I do not have the numbers, but that sounds
generally right.
Mr. Lieu. So, two more questions. The FBI's reputation is
not in tatters, right?
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The director may answer the question.
Mr. Wray. As I said to the committee earlier, my experience
with the FBI has been positive. I have enormous faith and
confidence in the people who work there. I see example after
example of fidelity and bravery and integrity everywhere I go
inside the organization. And I could not mean more proud to be
sitting here as one of their colleagues.
Mr. Lieu. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, good
to see you again. Let me start off where my colleague from
California just left off about the tweet, ``FBI in tatters.''
As you have pointed out, the ``I'' in FBI stands for integrity.
I never misunderstood President Trump's tweet to be anything
other than questioning the integrity of senior leadership at
the FBI; not the rank and file agents within the FBI. And much
of that swirls around the senior leadership of former FBI
Director James Comey. Congressman Gowdy well highlighted a
series of anomalies involving former Director Comey, as well as
former Attorney General Lynch. Director Comey's gone.
But now we have new questions raised this week about the
integrity of other senior FBI officials; FBI Agent Peter
Strzok. Agent Strzok was, until recently, the FBI's number two
Counterintelligence official, correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think he was one of the number two's in
the Counter-intelligence Division.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And then after some--approximately 10,000
texts--some of which included anti-Trump, or pro-Clinton
sentiments--he was reassigned to the Human Resources Division
of the FBI, correct?
Mr. Wray. Correct.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And so, here is what we have learned about
Agent Strzok before that reassignment. That he headed up the
Clinton email investigation for Director Comey. Correct?
Mr. Wray. I know he was actively involved in the
investigation. Who headed it up, I think I would have defer on
that.
Mr. Ratcliffe. From the FBI's own 302s, we know he was
present for the interview of Hillary Clinton.
Mr. Wray. I have heard that as well.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I have seen the actual redacted 302,
so I will represent to you that he was present. It was
reflected that he was present in the room. We also know that
months before that interview of former Secretary Clinton, that
Mr. Strzok was part of the team that wrote an exoneration memo
and changed--as you have been questioned about--language in
there, changing ``gross negligence'' to ``extremely careless,''
a legally significant change. Correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, Congressman, as you probably recall from
your own prior life, you can probably guess what I am about to
say, which is that there is a very active--and I can assure you
it is very active--outside independent investigation by the
inspector general into the matters that you are asking about.
Mr. Ratcliffe. I appreciate that, but I am just trying to
highlight all of the things were Agent Strzok was involved. And
we know that after President Trump's victory in November, it is
believed that he may have signed off on various documents
initiating the FBI's Russia election probe. But we know, at a
minimum, that he interviewed Trump campaign, or was involved in
the interview of Trump campaign advisor, Michael Flynn.
Correct?
Mr. Wray. Again, I am not going to discuss the facts of the
ongoing investigation.
Mr. Ratcliffe. And then, we know that upon the appointment
of special counsel to look into possible Trump-Russia
collusion, Strzok was detailed to Mueller's investigative team.
Some reports have him as the lead investigator. Correct?
Mr. Wray. I do not know whether he was the lead
investigator.
Mr. Ratcliffe. All right. Well, as has been pointed out,
every FBI employee has and is entitled to have political
opinions. And now, we know that there are some 10,000 texts,
which apparently very much highlight Agent Strzok's political
opinions, anti-Trump and pro-Clinton. I am not making
accusations here. I am not making conclusions here.
But you remember from law school that legal doctrine, ``The
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree?'' It is really a legal metaphor
that says, ``That if the source or tree is contaminated,
biased, or prejudiced that everything that it yields and that
it arises from that may also be, i.e., the fruit, is
contaminated, prejudiced or biased.'' And so I think you can
see where I have concerns about the appearance of impropriety
here.
Because what we have learned about FBI Agent Strzok is that
this is the one FBI Agent that is literally at the epicenter of
every, virtually every major decision the FBI has been involved
in. Action and inaction about Candidate Trump, about President
Trump and about Candidate Clinton. And if that one agent at the
center, or source is decidedly anti-Trump, and decidedly pro-
Clinton that raises real questions about all of the conclusions
that the FBI has reached on any and all of these matters.
Now, to his credit, it is being reported that Special
Counsel Mueller is the one who demoted Agent Strzok upon
learning about these anti-Trump, pro-Clinton texts. I want to
give him credit for that, if in fact those reports are true.
Are they true?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, I would not say that the individual
in question was demoted. I would say he was removed from the
investigation and that was something that we did from the FBI
end in coordination with the Office of special counsel.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, I want to give credit where credit is
due. And if Special Counsel Mueller is entitled to that, I will
certainly want to give that to him. But what I am troubled
about is that we found out these facts months later; not from
Special Counsel Mueller, but from Inspector General Michael
Horowitz.
Two weeks ago, Attorney General Sessions was in this room.
And I asked him a question because I am part of an
investigative team; Joint Committee from Judiciary and the
oversight in Government Reform Committee that are looking into
these irregularities in the 2016 election.
Decisions that were made by the FBI and the Department of
Justice. And I asked Attorney General Sessions, ``Will you
allow us to go where the facts and evidence lead us in that
investigation?'' in our oversight capacity. He assured me that
he would. I am asking you and giving you the opportunity to
represent to us as this oversight body and to the American
people that you will allow us to go where the facts and
evidence lead us?
Chairman Goodlatte. Time for the gentleman has expired. The
director can answer the question.
Mr. Wray. I would want the FBI to cooperate with the
committee's oversight and investigation in every way we
appropriately and legally can.
Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, Director, my time's expired. I just
want to tell you that, as you know, we worked together at the
Department of Justice. The FBI is an organization that I have
revered for my entire life. Help me help you restore the FBI's
reputation with every American. Thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much. Director Wray, welcome and
thank you for your commitment to the Rule of Law in face of
these continuing efforts to defame your Department and its
employees. When the White House says that your office is in
tatters, I think it is a case of what the psychiatrists call
``projection.''
But I want to ask you about the crisis of gun violence in
America. You have said that you would not rule out in any way,
commonsense gun reform legislation. Unfortunately, we have not
been able to have hearings on any commonsense gun reform
legislation; like a criminal background check in the case of
all gun sales which is supported by more than 90 percent of the
people.
But yesterday, the House passed something called the
``Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,'' which would theoretically,
if it passes the Senate, allow for millions more guns in
interstate traffic because it would wipe out the laws of the
States with respect to concealed carry.
Have you done any study or analysis, as to what it would
mean for Federal and State and local law enforcement if this
legislation were to pass?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any such study, Congressman.
Mr. Raskin. Do you have any thoughts on this legislation?
Mr. Wray. I have not reviewed this legislation. I would be
happy to take a look at it, but I think we would have to make
an operational----
Mr. Raskin. Do you support universal criminal background
check? The kind that is supported by more than 90 percent of
the American people? Is that in the interest of public safety
in the country?
Mr. Wray. Any legislative change to the current gun laws is
something that I would evaluate from the standpoint of all the
operational impacts for the FBI.
Mr. Raskin. Mr. Director, some of my colleagues have asked
questions about the possible politically-based targeting by the
FBI to African-American political activists denominated as
black identity extremists. Other colleagues across the aisle
are asking questions about the possible politically-based
targeting by the FBI as Republican Presidents.
There is a lot more in the FBI's history--with J. Edgar
Hoover and the campaign to smear and disrupt Martin Luther
King's civil rights movement and the COINTELPRO program to
justify Congresswoman Bass' fears, or Congressman Richmond's
fears, and the odd fears being by our colleagues that there is
a conspiracy to target Republican Presidents. But let me just
ask you some basic questions that might help to clear up some
of the confusion. Does the FBI target people for criminal
investigation or prosecution, based on their political party?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Raskin. Would you accept any prosecutors doing that?
Mr. Wray. Well, first off. Prosecution is not what we do.
Mr. Raskin. Investigators or prosecutors?
Mr. Wray. What we do is investigate. And that is important
that we keep straight who the investigators are and who the
prosecutors are. We open investigations, as I said earlier,
only when they are properly predicated, which in this context
means credible evidence of a Federal crime; credible evidence
of a threat of force, or violence. And both of those things
being used to serve further political or social goal. That is
what we investigate. We do not investigate opinion, ideology,
political persuasion, rhetoric. We have got enough in our plate
and we do not investigate those.
Mr. Raskin. But we know that President Trump tried to get
Director Comey to drop the Flynn investigation and then, fired
Director Comey after he refused to go along with that. Other
than the heckling and hectoring that you have experienced today
by our colleagues, has anyone from the Trump White House tried
to interfere with any investigations you are involved in right
now?
Mr. Wray. First off, I do not take any of the questions
from any of your colleagues as heckling or hectoring. As I said
to my team earlier in the week, Congress has an important role
and I welcome the tough questions. I may not always be able to
answer your questions, as you have seen here today. But you can
count on me to do my best and that is what I will do as long as
I sit in this chair.
As for any effort to interfere with our investigations, to
my knowledge, to my experience since I started in this job,
nobody has tried to interfere improperly with any investigation
that is under my supervision.
Mr. Raskin. And in the face of political complaints that
this group or that group, it does not like an investigation you
are doing, what is the proper response of the FBI?
Mr. Wray. I say to all of our folks as often as I can
because I think that is what is so important--and it goes,
frankly, right to some of the concerns that members on both
sides have expressed--that our job is to follow the facts,
independently and objectively wherever they may lead and to
whom it may lead, and no matter who does not like it.
And one of the points that I try to make over and over
again to our audiences is that there is always going to be
someone that does not like what we do. If you think about the
most basic investigations that we have. If it leads to an
arrest, I guarantee you the guy we arrest, he did not like it.
And those situations where we bring an investigation and we
cannot arrest somebody; more often than not, the victim is
frustrated and disappointed and they do not like it.
And our safe space is to follow the rules, follow the
guidelines, follow the Constitution, follow the facts
objectively and independently, and then let the critics go
where they may because there will always be lots of critics of
everything we do.
Mr. Raskin. Thank you. And----
Chairman Goodlatte. Time of the gentlemen has expired. The
chair recognizes the gentlemen from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said that your safe
space is to follow the rules. Were the rules followed in the
Hillary Clinton investigation?
Mr. Wray. That is something that is being investigated
right now by the outside inspector general. I am very much
looking forward to seeing what he finds on that.
Mr. Gaetz. Yeah, you and me both. Did she get special
treatment?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I think when you ask about special
treatment, I interpret that--and I may not be correctly
interpreting your question, in which case, I am sure you will
tell me--but I take that to be a question about whether or not
the handling of that investigation was tainted in some way by
improper political considerations. And that is exactly what the
inspector general is going to tell us.
Mr. Gaetz. So, I sent you a letter asking you to tell us
whether or not Hillary Clinton got special treatment and your
office's answer was that you would provide it in a classified
setting. Why do the American people not deserve to know whether
or not Hillary Clinton got special treatment?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think the reference to classified
information went to the other part of your letter, which has to
do with the dossier issues. But the----
Mr. Gaetz. Well, so let's talk about that.
Mr. Wray. But on the first part, on this question of
special treatment, what I would tell you, because I think this
was one of the questions in your letter, is that we do not have
at the FBI some double standard of special, not special. There
is no formal term ``special.'' Special, as best I can tell----
Mr. Gaetz. So it is an informal term?
Mr. Wray. It is an informal term.
Mr. Gaetz. Yeah. You could see how that informally
designating something as ``special,`` signifies a double
standard, right?
Mr. Wray. I can see how the term ``special'' could be
misunderstood.
Mr. Gaetz. Of course.
Mr. Wray. I will tell you that----
Mr. Gaetz. Well, let me go the dossiers.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. In my experience----
Mr. Gaetz. I have limited time, Mr. Director. So on the
dossiers, did the FBI pay for a dossier on the President?
Mr. Wray. Questions about the dossier are something that
are better taken up in separate settings.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, do the American people not deserve to know
whether taxpayer money was used to buy a dossier that was
curated by a political party to discredit the President of the
United States before and after his election?
Mr. Wray. As I said, I understand the basis for the
question, but I would tell you that questions on that subject
are something that we are having lots and lots of interaction
with multiple Congressional Committees and their staffs on in a
classified setting.
Mr. Gaetz. Did Bob Mueller recruit people to his probe that
had a bias against the President?
Mr. Wray. I cannot speak to how Director Mueller staffed or
recruited for his team.
Mr. Gaetz. It seems like a hell of a coincidence. I mean,
we have got Mr. Strzok, who clearly has a bias. That is why he
was reassigned. He is at the center of a lot of the development
of facts. You have Mr. Weissmann, who is praising people who
are defying the President. And then you have law firms that are
overwhelmingly donating to the Obama campaign and the Clinton
campaign that serve up the humans that are in that
investigation. So, you cannot say with certainty that bias
against the President was not a factor that brought people into
the Mueller probe, can you?
Mr. Wray. As I said, I am not going to weigh in on Director
Mueller's staffing of his own team.
Mr. Gaetz. So, we do not know whether Mr. Mueller recruited
people as a consequence to their bias. We do not know whether
Hillary Clinton was treated as special. We do not know whether
the FBI used taxpayer money to go and buy a dossier to
discredit the President.
Now, what we do know is that you said you are an ``ask
questions first, then act kind of guy,'' which I believe and
appreciate. So, you would never, as an ``ask questions first
kind of guy,'' draft an exoneration statement before
interviewing key witnesses in an investigation, would you?
Mr. Wray. Well, I certainly would not finalize one. I will
say, as I said, I cannot remember if it was to Congressman
Gowdy or one of your other colleagues, in my experience in an
investigation you do start a form a view, but key words being
start----
Mr. Gaetz. But do you start drafting----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Key words being start.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. An exoneration statement before
conducting witness interviews?
Mr. Wray. We sometimes would draft reports before the
investigation was over.
Mr. Gaetz. Exonerating someone?
Mr. Wray. Exonerating or incriminating. But in all cases,
in all cases, as Congressman Gowdy alluded to in his own
comments, in my view, you would not make any kind of final
decision about anything, exoneration or otherwise, until you
had had all the evidence.
Mr. Gaetz. So, we have got an exoneration statement drafted
before the interviews are done. You have got a meeting on the
tarmac with the spouse of someone that is being investigated.
You have got the former FBI Director holding a press conference
to make a determination about the outcome of an investigation.
You have got James Clapper, when he is confronted with
information from an intelligence inspector general saying that
he does not want anything to be a headache for the Clinton
campaign.
We do not know if these taxpayer funds were used for
opposition research. My question is what is it going to take?
Why do we have to wait for inspector general? If I walk outside
and it is raining, I do not need an inspector general to tell
me to get an umbrella. With these highly aberrational
circumstance, which almost anyone would acknowledge depart for
the standard procedures of the FBI, why wait for an inspector
general?
Why not do what we know to be right and institute reforms
that bring transparency and oversight and redundancy. So, that
in the future, you do not have some ego maniac rogue FBI
Director that departs from the normal procedures so the
outcomes can be predetermined before the investigation?
Mr. Wray. As I said before, and as Congressman Gowdy said
in his question to me, I think it is appropriate that we wait
in this instance until we have all the facts. Until the last
witness, as he said, has been interviewed. And then based on
the facts that we have, take appropriate action. I completely
understand the reasons you are asking the question. I
sympathize with them at times.
Mr. Gaetz. But you see----
Mr. Wray. I do not think----
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. You see the double standard.
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The director may answer the question.
Mr. Wray. Your concerns, which I completely sympathize with
and understand, go to the question of whether or not proper
process, investigative and otherwise, were followed. And I
think the best way to get to the bottom of that is not to
bypass proper investigative process now into those things. We
should wait. Let the fact finding finish. The inspector
general, as somebody who has seen the inspector general in
action, from the Justice Department side, as a line prosecutor,
as a defense attorney, it is not a rubber stamp. This is
somebody who puts people through their paces. And I would look
forward to hearing what it is he finds.
This is not the FBI investigating itself. It is an outside
watchdog and I look forward to seeing what that report is. But
at that time, that is when we should look at what appropriate
steps should be taken in response.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from Washington, Ms. Jayapal, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, thank
you for being with us today, and thank you for your service to
this country. I have a question about the FBI's 2016 Crime in
the United States Report. It surprised many of us to see a
drastic decrease in the amount of data available in the report.
The report only contains 29 tables as opposed to the 80-
plus tables. That is almost a 70 percent decrease in the tables
of the previous years. And when questioned, the Bureau
explained that this plan had been in place since 2010, however
State program managers were only informed of the change
recently. Are you aware of the shift to dramatically decrease
the amount of crime data available to the public?
Mr. Wray. Congresswoman, I recently learned of this issue.
I guess I could say a couple things. The first is that the
decision to remove those particular tables was based on
information that CJIS, which is part of our FBI, had that spoke
to how often those tables were even being reviewed by anybody.
Second, the information in those particular tables was
largely just alternative views of data that was still in the
report. But third, and probably more importantly to your
question, we recently made a decision internally to go ahead
and republish the information with the tables. It is going to
take a few weeks for that to happen, however.
Ms. Jayapal. That is great. We really appreciate that very
much. And I did want to submit this letter for the record from
the Crime and Justice Research Alliance about why those tables
are so important. But we very much appreciate you doing that.
Let me move to some questions about hate crimes and various
ethnic and religious minority groups. California State
University Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism found
that biased crimes against various minorities and religious
groups were up 20 percent since the election of Donald Trump.
The majority of the crimes were against individuals of the
Islamic or LGBT communities.
Director Wray, the President has repeatedly posted tweets
insulting various ethnic, religious, and minority groups. Most
recently, he retweeted three videos by a discredited United
Kingdom white separatist, ultranationalist political group.
Videos which allegedly showed Muslims committing crimes. In the
tense environment and climate that we operate under and with
the frequent vilification of minorities in the public sphere,
do you believe that the President's rhetoric and actions such
as these tweets have an impact on the rising hate crimes that
we are seeing?
Mr. Wray. Congresswoman, I try to stay out of commenting on
the business of what is being said in social media. What I
guess I would say is that as to the question of hate crime
statistics and the apparent rise in hate crimes: as I think was
noted in one of the earlier exchanges, in trying to collect
that information, especially from State and local law
enforcement, it is voluntary.
And so, we have challenges because it is sporadic as to
which agencies will provide information, which ones will not,
and how accurate and what resources they have to collect the
information. So, it is hard for us to get an accurate take on
the rise. We do the best we can with the information we have.
Ms. Jayapal. Director Wray----
Mr. Wray. I will say that my experience in dealing with
communities as we do our investigation is that it is very
important that we have the trust and confidence of all of the
communities we serve throughout the United States. And all of
the communities we serve and protect, especially, not just
because it is the right thing to do, but because it is the
smart thing to do.
We need to be able to encourage sources which are the life
blood of investigation, and we need people to come forward and
speak up and tell us when they see something that is concerning
so that if an investigation is appropriate, we can conduct one.
So, I think the folks in the Bureau are acutely sensitive to
that and intend to continue that practice and approach.
Ms. Jayapal. I appreciate that. I feel like you are taking
my questions right out of my mouth, because I do think that it
is important for you as the director of the FBI to be concerned
about anything that hurts the trust that we have with our
communities across the country that are helping in the FBI's
efforts. President Trump has previously warned that immigration
from Muslim majority nations threatens the United States'
security. Do you share that view?
Mr. Wray. I am deeply concerned about global jihadist
terrorism, which is a very real problem in this country----
Ms. Jayapal. But do you believe that Muslim majority
countries and the immigrants that come from those countries are
a threat to our security? And before you answer that, let me
ask you if you know who said this quote: ``Islam as practiced
by the vast majority of people is a peaceful religions, a
religion that respect others. Ours is a country based upon
tolerance and we welcome people of all faiths in America.'' Do
you know who said that, Director Wray?
Mr. Wray. Well, I am not 100 percent certain about the
quote, but if memory serves, it may be President George W.
Bush----
Ms. Jayapal. Very good. That is right.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Shortly after 9/11.
Ms. Jayapal. That is right. And so I would just ask
Director Wray again, do you share the view that immigration
from Muslim majority nations threatens the United States
security?
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
expired. The director may answer the question.
Mr. Wray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I would say is that
an awful lot of our terrorism investigations do also involve
immigration violations. So, there is a close nexus between
immigration violations and counter-terrorism investigations.
And an awful lot of the terrorists investigations we have
involve global jihadist rhetoric, which is disproportionally
concentrated in certain countries.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chairman recognizes the gentleman
from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director
Wray, thank you for being here today. I have a number of
questions on a variety of topics and we have limited time so
let me get right into it. First, I have always found it
interesting that Director Comey never sought to obtain the
hacked DNC servers, to review any digital evidence or trails
that could definitely prove or disprove the Russian hacking
allegation. Have you sought those servers, and if not, why not?
Mr. Wray. The handling of that investigation, including
access to servers or anything like that, those are
investigative decisions made in the course of the Clinton email
investigation, which is now the subject of a rigorous outside
independent investigation by the inspector general. And I am
waiting to see what he finds in order to decide what
appropriate action might ensue from that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Do you know if the inspector
general is seeking the servers? Or do you have any information
on it?
Mr. Wray. I do not have any information on that.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The number two official on Mr.
Mueller's team, former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann, as
you know, was just shown to have made biased comments against
President Trump in emails sent to the since fired Acting
Attorney General Sally Yates. As a matter of general policy,
what happens when employees at the FBI are shown to make biased
comments in the midst of an investigation on which they serve?
Mr. Wray. It is hard to generalize, it depends on the
situation. It depends on how severe the bias. It depends on
lots and lots of different circumstances. So, it is hard for me
to make one sweeping statement. Certainly in some instances, we
would, as has been alluded to earlier, remove somebody from the
investigation.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Who makes that decision? I mean,
what is the criteria? Is that ultimately your unilateral
authority, or?
Mr. Wray. It would not have to rise to my level. It would
depend on the investigation I would suppose.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. With regard to terrorism, the
Department of Homeland Security has recently indicated the
threat environment in the U.S. is perhaps the most serious
since the 9/11 attacks. In your opening statement today, of
course, you noted that the FBI is currently investigating about
1,000 ISIS-related threats in all 50 States.
Is the threat evolving now that ISIS is losing ground in
Iraq and Syria and has the threat grown as that organization
has become more decentralized?
Mr. Wray. That is a very good question. I think what I
would say is that the threat is different. Some people would
say is it better or worse? The good news is, you know, the
caliphate is crumbling and that is positive for all of us. The
bad news is ISIS is encouraging some of its recruits and
potential recruits to stay where they are and commit attacks
right in the homeland.
So, in addition to the thousand or thereabouts ISIS
investigations, which I would define as sort of ISIS-directed
investigations, we have a lot of what we would call home-grown
violent extremist investigations, which are individuals more
kind of a lone wolf types, who are motivated and inspired by
ISIS to commit attacks. And that is, I think, the threat that
in our view, is growing, not just in the U.S. but in a lot of
our allied countries as well.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I wish we had time to unpack that
further. But let me ask you specifically regarding ISIS and
current investigations. Can you confirm for us today that the
Las Vegas killer, Steven Paddock, did not have any ties to
international terrorism, despite the fact that ISIS is claiming
responsibility?
Mr. Wray. I have seen the same claims of responsibility
that you have, Congressman. I would tell you that so far in our
investigation, we have not seen any evidence to support those
claims of responsibility.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thanks for that. In September, I
led a letter with 17 members of Congress from Texas and
Louisiana to Attorney General Sessions to request a thorough
investigation into Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast's actions of
selling aborted fetal tissue for financial gain. If, indeed,
that activity has shown to have taken place, is that a crime?
Mr. Wray. I do not know the legal answer, as I said before,
I consider myself now a reformed lawyer. But I will tell you
that we are aware of the request, and we have farmed it out to
the appropriate field offices and parts of the Bureau to take a
look at the information provided.
Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Last month, we got information
the FBI requested from the Senate Judiciary Committee documents
that were obtained from those abortion providers regarding that
probe. And so, on behalf of all of our delegations and those in
the region, I want to thank you for that and will look forward
to the outcome of it. I appreciate you being here and your
service to the country, sir. And I yield back.
Mr. Wray. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chairman recognizes the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director
Wray, for your service to the country. WikiLeaks has repeatedly
published information designed to damage the United States, is
that correct?
Mr. Wray. I think that is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. And there is reason to believe that WikiLeaks
works closely with Russian intelligence agents and spies, is
that right?
Mr. Wray. I have seen some of the same information.
Certainly, we are concerned about WikiLeaks.
Mr. Jeffries. Donald Trump, Jr. had multiple conversations
with WikiLeaks between September 2016 and July 2017, is that
correct?
Mr. Wray. That one, I do not know. But I think now you are
getting into the territory that I believe is right in the heart
of what the special counsel has on his plate.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. I think, for example, on October 3,
Donald Trump, Jr. asked WikiLeaks, ``What is behind this
Wednesday leak I keep reading about?'' Are you familiar with
that?
Mr. Wray. I am not going to comment on anything that might
be part of the special counsel's investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And on October 12th, WikiLeaks
contacted Donald Trump, Jr. saying, ``Great to see you and your
dad talking about our publications. And by the way, we just
released Podesta emails part four.'' Let me ask you this
question, Donald Trump, Jr. never informed the FBI or other law
enforcement agencies that a known Russian collaborator had been
in communication with him about matters related to the United
States presidential election, is that right?
Mr. Wray. Again, Congressman, I am not going to comment on
anything that might be part of the special counsel's ongoing
investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Well, an apparent existence of a
triangular relationship between the Trump campaign, Russian
spies, and WikiLeaks seems to me to be something we should all
be deeply troubled about. Now, in 1974, the House Judiciary
Committee adopted Articles of Impeachment against President
Richard Nixon, correct?
Mr. Wray. That sounds right.
Mr. Jeffries. One of those articles of impeachment related
to obstruction of justice, is that right?
Mr. Wray. That I do not remember specifically. It has been
a while since I studied that episode.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, 1998, more recently, the House of
Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against
President Bill Clinton, true?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And one of those articles of impeachment
related to obstruction of justice, is that correct?
Mr. Wray. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. So, the President of the United States can
commit obstruction of justice. Is that not correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, that gets into a legal question that
I am not going to try to take on here.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Sally Yates served as Acting Attorney
General in January prior to the confirmation of Jeff Sessions,
true?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And while serving as Acting Attorney General,
she warned the White House that National Security Advisor
Michael Flynn could be a Russian asset, is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Now, you are into something that I think is part
of the special counsel's investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And 4 days after informing the White
House at the Department of Justice was aware of Michael Flynn's
indiscretions related to Russia, Donald Trump fired Sally
Yates, is that a fact?
Mr. Wray. Again, I do not want to talk about something that
might be wrapped up in the special counsel's investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, but she was fired on January 30th by
Donald Trump, true?
Mr. Wray. Yes, she was fired by the President, and I cannot
remember the exact date. But I do not have any reason to
question your understanding of what the date is.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay, thank you. And Preet Bharara served as
the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York when
Donald Trump was first selected, correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And Donald Trump met with Preet Bharara on
November 30th and told Mr. Bharara he could keep his job, is
that true?
Mr. Wray. That I do not know.
Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, Preet Bharara's prosecutorial
office in the Southern District of New York has jurisdiction of
the Trump Towers, correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Jeffries. And at some point this year it became clear
that Preet Bharara's office was investigating close allies of
the Trump administration, correct?
Mr. Wray. That I do not know.
Mr. Jeffries. It has been publicly reported that the
President's lawyer Marc Kasowitz warned Donald Trump, ``This
guy is going to get you.'' Is that true?
Mr. Wray. I have no idea whether that is true.
Mr. Jeffries. Donald Trump fired Preet Bharara on March
11th, correct?
Mr. Wray. I know that he was, along with the other U.S.
attorneys in place that were holdover U.S. Attorneys, let go
and that date may be right. I do not know.
Mr. Jeffries. James Comey was your predecessor as FBI
Director, is that right?
Mr. Wray. Well, he was my Senate-confirmed predecessor.
Acting Director McCabe was in between.
Mr. Jeffries. And he is widely regarded as a first-rate,
talented law enforcement professional, true?
Mr. Wray. As I said earlier in response to a question
during my interaction with him, especially during the early
2000s, that was my experience.
Mr. Jeffries. And in February, Donald Trump asked James
Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, is that
correct?
Mr. Wray. I do not know whether that is correct. I believe
that is something that is part of the special counsel's
investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. Donald Trump also asked James Comey to bow
down and take a loyalty pledge to the President, correct?
Mr. Wray. I have no idea whether that is true, and again, I
do not want to comment on anything that is subject to the
special counsel's investigation.
Mr. Jeffries. And on March 20, James Comey testified before
Congress and publicly stated the Trump campaign was under
criminal investigation, is that right?
Mr. Wray. I do not know whether that is correct.
Mr. Jeffries. FBI Director James Comey led that criminal
investigation into the Trump campaign, true?
Mr. Wray. Again, I am not sure I can comment on that.
Mr. Jeffries. Donald Trump fired James Comey on March 9th,
is that correct?
Mr. Wray. I do not think it was March 9th.
Mr. Jeffries. I am sorry, May 9th.
Mr. Wray. May 9th.
Mr. Jeffries. Is that correct?
Mr. Wray. I believe he was fired on May 9th.
Chairman Goodlatte. Time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Jeffries. So, Donald Trump fired Sally Yates without
justification, fired Donald Trump, fired Preet Bharara without
justification, fired James Comey without justification. It
feels like obstruction of justice, sounds like obstruction of
justice, looks like obstruction of justice. I think the
American people, Mr. Chairman, can reasonably conclude it is
obstruction of justice.
Chairman Goodlatte. One thing to conclude is the
gentleman's time has expired. And the chair recognizes the
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Director
Wray for being here with us today. I want to just ask some
questions to follow up on some things that you previously
testified to today. Particularly when Mr. Issa was talking to
you and then several other people got in on that exchange just
a little bit.
One of the things you said, and I am going to paraphrase
part of it, and then I will quote part of it. You said if there
was undue political considerations, if the IG finds there was
undue political considerations at play in the original Clinton
investigations, then the FBI would have to determine and then
you said, ``How to unring the bell.''
And I guess my question is, multiple there, I mean, what
did you mean when you said, ``unring the bell.'' And let's just
start there.
Mr. Wray. It is hard for me to speculate about what I would
do at that point. I think it would depend a lot on the
particulars of what the inspector general found. I would not
rule out anything appropriate that would be in response to the
inspector general's findings. Sometimes there may be
recommendations that come with the inspector general's report,
in my experience.
So, that is something we would take into account. It could
range from anything from changes to our policies, our
structures. It could be personnel decisions that come out of
it. There could be follow-up that we need to engage in as a
result of things that we learned from the inspector general's
report. So, it is hard for me to give kind of an exhaustive
list, but those are a few of the kinds of things that I can
imagine.
Mr. Biggs. Well, the first two things that you mentioned
there were really kind of internal, you know, processes,
personnel, maybe somebody needs to be corrected, maybe they
need to be disciplined. Beyond that, though, I am wondering if
there is additional options that might include even reopening
the investigation, taking a harder look and is that a potential
option?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think what I would say to you there,
Congressman, is something that I believe is true really in any
situation, which is if we find, for example, new information or
new evidence that would cause us to want to reopen an
investigation, assuming we do not have a statute of limitations
problem or something, that is something we would consider. And
likewise, if the information we receive from the inspector
general suggests that that is something that would be
appropriate, then that is something we would consider.
Mr. Biggs. And you also indicated that--is his name Mr.
Strzok? I want to get the pronunciation right. I have heard it
about five different ways today. Is it Strzok?
Mr. Wray. Strzok.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. So, Mr. Strzok was reassigned and you said
that was not a disciplinary move. It just seems like an odd
lateral move. So, are you telling us all that that was a
lateral move for him?
Mr. Wray. The individual in question was reassigned away
from the special counsel investigation to the human resources
department. I understand that that may sound to some of you
like a demotion. But I can assure you that in a 37,000 person
organization with a $9 billion budget and offices all around
the country and in 80 countries around the world, that I think
our human resources department is extremely important and a lot
of what they do is cutting edge, best-practice stuff. So, it is
a very different kind of assignment, certainly, but that is why
I do not consider it disciplinary or a demotion.
Mr. Biggs. Okay. And so, with regard to the attorneys that
are on the Mueller team, did the FBI vet them at all? And if
so, what was the vetting process?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of what vetting may or may not
have been done in the staffing of Director Mueller's team. Of
course, all FBI agents, when they join, are subject to an
excruciatingly detailed background investigation, and then over
the course of their trajectory, especially because of their
access to classified information, there are re-up
investigations that occur over the life of an agent's career.
But as far as specific vetting, I am not sure exactly what you
mean by that for purposes of, you know----
Mr. Biggs. Well, I will not mince words. So, what we have
talked about today is appearance of conflict or bias. And
everything from donating rather large sums of money to
candidates, some of which who have been perhaps even under
investigation by the FBI at some point or another.
Communication widely critical of this administration or highly
supportive of another administration or candidates that, again,
may have been under investigation at some point.
What is the process there? Is there an official process
that goes into determining whether someone is compromised or
has a bias in their investigation or is this like in the
Department of Justice when we had Attorney General Sessions
here, he said, ``Well, we do not have a process. It is up to
each attorney to basically decide whether they have a conflict
of interest.'' Which is not the way it is in private sector,
just so you know. So, I am wondering, what would be your
process in determining whether the bias was too great? Because
you said earlier that the bias----
Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Chairman Goodlatte. The director can answer the question.
Mr. Wray. We do not do political scrubbing of our agents.
And, of course, a lot of the questions today have gone to
prosecutors, which, again, we devote agents and staff to the
special counsel investigation, but not to the prosecutor side.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Schneider, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you and Director Wray, thank you for
your time, your patience here in answering all of our
questions, and your service to our country. It is all very,
very much appreciated. Today, you gave us testimony this
morning, a summary, 15 pages describing the programs and
priorities of the FBI and the Bureau.
You do not mention in this, at all, some of the work you
have talked about later, which is protecting our elections. And
I think I do not want to put exact words, but you talked about
protecting the integrity of our elections, and it is critical
to the foundations of our democracy. In fact, election security
is national security.
However, 2 months ago, Attorney General Sessions,
testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the
Department of Justice had not yet taken any actions towards
protecting our elections from foreign interference. It would be
a gross understatement to say that I was deeply concerned about
his remarks when he came a few weeks later to this committee. I
asked him what had been done and I was astounded at his answer
to say, ``We had not done anything.'' But I was grateful that
he said he would take action and work with us.
I understand that the FBI is making this a priority, that
you have created a taskforce within the FBI. What was it that
prompted the development of the taskforce? What void does that
fill? What is its mission, and who are its members?
Mr. Wray. Well, first off, I think, if I might, I think the
fact that the Attorney General did not mention the efforts that
we have under way is simply a reflection of the fact that there
is lots and lots and lots of things that happen in a gigantic
Justice Department and some of them, you know, may not have
been briefed to him as promptly as we should have.
The Attorney General, I know, cares deeply about this issue
and in my view, is a great man and a great public servant. I
will say that in the context of foreign influence in our
elections, that was prompted, in part, by our concerns growing
out of all the dust-up with the ICA. We knew from that combined
with what we saw from talking with some of our foreign partners
that efforts to interfere, not just with our elections, but
with other countries' elections is a real thing. We know that
that was true not just in the last election, but that that is
something the Russians have tried to do in prior elections,
even before the last election.
Mr. Schneider. They have done it before, we have to expect
they will do it again.
Mr. Wray. I think we all expect that. And so, our foreign
influence taskforce is a blend of people from the
counterintelligence division, the cyber division, the criminal
division, and other parts of the department. A lot of it is
work that we were already doing. But I think putting them
together in a single taskforce is a time-honored way to
increase the focus, the discipline, the prioritization, the
coordination. And it allows us to pursue those concerns with
greater vigor and focus.
Mr. Schneider. If I may talk about you doing that within
the Bureau, you mentioned coordinating with DHS, but this is a
complex issue. It cuts across many agencies. How is the
taskforce working with the other departments, the other
agencies, to make sure that we are prepared to protect the
integrity of our elections next year?
Mr. Wray. The taskforce has a variety of contacts with not
just DHS. I mention them because they are so critical to the
election infrastructure in the country. But I did not mean to
leave out, in particular, other members of the intelligence
community. There is regular contact there. And I want to make
sure I do not overlook our contact with our foreign
counterparts, where we are comparing notes there as well.
The State election bodies, which, of course, are an
important part of it as well, that happens really more
indirectly through DHS and our coordination with DHS. And then,
of course, as Congresswoman Handel knows well from her prior
life, there are private companies that are an important part of
the election infrastructure. And we have some interaction with
the private sector as part of this as well.
Mr. Schneider. When we are 11 months away from our next
national election, primaries are starting in the couple months
ahead, what gives you the confidence that we will be able to
protect our elections next year?
Mr. Wray. Well, what I can tell you is I am confident that
we are working very hard on the issue. We are going to continue
working very hard on the issue. We are going to be continually
looking at how we can get even better at working on the issue.
But I long ago gave up the idea of making predictions about
whether or not we are going to bat 1,000. But that is our goal.
Mr. Schneider. So, let me close with the question I asked
the Attorney General when he was here. Are you willing to work
with the members of this committee? Will you commit to briefing
us whether in public or in classified briefings and can you
give us a point of contact with who we should be communicating
with in your department?
Mr. Wray. I would be happy to follow up with your staff on
that.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Rutherford, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray,
first, let me say thank you for coming in and appearing before
the committee today for quite a while. So, thank you very much.
Listen, your appearance here is critical to us doing our job
and holding the Federal Bureau of Investigations accountable
for the people.
And I know that is something that you, as the newly
appointed Director, are also very interested in. And I have to
tell you, as one member of Congress, I am very encouraged by
the fact that you are now sitting in that chair. So, I want to
start with the fact that, you know, as a former law enforcement
officer myself, I often thought about and still think about the
perceived or actual politicization of law enforcement agencies
by the acts of officers within our agencies.
And I share my colleagues' concerns regarding the private
communications by FBI personnel who were tasked with conducting
the Clinton investigation. And certainly those types of biases
and other forms of biases go against the ethics of the FBI and
other law enforcement agencies if and when they begin to affect
the fair and influence the fair enforcement of the law through
political consideration.
And I know earlier it was mentioned. And so, rather than
repeat what my colleagues have all gone through, I want to ask
the question, how does the FBI fight against the partisan bias
that can naturally exist in agents? We all know that. But
specifically, how does the Bureau monitor your agents? And
whether that be over social media or other private messaging,
does the FBI have a formal guidance or policy on how this is
conducted? Just answer that one first, please.
Mr. Wray. Well, I think an in-depth answer would require
more of a follow on briefing of some sort. But what I would say
is that we try to address the kinds of concerns that you are
highlighting, which are important to me, too. I think we share
that.
Mr. Rutherford. Right.
Mr. Wray. We do it through everything from making sure that
we recruit the right people, from making sure that we train
them in the 21-week training that I described earlier. We make
sure that we have policies that remind them about the
importance of playing it straight, going by the book----
Mr. Rutherford. Are----
Mr. Wray [continuing]. Et cetera.
Mr. Rutherford. Excuse me. Are there policies, then, that
specifically address context that they can put out publicly?
Understanding their First Amendment rights, but also
understanding the influence that it can have on the reputation
of the agency. And I understand until it begins to affect an
investigation, which I think in the case of Special Agent
Strzok, it certainly did.
I mean, when we are looking at what was previously called
the ``unprecedented actions,'' of not only giving immunity, but
not recording potential criminal depositions, that is
unprecedented, I think, that you would combine the two of
those. To give immunity is not unusual. And so, if I were to
ask you, did anyone lie during the Clinton email deposition,
how would you answer that?
Mr. Wray. I am not sure what deposition you are referring
to. But I would say that questions about the handling of the
Clinton email investigation and, in particular, whether or not
certain decisions made over the life of that investigation were
in any way tainted or influenced, as you say, by improper
considerations, is something that has been referred to and is
very deeply under investigation by the outside, independent
inspector general.
Mr. Rutherford. Let me ask very quickly because my time is
about to run out. So, the inspector general has his
investigation going, but does the FBI, do you conduct your own
internal investigation as well? I mean, surely, it does not
take an IG investigation to terminate an employee. That is
certainly within your purview, correct, as a Director?
Mr. Wray. You know, these are career civil servants. We
have a process. And as I said earlier, I prefer to ask
questions first, and then act later. And in----
Mr. Rutherford. Exactly.
Mr. Wray [continuing]. This situation, we would not
normally be conducting a parallel internal investigation while
the inspector general is doing his. And the reason for that is
because, and this is something that is a best practice across
investigations, we want to be sure that we are not doing
something that would be viewed as interfering with heads.
Mr. Rutherford. Interfering with others. I understand. My
time has expired, sir.
Chairman Goodlatte. The committee is advised that we have
votes on the floor. We have, Director Wray, a great
appreciation for the 3 hours and 45 minutes you put in so far,
but we do have about a half dozen more members that will come
back immediately after these votes. So, you can get a bite to
eat or whatever. I expect it to be 35, 40 minutes and we will
be back again to complete the hearing. And the committee will
stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Goodlatte. The committee will reconvene. When the
committee recessed, we were in the questioning period with the
director of the FBI, and the chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from Georgia, Mrs. Handel, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Handel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Director Wray. It
is wonderful to see you. And I would just like to say that,
given your distinguished and exemplary record of service
throughout your career, I frankly am on the extraordinarily
optimistic side that, under your leadership, we really will see
a heightened degree of integrity going forward in the agency.
So, I look forward to that.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions round terrorism and
ISIS. You mentioned in your opening testimony that the agency
has some 1,000 active terrorism-related investigations. How is
that volume of terrorism-investigative cases continuing or not
continuing to strain the agency in terms of resources and your
breadth of be able to cover other investigations?
Mr. Wray. It is a good question. In addition to those 1,000
ISIS-related investigations, we have, you know, probably a
closely similar number of what we would classify as ``homegrown
violent extremists,'' which we would define as not so much
ISIS-directed but ISIS-inspired. You know, lone wolves here who
see sermons and videos and things like that and decide they
want to act.
And then, of course, we have quite a fair number still,
even now, in 2017, of al-Qaeda-related investigations,
Hezbollah-related investigations, and then a number of other
terrorist groups. And then that is not even talking about the
domestic terrorism investigations.
So, our counter-terrorism division and our JTTFs, our Joint
Terrorism Task Forces, around the country, are extremely busy.
We have, I think, matured to a point where we are not having to
redivert agents from the more traditional criminal programs,
except in rare situations where there is a sudden attack or
something, and then we will surge. But there is no question
that we are spread very thin, and we are doing the best we can
with what we have.
I said to somebody very recently, everywhere I turn in the
country, I find people who want the FBI to do more of
something. And I have yet to find a person who has identified
something that they want the FBI to do less of, but I would
love to, someday.
Mrs. Handel. There you go. So, you brought up the homegrown
terrorists and ISIS-inspired terrorists. What ability does the
FBI have to actually investigate publicly-available information
that is posted online specifically on various social media
sites, and Facebooks, et cetera about individuals who would be
terrorist sympathizers?
Mr. Wray. We do not, as a matter of course, just sit and
sort of monitor social media. We do, however, in the context of
specific properly-predicated investigations, look at all
available sources, including publicly available information,
which could include the kinds of information that you are
describing.
So, it is definitely true that social media becomes a major
part of a lot of our terrorism investigations, but we do not
really have the means or really the authority to just kind of
sit and troll social media looking for problems.
Mrs. Handel. Right, but if you have a case that you are
working, do you have the authority to further those
investigations?
Mr. Wray. Yes, yes.
Mrs. Handel. Okay, good. Good, all right. You mentioned
also, earlier, in one of your responses, about many terrorist
investigations are also linked to immigration violations. I
wanted to talk about the diversity visa. As you know, it has
been reported that the suspect in a New York City attack on
Halloween entered the U.S. on a diversity visa.
In the course of the investigations, can you just talk a
little bit more about the abuse of the immigration system, in
particular visa security issues that are being exploited by
individuals who are the subjects of investigations? And are
there changes to that process, that vetting, that you could
recommend to us?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think most changes to the immigration or
visa program are really better directed to the Department of
Homeland Security and the Department of State, which have the
responsibility for those two aspects of enforcement.
I think I can say this, because it is public record in the
charging documents, that, in the New York attack, the
individual in question, although he did come in through the
diversity visa program, he radicalized, at least, according to
him, a little bit after he got here. In other words, he was not
already radicalized when he came in, it would appear.
Some of the visa concerns that we have going forward are,
as the Caliphate collapses and as fighters from overseas fan
out to other countries, they could well end up in visa-waiver
countries and then end up in the U.S., right? So, a lot of
people worry, well, are they going to, when the Caliphate
falls, all come, you know, to the U.S.?
You know, another scenario that is a little more worrisome
and maybe a little more likely is that they flee Syria or Iraq
and go to some other country, some third country and are there
for a while and then come into the U.S., maybe a year from now,
18 months from now, 2 years from now. And that is something
that concerns us.
Mrs. Handel. Okay, great. Thank you. And my time is up.
Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you. The chair recognizes the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Director. Thank you
for being here, and I know this has been touched on a couple of
times, and I just want to reiterate something that I hear
regularly from my constituents in South Texas, and that is a
concern we have a special counsel investigating the Trump
administration, but it seems like no one is addressing the
Clinton administration. I know the chairman touched on this, as
did some of the other questions. And I really do not have a
question here, other than to reiterate that it is a pretty
strong concern of a lot of the folks that I represent.
And I know you do not comment on whether or not there is an
ongoing investigation or is not. But as we start seeing results
of the special counsel's investigation coming to fruition with
publicly-announced indictments and the like, if there are
investigations going on with the FBI--and I hope they are--the
time is getting ripe to see some results for that. And I think
the other piece of that is, a lot of my constituents say it is
not fair we have a special counsel investigating one side and
not the other. So, I just put that out there.
Now, that I am finished on my soap box, I do want to talk a
little bit about section 702. During our DOJ oversight hearing
a couple weeks ago with the Attorney General, he indicated the
DOJ finds it problematic to require a warrant from the FISC
court before accessing or disseminating contents of
communications that are not related to foreign intelligence.
And, listen, I have a great deal of respect for Attorney
General Sessions, but I have to say, I was not totally
satisfied with the answer to this question.
So, I want to ask again: is it fair to say that requiring a
court order to view content and limited circumstances after a
702 database was queried, specifically to return evidence of a
crime, dismantles the 702 program, a national security tool
designed to protect from terrorists, not common criminals?
Mr. Wray. Congressman, the ``dismantles'' language, I
think, comes from the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence's response to the bill, and that is the
intelligence community's view about the bill in its totality.
You know, all the different changes, not just the querying part
of it that you referred to, but some of the others.
We do believe very strongly that we are using the tool
lawfully and appropriately. That has been consistently found by
the courts that have looked at the issue and by the Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and by all the different
oversight mechanisms that have existed. We do believe that--
when there is no constitutional requirement to do so, and that
is, in my mind, quite clear--that adding additional burdens and
hoops for agents to jump through at that really early stage,
that is when 702 is so important.
At the very early stage, when tips are coming in, we are
getting flooded with leads, and we are trying to evaluate, ``Is
this a lead that has something that is important?'' It may come
in, it may turn out to be foreign intelligence information, it
may turn out to be some other kind of crime. At that point, we
do not know, and all we want to be able to do is query, which
is running a database check of information that we already have
constitutionally in our possession.
Mr. Farenthold. Again, my concern is, I understand the need
to protect us from crime, but the Fourth Amendment is in the
Constitution for a reason, and I have a great deal of respect
for that.
On a similar note, I have introduced legislation
criminalizing improper unmasking. It is actually calling the
Wrongful Unmasking Prevention Act, which establishes a penalty
of 10 years imprisonment for anyone who knowingly makes an
unmasking request for any reason other than to understand
foreign intelligence information, to assess the importance of
foreign intelligence information, or to determine whether
classified information is evidence of a crime which has been,
is being, or is about to be committed. The idea behind this is,
you do not want folks unmasking stuff for political purposes or
to check up on their girlfriend or their neighbor, for some
other improper reason.
Now, obviously, this is just a bill, but from an agency
perspective, does the FBI now investigate unmasking claims that
might be improper?
Mr. Wray. There are situations where the request could lead
to an investigation. Merely somebody making an unmasking
request and having it denied, for example, would not be enough.
But if we have evidence that somebody obtained--which, in that
case, for example, be classified information for an improper
purpose, you know, that is something that we would investigate.
A lot of times, the unmasking concerns are linked to and
less about the unmasking itself, and more about, in my mind, a
very serious issue, which is leaks of the information, whether
it is through unmasking or something else. And that is
something that we are trying to be very aggressive on. You
know, I think the department, the intelligence community, the
FBI, are open to working with you and the committee on the
unmasking issue. I think, ideally, it would be separated from
702, which we think is an incredibly important tool needing
renewal. Yeah.
Mr. Farenthold. That is fine as a piece of legislation. I
see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for staying.
Sometimes we get here a little bit later, and we go earlier,
and many have left, but sometimes you get to stay until the
end. I think it has been good today, because there is something
that you had said earlier. The chairman brought it up. Well,
one, from Northeast Georgia, it is good to, you know, be back.
I know you travelled to Gainesville and Judge Kelly's
court, and everybody else up there for a while. But I think the
interesting thing here is something that was said earlier,
especially about when asking for stuff, and it was the
determination, ``I am not going to share that here.'' I just
have a general question to start with. What is your belief,
personally, in how much you have to cooperate with this
committee?
Mr. Wray. My own view is that we should be trying to do
everything to cooperate with this committee that we legally and
appropriately can.
Mr. Collins. Okay. And when you come here, you are under
oath; you are still under oath. It is something we take very
seriously, but I have also been here 5 years. And I am going to
put them in perspective, because there are some things I just
want to put for the record is, we have a good relationship
starting forward, because I think you bring a great breath of
fresh air, hopefully, to this, you know, agency, as I believe.
My dad was state trooper. I come from a law enforcement
background. We have got to have this trust.
But just a few years ago, right before I got here in July
6th of 2011, in a draft letter that was circulated within the
Department of Justice, a department official Faith Burton
wrote, ``I would stay away from the representation that we will
fully cooperate in the future.'' This was in dealing with
``Fast and Furious.'' So, you have got to understand, the
members up here doing our constitutional job are sometimes
skeptical of what has been said here.
And I have had interesting, you know, back and forth with
the former Attorney General, with the former FBI Director. So,
I just have a few questions, if we could. One: recently there
have been some problems, and I want to hear from you, of
unprecedented leak of information of about FISA wiretaps. We
got into FISA a little bit ago. Specifically, there was a leak
of information related to the FISA wiretap of Paul Manafort.
Leaking information about FISA warrants is a felony, is it not?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry, leaking information about FISA
warrants?
Mr. Collins. FISA warrants is a felony, is it not?
Mr. Wray. Yes, I would think it would be.
Mr. Collins. What is the FBI currently doing to identify
the leakers of that information?
Mr. Wray. Well, I am not going to comment on, or confirm,
or deny, the existence of any specific investigation. I will
say that, we have, at the moment, quite a number of active
investigations into unauthorized disclosures of classified
information.
Mr. Collins. Is this something that you would say that you
would put a high priority on? Finding out who leaks and holding
them accountable?
Mr. Wray. I will say that I believe that finding out who
has leaked classified information is something that is
extremely important. I will say also, having been somebody who
has had responsibility for a lot of leak investigations, not
just now but when I was an assistant attorney general and had
both Criminal Division and what is now the National Security
Division, leak investigations are breathtakingly difficult to
pursue.
Mr. Collins. Well, I think----
Mr. Wray. And so, that does not mean we should not pursue
them. And, in fact, I am big believer in the idea that we
should even if we may be pessimistic about our ability
ultimately to be able to find somebody to charge, because the
mere fact of conducting those investigations sends a strong
signal that we will not tolerate people leaking classified
information.
Mr. Collins. And I agree with that, and I think it has got
to start with you. And I think, frankly, there has not been
that leadership in that department for a while.
Well, let's go back to FISA, because earlier on there was a
discussion. They came across, as you were not going to provide
that or provide that in this setting, or, we did not have a
right to that. So, I just have a few questions. So, what
information or documents related to FISA do you think the FBI
can withhold from the committee? Can it withhold FISA warrants?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think there is a couple different stages
of cooperation here, right? So, one is a question of, can we
provide an open setting? And then, one is, can we provide----
Mr. Collins. Well, let me help you out.
Mr. Wray. Right.
Mr. Collins. Because your time is more valuable than mine.
We will just assume it is the proper setting, proper format.
But what I was concerned about was actually said earlier, was,
there may be some issues. So, if properly asked for a FISA
warrant, is there any reason why you would withhold that
information, legally, that you can?
Mr. Wray. There are situations where information related to
a FISA application involves sensitive sources and methods that
are, in my experience, not shared with committees of Congress.
Mr. Collins. Okay. Information that is formed as the basis
for a FISA warrant, or a legal memorandum regarding FBI's
interpretation of FISA?
Mr. Wray. Well, the FBI's legal interpretation of FISA is,
unless it is asking for attorney/client privileged information,
I would think is something we could discuss with the committee.
Mr. Collins. Again, I think that is the concern that I
have. And, looking at this is, as the chairman said earlier, I
am backing up the chairman and the jurisdiction of this
committee on both sides. This has become one of the biggest
issues that we have here, and I have been here on different
committees, asking different agencies, under a Republican
administration now and a Democratic administration, is, there
is a belief that you can withhold from this oversight. And,
especially on FISA, this is the primary, so I will clear up the
uncertainty you might have.
The committee has the authority to demand any document or
piece of information related to the FISA program, and there are
many things that we would like to see and be a part of, and I
think you indicated your willingness to do that. We need to
continue that openness in this thing, otherwise you are going
to continue to have the discussions and innuendo and everything
else, because at the end of the day, this is a problem.
But my last question has one concern. You may have
mentioned it earlier, and I think it was sort of interesting.
You said that Mr. Strzok was not demoted. I am not sure,
frankly--and this is just a good North Georgia boy looking at
this--how do you take the number two counterintelligence person
who is on one of the highest-profile is special investigative
committees that has been a long time in this town, and take him
and put him in a random slot in human resources? Not offensive
to human resources; they got a big job.
But I do not think there is a pressing need for your number
two person here in counterintelligence who is on the highest-
profile investigation going on this hill to all of a sudden
say, ``You know, there is a big need in human resources; let's
move him over here.''
I have a bigger concern that if some of the issues that
have fallen out with Mr. Strzok, why would you put him in human
resources where he could have an oversight or even teaching
responsibilities for what other agents would be a part of? I
think you need to be careful, maybe just from an example part,
of how we say that that was not a demotion or a transfer or
something that did not have proper, at least on the appearance,
of what happened in this case. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman. Director, it is good to
see you again. It is always a pleasure. I got to tell you a
little something: when I got out of high school, I did not go
right to college but I wanted to be an FBI agent. So, I got a
job many, many years ago, as a clerk in the Department of
Justice. I was there for a short period of time until we found
out that I was colorblind and would not make a very good agent
if I could not tell the color of a car or the color of
clothing. So, I came back home, I worked in a factory for a
while.
When I was a district attorney and U.S. attorney, I was
threatened a couple of times. And the FBI and the U.S. Marshals
were right there to watch my back. But what was more important:
they were there to watch my family during these threats. And I
will never forget that, and I deeply appreciate it.
I have the utmost faith in you, in the Bureau; we are part
of the same honorable profession. You, Jim Comey, and I worked
very well together. We got a lot of good work done, and the
agents and the staff of the middle district of Pennsylvania--
that would be Harrisburg, Scranton, and Williamsport--they made
me look good, and I appreciate that.
I know how proffers work; I have used them many times. I
know how immunity works; I know what a 302 report is and how
that works. Let's put it this way: rarely, in my humble
opinion, should we be using special or independent counsel; we
know there is a strict criteria for that if there is a
conflict.
The reason is because I trust the 99.9 percent of our
agents, the scientists, and staff a bit more than I trust
Congress. And I know you will follow the FBI and DOJ
procedures, regardless of what happened in the past.
If you ever need anything from me, do not hesitate to call
upon me. Thank you very much for your service, and I yield
back.
Mr. Wray. Thank you, Congressman Marino; I really enjoyed
our time working in the Department together, and I know you are
committed to supporting law enforcement, and it is very much
appreciated.
Chairman Goodlatte. The chair thanks the gentleman, and
recognizes the gentlewoman from Alabama, Mrs. Roby, for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Roby. I thought I heard the chairman say that, since I
was last, I could go as long as I wanted to, but I will not; I
will stick to the 5-minute rule. Thank you for your time spent
with us today, and I appreciate you staying through the last
vote series. Have you read the U.S. Liberty Act, which was our
bill to renew section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which
this committee approved 27-8 last month?
Mr. Wray. I would not say I reviewed it word for word, but
I have read through it.
Mrs. Roby. Okay. And will you commit working with this
committee to reauthorize section 702 in a way that protects
American civil liberties as well as our national security?
Mr. Wray. I am absolutely committed, in fact, eager, to
work with the committee to try to make sure that get 702
reauthorized in a way that is not only constitutional but that
also protects our national security. Obviously, as you have
gathered from some of my responses, I have very clear and very
specific views about what that is, and I have tried very hard
in order to be responsible to this committee to really get into
the weeds with the agents about how we actually use 702.
I have actually sat at terminals with both kinds of agents,
national security agents and criminal agents in this role as
Director, rolling up my sleeves, looking at the screen,
watching what happens when they tap the keyboard.
So, I feel like I have a pretty good handle on it, and I
just implore the Congress to be really careful here. And I
worry that we are heading down a road that we will all regret,
and I just hope lives are not put at risk as a result.
Mrs. Roby. Well, I mean, I agree with you as well, but I
just want to make sure that we can continue to work together,
and I have heard you say that, so, thank you.
Mr. Wray. Yes. Thank you.
Mrs. Roby. As you well know, we have an epidemic of human
trafficking in this country, including the trafficking of
children, and the internet plays a huge role in that. Section
230 of the Communications Decency Act shields some websites
from legal liability regarding content posted by their users. I
have serious concerns about this. Under existing law, do you
believe that legal action can be taken against websites that
enable--that is a key word, enable--this horrible behavior?
Mr. Wray. Well, as I mentioned at some of the earlier
questions in different context, I now consider myself a
reformed, former lawyer, almost. So, I would have to look
closely at the law to study the law in this area. I will say
that there are situations where we have been able to bring
cases against, what I would call, third parties for aiding and
abetting some of things that we are talking about here.
Mrs. Roby. Right.
Mr. Wray. Payment processors, things like that. So, maybe
there is a scenario where that kind of approach would work.
Certainly, I am deeply concerned, as I know you are, about
human trafficking, especially with respect to kids, but not
only kids. And, as I mentioned at my opening, that is something
that we are very aggressively pursuing. So, I would be happy to
look at, and then have somebody sit down with you on the
subject.
Mrs. Roby. Yeah, and, I mean, we would welcome any of your
thoughts or your recommendations on improving our laws. Of
course, we have several bills in front of the Senate and the
House today, where we are, again, trying to balance making sure
that those that are enabling this type of horrific behavior are
held liable.
But at the same time, protecting innovation on the internet
and the use of the internet. But, I think, at the end of the
day, what we all can agree on is that we have got to come up
with a solution that works so that we can protect these
precious young people and adults from being subjected to this
type of abuse.
So, real quickly, given the decision by General Services
Administration to scrap plans for the new FBI headquarters, I
would be interested in your thoughts as to where we go from
here. While the Obama administration requested $1.4 billion for
the construction, Congress appropriated $523 million, leaving
an $882 million funding gap. So, the total cost of the proposed
headquarters was a hefty $2.5 billion. And I understand that
the existing building is in a state of disrepair; however, I
would be interested in your ideas about how to reduce costs.
Mr. Wray. Well, when I say, ``went back to the drawing
board,'' we are considering all options; we are working very
hard with GSA, and I think there is a report due to another
committee in late January about some of our progress. We are
looking not just at different building permutations and
locations but also at funding permutations, which I think could
be a change, maybe, in the way we go about getting to a good
answer. Just trying to look at how we might pay for it first,
and then see what flows from that, as opposed to the other way
around.
I will tell you that, as somebody who has now spent four
months back in the building, I remember the last time I was in
the building in 2005, the place seemed like it was not in good
shape then, and I can assure you it has not gotten better in
the years that passed. So, we do need to find a solution. I
think the men and women of the FBI deserve a building that is
in better shape than this one is, but I am not ruling out any
particular approach to that. But I do want to make sure we get
an upgrade.
Chairman Goodlatte. If the gentlewoman will yield, I
completely agree with the director on that, and we have some
excellent real estate in Virginia that would serve your purpose
exceedingly well, just across the river.
Mrs. Roby. Well, my time has expired, but I just want to
take the opportunity to tell you and your family, thank you for
your service to our country. But also all of the men and women
who serve at the FBI. We really appreciate all the hard work
that is done. So, thank you for being here.
Mr. Wray. Well, thank you, and on behalf of the men and
women at the Bureau and their families, we really appreciate
it.
Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mrs. Roby. Director Wray,
thank you very much. I do have one additional question: have
you personally seen any of the Strzok texts that we have been
talking about here at length today?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Chairman Goodlatte. Can you characterize for us your
impression of whether those do, indeed, constitute the kind
of--going beyond just expressing opinion--but political
activism that does not befit an FBI agent?
Mr. Wray. Mr. Chairman, I really would prefer not to do
that at this point, because of the investigation that is
ongoing and also because of whatever might come out of that, I
do not think it would be responsible for me to be offering an
opinion at this stage.
Chairman Goodlatte. I respect that. Let me just close by
saying that I very much appreciate your testimony here today;
not just that you are here for 5 hours, but that you have
answered questions with a great deal of candor when you can.
And I respect the fact that you cannot answer all of our
questions, particularly in a public setting, regarding some
ongoing investigations.
However, I think that Members of the committee have made it
very clear that there are deep concerns about what has been
happening at the FBI. Not under your watch, but now under your
responsibility to repair that reputation of what I truly think
is the world's finest law enforcement organization. And that is
going to take your testifying before committees and responding
to various inquiries, but it is also going to take more than
that.
It is going to take some action, there are going to need to
be some personnel changes. We have had a number of names in
high-ranking positions at the Bureau mentioned in passing here,
without getting into tremendous detail. Again, the inspector
general's investigation and the investigation being conducted
by this committee will probably reveal more that needs to be
done there.
I also think that a renewed effort to be fully responsive
and timely responsive to the inquiries of this committee and
other committees, but particularly this committee, which has
oversight responsibility, and, in lieu of a second special
counsel, is conducting an investigation that, if there were a
special council, we would not feel the need to engage in that.
We need to have the information that we are requesting, and we
need it promptly. And we have no intention of interfering with
the investigation being conducted by the inspector general. In
fact, we think his investigation is very important and very
helpful, and we have been working with him in that regard.
So, those sorts of actions, and probably some changes in
protocol regarding how agents conduct themselves and how they
view some of the actions that have been revealed in the media
and during the hearing today, do not reflect well on the
Department, and create in the minds of many Americans a
misimpression of how the overwhelming majority of FBI line
agents and others conduct themselves.
But because these people are in positions of great
responsibility at the highest levels of the agency, I think
that those who stay need to get some new protocols on how to
represent the agency. Some need to go, and all of this needs to
be made available to the appropriate committees that are
investigating.
I thank you very much, sir. If there is anything you would
like to add, we would welcome it. With that, the hearing is
concluded. Oh, one more thing: we will be submitting additional
questions in writing, based upon some of the questions that
members submitted and some issues that have come up that we
think may be more suited to submitting questions to you in
writing; we hope that you will answer those promptly as well.
Again, I thank you for your participation. Without
objection, all members will have 5 legislative days to submit
additional written questions for the witness, or additional
materials for the record, and this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]