comparemela.com



december 2019 report on fisa of these allegations. this is just over four hours. [chatter] >> the committee on the judiciary will come to order. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing and oversight of the fbi. we will recognize that i will not recognize myself an opening statement. thank you, director, for being here. nearly every topic we discussed will be linked to two questions. -- how is fbi working the bureau working to correct its course? the fbi is filled with brave devoted public servants who work hard to keep us safe from threats, both domestic and foreign. it is clear more work needs to be done to shore up public confidence in the bureau. the fbi's jurisdiction is brought part the fbi is responsible for election security, our fight against domestic terrorism and oversight of our public servants. i would like to talk about each of these in a bit more detail. we are heading toward the 2020 elections. there is nothing more important than ensuring that each and every american is confident that the integrity of his or her vote. he recently stated, russia represents the most significant threat to the election cycle itself. other nationstates have an interest in interfering in our next election. we must be unified in our fight against anyone who tries to undermine the very foundations of our democracy. our priorities should be preventing and deterring any of our adversaries -- adversaries from attacking us. if attacks happen, we must respond swiftly. it.democracy depends on we know who our allies are and we know who are adversaries are. we must come together as a nation to protect our voting systems from our enemies. i will be listening to how the fbi plans to counter these threats and secure our elections. i will also be listening for your plans to counter attempts to undermine our elections from within. president trump undercuts the progress with a statement or tweet that spreads misinformation or directly invites our adversaries to meddle in our elections. you may not be able to control the conduct -- the content of the president twitter account but our government has not been late into protecting every -- hasn's right to vote an obligation to protect every american's right to vote. this committee's job is to make certain that the use of the tool complies with the law and our commitment to privacy and civil liberties. the department of justice office of the inspector general released a report entitled -- report. deepnspector general found and systemic problems without the fbi has used the pfizer act to target the united states citizens. this committee expressed concerns along those lines in the last three or four years. the report found basic fundamental and serious errors of the process designed to ensure the factual information presented. the bureau fell short of what is rightfully expected from a premier law enforcement agency. simply put, the fbi failed at its response ability with fisa.t to encouraged that you have volunteered to make dozens of important changes to address the findings of the inspector general. a recent submission i of court-appointed advocate suggested new procedures and new training modules may not be enough. report, i. the we must address -- i feel strongly we must address these problems without delay. i want to thank the jomini from wisconsin -- thank the gentleman from wisconsin to encourage us to wait until the inspector general released his report to take up this matter. know -- inspector general did not find testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influence the decision to open the individual investigations. the report documents important issues that affect the sacred liberties of american citizens. i'm hoping we can focus on those substantive issues where we are bound to find common ground. we must address the frightening resurgence of white supremacy and other forms of nativist extremism that plagues our country. 2018 marked the deadliest year of anti-semitic attacks in american history. hate crimes against lgbt individuals and latinos were markedly up. the statistics demand a swift and immediate response starting making concerted efforts to improve hate crime statistics reporting part white supremacist -- reporting. through social media, white supremacist are spreading a message of hate inspiring attacks both at home and abroad. this growing problem hits close to home. 1800 acts in 2018. nypd reported more anti-jewish and anti-semitic instances in 2019 than all over -- all other hate crimes but together. i will be listening to how the fbi is working to address this threat. whether the bureau has properly prioritized white supremacy over other threats that pose far less immediate risk to our nation. concrete steps are needed to address the rising tide of hate. the fbi's investigations are meant to be independent from pluto influence. that is quick -- from political influence. momentt you will take a to provide the american public within the formation -- explanation of the bureaus role placement kavanaugh's in the superior -- supreme court last year. the country needs a better understanding of that process. i hope to hear what it means for the bureau to take direction from the white house when it conducts a background check of this nature. approach thean next confirmation with its eyes open. as you are about to see, many of our members on both sides of the aisle feel passionately about these and other issues. i hope is that we will enter these discussions with the same goals -- fulfilling our mandate, fulfilling our duty to uphold our countries values, providing oversight and ensuring increased transparency to the american people and working toward solutions that are best for all of us as a nation. i have great respect for the manner in which you have led the fbi these past years and even greater respect for the men and women in the bureau. gentleman from georgia for his opening statement. >> good to be back in this room. it is also good to see a former chairman here. he has been part of many of these investigations. it does appear we have a new year. it seems things have never changed in one of the things i've noticed, it is interesting that we like to talk about the inspector general's report that my chairman could have called the inspector general to sit where you are but we chose not to. we would rather talk about his report. one thing the chairman did not say, the inspector general said no one should feel vindicated by this report. it is interesting that we like to gloss over problems and discuss that without actually bringing witnesses to do that. we are not about witnesses. we are about rubberstamps. we will not relitigate issues. the hearings of the supreme court justice. itis ok to not relitigate but taking a shot at it in the opening statement seems ok. it is interesting that we bring up voting systems. when it comes to the foreign side of it, we have ignored it. this is what we have done in this hearing. this is what we have done here. that is just the opening statement. fbi duringd the turbulent times unparalleled by any other director. he stepped in at a time is difficult as has been. your agency is respected for its tireless efforts to keep americans safe and i have a great deal of affection for the men and women of law-enforcement. report.tlined in the engaged in the most shocking surveillance abuse in history. the basis for this, which is among the most intrusive, was predicated by opposition research and paid for by hillary clinton and procured by foreign -- hillary clinton. fbi attorney falsified evidence in order to new the surveillance against carter page, a law-abiding citizen. here hoped we had him before you. we wrote to the chairman to have this happen and it never happened. i understand perfectly well that this abuse did not occur on this watch. however, i think you would agree that that it is on your shoulders to address it vigorously. failedtom line, the fbi to adequately protect the civil liberties that must be corrected. i want to argue an even larger point. whether one supports or does not support this president, it is undeniable that an unfair cloud was on the administration. we have seen this before. in 1970, the committees were formed to safeguard american citizens from the powers of the government. robert kennedy spying on martin luther king jr.. adventctions sparked the of a law intended to protect u.s. citizens in the creation of a special court to oversee implantation of the new legal restrictions on surveillance -- pullman tatian of the new legal restrictions on surveillance. the newmplementation of legal restrictions on surveillance. prior to march 15, our committee and this congress must make critical decisions about reauthorization of fisa. the law is about fighting terrorists. it is also a tall order. we must authorized several provisions. in a matter of the 2016 election, the fbi fell short of what it expected. the improper spying of an american citizen can never happen again. that is the great irony. the law was passed to address abuses and was abused for political purposes. you have proposed solutions and i'm glad to see that. i am proud of the work that you have done. i worry that some of those will fall short and that is why we are here today. change to be a cultural attitude. i am concerned with words like omission and misstatement downplay the intentional conduct and bias exhibited by central players involved in the carter page surveillance. vantage point, this is not a time to parse words. public servants abuse their positions for applicable purpose . of course, the fbi keeps us safe. i appreciate your georgia connection and your family roots. you have served us well in my district. the men and women of the fbi have dedicated their lives to protect american people. as the son of a trooper, i've grown to respect the institution. heftyeadership is a responsibility. bring to that forefront as you consider the efforts to burned -- to prevent future abuses. we will be clouded by the fact that you are the first real oversight of the department of justice that we have had under this majority and we have not had the report here because the majority chose not to. the men and women of the fbi are some of the most valuable assets we have in the dedication should never be questioned. there are some bad actors and bad actors need to be called out. the vast majority of good actors need to be applauded. i want to thank you. i look forward to this hearing we continue to do our proper job of oversight as we move forward with this. thank you for being here. i yelled back. -- yield that. >> i want to note the presence of the former chairman of this committee and my good friend. good to see you in this room again. i want to remind the ranking member that this is not our first attempt at oversight of the justice department. we invited the attorney general last year and he refused to come. we subpoenaed him and he refused to obey a subpoena. glad mr. wray is here today. christopher wray became the eighth director of the fbi. he served in various roles at the department of justice, including assistant u.s. attorney for the northern district of georgia. 2003, he was non-native by president george bush to be -- he was nominated by president george bush. before working in law enforcement, he clerked at the u.s. court of appeals and worked in international law firm. yaleceived his ba from university and his jd from yale law school. please rise. do you swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to get is true and correct to the best of your knowledge so help you god? thank you. the witness has answered in the affirmative. please note that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. i ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. there is a timing light on your table. when the light turns red, it signals your five minutes have expired. director wray: thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member collins, members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss how the men and women of the fbi are keeping us all safe from an ever-growing array of threats. in the two years since i became the fbi director, i visited all 56 of our field offices around the country and met with state and local law enforcement partners from all 50 states. every state represented by this committee. i have met with all of our headquarters divisions with scores of our foreign law enforcement partners and intelligence community partners, community leaders, prosecutors, judges and with crime victims and their families. i know up close. the threats are the and challenging in 37,000 men and women of the fbi are working around the clock to combat them. as this committee is well aware, we face a diverse and increasingly dangerous terrorism threat. we continue to worry about international terrorism by groups like al qaeda and isis but now the threat from loan actors already here in the u.s. and inspired by those groups. the homegrown violent extremist, that threat is even more acute. we are focused on domestic terrorism, especially racially or ethnically motivated violence extremist. not only is the terror threat diverse, it is unrelenting. in the last several months alone, just to name a few, are joint terrorism task force have foiled synagogue bombings in colorado and nevada, arrested eight members of the violent extremist group called the base, arrested a guy down in miami for planning isis associated acts of violence. we are also facing the growing and increasing blended threats of cyber intrusions and state-sponsored economic espionage. we are worried about the threat of maligned foreign influence, including the security of our elections, a topic on everyone's mind this year. we know that her adversaries are actively trying to influence national policy, public opinion, and our elections. together with our close partners in the intelligence community and dhs, state governments and elsewhere, the fbi remains laser focused on protecting our democracy as we move through this election year. we face ruthless gangs threatening our neighborhoods in our schools. the scourges of opioid trafficking, human trafficking, crimes against children. the list of threats that we face is not getting any shorter in each of those threats is evolving and scale and impact and complexity and agility. hanging over all of them are broader challenges like maintaining lawful access to increasingly encrypted electronic evidence that we actually need to find, stop, and prosecute criminals. to tackle these threats, we are relying on our deep well of expertise, intelligence, and partnerships. at the same time, we are making some important changes to the way we operate at the fbi. as both you and ranking member collins noted in december, the inspector general's office released its report on the 2016 crossfire hurricane investigation. the failures highlighted in that report are unacceptable. period. they don't reflect who the fbi is as an institution and they cannot be repeated. the fbi has embraced every last one of the inspector general's recommendations but we are also making a number of improvements above and beyond those recommended by the inspector general. i've already ordered more than 40 corrective actions, including significant modifications to our isa policies and procedures. we are training every employee on those new processes. i will tell this committee that i see every day how fisapensable our responsibilities are to protecting the american people. it is our responsibility to honor our duty of candor to the fisa court when seeking to use our authority and to exercise those powers when approved by the court in trust, carefully and responsibly. since taking on the leadership of the fbi, in august of 2017, i have spoken to every fbi field office and every headquarters component in the bureau about the importance of getting our processes right about operating at all times by the book. i have installed a new leadership team helping me drive home that insistence on doing the right thing, the right way, every time, and the need to hold ourselves accountable when we fall short of that mark. that is what i think the american people expect and that is what i think the american people deserve. i may not have been in this job during the problems described in the report but i am here now in my leadership team and i are fiercely focused on preventing these kinds of failures from happening again. at the end of the day, while this scrutiny can be difficult and even painful, i am confident the fbi will emerge and even better and stronger organization. that arent to note crucial usa freedom act authorities are expiring in march, including the roving wiretaps, business records and lone wolf provisions. none of those authorities were in any way an issue in the ig's report and i would urge congress to permanently reauthorize them. they are vital to our littlest efforts to keep something like 325 million american people safe. the american people can be confident that the fbi will never stop working to safeguard our country against a wider than criminal and national security threats. i am confident we will be doing the right thing in the right way . i want to think this committee for your continued support of the bureau and i'm happy to take your questions. >> thank you. questions bygin recognizing myself. you referred to reportreport, and not found considerable mistakes and considerable bad practices in the incident reviewed, correct? director wray: correct. >> you understand that you will do everything to correct that. i think we all know that. is it correct that that report also found that there was no evidence whatsoever that the anyakes the fbi made had political motive against the president or anyone else? director wray: i would just refer you to the report itself. the inspector general put a lot of hard work into that investigation. a million something documents, very thorough, very independent, 500 pages. director wray: is it correct, sir? -- >> is it correct, sir? >> there are specific findings on that. reporting suggests the president plans to seek payback against those individuals he believes crossed him during the impeachment proceedings. i am sorry to have to ask, is the president or the attorney general or any official ask the fbi to open an investigation into joe biden, hunter biden, john bolton or any member of congress? chairman, iy: mr. have assured the congress and i can assure the congress today that the fbi will only open investigations based on the facts and the law and proper predication. >> i understand that and i assume it is correct that neither the president nor the attorney general or any other official has asked the fbi to open improper lyrical investigations. -- political investigations. what reporting mechanisms are available for fbi officials and employees to report concerns if they believe the agency or they are being asked to pursue politically motivated investigations? director wray: there are a number of avenues that an employee who is troubled by any number of things, whistleblower upvisions, the ability to go there supervisory chain. we have a number of mechanisms independent of the supervisory chain inside the organization. there are reporting mechanisms to congress. >> there are provisions to -- designed to protect the enemy in any -- anonymity of whistleblowers. director wray: there are a number of provisions that deal with protecting whistleblowers, which i think is important. >> the fbi's position on encryption is well known. ont october, when speaking facebook's plans, you said this would be a dream come true for predators and child pornography. -- pornographers. they were able to totally encrypt without a backdoor, this would be a terrible thing. that is what you said. director wray: we don't think they're asking for a backdoor. but that is correct, yes. >> a lot of people argue that encryption present a risk to public safety. the letter goes on to state, it is imperative that innovative security techniques are constantly maintained and improved to protect dod information resources. the department believes maintaining a domestic climate for state-of-the-art security and encryption is critical to the protection of our national security. i am curious to understand how the fbi squares its position on encryption and the need to make sure there are means that we can encryption everywhere. how they square that will the effect it will have beyond the bureau's investigation. it seems the fbi is taking one position in the department of defense a totally opposite position. any comment? director wray: i don't think the department of defense has taken a position on what facebook should be doing about its messaging platform. i would tell this committee that the fbi believes strongly in encryption. we have a cybersecurity mission, which is one of our top priorities. we also have to have mechanisms that allow lawful access to protect flesh and blood americans. speak, theeven as we national center for missing and exploited children gets 18 million tips. 18 million tips a year related to child exploitation. 18 million. and some vast swath of those come from facebook. facebook moves forward with the plans they have at the moment, we will be blinded. they will blind themselves and law enforcement, no matter what lawful process this committee ever comes up with to allow a sack sent -- access to that content, those predators will still be out there. what will change is that no matter what lawful authority we have been given, that will disappear. i don't think that is a decision that one company should be making on behalf of the american people. chairman nadler: that is a very summary of the fbi's well-known position. the dod seems to have the opposite position. dod -- i amknow the asking if you do know. these positions seem completely at odds with each other and dod is not commenting and you are not commenting on facebook. if you are familiar with the contradiction, would you comment? director wray: i don't think there is a contradiction between the steps we take to protect the country's most sensitive national security and defense information and having individual manufacturers design their systems in a way knowingly to blind law enforcement all over this country. chairman nadler: there has been a lot of confusion about the bureau's role in conducting background checks for senate confirmed appointments, including judicial nominees. when conducting these background checks, the fbi is restricted to the scope and subject matter. in the case of justice kavanaugh's appointment, i understand the agency was the white house. the white house counsel's office. yes or no, if the white house had directed the fbi to interview some witnesses but not others, or if they had told you to complete the process by a certain date, with the fbi have followed that request? -- with the fbi have followed that request? director wray: the process that exists for background investigations, including supplemental updates, is very different from a criminal investigation or national security investigation. as you noted, long-standing practice and process, the fbi is the investigative service provider and we do whatever we only at the direction or request of the adjudicating agency, which would be the white house. they present the scope -- chairman nadler: they said the scope. in other words, if the white house or the senate is requesting investigation says tell us everything you know about this fellow, you would do that. if they save, only look at this or that, you only look at this or that. director wray: we follow the request of the adjudicating agency. that is not unique to the justice kavanaugh situation. that is a long-standing process and i have consulted with our background investigation specialists, as i did back at the time, to ensure that this process, as it was in that instant, was done by the book. chairman nadler: if there is criticism, if there is criticism of the limited scope of the fbi investigation, the criticism would be directed at the fbi -- not of fbi but whoever issued the instructions eliminating the scope of the investigation. director wray: i can't speak whether there should be criticism. chairman nadler: if there is to be criticism, the criticism would be directed at whoever gave you the instructions as to the scope of the investigation. director wray: if the senate or congress wants the scope to be broader, they should direct that request to the adjudicating agency. chairman nadler: very good. i recognize mr. collins for his questioning. >> i am assuming we are operating -- it is going to be a long hearing. it is an interesting timeframe. it is interesting to me that we beforeck -- i heard this my question time and i will have plenty of time. i heard this before we started reinvestigateould the kavanaugh hearings. it took 13 months to get there but we started that process this morning. it is interesting that the chairman could not let it go. thisthe drive-by of committee still amazes me. let's go back to something that is actually here for you discuss. wiretaps, thel agent must attempt to seek evidence in less intrusive matter -- mr firs saw cannot ben obtained through normal investigative techniques. -- you aware whether as to the facts of the inspector general's report, i would refer to the report itself. i am very sensitive about not trying to characterize or summarize his findings just like i don't like it when people do it to my investigations. have tried any other means before seeking a fisa against carter page or joe smith? the proper procedure should be that they have to go through less intrusive means. would that not be proper procedure? director wray: i think every investigation -- and get -- investigative decision, has to follow specific procedures and safeguards. it is fact dependent in fact specific based on a whole slew of circumstances. it is hard for me to answer one hypothetical. it does not give you a carte blanche to just bypass rules. chairman nadler: absolutely -- director wray: absolute right. i don't think anyone has carte blanche to access -- bypass rules. >> i think that is one of the things in discussing this, i do believe you have set forth and attempted to find ways to reassume trust in the agencies involved. i spoke about it in my opening statement and talked about how we come to this part and most people are forgetting the reason we have a fisa court was because of the abuses when left uncontrolled outside of fisa. i understand there is a lot of concern about the process and the pfizer court. -- pfizer court and the secret to sub it. court and the secrecy to it. left unregulated, we see what happens there as well. to be abused it under a regulated system. the question is not, could we do a new committee to look at this from a wholesale perspective? my more perspective -- my more specific question, if you are , but inat changing fisa macrolevel, how can we restore -- how do we restore trust in the agencies and the intelligence agencies? they should beve trusted to self police? director wray: i believe the american people should have confidence in the intelligence community. there are number of things the inspector general's report identified that should be changed and can be changed and we have agreed with every single one of those. i cannot go through my entire list of 40 corrective actions but they are all designed to improve the process, to improve accountability internally, to improve the rigor and the discipline of the safeguards that exists for that very important tool that we rely on every day to keep people in this country safe. >> i think that is sometimes missing in this rhetoric. some of those -- some of us may not agree that they went far enough. discussedistic ways in the horwitz report. most americans don't understand that, especially when you are dealing with their civil liberties. one of the issues that has been coming up, i am concerned that -- or have taken active positions -- why should we trust -- just as a question for you, do you trust the attorneys to fairly present cases to court? our civil liberties being are civil liberties being protected? director wray: the whole amicus process is the purview of the pfizer court -- fisa court itself. the law was changed in 2010 to clarify. we do lots and lots of fisas that don't raise controversial issues for any of this committee all the time. they are incredibly important. i would be very leery entertaining any kind of change that would have all kinds of unintended consequences. we do a lot with fisa to protect this country from the terrorist threat. as someone who lived through 9/11 in the fbi building itself and in my prior doj tenure worked very closely on the 9/11 related investigations, met with the families, i can assure numbers of this committee that we need those authorities. we need the agility to stay had of the threat. >> the question comes in the bigger scope, the priority of that court comes under this jurisdiction, is the perception that it is -- it has become a problematic process. you can have 100 -- 99 very proper -- but that one or two, especially when it had the emphasis it had in the last three or four years, does cause a perception issue. you wanted to describe it, there was a problem. conduct a review on the carter page fisa investigation? director wray: i do not want to characterize exactly what he said about the process in the carter page -- --you would have bad access you would have had access to these records. i'm not asking about the report. madetor wray: we have significant reviews of the materials underlying the carter page fisa applications, including steps we have taken to clawback the information that was collected. >> is that a yes? was a review done on the application? director wray: we reviewed the file underlying the applications. >> there was a review. what are the findings that you can share? director wray: i don't think there are any findings i can share today. looked at this, you are now saying you have looked at the review process. is there concerns, what would be your concern that this would not happen again, especially finding the issues or lack of issues. this is becoming -- if you have looked at it, how is that compatible with what should have happened? why have more changes not taken place? director wray: a number of the 40 plus corrective actions that i have already directed go to ensuring the rigor and discipline of the process. you my final question. knowing what you know because you have looked over the process, do you think there was a properly done investigation? this is you. i am not talking about the horwitz report. reportr wray: the describes conduct that is unacceptable and un-representable of the fbi and that includes ways in which those particular applications were handled. >> one us question. has there been any determination the fisa to the press? director wray: i don't have anything i can share on that. >> have we looked? director wray: i cannot speak to specific leak investigations or anything of that sort. >> are you saying there is an ongoing investigation? director wray: i am not saying that. >> point of order, mr. chairman. since the chair and the ranking member have consumed about 10 minutes, is it safe to say we are going back to the five minute rule for everyone else? how lenient will the chair be with all the rest of the members? i don't know that we necessarily want leniency because we have the five minute rule for good reason. >> i would like leniency but let me welcome you and thank you for your service. record that on the the ig report did point to unsavory behavior but it did not condemn the entire agency, the men and women who have served. the stereotype, i hope, have expired -- has expired. director wray: the inspector general's report describes conduct that is unacceptable and unrepresentative of who the fbi is today. i don't think it is a referendum on the 37,000 men and women of the fbi. >> i would like to take that for the record. let me acknowledge our foreman chairman. let me also associate myself with chairman nadler that we attempted many times to have oversight with attorney general barr. at ave been doing our job difficult time so we are you're here. i would like a letter directed individual the special agent in charge and their ability to produce a pay --in nonpolitical participate in nonpolitical events dealing with drug trafficking and gun violence. when one has requested it, you get a yes and then somebody has to call washington and i don't -- i need a letter directed to me on that policy. is a rageimes, there of hate crimes by white nationalists and white racist. you have indicated a number of cases. can you give me what the fbi is doing proactively to deal with the rise in the hate crimes against religious groups and racial groups, minorities and immigrants? director wray: thank you for the question. we have domestic terrorism and hate crimes as a close cousin of domestic terrorism at the top of the priority list. there are a few things i have done recently to further intensify our efforts. ago ated a few months domestic terrorism hate crimes to bring together the expertise of our domestic terrorism folks in our hate crime folks to work together to look ahead around the corner and anticipate where else we need to be. we have also ensured that all of our 200 plus joint terrorism task forces have domestic terrorism squarely in their sites. last, but not least, i would add -- i have elevated racially motivated violent extremism as a national threat priority for fiscal year 20 which puts it on the same footing as isis. >> i would like to be able to have a briefing on that, whether classified or appropriately in a briefing. i would like to understand better what they do and i would like to make sure that it is broad-based. i would also like a classified roofing on the response -- briefing on the response going forward. in the report, it talks about discrimination against women. i would add to that, discrimination against african-americans. what are you doing about that? i will officially ask for a letter detailing what you are doing. if you could give me a component of what you are doing. director wray: on the issue of diversity, it is important to us, one of our core values. i have made significant efforts to energize our diversity agent recruiting, including speaking at some of those events myself. >> do you have any african-americans in that top leadership? director wray: i have appointed a number of african-americans to lead some of our biggest field offices, for example. >> my apologies for cutting you off. ofant an official letter where they are placed in what you are doing about women and gender discrimination. i hope the iowa democrats will ask for an investigation. i believe russia has been engaged in interfering with a number of elections. would you answer these two questions? voter suppression and about your work to end racial profiling. there is extensive racial profiling, specifically in groups that may be considered black identity groups that may be labeled. voter suppression and as it relates to russian involvement and the work on ending racial profiling on the federal level. director wray: maybe it would be better for me to answer both of those with a follow-up mitigation. -- follow-up communication. neither is a short answer. we are also concerned about potential russian interference with our elections. that is why i created the foreign influence task force which is focused on that topic, among other nationstates attempting to influence our elections. on the question of the so-called >>ck identity extremists -- racial profiling, thank you. director wray: racial profiling, that would be a longer answer. i have taken to heart a lot of the feedback i got from a number of people. i think we are moving in the right direction on those topics. we don't investigate ideology or rhetoric or anything of that sort no matter whether it is in that context or anything else. we investigate when there is credible evidence of a criminal violation, credible evidence of a violence or threat of violence or in support of some ideology. >> i yield back. >> thank you for being here today. you have referred to the review of so-called crossfire hurricane investigation by inspector general michael horowitz. reportedctor general serious flaws in overreach by the fbi in the application carter page.rveill the review did not conclude your predecessor was politically motivated, the way they went about obtaining the fisa warrants continues to be deeply concerning too many people. given that there is an election less than a year away, it seems to me that significant changes need to occur to address fisa application abuses by the fbi. what are some of the changes you are implementing that will help to ensure that politically motivated agencies are unable to pursue applications with unverified, uncorroborated or downright false information? director wray: thank you for the question. i was deeply concerned by what i read in the inspector general's report. i consider it to have described conduct i consider unacceptable and unrepresentative of the fbi that i know. there are a number of things that i think go to addressing those concerns. i will name a few of them. tonel say it starts with at the top. i have been communicating unambiguously that how we do what we do matters. the american people expect the fbi not just to get the right result but to go about it in the right way. i've been pounding process, process, process everywhere i go and i put in place a whole new leadership team that is helping the amplify that message. we have put in place a whole number of -- and they are getting kind of technical -- process and policy changes that go both to our use of fisa and also to our use of confidential sources and how those get incorporated into the process. we have put in place new training. i put in place last summer, over 18 months ago, a training that it did not exist before all focused on not just avoiding bias but avoiding the appearance of bias. and i started, in this is important, i started by requiring all of the top people -- not the way government usually works -- i started by requiring everybody at the top of the house, all 200-plus s.e.s. folks in the bureau to come into quantico for a full day to get coached by judges, the inspector general and others, trying to set the tone, the idea that it starts at the top. i put in place training that didn't exist before, policies that didn't exist before, processes that didn't exist before, oversight that didn't exist before. and where there are people who are still left, most of whom are effectively at the line level or at least were at the time of the inspector general report they've , been referred to our office of responsibility, which is our disciplinary arm. rep. chabot: thank you. i'd like to ask one more question. the president signed into law the fix nix act and i think you mentioned that in march 2018 to help close reporting gaps in the national incident criminal background check system, commonly referred to as "nix." getting that as accurate to ensure records were access to those doesn't put the lives of innocent men, women and children at risk. a few months ago in november, the attorney general roe leesed a report detailing improvements in the nix system since the enactment of this important legislation based on preliminary data. but instead of highlighting and building upon the improvements detailed in this report, unfortunately, this committee spent a considerable amount of time trying to impeach the president. in light of the reported results, what can congress do to help build upon those efforts to keep individuals who should not possess firearms from obtaining them? dir. wray: well, i think the fix nix act was a very important step forward, and at the end of the day we all share the goal of trying to keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited by law. that's what our nix examiners do every day. we have thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of nix checks that we have do do all the time. and making sure that we have accurate and complete records in the nix system is critical to making that happen. that's why i think the statute was such a step in the right direction. we continue to march forward on that effort. obviously resources to our folks out at the nix shop would be very much appreciated. i've actually gone out there myself and put on the headset and listened so that i can actually experience firsthand what those calls look like so i can actually feel and experience it and not just observe it from some conference room in d.c. so they do very, very important work, and again i thank the congress for the fix nix act. rep. chabot: thank you very much. my time as expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. cohen? rep. cohen: thank you, mr. chair. and thank you, director, for your service. you've brought distinction to the fbi and to the state of georgia, than congressman johnson hasn't done that as well, but you've certainly done it in a spectacular fashion. hate crimes is something that concerns me, as it does the chairman. and checking data on hate crimes is important and that's something the fbi does. 85 local law enforcement agencies with populations of 100,000 or more either did not report to the fbi or firm load reported zero incidents. that's hard to fathom. what can we do to improve participation in checking that data? a link tore be funding for agencies, communities to report? should the fbi field offices, which there are in 26 of those cities, have some effort to see that there's information sent in? do you have any suggestions on how we can get better reporting? dir. wray: well, congressman, i would say that i share your desire to make sure that we have as complete and accurate information reported about hate crimes, as possible. we also know hate crimes reporting has increased significantly over the years, and part of that is through outreach efforts that we have made with our state and local partners to encourage them to collect and report that information. the point that i always make two departments everywhere is that it is far better to have these issues evaluated based on the actual data rather than based on rumors or conventional wisdom more potentially inaccurate news reporting, and so they should all share the same goal that we have of making sure that it is the facts, and the facts will speak for themselves, so anything that can be done appropriately to encourage more of that is something i think we are always interested in. -- rep. cohen: well, whatever you can do to see that they are reported. hate crimes have risen in this country, and it's been the klan, which used to use stone mountain as a place to assemble, and neo-nazis, which we all saw in charlottesville, and we knew they were not fine people on both sides. that has been really harmful to a lot of people in this country who saw that and has seen the harm that the communists, that the nazis, and the klan have done over the years to jews, african-americans, and others. things like that go on forever and people are reminded of them. one of my early memories from my childhood going through atlanta was driving through nobody knowing about the bombing of the temple there in 1960, and that is an image that is hard to forget. emmett till -- i know there is still an investigation going on and i believe the department , of justice has reopened that investigation. can you tell me where that investigation stands? dir. wray: i am sorry. i could not quite hear that. rep. cohen: the emmett till investigation. has the fbi or department of justice reopened an investigation into that? dir. wray: i can't comment or discuss any investigation in this setting. rep. cohen: are you doing -- are you conducting some cold hate crimes and civil rights violation laws? or civil rights violations? are you going to cold cases? dir. wray: we are doing a lot of investigations in the hate crimes arena, both racially motivated and religiously motivated. it's one of the more active areas that we have right now. cohen: and in cold cases as well, to try to open them up? dir. wray: in some instances there are cold cases that are being looked at as well. let me ask you a general question. we do legislation, do you have any suggestions of legislation you'd like to see us consider to help the fbi in its mission? dir. wray: i don't have any legislative proposals for the committee as i sit here right now. rep. cohen: ok. you have made clear that the trump and -- mr. trump himself was not under investigation by the fbi prior to his election, is that -- taking office, is that correct? dir. wray: well, i was minding my own business in private practice when all that happened. so i didn't -- i didn't advise the president of anything related to, but but in your historical reflexes and looking at what the fbi did -- i don't want to get you in any more trouble than you're already in. i'll pass. i'll just say you should have considered all of your history in your family, yale, vanderbilt, i saw taylor ma lobe and i saw them in your -- it was a great company in memphis. thank you for that. i yield back the balance of my time. chair nadler: thank you. mr. gohmert? gohmert: thank you. director wray, thank you for being here. i wish i had enough time to address some of the things the chairman said that needed correcting, but questioning you is too important. first of all, have you ever signed an application for a warrant or an affidavit in support of an application for a warrant yourself? dir. wray: i've signed right now as fbi director, i sign the certification for fisa applications warrants, if that's , what you're talking about. gohmert: do you ever read them before you sign them? dir. wray: of course. rep. gohmert: all right. well, mr. rosenstein would not admit ever reading any of the things he signed, especially with regard to a fisa application, so that concerned greatly. i'm glad to hear you do. now, there's a report that mr. kline submitted that altered information supplied to the fisa court. that he was allowed to resign, is that accurate? dir. wray: well, mr. clinesmith is no longer with the fbi. and i don't think i can comment on a specific personnel matter beyond that. gohmert: ok, will let me -- when you have an fbi agent, and you don't need to defend the 37 employees, 37,000 employees, they're not being questioned. as a former judge, i had fbi agent come to me, they would never have dreamed of lying in an affidavit or changing information to misrepresent the facts to me or any other judge. there are people across the country whose reputations have been sullied by the improper or i believe you said unacceptable and unrepresentative actions at the fbi here in washington, d.c. they're not under attack. but the reputation of the fbi has been so sullied, and we all hoped that when you became director, you were going help fix that. but i can tell you, i know that you wouldn't be in this position if you didn't believe that there was deterrent effect in punishment. that's what law enforcement is engaged in, at least part of the job. so when you have somebody that violates american civil rights and commits a fraud upon the fisa court, and the court doesn't do anything but appoint somebody that's friendly to the position of the fraud, as in amicus, then we continue to have questions not only about what needs to be done to fix fisa but if we ought to go back to the 's, so thisre the '70 is serious, so when you have an fbi agent, and surely you're aware, to commit a fraud upon a fisa court or any court or to misrepresent facts in something that is sworn, those can involve crimes, and this guy's not even fired? and there's no indication he's going to be prosecuted? i know you're saying it's a personnel matter so i can't get into it, but i'm telling you, the fbi reputation here in washington cannot be cleaned up until there are people that are held to account for the unacceptable actions here in washington, and letting somebody resign sends a message to anybody else that wants to get political active and used their job at the fbi to further a political will, the message to them is, well, if i get caught, i'll be asked to go take a more -- a better-paying job somewhere else. great punishment. no deterrence. and business goes on as usual. we needed an fbi director that would clean this mess up so americans could feel good about it, and i can tell you when you come in and say, it's a personnel matter, can't really deal with it -- or talk about it, you're not helping improve the reputation. i want to bring up another matter. you know about 302's. about the last law enforcement agency or department in the country that doesn't video or audio tape statements that are made. and they've been allowed to do that because they have such a great reputation or did. but now that we've seen 302's get changed, different opinions, what did he say, what did he not say, especially with general flynn. many of us are wondering if it isn't time to bring the fbi into the 21st century at least into , the last half of the 20th century, and start having fbi agents record statements by people that are being questioned by fbi agent's to help the fbi get their reputation back. agents to help get the fbi reputation back. i mean, some of the justices of the peace will look for that. would you consider supporting the recording of statements to fbi agents rather than just a written summary that can be changed later by an fbi agent? dir. wray: well, congressman, there are certain circumstances under which statements are currently recorded already at the fbi, and that is a change. i think this is a subject that requires longer discussion, but i'd be happy to have my staff follow back up with you. as to the question of the fbi's reputation and candor to the court, i don't want to let this time expire without telling you how strongly i feel about candor to the court. i've been a prosecutor, i've been a defense attorney, i've been an assistant attorney general, i've been an fbi director, and to me, candor to and iurt is sacrosanct, don't think there's anybody in the fbi that is belaiboring under the misimpression that i think it is ok to mislead a court. the vast people are gone from the fbi. of those who are left -- the gentleman's time has expired. dir. wray: and none in the national security -- chair nadler: the witness can answer the question. dir. wray: thank you, mr. chairman. the people who have left were longerly line-level people at the time of the matter in question. those people have all been referred to our disciplinary arm. and the reason i'm not engaging with you on a specific personnel matter is because my commitment to ensuring proper accountability ensures that is done by the book, and by the book, to me, does not include discussing a pending personnel issue in this hearing. so i respect the reason for your question, i share your passion both about the reputation of the fbi and about the importance of candor to the court. chair nadler: mr. johnson. thank you.n:: i want to commend the fbi director. you came out of a very lucrative private practice of law. you were at the pinnacle of your career as a lawyer, after having served in government for a number of years at a very high level, and so, after 10 years of being out in the practice of law, both as a defense lawyer and handling other matters, you were called upon to return to government service, and you accepted the call at a considerable financial disadvantage, but you still accepted the call to come back and head up the fbi. and in your confirmation proceeding, you were asked a question in the senate, if you believed that the investigation into the russian 2016 election interference was a witch hunt. and under what many would have felt was -- would be pressure to say -- to equivocate in some way, you came right out and you said that, no, you did not believe that it was a witch hunt. and ever since then, you have conducted yourself as fbi director in that same honest and forthright way. and that's a refreshing code of -- that's a refreshing conduct that you have exemplified in the midst of a anti-institutionlist trump administration, which has applied pressure to you to conform, just like most others have conformed to its anti-institutionlism. and you have protected the fbi, and isn't it a fact that there was no finding in the i.g. report that the fbi committed a fraud upon the fisa court? isn't that true? dir. wray: well, congressman, as i -- i want to be consistent in the way i'm answering everyone's questions. as to the inspector general's report, you know, he put in an enormous amount of work, over a million documents, 170 interviews, and i just don't want to be characterizing his findings. he made very specific findings both about what he found and what he did not find in that report. johnson:: he didn't say the fbi committed a fraud on the fisa court. i just don't read the report to say that. now, he did identify some deficiencies in the warrant reauthorization application process, and i think you'll probably find those kinds of shortcomings in every law enforcement agency in america. if you look carefully enough, you'll find some of that going on. but i'm convinced that you have made it clear that no cutting of corners, no taking the easy way out, do it the hard way, and i expect that from the fbi. and so, i want to thank you for your conduct in protecting the fbi as an institution. it's not a rogue agency out there hurting people. and i'll say this about encryption. when it comes to domestic terrorism and hate crimes and right-wing extremists, nationalist groups, anti-semitic groups out here, using encryption to organize, to plan, and then to conduct operations to -- that actually result in people being killed and injured, and our government being destabilized, and you're doing it in a way that you cannot be surveilled, you cannot be held to account in any way after the fact for what you did. i think that is a danger to our society. and on the other hand, when it comes to the government of, by , and for the people, to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare, if we can't rely on our government to have the ability to protect its own secrets while at the same time getting at wrongdoing -- wrong doers try to keep secret, then we are in dangerous territory. so i think we need to honestly take a look at these things. now, i had some questions i wanted to ask, but i'm running out of time, and i'm going to abide by the five-minute period. once again, i'll say thanks. but last, i'll say i look forward to the day when i can look at the front row of folks behind the fbi director who comes to present with staff, and i look forward to day when -- look forward to the day when i can see some diversity on that row. i look forward to the day when i can see somebody who looks like me on that row. i know that there's a lot of young, black kids out here who aspire to go into law enforcement, and as far as i'm concerned, the fbi is the pinnacle of law enforcement, and i want them to feel like they have a chance to reach the top. and so i thank you for your service to the nation. chair nadler: gentleman yields back. mr. jordan. rep. jordan:: thank you, thank you for being here and your leadership of those 37,000 people you talked about busting their tail every day. we appreciate that. and i appreciate your comments about mr. horowitz's report saying it was unacceptable, but i'm concerned because it didn't seem to me that you had quite the same outrage in your response letter to inspector general horowitz december 6, 2019, you wrote a letter, the third sentence you said this, the report's findings and recommendations represent constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization. "constructive criticism that will make us stronger." what we allu know know, that in july, the fbi spied on people associated with the campaign. courti went to the fisa and lie to the court 17 times. the fbi took the dossier, the now famous dossier, to fisa court. they didn't tell the court the guy who wrote it was desperate -- had communicated to them he was desperate to stop trump. he did not tell the guy who wrote it, mr. steele, was paid by the clinton campaign to put it all together, and when all of that is pointed out to you in a 400-page report, you say thanks for the constructive criticism. a 400-page report that says there were 51 assertions the top people of the fbi made to the court that weren't backed up, that weren't supported at all, and it's called constructive criticism. constructive criticism is when you're -- when your grade school teacher tells you study more, for the spelling test. constructive criticism is when one of my colleagues says, "hey, jim, you should have asked your questions different last week." that is constructive. here's what mr. horowitz said, the inspector general said, so many errors were made by three separate teams on one of the most sensitive fbi investigations that was briefed to the highest levels in the fbi. maybe more importantly, here's what judge collier wrote. she said this in her public order. the frequency, with which representations made by fbi personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their position and with which they with held information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other appliqué -- other fbi applications is reliable. put that in plain english, they gave so much wrong information here, how are we supposed to trust any other representations made to the court? even jim comey. even jim comey on december 17 said something i thought i'd never hear jim comey said, "i was wrong. we were overconfident." so i'm a little concerned. i appreciate you saying this was unskeptable, and candor to the court. but that's not -- what took place -- what took place in this report is way past constructive criticism. this is -- this was a major royal screwup. this is way past constructive criticism. dir. wray: i'm sorry. is there a question? rep. jordan: there is. dir. wray: what's the question? rep. jordan: i'm concerned you're not taking this seriously enough. are you taking it seriously enough, director wray? dir. wray: i think i have demonstrated unam big wowsly that i take this very seriously. at the same time that the letter that you read occurred, i communicated in no uncertain terms to my leadership team and the entire fbi workforce, that i consider the inspector general's report to have described conduct that i consider unacceptable. rep. jordan: it was more -- dir. wray: and unrepresentative of who we are. hy didn't youw write that in here? dir. wray: i addressed the letter because i think -- the letter i think to me -- rep. jordan: let me point out -- dir. wray: i'm sorry. go ahead. rep. jordan: let me just point out you one of the things you said. one of the recommendations, if you're going to do a -- pull this from the field office, run an investigation out of the headquarters on a sensitive matter, you should have proper protocols in place, checks and balances. you said we accept this recommendation. we got to be careful of doing these. which is what crossfire hurricane was, run by the top people at the fbi. they're all gone. but one of the recommendations you say you're going to do, we're going to require fbi deputy director approval prior to opening any fbi-sensitive matter. shazam. that means andy mccabe has to sign off on it. isn't that how we got here? he has to sign off so now the deputy director signs off, and you're going to run it and pull it from the field office? is that going to solve the problem? dir. wray: that is not the complete -- rep. jordan: i'm reading. dir. wray: let me -- rep. jordan: i'm reading what you wrote. requiring approval prior to opening sensitive investigative matter. dir. wray: the corrective action that we put in place on that particular issue was involved in a number of things. one, to communicate to the field that only in the rarest of circumstances, which was not communicated before, should any investigation, sensitive investigation, be conducted out of headquarters. one. two, in addition to requiring deputy detector signing offer, for those rare circumstances where that strong presumption would be rebutted, it not only required sign-off by the deputy director but also by the affected field offices. and that's a difference. that's what's different. so you couldn't have some small group of people at headquarters making the determination that , oh, this is an exception. now, the field offices that would otherwise be the presumptive offices to run those investigations, their leadership have to be involved in the discussion. so the people can make sure that any decision to do this -- rep. jordan: who makes the call? chair nadler: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. deutsch. rep. deutch: thank you. i want to add my voice to this. thank you and the 37,000 men and women of the fbi who work to keep us safe. i want to thank the fbi for its work in trying to bring bob levinson home. as you know, bob was the longest .issing in march 2007, and he served for 25 years of the fbi, and the levinson family community across the springs, all over america, are desperate for him to return. i ask that you prioritize his case in the bureau and in your inter-agency counterparts. by talking about gun violence and making an observation. i mean that not as a slight against the ranking member. but every time there is a reference to actions by this committee as drive-bys, a number of us cringe. and i want to point out over the past 24 hours, 24 hours, there were drive-by shootings in connecticut, texas, michigan, illinois, washington, nebraska, florida, and wisconsin. we're very sensitive. i'm glad you're here to be able to talk about the issue of gun violence. in your testimony, you said the fbi is concerned about this, primarily shootings, as they have served as the dominant role in domestic violence attacks. you spoke earlier in your exchange with mr. chabot about the role that fix nix has played, so i'd ask you whether you believe that congress should strengthen gun laws to further veechbtprevent the types of attacks that you referenced? dir. wray: well, the fbi won't be taking positions on specific pieces of legislation but will be happy to provide operational input on any proposal but i , think we all share the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those who are prohibited from having them and things that take steps in that direction i think are things we should encourage. we share deeply the concerns about violence committed with guns around this country. and i think we've demonstrated that through our investigations, through our nix examiners, and a variety of other means. rep. deutch: i'd like to follow up on a question that senator bumenthaul asked you at your hearing. he asked whether you would support strengthening gun laws, you said i would want to take a look at any specific proposal and get back to you once i had evaluated a specific piece but i do support dealing with gun violence aggressively, and i think my record is consistent with that, closed quote. director it's been 343 days hr-8ce the house passed and hr 12. the first requires background checks on private sales, the second would increase the minimum waiting period from three to 10 business days. if an additional 10 days lapsed without confirmation, the dealer could sell to the buyer. have you had the opportunity over these past 343 days to review those specific proposals? dir. wray: i have not. deutch: i'll be honest. that's the answer i expected, and yet it's shocking. i understand that the role of the fbi is not to advocate the. -- but i also know that for those 37,000 men and women who are out there every day trying to keep us safe, that we share the same commitment to do everything we can to keep them safe while they're doing their job. and you told senator blumenthal that you just needed an opportunity to review before making a determination about whether it could help. you talked today with my colleague, mr. chabot, about how fix nix does the job to help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. there's a piece of legislation that the house passed that would help to do exactly that. and you sit there, director wray, and tell us that you haven't really had a chance in 343 days to even consider whether this is the type of thing that can help protect the lives of the public and the lives of those 37,000 men and women who put themselves out there every day to keep us safe. it is -- it's beyond discouraging. we need to work together on this. we can't be silent on this. i hope that when the senate ultimately is forced to take up a piece of legislation that 90% of the american people believe is the right thing to do to help keep us safe and your agents safe, we'll be able to celebrate that together. until then, i hope you all have the opportunity to dig in, to understand that what we did here will help the save the lives of the men and women who work for you. i yield back. chair nadler: gentleman yields back. mr. buck. thank you, mr. chairman. director wray, for 25 years, i was a prosecutor, worked with fbi agents. they are bright, hardworking, dedicated professionals. it was an honor. but i'm deeply concerned about revelations concerning corruption in the past leadership of the fbi. i'm particularly troubled with the fbi's treatment of investigative journalists like cheryl atkinson. when the fbi spies on journalists, it undermines the integrity of our government and tarnishes the badge. in early 2011, sheryl atkinson began reporting on fast and furious, where the obama atf allowed illegal gun sales and watched as illegal purchasers walked over the mexican border straight into the mexican drug cartels. she exposed that and the fact that they were found at several crime scenes, including where u.s. border patrol had a man killed. she received an edward r. murrow award, an emmy award around investigative reporting award. another story involves a solar company involving an obama donor. obama secretary chew approved more than a billion dollars in taxpayer money to solyndra. bankrupt,dra went taxpayers lost 500 $28,000,000. $528 million. the administration sought to delay the layoff announcement until after the 2010 election. she also covered obama's benghazi coverup. thanks to her we know hillary , clinton ignored the warning signs. as allies were withdrawing, we did not. we know four americans died waiting in vein for our government to send help. we know susan rice, hillary clinton and ben rhodes lied blaming the attack on a video. atkinson was nominated for an emmy for her benghazi reporting. -- wray, much of the criticism may be unfair, but a free press is indispensable to our republic. america is better because of sheryl atkinson and investigative journalists. the american people to deserve to know the truth about their government, including with respect to fasting for you, solyndra, and benghazi. did the obama administration sodid the obama administration thank sheryl atkinson for her work? did the white house recognize her for keeping the public informed? did president obama present her with a presidential medal of freedom? no. using a highly politicized fbi, the administration spied on her, and that's what small-minded people do. government emails show the obama white house plotted to silence her stories after suspicious incidents involving her home internet, computers and phones, atkinson hired a forensic computer expert, who determined she was hacked by an ip address used by the fbi to conduct domestic surveillance and that spyware proprietary to the severalgovernment and classified files had been inserted on her computer. cbs news, her employer, undertook a second forensic exam confirming those conclusions. , former government officials including one from the fbi later admitted they took part in this illegal surveillance. when confronted with the facts, atkinson did what a good investigative journalist does. she sought the truth. as a last resort, she sued doj and the fbi in search of justice. did the fbi come clean? admit what happened? no. they engaged in delay tactics, prompting federal judge james win, an obama appointee, to write a scathing rebuke. -- rebuke of the government's conduct. i am short on time. i will forward questions for response. basically, i'm interested in knowing whether the fbi was directed to obtain information about investigative journalists by the obama white house including for purposes of creating or maintaining an enemies list. has the fbi attempted to retrieve data from my electronic device by sheryl atkinson, james rosen or any journalist with the associated press? in each instance where that occurred, i would like it if the fbi would identify what legal authority such actions took place. director wray, the fbi must put restrictions in place to prevent an administration regardless of party from using them for political purposes. if you do not work to expose past abuses, i believe it will be difficult to receive congressional support for fisa providingtforms information. i yield back. gentleman yields back. mr. jeffries. thank you, mr. chairman and director wray for your presence here today and your continuing service to the country. i think according to the fbi's website and your testimony earlier today, one of the highest priorities of the fbi is to deal with the impact that hate crimes have on the people of america, is that right? dir. wray: yes. counterterrorism is the number one priority of the fbi. rep. jeffries: and within that counterterrorism priority, domestic terrorism which leads to some of the hate crime incidents that we've seen, falls within that scope, is that right? dir. wray: yes. rep. jeffries: and i think each year the fbi releases a hate crimes statistics report, is that true? dir. wray: yes. rep. jeffries: and in the context of that report, i think you identify single bias incidents as an incident in which one or more criminal offenses are motivated by a particular bias, is that right? dir. wray: well, i haven't -- don't have the report in front of me, but that sounds consistent with my recollection. rep. jeffries: and is it fair to say that since 2017, there's been a significant increase in hate crime incidents here in america? dir. wray: between 2016 and 2018, there was definitely an increase in hate crimes reported, and i think we've reflected that in our reports. rep. jeffries: and so, a significant amount of those incidents are directed at individuals as a result of racial bias. is that true? dir. wray: yes. rep. jeffries: and so we've seen an increase in hate crimes directed at communities of color, correct? dir. wray: yes. rep. jeffries: and an increase in hate crimes directed at immigrant communities, is that right? dir. wray: less so of that, but yes. rep. jeffries: have we seen an increase in hate crimes directed at members of the jewish faith as well? dir. wray: i don't know that we have reliable data on that, but certainly we're deeply concerned about the anti-semitic violence we've been seeing in this country and there have been a number of attacks just in the last 18 months we've observed. so i do not know if there is reliable data on that one, but there's plenty of reason to be deeply concerned. rep. jeffries: i think based on your 2018, i think 20% of the incidents that fall within the hate crime category are crimes directed at individuals as a result of racial bias, is that right? dir. wray: i don't have the percentages in front of me. rep. jeffries: and i think in that category of anti-religious hate, approximately 55% of those anti-religious hate incidents are actually directed at members of the jewish community, is that fair to say? dir. wray: that sounds quite possible. again, i don't have the report in front of me, but as i said, we are extremely focused right now on anti-semitic attacks of which there have been an alarming number over the last 18 months alone. rep. jeffries: since 2017 the incidents directed at african-americans or latinos, people of color, immigrants, certainly members of the jewish community, what are some of the steps that you are taking in this climate of hatred that has festered over the last few years to address this alarming rise? dir. wray: well, we will not tolerate hate-fueled violence in our communities. and we're aggressive investigating them. i'll mention a couple and recap and will at a few. number one, we're using every tool in the toolbox, trying to be creative. so that's not just traditional gun charges, exclosive charges, things like that. but, for example, rising out of the charlottesville incident, we used the federal rioting statute to charge some people there, which was, you know, a fairly novel statute to rely on. i have created the hate crimes fusion cell, which did not exist before, to bring those two disciplines together. i've elevated racially-motivated violent extremists threat on the same as national threat priority along with isis and homegrown violent extremists. rep. jeffries: can i stop you right there? because i am running out of time, and i appreciate you articulating that. you mentioned charlottesville. one of the troubling things that came out of charlottesville beyond the death of a young woman who was there, which was incredibly tragic. some of the neo-nazis were "jews willve chanted not replace us." is that correct? dir. wray: i believe i remember hearing that that was said. rep. jeffries: and is that connected to a theory amongst white nationalists called replacement theory, where apparently there's this view that jews are genetically programmed to undermine christian civilization and seek to replace white christians with a more ethnically diverse population. is that correct? dir. wray: i'm not an expert on the different strands of white supremacist ideology. rep. jeffries: why were they chanting jews will not replace us in a context where there's all of this xenophobic, anti-immigrant activity, and then we see a rise in anti-semitic incidents, is the fbi actually looking into the connectivity between a theory that exists in the xenophobic attacks that have come from the highest office in the land? and then a troubling increase for a variety of reasons, and we need to deal with all of those reasons, but a troubling increase in anti-semitic incidents? dir. wray: we're investigating anti-semitic violence, so we don't investigate ideology or rhetoric no matter how abhorrent it is. what we do is investigate violence, and when it is violence that is fueled by some despicable ideology, then that's part of the investigation. rep. jeffries: thank you. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas is recognized. representative: director wray, good to see you. thanks for being here. i originally intended to talk to you about the encryption issue today. but given where this hearing started and where i think it's going as it relates to the issue of fisa abuse, i'm going to ask you about this. i want to give you an opportunity to hopefully answer these questions once and for all so that the rest of your testimony can be properly directed. it seems like some of my democratic colleagues, because this fisa process was initiated during the obama administration, that they want to focus on the fact that there was no abuse of the fisa process or that that abuse was not politically starting with chairman nadler, and my very first question to you was trying prior to establish, the inspector general found no motive or palooka bias against the president, and you responded that the inspector general's report speaks for itself. so does the inspector general, and inspector general horowitz, for the senate judiciary committee, said this, "on the fisa side we found a lack of documentary or testimonial evidence about intentionality. but we also noted the lack of satisfactory explanations and, in fact, for the reasons you indicated, it was unclear what the motivations were. on the one hand, gross negligence get on the other hand intentionality and everywhere in , between." just because no fbi agent tells the inspector general, "i admit. i am biased against president trump." that does not mean there is overwhelming evidence of bias in the record. to use just one example, an fbi lawyer involved intimately in this fisa process against the trump campaign associate, carter sent a number of texts in and around the election of president trump. here are a few of them. the crazies finally won. another one. this is the tea party on steroids. another one. pence is stupid. another text that he sent. i just can't imagine the systematic disassembly of the process that we made over the last eight years. and finally, when asked when he was going to keep working during the trump administration, he said, "viva la resistance." do evidence of political bias against president trump in those text messages? justwray: well, i would say, congressman, as i have said before that i consider the , report to have described conduct that i consider unacceptable and unrepresentative of who we are as an institution. i am not going to comment on specific people's conduct, for a variety of reasons, but i will say political bias has no place in today's fbi. rep. ratcliffe: well, i appreciate that, but that same fbi agent was the one that the inspector general found in the report was the one tampered with evidence by counterfeiting and email from an intelligence agency to illegally continue surveillance of a trump campaign associate. that is what happened. right director? just wray: again, i would refer you to the report. rep. ratcliffe: the report acknowledges that so does the department of justice and fisa court. they acknowledged this was illegal surveillance with respect to at least several of these fisa applications because there was not probable cause, correct? dir. wray: right. ratcliffe: so to my illegal surveillance and point, changing evidence to conduct illegal surveillance is of fraud oninition the court, is it not? dir. wray: well, i certainly think it describes conduct as utterly unacceptable. rep. ratcliffe: it took place here. dir. wray: we have accepted and i have been clear about this. we have accepted every finding and inspector general's report. including some that were very painful to us as an institution. rep. ratcliffe: i appreciate. i know what you are trying to do and the difficult position you are in. i think the record is clear. i remain convinced that the prior administration weaponized the fbi for political motivations and purposes. i just wonder whether or not you will be able to put the genie back in the bottle. i wish you the best of luck. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from california is recognized. you, andative: thank thank you, director, appearing today and what you do everyday. you,or those who work with thank them for what they do every day. mr. deutche talked about hour hope of the bipartisan background check will receive a vote in the senate. i hope that's the case on the case of two police officers. i am the brother of two police officers. while my brothers and i don't agree on every gun safety proposal that i had, i tell them everyday that they're all wanting to protect them and the people in our communities including fbi agents. i know here today are young people who are marching for our lives and even a father who was asked to leave the state of the union last night because of the passion he brings to this issue, fred guttenburg, who lost his daughter, jamie, at parkland, who does not want to take weapons from those who possess them legally. i look forward to working with our bureaus and keeping our shotguns and weapons and make sure they do not and up in the hands of the most dangerous people. director, are the russians interfering in our elections right now? dir. wray: well, i do not think we have seen any ongoing efforts to target election infrastructure like we did in 2016. we certainly are seeing and have never stopped seeing really since 2016 efforts to engage emmaline for influence by the russians, so that's the use of false personas and fake media accounts and social media stuff. the trolls, the box. all of that is described in great length in the i see a and in some of the indictments that have been returned since then. that kind of effort is still very much ongoing. that is not just an election cycle issue, but in an election year, it is an effort to influence our public in that regard. rep. swalwell: the russians amplifying contents of certain campaigns in the 2020 election? meaning creating accounts or crying to create discord or not just in general discord but deuce the bureau sees in effort to try to help or hurt any particular campaign through social media amplification? dir. wray: i have to say whether or not i can say in anything in open settings. the efforts to discord on both sides of an issue and to generate controversy and to generate distrust in our democratic institutions on the electoral process, that is very much ongoing. rep. swalwell: are other countries capable of doing that or are doing that right now? dir. wray: i do not know if we have seen other countries doing exactly that. other countries, like china, have very active malign influence efforts in this country. theirs is a little bit different than the efforts i was just describing. but it is still very active and very serious. in their case, it is geared more towards shifting policies and public opinion to be more pro-china on a variety of issues. do not adversaries besides russia are looking very closely at what the russians have done and taking note of it and getting active considerations whether that is a playbook they should adopt. director, you're sitting in a chair that another sat in who laid out a number of instances of obstruction of justice in his report, but also cited a doj policy that prevents a sitting president from being indicted, and it has raised a question for me and many others in the committee, and we have introduced legislation for the statute of limitations for a president to start running again once they leave office, but as far as the bureau goes, as far as i know, the bureau has procedures to open an investigation. there are different phases of an investigation before presenting it to the department of justice for prosecution, and so, if the doj policy prevents a sitting president from being indicted, even able to investigate allegations of wrongdoing? any president in the future as long as that policy is in place, are you even able to start an investigation, or would you have to wait until the present left office? do you understand the question? dir. wray: i think i do. i am not sure i have an answer it sitting right now about a specific hypothetical. obviously, the fbi investigates not just crimes but national security events, and some things a lot of people do not understand is that we have counterintelligence investigations that often are not geared towards crimes or charging anybody at all. they're geared towards identifying and understanding national security threats and mitigating or neutralizing those threats. so some difference there. rep. swalwell: if you had an allegation of wrong doing, do you see doj policies limiting you from conducting about investigation while the person is in office? dir. wray: i would have to give that more thought. i don't have an answer right rep. swalwell: -- right now. rep. swalwell: thank you, i yield back. >> gentleman from florida is recognized. there was the: attack at pensacola, and i want to begin by thanking the fbi and the very talented professionals who brought comfort and confidence and a very thorough investigation to that pattern. i am confident based on the work of the fbi in concert with the department of defense and the department of homeland security that on a going forward basis, we are able to work with our allies closely so there is ongoing reobust review communications and social media content. i know that investigation has concluded, with the press conference that attorney general barr had, i want to give you the opportunity to reflect on any lessons learned and strategies that we may use to ensure that our military communities are safe as we host some of our foreign partners. dir. wray: thank you, congressman. thank you for the question and the kind words about our folks who work very hard on that investigation and also with the military partners, especially ncis, among others. certainly, that tragic event highlighted a number of things. one, the importance of making sure that we get adequate information from our foreign partners and that they do the due diligence that's offered on -- often their best position to do on people before they come our way. the kingdom indicated being more engaged on that and i think that's healthy and positive sign. another different lesson learned from that investigation which ties into a topic that's called -- that has come up a few times already this morning and as the , attorney general commented forcefully on, one of the things that the shooter in pensacola did in the heat of the moment while people were coming at him , and he was coming at them, took the time to shoot one of his own phones to destroy it so that presumably we law enforcement would not have access to what's in it. now remarkably, the men and women of the fbi, our office of technology division, were able to reconstruct that phone as an engineering matter so we can have access to it from a technical perspective. but because of the way the encryption is on the phone, we don't have meaningful access to the content of that phone. was trying it was he to prevent us all from seeing, we do not know, and we are currently engaged with apple, hoping to see if we can get better help from them to get access to the contents of that phone, and it illustrates why this law issues such an important one. i appreciate the question. representative: it would seem to elevate our need to have access to those communication devices and tools, and apple responds that the government should not be forced to compel them to make a key for a lock that exists. do you believe that there is meaningful legislation that the congress should consider so that technology partners and have a yellow brick road to work with the government so as to not put burdens on them that can be used bide our adversary that could help the fbi with these investigations that involves with complex issues of international and criminal and terrorist issues? dir. wray: what the company is doing voluntarily, i think we have to find solutions. this problem israel and it is now. i hear about it from law enforcement and every state in the country all the time. it affects every threat we are contending with. we believe strongly in encryption, as i said to the chairman earlier, but we also believe law enforcement has two have lawful access to the content of where the information is or we are not going to be able to protect it. there are some countries that have already passed legislation of the sort that you are referring to, australia, for example. one way or another, we got to figure out how to solve this problem or we are going to wake up one day and realized the law enforcement, hardworking men and women in pensacola and everywhere else, are blind. if you are a criminal and you had a choice in terms of doing all your information and communications in a device that was utterly behind reach of law enforcement and doing it in one where law enforcement with a warrant can have access, which one would you pick? of course, you would pick the these are decisions that should be made by the american people elected heir representatives not on behalf of business of all of us. community is deeply vested in these questions now, we have seen the impact and see the involvement of international terrorist organizations claiming credit, more interested to are maiming my are held ts accountable. representaive: the hacking of voting machines and databases voter files, what taking that f.b.i. that doesn't happen? dir. wray: so on the cyber you will, the hacking ide, we are taking the three-prong approach. investigations, intelligence sharing and engagements. we he investigation side, have the investigations we will onduct into potential cyber intrusions into election infrastructure. a lot of times it's not clear when there is an intrusion who it, right. it could be somebody for a financial motive or just mischief or it could ultimately back to a nation state and forp adversary. that's one of things we try to side.the cyber on the intelligence sharing ide, we have tried to push out to state local election officials and campaigns on the lockout for so they are more likely to something, wait a minute, this should be something f.b.i. or law t enforcement about. we have created a protected out s website that puts information to campaigns all ver the country about cyber hygiene to better protect their, not necessarily election infrastructure, but the campaign infrastructure, if you will, from cyber attacks. so thentaive: thank you, second component to have more elections is he disinformation, operations and know, the russian troll is the what steps f.b.i. doing to try to mitigate upcomingrmation in the election? dir. wray: so i think you're right that in some ways that's challenging area, not the least because it never stopped, right. and it's d in 2016 been continuing ever since then. t may have an uptick during an election cycle, it's a 24-7-365 a year threat. it's challenging, unlike a cyber ttack on election infrastructure, that kind of effort, disinformation in a have a first amendment and believe strongly in fremont of expression, the in theis not going to be business of being the truth police and monitoring online.mation so it requires not just the investigations when we do get we can pursue, but lso engagement with the social media companies in particular. and that's one of the places great here have been strides since 2016 where we ave -- and we saw it in the midterms, a lot better engagement with the social media where there are things they can do as previously on anies voluntarily based their own terms of use or service where they can use the to find and y have snut down accounts and nip some of these things in the bud. is going to require not just a government solution but a private industry solution dealing with that threat. i would like to switch subjects to the department of justice bias training. i want to follow up on a question i committed the last time you had to come and testify regarding the d.o.j. department wide and bias training. status of what the that training is and if you don't, could you submit the information of the status of the training. dir. wray: i would be happy to provide you with more follow-up.n as a an lieu: there is always united folks in the states who are engaging in spying. are may be folks who caught up in that. had think it's better if we a classified briefing on this, but in terms of asian americans surveilled or targeted by the f.b.i. or asian nationals are, would you be willing to give a briefing to the members f the caucus in a classified setting about what the scope of that program is and the status it? dir. wray: we'd be happy to arrange some sort of closed briefing on the efforts.rrorism i'm sure there is helpful information we could share and probably be constructive. rep. lieu: thank you, i yield back. >> the gentleman from arizona is recognized. madam ntaive: thank you, or wray hank you, direct for being here today. n particular, a couple of reverences she makes and the personnel withheld from the national security division d.o.j. information that was to their case to the fisa court. on expands on specifically what some of those were. he fact that there was allegations that carter page had russians wo different in july in russia, in july of had and though page said he ever met them, that was never included, this kind of exculpatory information. or did they talk about the actual origins of the information in their, that they relying on. you have said repeatedly today hat that conduct was unacceptable. and i'm trying to determine in whether you find some distippings between unacceptable and whether there was any kind criminal conduct on the part of these people who were giving effectively sworn sworn ny by signing the affidavits to the court in either altering evidence or to disclose evidence exculpatory that was required. do you find anything criminal in their conduct? each case depends on the facts of the specific individual, right. hen you start talking about criminal liability, there is always a question of the level the mens rea, whether they led somebody, that is different than somebody making a mistake and omitting some information. ither way, the way i use the ord word unacceptable, i'm not trying to split hairs or engage in semantics, what i'm saying is i hold the men and women of the f.b.i. to a heck of a lot higher standard than not violating the criminal law. i expect to the men and women of f.b.i. to be the best of the best and do everything by the book. that is why in every speech after speech, in every the uarters and division, first topic i raise is the importance of not just getting result, but rather letting the process be followed we do ure that the way what we do defines the f.b.i.'s brand way more than whether or successful in a particular investigation. i specifically have been raising nd this goes all the way back to my first few months as director, the importance of judges who that the sign our warrants can trust our work. that's not something that i saying in response to this report. i have been hitting that theme outset because it's so important to having been not prosecutor, but a defense attorney. to me it's the very heart of who as a professional and what i expect of the people, a standard of the court. biggs: i get that. is ethical actions, regardless f what the criminal liability or exposure may be because of culpable mental state, i get that. we could have a philosophical debate whether of inal law is reflective the morality of our culture in society. that's not why we're here today. what happened here was so ystemic or systematic that the judge said it was so questionable, i don't know if we on other f.b.i. affidavits. and that indicates that there some kind of n of some kind of criminal men's raya requirement. that, iwant to get into want to ask another question. i hope you have really whether there was on the culpability people who misrepresented the court and spied on american probable ithout real cause to do so. one of the things you talked have theyour reform to field office involved when you're bringing something into to investigate. the problem that i see with that you're asking ffectively a subordinate to go to, to have input that might be to their the, superior, somebody who actually basically some impacts on their career even. so this becomes problematic, i would like you to address that, econdly, i would give you my example. i mean, i was a trial lawyer myself on both sides prosecuting defending. i did international law for a while. hen i went back to get a dpraw -- ee, i can tell you this even with my experience, i was wary to cross the professor i knew they had control over my grades, they had control could finish my degree in the time i wanted to get my degree finished. to you that ggest maybe that might not be a reform than ctually is more cosmetic in nature and i would like you to address that, please. dir. wray: so i certainly the concern and the dynamic that you're describing. is this -- the changes that i put in place there have a few different dimensions. one, and this was not made clear before so this is something that leadership team and i that differs from the past. explicit that other than in the rarest of circumstances, all investigations should be conducted in the field. you might think that should be obvious, but that wasn't clearly.ed we articulate it clearly. second, we built in place the balance concept that i defined in response to some of the earlier questions. point about subordinate superior. i think what we were trying to the, in that that case the deputy director would field e input of the office leadership. what i did not want to do, since this would be a policy that us going forward in every possible situation is ever under any circumstances whatsoever appear investigation being conducted headquarters. i don't think something that bsolute is wise for me to tie the f.b.i. director's hands in that regard. i'll give you an example. ne of the black eyes of the f.b.i. in the past was, of course, the hanson matter. kind of investigation was conducted, that wasn't conducted out of headquarters. t was an unusual situation, incredibly important, incredibly delicate for reasons that i'm that was an imagine, appropriate that that be conducted out of headquarters. ways, the pent bomb investigation, the 9-11 investigation was run out of the headquarters. i had a front seat to that as i office's leadership under president bush and ashcroft at the time. there are rare circumstances to have does make sense an investigation run out of headquarters. what needed to be clear, everybody needs to understand to be the black swan, the unusual situation and he steps that we put in place and the corrective action that you are referring to was our ffort to try to make sure that people understood it couldn't just become a practice, that you through those hoops and hopefully we can accomplish that. >> thank you, the gentleman's inspired. rep. biggs: i hope you would go on with the reform -- the time has expired. he gentleman from maryland is recognized. representaive: welcome, director wray, thank you for your hard work. the f.b.i. publish the uniform crime report? sir. ray: yes, representaive: so the 2018 eport found that there were 24 hate-related murders in our that y that year, but didn't include 11 people who nasdaq dered by a kneo yay white supremacist at the tree of life synagogue in pittsburgh. were they not included? right ay: sitting here now, i haven't drilled in behind the methodology in that report. tree of omes to the life synagogue, not only did i it, i went toitor the tree of life crime scene, walked through it with the team, invested and got a full play by play as to the horror that occurred there. that a lot of gs people don't realize is that but for a few fluke coincidences fluke completely coincidences, there would have been a whole bunch of kids going effect, class, at the top floor of that sin going and the from that attack could have been exponentially tragic as rribly and what actually happened was. raskin: it was the most violent anti-semitic attack in it wasn't states, recorded in the compilation that publishes, heather's murder was not recorded in the 2017 uniform crime report. are you aware of this problem in he methodology that the f.b.i. is using? dir. wray: i'm not aware of the method logical problem. did you know it was happening? dir. wray: i did not understand it. raskin: the f.b.i. relies on state and local government to turn in statistics to hate crimes. so if they fail to do it, if negligenterwhelmed or or whatever, it doesn't happen. you were at the tree of life cene of the massacre, you knew about it, but it never appeared in the f.b.i.'s statistics. f.b.i. reports an average of 7,500 hate crimes a career shall from 2013 to 2017. ut the bureau of justice statistics national crime victimization surveyed estimated n average of 200,000 hate crimes a year, right? so it's they a pretty dramatic between what you're larger department is saying crimes and what the department is saying. trying a problem of us to get a hold on the problem of supremacy is presenting to america today? dir. wray: i don't think it's supremacy, i do think, in response to one of do know thates, we hate crimes are historically underreported and of course the of underreporting is you never know for sure how underreported they are. we know that reporting has increased significantly over the last couple of years. that may be because the violence is on the rise or it could be because more departments are rightly t you're suggesting we need them to do. our trying to do a lot on end to encourage state and local enforcement to provide reporting. rep. raskin: what are you doing? speeches with law enforcement, things like that. raskin: between 2009 and 2018, extremists killed 427 which equates to three quarters of all of the extremist urders, most of them were conducted by white supremacists extremists.ar right and yet we have had testimony, heard testimony that most of the department of justice and resources are still hannelled at islamic or islamist fundamentalist terror. what have you done to try to resources toward what has been the major threat in terror since tic 2001, certainly over the last has been white extremist groups that have biggest threat, so what have you done to channel the resources in the right direction? dir. wray: well, we have directed all of our joint to have task forces domestic terrorism squarely within their sights. created domestic terrorism hate crime fusion cell o insure that we are not just bringing the counterterrorism resources but on the criminal civil gative side, our rights enforcement folks with terrorism folks. it as a threat priority with homegrown violent extremism isis. we had about the same number of fiscal year e last on both fronts. but in either case, i would say we assess that the greatest threat to the homeland that cross things etween both the jihadist inspired and the racially violent extremist side. actors typically ho are largely radicalized online and choose sometimes very quickly go from despicable to violence, choose easily accessible weapons, a gun, maybe an i.e.d. they can build crudely internet and they choose soft targets. that threat, that is what we assess is the biggest threat to homeland right now. representaive: i yield back. > before i recognize the gentleman from california, after your questions, we'll take a 10 to 15-minute break. gentleman from california is recognized. madam ntaive: thank you, chairman. mr. wray, i'm still not sure of your response. that there estimony was no political bias in the degrees and actions that crossfirehe so-called hurricane investigation? dir. wray: my testimony is that a inspector general made number of very specific findings on the question of political bias both about what he found and we accept d that in full. representaive: i'm asking after f.b.i., ars heading the what is your judgment? was there political bias involved with this investigation? dir. wray: my judgment is the same as the inspector generals. the same answer to the midterm exam investigation? dir. wray: the prior investigation? i haven't gone back and we one, but again, we accepted all of the findings of the inspector general. ask you aive: let me this question, mr. yay, greg jerry jett, the journalist wrote a book, actually a series of books on the crossfire hurricane latest ation and in his book, he described it as the tory of ambitious and unscrupulous people in high positions of government who abuse their authority. the rule t to subvert of law and undermined the democratic process. hey weaponized their employers to influence the presidential election, undo the result they not like and exclude the elected president from office. he intelligence community and the f.b.i. were at the heart of this ellis he is and precedented scheme. as the director of the department, what is your response to that organization? my response is the conduct described in the inspector general's report is unacceptable. it's unrepresentative of the f.b.i. i see every day working as director. epresentaive: who has been fired as a result of the inspector general's report? of the y: well, most people involved in the investigation has been featured in the report. representaive: who has been fired? dir. wray: there are a few people who are no longer with the f.b.i. some of them have been terminated. some have left on their own. sued me. representaive: who has been disciplined? who has been disciplined? dir. wray: like i said, there have been a number of people who terminated from the f.b.i. representaive: terminated or allowed to resign? ir. wray: in some cases terminated. representaive: you use the word unacceptable. would think you would find a stronger word forthat over what has happened by the actions of sullied the reputations of every decent f.b.i. and e disgraced the agency that you now head. entrusted with the most terrifying powers that we can give our government, the ruin people's lives, to invade their privacy, to launch raids on their homes, to bankrupt them with legal costs of their e them liberty. we entrust you and your agency protect ourowers to liberty and to protect our safety. and when those powers are abused in he manner that we saw this whole russian conclusion that's a direct threat to our freedom and a credit to your agency. disappointed that you cannot summon the outrage to it it in stronger words than is unacceptable and doesn't represent the f.b.i. unfortunately at the moment, it the f.b.i. or at least the leadership of the f.b.i. that committed these abuses. you were appointed to clean hings up and i'm just -- after reading the i.g.'s report and emails and actions of mccabe comey, frankly, mr. director, i don't trust your agency anymore. profound thing for me to say because i was raised to revere the f.b.i. to the television very week when ephraim zim balancist georgia came on and exemplified everything that was about our oly government. i think you lost the trust of an awful lot of americans. that's a dangerous, dangerous a, is for an agency that, entrusted with these powers and b, is entrusted with these specifically protect our lives and liberty. restore ee how you can public trust without a thorough and complete and public ousecleaning and without at least a clear and unam biggous outrage, of moral unacceptable actions against agency or r unmistakable actions against those in the agency that abused powers. let me ask one final question. looking at the treatment of agency, flynn by your why would anyone in his right f.b.i. t to talk to an agent knowing there could be a up en agenda to catch them on a factual detail and then lying?te them for mr. flynn's case is litigation sooing i cannot talk about his case. maysorry about the views -- i answer? may i answer? having been to every field ffice of the f.b.i., having talked to law enforcement in every state in the country, engaged with every headquarters division having engaged with partners, private sector, foreign, state, local, intelligence community, i can tell you that i see every day is the kind of f.b.i. that you describe having reverence for. that we can restore your confidence in that f.b.i. also, that ito you, am not somebody as is quite people now to lots of with presses himself rhetoric.and loud i express my views through action. out, y the report came over 40 deep corrective actions series of ith that failures and problems. have communicated over and over and over again my expectation of what i think the should do and s that, frankly, is what i do see from the f.b.i. employees day all over the country and frankly all over the world. ow where there are people that need to be held accountable, we have a disciplinary process for that. the he current employees, vast majority of the people involved in the conduct you're are not part of the f.b.i. and not subject to the disciplinary project in the place. there is the ongoing john durham investigation which we have been with fully as the attorney general himself has said. i look forward to hopefully aving another hearing at some point where we can have a very different kind of exchange. representaive: i would very much forward to that. >> the gentleman's time is expired. people to stay seated until the director is able to make his way out of the room.

Related Keywords

Miami ,Florida ,United States ,Fremont ,California ,Georgia ,Australia ,Nevada ,New Hampshire ,Texas ,Washington ,China ,Illinois ,Whitehouse ,District Of Columbia ,Wisconsin ,Us Well ,Russia ,Michigan ,Jordan ,Mexico ,Arizona ,Israel ,Nebraska ,Iowa ,Maryland ,Americans ,America ,Mexican ,Russian ,Russians ,American ,Wray Hank ,Facebook ,Al Qaeda ,Sheryl Atkinson ,Joe Biden ,King Jr ,Robert Kennedy ,Andy Mccabe ,Christopher Wray ,Michael Horowitz ,Jim Comey ,Ben Rhodes ,Taylor Ma ,

© 2025 Vimarsana

comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.