Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

FBI Agent Peter Strzok Faces Questions on Anti-Trump Texts. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired July 12, 2018 - 12:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[12:30:00] REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER (R), WISCONSIN: OK. Now immediately after that meeting, many data shows that you modified the draft statement on June 6th. Is this when the phrase "grossly negligent" was changed to "extremely careless"?

PETER STRZOK, FORMER FBI AGENT: Sir, again, I don't recall specifically when it happened. I'm, aware as well of that metadata. My recollection is, of working on the draft with a group of us in my office because it was the largest office and taking the inputs of probably five people.

SENSENBRENNER: Was it your computer that put the change in the statements?

STRZOK: Based on my subsequent review of that metadata, I believe that to be true.

SENSENBRENNER: OK. And who has access to your computer? Anybody besides you?

STRZOK: No. My secretary had access to elements of it. But --

SENSENBRENNER: And why was the change made? You know, you were at a meeting where it was agreed that the change would be made. Why was that?

STRZOK: My recollection, sir again was this was -- and I'm not an attorney. My recollection was that attorneys within the FBI had raised the concern that the use of gross negligence triggered a very specific legal meaning.

SENSENBRENNER: Yes, criminal.

STRZOK: In a legal context, "grossly negligent" is used in various statutes to particularly one of the mishandling statutes in 793 to talk about a criminal element of the criminal effects. And so, sir, if I may quickly --

SENSENBRENNER: The change was Hillary's get out of jail free card, right?

STRZOK: Absolutely not, sir.

SENSENBRENNER: Well, Hillary hasn't been prosecuted, so if she wasn't grossly negligent but extremely careless, you know, then there's no criminal standard involved. With grossly negligent, there is.

STRZOK: Sir, I think there are lot of things I would disagree within that assertion. First is, she received no get out of jail free card. We pursued the facts --

SENSENBRENNER: Well, she did get out of the White House free card when the voters cast their votes.

STRZOK: Sir, (INAUDIBLE) and I can tell you there's nothing further from the truth. There was an effort to --

SENSENBRENNER: Trump won. That's the truth.

STRZOK: So sir, what I would tell you with regard to that decision, there was concern within the perspective of a legal definition of that term that people would draw an inference based on that use that it was necessarily talking about a particular subset of a statute. My understand is --

SENSENBRENEER: My time is just about up. That reads four Pinocchios. I yield back.

STRZOK: Mr. Chairman, may I respond?

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R), HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: The gentleman may respond.

STRZOK: Sir, what I would tell you with regards to that decision is that, there was concern about the use of the word "grossly negligent" and the question of whether Director Comey wanted to convey that in the sense of applying the elements of a crime and that whether or not his views when people heard that, particularly when lawyers looked at it, whether or not they would interpret that as he's saying that she did or did not commit any particular statute.

My recollection is that, the lawyers based on that, looking at the use of the word "grossly negligent", looking at the way that's been defined, looking at the statute where it occurs, both realized that that was probably not what he wanted to say, and ultimately he made the decision to change that wording and convey what it was he did want to say. And that all of those discussions were generated based on a legal discussion of the use of that term as a legal definition, not as a indicia of violation of any particular statute at all.

GOODLATTE: The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for five minutes.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D), CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Mr. Strzok. I think it would be easier going back to the last question if you were simply able to indicate to your knowledge whether the evidence would have supported the use of gross negligence and apparently the decision made by the lawyers and the FBI was that was not the case and therefore that term should not be used.

I just want to talk at a more macro level about what's going on here. You know, I -- one of the things I try and do is to imagine how I would feel if various things had been done or said about a member of my own party who was president. And how I would react, because I think it's important to try and understand that. And when you take a look at the text that you sent, I think you've acknowledged that it would make people who were supporters of Trump uneasy about your intentions. And I think that was reflected in the inspector general's report. And I think, obviously, that brought suspicion of you and the FBI among people who were Trump supporters.

The fact that you also had highly critical texts of the Attorney General Eric Holder, of Governor Martin O'Malley, of Senator Bernie Sanders, I mean, isn't really relevant. They were not, to the best of my knowledge, subject to an investigation.

[12:35:02] And so, you know, it was important that the inspector general go in and take a look to find out for us, for this committee, and for the American people what really happened. And he did, he went in, he spent a lot of time, he interviewed many people and here was his conclusion. He did chastised you and you and I understand you accept that admonishment. But found that there was no evidence or whatsoever of political bias in the decisions made in that investigation. And a direct quote, we do not find documentary or testimony of improper considerations were made.

Now, you know, to listen to some of my friends, you'd think that the FBI, which I had always felt was made up of conservative law enforcement people had magically been transformed into a left wing organization. That's not my understanding and, in fact, if you take a look at the people in charge, I mean, you got Mr. Wray who was appointed by President Trump who was not a Democrat, Mr. Comey, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, he's not a Democrat. I happen to know that Robert Mueller is not a Democrat.

So, these are not political decisions made by political operatives. They should be following the evidence. And I just like to note that if you had wanted to harm and interfere with the election of President Trump, you could have leaked information that the investigation was ongoing. But none of that came out.

And a matter of fact, we asked the leaders of the Department of Justice and FBI about whether there was an investigation of Mr. Trump prior to the election and we were told they could not comment on it, which was, in fact, the appropriate response. You should not comment on an ongoing investigation. If you find something, you have an indictment, if you don't find something, you say nothing. That's where Mr. Comey erred. He violated that policy and he damaged the campaign of one of the candidates and the rest is history.

So I just think that this hearing's extraordinary hearing, I've been here a member of Congress for 24 years. This is the first time we've had this kind of event, a circus really of trying to really investigate the investigators when that's already done. I would urge that we make sure that the actions we take do not create further divisions in our country.

You know, President Trump tweeted a few months ago, quote, the top leadership and investigators of the FBI and the Justice Department have politicized the sacred investigative process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans, something which would have been unthinkable just a short time ago.

Is that tweet supported by the inspector general's report, Mr. Strzok?

STRZOK: No.

LOFGREN: No, it is not. I would hope that those of us on the committee who believe in the rule of law, who understand that our country will be damaged if we allow political divisions to attack our law enforcement agencies, to undercut investigations, that we will be harming our country in a way that our enemies, including Russia hope we would do. That's why they interfered in our election, to cause us harm. To create division among the American people and among us here in the halls of government.

So I would ask that we take yes for an answer, that the inspector general did investigate this matter. He found out there wasn't political influence and we wait for the results of Mr. Mueller's investigation. I pray that we find that our president was not involved. That would be a great news for our country and if that's Mr. Mueller's finding, I will accept it not investigate it.

I hope that we can put our partisanship at the door, step back from the precipice that we are finding ourselves now. And I would hope that this hearing, which I think serves no good purpose for our country could be brought to an end. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

GOODLATTE: And the gentlewoman has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan for five minutes.

REP. JIMMY DUNCAN (R), TENNESSEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first of all, very quickly I would like to associate myself with the really outstanding opening statements made by Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Gowdy which I think were two of the finest opening statements I've heard in my 30 years in Congress and expressed my views completely.

[12:40:12] Let me also say, while Mr. Strzok stubbornly will not admit what almost everyone else knows is extreme bias. I find it amazing that he can sit here and say that he was not biassed in a way that clearly colored and affected his investigations. And if you don't agree with that, I want to read the words from Mr. Horowitz, the inspector general of the Justice Department who wrote that the Clinton investigation quote, was the way it was conducted quote, was inconsistent with typical investigative strategy and gave rise to accusations of bias and preferential treatment, unquote.

Then I would guess that Mr. Strzok knows Chris Swecker who spent 24 years with the FBI and retired as the head of all of the FBI criminal investigations. And Mr. Swecker wrote, he said the I.G. report presents jarring evidence of political bias by the FBI against Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump but fails to add it all up to come to the inevitable conclusion that political bias was there. This is like saying one plus one equals zero.

Mr. Strzok, do you have any reason to think that Mr. Horowitz or Mr. Swecker have some sort of bias or animosity towards you?

STRZOK: Sir, I disagree with Mr. Swecker's conclusion. I can't speak to Mr. Swecker's motivation of bias whatsoever. And I know of no bias by the inspector general.

DUNCAN: Also, (INAUDIBLE), a columnist for one of the Capitol Hill newspapers wrote this, quote, the earth shattering finding on Strzok by the inspector general confirms a citizens worst fears, high ranking government and intel official allegedly conspired to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Strzok, you know that judges who have even minimal bias are required to recuse themselves from a case. Do you think that FBI agents are -- have some sort of -- that they are special people who shouldn't be held the same high standards that judges are in deciding whether to recuse themselves?

STRZOK: Sir, I would absolutely say that FBI agents, judges, all are expected that whatever their personal beliefs, that they set those beliefs aside in their pursuit of the truth or their application of the law --

DUNCAN: So you don't believe that you were entitled to a lower standard and --

STRZOK: I believe --

DUNCAN: -- and used that --

STRZOK: I believe I am held to the highest standard and that abided by that.

DUNCAN: But you told Chairman Goodlatte that you did not think you should have recused yourself in this case.

STRZOK: Sir, I'd say that's entirely consistent. I believe that all of my personal opinions were never taken into account in anything that I did in an official act. I think that was appropriate. I think that is in keeping with the high standards of the FBI.

DUNCAN: Well, I think that since both the Clinton and Trump investigations have and has such tremendous political ramifications, I think the ethical, fair, just and proper thing would have been for to you to recuse yourself and move on to other work. There were many other cases that you could have work on that you had never express any bias, were there not? There were all kinds of cases.

STRZOK: Sir, I completely disagree with you. I don't think it would have been, you know, necessary or required for me to recuse. I think every day with the Clinton investigation, with Russian influence investigation, with the thousands other investigations, that when I walked in the door, the entirety of my action was dedicated to pursuing the facts wherever they lie and applying --

DUNCAN: You know, that many time judges have defendants appear before them who after they've been found guilty they apologize, say they're sorry but trying to get to probation. And yet many times people think those apologies are said more in hopes of getting probation and then regret that they have been caught rather than a sincere apology.

Do you feel that you should apologize in any way to the American people for the things that you have expressed, this extreme bias that you expressed? Do you have any regret as to calling Trump supporters saying that they smelled and things of that nature?

STRZOK: Sir, I think I expressed a couple of things. One, I don't agree with your characterization of my views as bias. I think what I clearly articulated and I can understand those concerns.

[12:45:03] And I hope when you heard me in my opening statement, when I talked about my regret to the people, the harm and hurt to the people that I love and my family, when I talked to the way that these texts have been used against the FBI, when I responded to questions about using a turn of phrase about, you know, smelling when I should of used hearing or seeing or whatever the case may be, that yes, those were not intended as direct (INAUDIBLE) towards any set of people. And I hope people understand that I do I sincerely regret that.

So --

GOODLATTE: The gentleman's time has expired.

STRZOK: -- and I hope you hear that.

GOODLATTE: The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Maloney, for five minutes.

REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D), NEW YORK: Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Strzok, for months the Republicans have increasingly used their congressional oversight authority to undermine Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. They have even called for his investigation to be shut down, and why? It's a concerning national security and it seems to be successful.

The special counsel has now obtained five guilty pleas, and indicted 18 others. And included in these indictments and confessions and guilty pleas, Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI. Rick Gates pled guilty to conspiring against our country. George Papadopoulos pled guilty to making false statements to our country and the FBI.

So I'm not exactly sure what the Republicans want to shut down. Do they want to shut down the special counsel's upcoming trials against campaign manager Paul Manafort? One of these trials is scheduled to begin here in Virginia in the eastern district of Virginia later this summer. And related to it on February 22nd, a grand jury in Virginia approved a set of 32 counts of tax, financial and bank frauds charges against Mr. Manafort. And on February 16th, a federal grand jury in the district of Columbia separately approved five other charges against Mr. Manafort and Mr. Gates, including and I quote, conspiracy against the United States, end quote. And in this indictment that is coming forward, I'd like to quote from it. It says that the defendant Paul Manafort, together with others including Gates knowingly and intentionally conspired to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing obstruction and defeating the lawful governmental functions of government agencies, namely the Department of Justice and the Department of Treasury and to commit offenses against the United States of America, end quote.

Now, since this indictment, Gates has pleaded guilty and he's now cooperating. And included in his statement of offense, quote, Manafort engaged in a variety of criminal schemes and Gates is part of that work for Manafort knowingly and intentionally conspired to assist Manafort in criminal schemes, end quote.

So, I'd like to ask you, Mr. Strzok, to be clear. Mr. Gates is swearing under oath that in his guilty plea that he conspired with Mr. Manafort in criminal activity. Is that correct from what I'm reading?

STRZOK: Ma'am, I'm not familiar with the statement of facts, but I'll stipulate to what you're reading.

MALONEY: OK. So in a few weeks, Mr. Manafort's trial date is set to begin. And the special counsel team of prosecutors will present their evidence and I cannot imagine how anyone in this body or in this country with the exception of Mr. Manafort and his co-conspirators would ever want in any way, shape, or form to halt this trial from going forward.

Can you think of any reason why anyone would want to halt this trial from going forward, Mr. Strzok?

STRZOK: I'm not aware of any.

MALONEY: Thank you. And I yield back.

GOODLATTE: And the gentlewoman --

MALONEY: And I yield to Mr. Cummings.

REP. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D), MARYLAND: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Meadows.

REP. MARK MEADOWS (D), NORTH CAROLINA: I thank the gentleman and I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, you know, in a spirit of transparency and I think we all want transparency here, I would offer for the chairman's consideration and this body's consideration releasing the full transcripts that we had in the 11th hour, breaking with two different conditions.

[12:50:15] One is that we have the opportunity to interview Ms. Lisa Page first, since those text messages were back and forth between two witnesses. And the second that we can scrub that transcribed interview for any personal relevant information that might be embarrassing before we do that. And with that, I yield back.

GOODLATTE: If the gentleman will yield --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, I yielded, Mr. Chairman.

GOODLATTE: Thank you. The gentleman's -- the spirit of the gentleman's recommendation is taken, well taken, and we will definitely take that under advisement.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D), TEXAS: Did the gentleman yield?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I yield.

LEE: I would also hope that we would have -- give the FBI the opportunity for redaction of anything that would impact on the nation's national security. I think that is extremely important and I hope the gentleman would accept my recommendation.

CUMMINGS: Reclaiming my time. As my understanding, the gentleman does accept that. The gentleman from North Carolina. And I want to thank him for trying to -- as he usually does, trying to work these things out. And full transparency, and I think that's important. I think the American people and this committee would appreciate it. And again, thank you.

LEE: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

CUMMINGS: I yield.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the gentleman from North Carolina's suggestion relate solely to the testimony of Agent Strzok, or under the same guise of transparency would we apply that same process and that same standard to the previously unreleased testimony of Andrew McCabe who was examined in a similar environment?

CUMMINGS: I yield to the gentleman.

MEADOWS: I think in the spirit of transparency, we need to look at all transcribed interviews to let the American people judge for themselves. And I thank the gentleman for his question. And I think that's consistent with my conversation with the gentleman from Maryland.

CUMMINGS: Thank you very much. And I yield back.

GOODLATTE: The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, for five minutes.

REP. LAMAR SMITH (R), TEXAS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'll yield my time to my friend and colleague from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe.

REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R), TEXAS: I thank my colleague for yielding.

Agent Strzok, on May the 9th, 2017, President Trump fired FBI Director Jim Comey. That same day, you and FBI Lawyer Lisa Page exchanged quite a few texts on the topic. At 8:14 p.m. on that day, you texted Ms. Page and said, quote, and we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting, end quote.

First, is that Andy McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI who has since been fired and criminally referred by the inspector general?

STRZOK: It is.

RATCLIFFE: All right. And what case are you referring to opening now that Andy is the acting director of the FBI?

STRZOK: Sir, to get into that would relate to ongoing investigations which consistent with the department's policy on ongoing investigations and based on the special counsel equities, I'm not authorized to discuss ongoing investigations.

RATCLIFFE: OK. Well, let me see if I can give you a question that you can answer. You sent four more texts to Ms. Page. And her first response to you at the bottom of that page you're looking at is, quote, we need to lock in -- and then there's a black mark where someone's name has been redacted. We need to lock in "redacted" in a formal, chargeable way. Soon.

Whose name has been blacked out?

STRZOK: Sir, I don't know. I'd need to see the original list or original text.

RATCLIFFE: You don't know, OK. Well, I don't know either. Here's what else I don't know. I don't know if the person whose name has been redacted is Republican or Democrat. I don't know if they're black or brown or white.

I don't know their religious beliefs. I don't know their sexual orientation. I don't know those things and I don't care. But here's what I do know, I do know that decisions about when and whether to open investigations and when and whether to charge people with crimes aren't supposed to depend on who's sitting in the director's chair or on political decisions or on the political agendas of FBI agents and lawyers.

So, if a Trump-hating FBI agent and a Trump-hating FBI lawyer who have talked about (INAUDIBLE) Trump, stopping Trump, impeaching Trump, are within hours of Trump firing their boss, if they start talking about opening an investigation now that Andy is acting and that some person needs to be locked in, in a formal, chargeable way soon, I know as a former U.S. attorney that, in fact, if that's what happened, I know that whoever is the subject of that case that was opened now that Andy is acting and whoever you and Ms. Page talked about need needing to be locked in soon in a formal, chargeable way, well, they would have had their civil liberties violated. They would have been deprived of due process.

So, my first question to you, you wouldn't answer. My second question to you, you couldn't answer. Let's go for a third question.

[12:55:00] On page 400 of the inspector general's report, someone tells the inspector general, quote, there is a bright line, a bright and inviolable line between what you think personally and believe and the conduct of your official business. Who said that?

STRZOK: I believe I did, sir.

RATCLIFFE: You did say that. And I heard you say similar things last week. I heard you say similar things today. You said it very clearly. You said it very unequivocally in your opening remarks that you never crossed that inviolable line in 26 years.

Earlier today in response to a question, you said, I took my personal belief out of every official action. So you're asking us to believe that when you say things like F Trump and stop Trump and impeach Trump, that those are just personal beliefs. And that when you say those things, you never cross that line, that bright inviolable line and allow it to impact your official conduct.

That's really what this comes down to that you're asking to believe isn't it?

STRZOK: Sir, I'm asking you to believe, and I'm offering you evidence --

RATCLIFFE: Well, you have. You've made it crystal clear.

STRZOK: (INAUDIBLE) that there's been no active bias found anywhere.

RATCLIFFE: You have under oath been as clear as a bell on that. You've said it over and over again. And because of that, I'm almost embarrassed to ask you this question. Of the approximately 50,000 text messages that I've seen with your personal beliefs like F Trump, stop Trump, impeach Trump, go ahead and confirm on the record that none of that occurred on an official FBI device or official FBI time. Go ahead and do that.

STRZOK: Sir, no, they did. Many of them did. I would say of the 50,000, sir --

RATCLIFFE: No, I'll give you a chance at the end. So what you really meant to say was that when you said you never crossed that bright, inviolable line, what you meant to say was except for 50,000 times, except for hundreds of times of day where I went back and forth, expressing my personal opinions about (INAUDIBLE) Trump and stopping Trump and impeaching Trump on official FBI phones on official FBI time. Other than that, you never crossed that line.

I'm sure there are 13,000 FBI agents out there that are beaming with pride at how clearly you've drawn that line. Agent Strzok, are you starting to understand why some folks out there don't believe a word you say, and why it's especially troubling that you of all people are at the center of the three highest profile investigations in recent times that involve President Trump and that you were in charge of an investigation investigating, gathering evidence against Donald Trump, a subject that you hated. That you wanted to F him, to stop him, to impeach him.

And do you see why that might call into question everything you've touched on all of those investigations? Chairman, I'm done with this witness, and I yield back.

STRZOK: Mr. Chairman, if I can respond.

GOODLATTE: Briefly.

STRZOK: Sir, while there are several questions, and I'll answer them all briefly?

GOODLATTE: There were several statements. I only heard one question.

STRZOK: Fair enough. First, I understand why people might think that particularly based don the misrepresentations of extreme folks in the media, conspiracy theories, folks in this body and elsewhere. And that's why I'm glad to be here today publicly, why I'm glad to hear that people are calling for the release of my private interview so that people can judge for themselves, who I am, what I said, and the facts. And not something that's being spun or misrepresented in some 10:00 talk show or other place.

So, absolutely I can understand that, and I'm glad that the facts are coming out. Second, sir, to your earlier point about -- I never, and I'm unaware of any case being opened that represented some violation of civil liberties or a removal of due process rights. I have never done any activity, opened any case, with regard to that.

And when you look in the context of what had occurred, sir, during the time that Director Comey have been fired, where the president said initially that had occurred because of a memorandum written by the deputy attorney general looking at his conduct in the Clinton investigation, then days afterwards pivoting and telling Russian diplomats and Lester Holt that it was because of the Russia investigation, and a huge burden have been taken off his shoulders. We all were very concerned about from an investigative standpoint in the pace and some clarity and the unprecedented nature of facts and events that were unfolding --

GOODLATTE: Mr. Strzok, I did say briefly.

STRZOK: Yes, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. And I'm wrapping up. (INAUDIBLE) his desire to point things in while before things change was very important to us.

GOODLATTE: Pointed to your response, however, and in the interest of full transparency and to Mr. Ratcliffe's point, will you authorize the release of all of the other text messages that have not been released to the Congress to this point?

STRZOK: Sir, I would authorize the release of any work-related text messages that are out there.

GOODLATTE: Ah, but the question is what's work related and what is not?

STRZOK: That's right, sir. And I would not accept or agree to the release of non-work related texts --