Transcripts For FOXNEWSW Outnumbered 20170503

Allies. To equip the American People and our allies to understand that this is going on a big part of what the russians did was pushing out false information, echoing it with these 12 forms of the use. We can tell the American Voters this is going on, you should be skeptical, you should ask questions, you should understand the nature of the news that youre getting. We deliver that same message to our european colleagues. An interesting thing is happening. The market place of ideas is responding to this because is not a role for government. People are out there using the power of social media to push back against this kind of thing and france and the netherlands and germany, and hopefully it will happen here in the United States. Ordinary citizens will see this going on and push back. The marketplace of information is better educated. Thats an optimistic vision. I appreciate the work they fbi continues to do to push back and strengthen our defenses, but i think theres more to do. You certainly as youve testified before made a great deal of news just before our own election. Im struck that you chose to make Public Statements about one investigation and not another. The investigation we now know that was on going the Trump Campaign in the investigation ongoing into secretary clinton. Im concerned about what the future practice might be. How has the approach taken with regard to the clinton investigation been memorialized and have you modified in any way fbi or deferment procedures regarding disclosure of information concerning investigations, particularly close to an election . We have not. The reason for that is everything we did, that i did, was consistent with existing department of justice policy. We dont confirm the existence of investigations. We dont talk about investigations that dont result in criminal charges unless there is a compelling public interest. Those principles should still govern. Whenever humanly possible, its one that i labored under here. Frankly, as i said earlier, i had a choice because i can only have two actions before me. I couldnt find a door labeled no action. Those principles still exist, theyre incredibly important. The current investigation with respect to russia, the department of justice has authorized me to confirm it exists. We wont say another word about it until were done. Then hopefully the department of justice will figure out if it doesnt result in charges, what will say about it and will be got up at the same principles. I do think there is a third door available to you in late last year just before the election and that was to confirm the existence of an Ongoing Investigation about the Trump Campaign. I think it was of compelling interest and an unusual circumstance. Activity by a known adversary to interfere with our election. Had there been Public Notice that there was renewed investigation into both campaigns, i think the impact would have been different. Would you agree . No. I thought aloud about this. We have two separate two things. I thought it was very important to call out with the russians were trying to do with our election. I offered in august myself to be a voice for that and a public peace, calling it out. The Obama Administration didnt take advantage of it in august, they did it in october. I thought it was very important to call it out. That was a separate question from do confirm the existence to clarify if there are any connections between that russian activity and u. S. Persons . It started in late july. Hillary clinton investigation, we didnt confirm and existed until three months after it started and it started publicly. I thought the consistent principle would be we dont confirm the existence of any investigation involved in u. S. Persons, but a classified investigation in its early stages. We dont know we have, what is there, so my judgment was consistent with the principles i have always operated under. That was the right thing to do. I hope in the future that attempt to draw attention to russian interference and our election what you testified it expects to continue will be affected. Let me ask one last question. There are a lot of ways the fbi helped state and local Law Enforcement. What im grateful for the Protection Network through which the fbi provided muchneeded distance to Bloomington Police department. This is my hometown where weve had a domestic dramatic increase in violence. I would like to know how you intend the fbi to continue assisting Law Enforcement in combating unprecedented crime and our communities such as wilmington. Violence Reduction Network was piloted and wilmington in a small number of other places and we believe it works. What the fi brings to a fight that is a state and local fight. Our technique figures out how to connect docs dots. Were trying to do what weve done in wilmington, and cities around the country. Another rise in violence in the First Quarter of this year, we are trying to lean forward and what weve done in wilmington. We appreciate your efforts to support local Law Enforcement. Morning mr. Director. I guess its afternoon now. Im not a United States senator and i dont have security clearance to look at classified information. If someone sends me classified information, and i know i should know its classified information and i read it, have i committed a crime . Potentially. Has the person who sent me the information committed a crime . Potentially, if they knew you didnt have appropriate clearance and a need to know. Was there classified information on former congressman weiners . Yes. Who sent it to him . His then spouse, whom appears to have had a regular practice of forwarding emails to him to print out for her so she could then deliver them to the secretary of state. Did former congressman weiner read the classified materials . I dont i dont think so. We havent been able to interview him because he has a pending criminal problems of other sorts. My understanding is his role would be to print them out as a matter of convenience. If we did read them, we have committed a crime . Potentially. When his spouse have committed a crime . Again, potentially. It would depend upon a number of things. Is there an investigation with respect to the two of them . There was, we have completed it. What did you conclude neither of them committed a crime . Because with respect to his spouse, we didnt have any indication that she had a sense that what she was doing was in violation of the law. The central problem we have with the email investigation was proving that people knew, the secretary and others, knew they were doing they were communicating about classified information in a way that they shouldnt be an proving they had some sense that they were doing something unlawful. That was our burden and we were able to meet it. She thought it was okay to send her husband the information . I dont want to get too much into what she thought. We cannot prove that the people sending the information, either in that case or the other case with the secretary, that they were acting with any kind of criminal intent. Assume for a second, im not a United States senator, im working for a president ial campaign. Im contacted by a russian agen agent. He just wants to talk about the campaign in general and strateg strategy. Am i committing a crime . Harder to answer. I probably dont want to answer even in a hypothetical given the work we are doing. Let me try it this way. Lets assume that im not a United States senator, im working for a president ial campaign. Im contacted by a russian agent who says ive got some hacked emails here and i want to visit with you about them. Am i committing a crime . Also, i think i should resist answering that hypothetical. Okay. Can you explain to me, not the law, but in your personal opinion, when interrogation techniques become torture . You may not the law . There is a statute as a lawyer and as a member of Law Enforcement organization, i would start. The definition of torture is laid out and american statutes. Not sure i understand what you mean beyond that. Im just asking our personal opinion about what you think constitutes torture. Where he would personally draw the line drawing on your substantial experience. The general, any conduct that involves the intentional infliction of physical pain or discomfort in order to obtain information is in the colloquial sense, torture. It may not be torture under the statute, which congress chose to define at a fairly high level, but as a human being and in fbi director, i consider the infliction of physical pain and discomfort to be torture. Any kind of physical pain or discomfort . Suppose you served someone bad news. Tricky for us because the fbi is very careful never to inflict intentionally inflict physical pain or discomfort of any sort to try to question somebody. Id say yeah, thats conduct you should stay way clear of. Also, in effect frankly. Thats a whole other deal. Do you think it is possible, from a Law Enforcement perspective to properly vet a nonamerican, noncitizen, i should say, coming to the United States from a conflict area such as syria . Its difficult to do it perfectly and i have concerns about the ability to vent people coming from areas where they have no relationship on the ground with the government ther there. I suppose its possible to do it recently. There are other tools you can bring to bear, but theres risks associated with that. How do you do it . You cant call the chamber of commerce in syria. How do you do it . We do it now. We queried the holdings of the entire Intelligence Community to see if there are any selectors, phone numbers, emails, addresses to see if that person has shown up anywhere in the world and are holding. Thats a pretty good way to do it. Getting into the persons social media see what they have their is up another good way to do it. The way rely the host government will have information about them. In a rat, we have United States military presence and collected a whole lot of biometrics. How about yemen . Similarly difficult. Thank you. Youve been getting a lot of questions surrounding your decision to make certain statements about the investigation into secretary clintons email. Too many of us, you appear to have treated the investigation of a clinton email investigation or matter, whatever you want to call it, differently than how you treated the Ongoing Investigation of the Trump Campaign and the russian attempts to interfere with their election. If i can understand correctly, you felt free to speak about the clinton investigation because it had been completed when you had your first conference in july . You do confirm theres an Ongoing Investigation of the Trump Campaign and their conduct with regard to russian efforts to undermine our election . Where conducting an investigation to see if there was any coordination with russia and the Trump Campaign. You have confirm that such investigation is ongoing, can you tell us more about what constitutes an investigation . No. And july of 2016, when you announce that you will not be bringing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton because you did need to show intent and there was no intent discovered, you spoke for 15 minutes. Not only did you say youre not going to bring criminal charges against her, you said at the end of your 15 minutes you went on to chastise her saying that she had been extremely careless. You raised questions about her judgment. You contradicted statements she had made about her email practices and you then said that possibly harris james comey on the hot seat on a sundry of things. Were going to pull it from this breaking news to take you to the white house where we have the Palestinian Leader visiting with President Trump. Just a context on this. We expect the president to press him on ways to talk about peace with israel. Lets watch. President trump president abbas signed a declaration of principles. Very important which laid the path for peace for israelis and palestinians. Mr. President , you signed your name to the first israelipalestinian Peace Agreement. Remember that well, right . I want to support you and being the Palestinian Leader who signed his name to the final and most important Peace Agreement that brings safety, stability, prosperity, to both peoples into the region. Im committed to working with israel and the palestinians to reach an agreement, but any agreement cannot be imposed by the United States or by any other nation. The palestinians and israelis must Work Together to reach an agreement that allows both peoples to live, worship, and thrive and prosper in peace. I would do whatever is necessary to facilitate the agreement to mediate, to orchestrate anything theyd like to do, but i would love to be a mediator or an arbitrator or a facilitator and we will get this done. Peace also means defeating isis and other terrorist groups. These groups are a threat to all people who cherish human life. I know president abbas has spoke out against isis and other terrorist groups and we must continue to build our partnership with the Palestinian Security forces to counter and defeat terrorism. I also applaud the Palestinian Authoritys who continue security coronation with israel. They get along unbelievably wel well. I have meetings and at these meetings, i was actually very impressed and somewhat surprised at how well they get along. They were together beautifully. There can be no lasting peace unless the Palestinian Leaders speak and a unified voice against incitement to violate and violence and hate. There is such hatred, but hopefully there wont be such hatred for very long. All children of god must be taught to value and respect human life and condemn all of those who target the innocent. As part of our efforts to move forward, we will also discuss my administrations effort to help unlock the potential of the Palestinian People through new economic opportunities. Lastly, i want to note the positive Ongoing Partnership between United States and the palestinians on a range of issues, private Sector Development and job creation, regional security, counterterrorism, and the rule of law, all of which are essential to moving forward towards peace. I welcome president abbas here today as a demonstration of that partnership, that very special partnership that we all need to make it all work. I look forward to welcoming him back is a great mark of progress and ultimately, toward the signing of a document with the israelis and with israel toward peace. We want to create peace between israel and the palestinians. We will get it done. It will be working so hard to get it done. Its been a long time. We will be working diligently and i think there is a very, very good chance and i think you feel the same way. Mr. President , thank you very much. Mr. President , your excellency, i would like to thank you for this honorable invitation to come and meet with you and i look forward to working with you and order to come to a deal as historical as this deal to bring about peace. Mr. President , our strategic option, our strategic choice is to bring about peace on the division of the t palestinian sa scalpel of East Jerusalem that lives in peace with the face of israel on the borders of 1967. Mr. President , for us to bring about a comprehensive and peace based on the solution, such matter would give a great impetus to the arab peace and other international and fight the criminal isis group, that is totally innocent and has nothing to do with our noble if we create peace, that is just comprehensive, that will also lead to arab and islamic countries to have normal relations with israel. As stipulated in the previous arab summit, the latest of which was the arab summit in jordan. Mr. President , we believe that we are capable and able to bring about success to our efforts because mr. President , you have determination and you have the desire to see it become two of her ration successful. We are coming into a new horizon that will enable us to bring about peace. Mr. President , as far as permanent solution, we believe that this is possible and able to be resolved. I firmly believe that this is possibly, we are able to dissolve it. In that, i believe we will be able to resolve the issue of the refugees and the very issue of the prisoners. According to the international law, and areas of relevance in that regard and based on what is stipulated in the previous agreement that unilateral steps must be taken to get ahead of the agreement and discussing of the issues. Mr. President , its about time for israel to end its occupation of our people and our lands. After 50 years, we are the only remaining people in the world that still live under occupation. We are aspiring and want to achieve our freedom, our dignity, and our right to selfdetermination and we also want for israel to recognize the palestinian state just as the Palestinian People represent recognize. Mr. President , i affirm to you that you are raising our youth, our children, our grandchildren on a culture of peace and we are endeavoring to think about security, freedom, and peace for our children to live like the other children in the world, along with his israeli children to live with peace and dignity. Mr. President , i bring with me today the message of the suffering of my people as well as the aspirations and hope, the hopes and aspirations of the Palestinian People from the holy land. From that land where the jewish faith, the christian faith, and the muslim faith, were they all coexist together to prosper in an environment of security, peace, and sovereignty. Mr. President , i believe that we are capable under your leadership and your stewardship stewardship your courageous stewardship and our wisdom, as well as your great negotiation ability. I believe with the grace of god and with all of your efforts, we believe that we can become we can be True Partners to you to bring about a historic piece under your stewardship to bring about peace. It was before we are start a process. Weve spoken to netanyahu. Weve spoken to many of the great israeli leaders. Weve spoken to many of your great representatives, many of them are here today for lunch with us. Well start a process with which hopefully will lead to peace over the course of my lifetime, ive always heard that perhaps the toughest deal to make is the deal between the israelis and the palestinians. Lets see we can can prove them wrong. Thank you. Give very much, everybody. Thank you. Harris President Trump and the Palestinian Leader who went back and forth and a little bit longer for the Palestinian Leader then we might normally have seen as he sort of laid out an entire case of what would have to be in place for him to consider this is through a translator we cant determine tone or any texture there, but just the straight words, would have to be in place for him to talk about a Peace Agreement. You heard the president off the top say their meeting is a demonstrating of special partnership which we will all need to create peace. We want to create peace and he believes they can get it done, the president between the palestinians and the israelis. You heard abbas getting kind of tough at the end, at least with the words we could hear, its about time for israel to recognize and stop occupying land and so on and so forth. It will be ready it really critical now for their use to meet. The president saying were going to bring in budget nam benjamin netanyahu. Well cover the news as it happens. A lot is going on on capitol hill with the fbi director james comey. We have seen some very intense moments, particularly with Democratic Senators questioning him. Moments ago, he was talking a little bit about what it would have been like if Hillary Clinton did he have security clearance . Did she know he did a dreadnought . What did Hillary Clinton no . Thats a texture of the conversation thats going on right now and the testimony before the senate. Lets watch. Between that situation and this one, so far as the reasons to appoint a special counsel . I think both situations, as with all investigations that touch on people who factor in a political world involve considerations of actual conflict of interest and interference. Im not going to talk with the current situation. My judgment was at the credibility of the investigation into the leak of the cia officers identity would be best served by not having it overseen by myself because i was a political appointee and appointing someone and giving him the authority to run separate from the Political Leadership in the department of justice. That was my judgment that circumstance. I dont know what judgment acting attorney general make. Im sure he will consider many of the same things. Has he asked for your advice . Im not going to say. I wouldnt want people talking about their conversations with me, so ill do the same for him. So far as the Ongoing Investigation into Trump Associates and their potential collusion with the russian meddling and our election, will you be providing any updates to the American People . Certainly not before the matter is concluded, and then depending on how the matter is concluded, so mentors are concluded with criminal charges and then theres a Public Accounting and a charging document. Other matters, as is the case with the email investigation and with no charges, but some statement of some sort. Others and with no statement. I dont know yet. Obviously want to do that in close coronation with the department. Will you make recommendations to the Deputy Attorney general or the special prosecutor if one is appointed as to whether criminal charges should be brought . I dont know in this case in particular, but in general, we must always do. You cannot yourself pursue criminal criminal charges. Correct. Thats important for the American People to understand because it bears on the question of whether a special prosecutor to be appointed. The fbi cannot bring charges, neither can the intelligence committees do so, nor can an independent commission. Only the Deputy Attorney general or a special prosecutor designated by him, correct . Correct. Let me close because i am running out of time. Have you been questioned at all by the Inspector General in connection with the inquiry that i understand is ongoing into a number of the topics weve been discussing here . Yes, ive been interviewed. The Inspector General is inspecting me and looking at my conduct in the course of the email investigation. I encourage it. I want that inspection because i want my story told because some of it is classified. If i did something wrong, i want to hear that. I dont think i did, but yes, ive been interviewed and im sure ill be interviewed again. Do have antiregrets or other things you would do differently in connection with either the comments you made at the time, closing the investigation, or indicating to congress that you were reopening it . The honest answer is no. Ive asked myself that a million times, because this has been really painful. The only regret is answering the phone when they called to recruit me to be the fbi director and i was living happily in connecticut. I cant. Ive gotten all kinds of rocks thrown at me. This is been really hard, but i think ive done the right thing at each turn. Im not at anybodys side. Its so hard for people to see that. Ive asked that a million times. Should have done this or that and the honest answer, i dont mean to sound arrogant, i wouldnt have done it any differently. Somehow i would have wished i was on the shores of the connecticut sound, but failing that, i dont have any regrets. I want to ask one last question, unrelated to this topic on the issue of gun violence, would you agree that universal background checks would help with Law Enforcement and prevention of gun violence . The more able we are to give the guns out of hands of criminals and spouse abusers, the better. The more information we have, the better for Law Enforcement. Ill take that as a yes. Thank you. I think we have one member, if that member is going to come back for first round, we have three or four, maybe five of us that want a second round. I hope that people will get back here so we know exactly how many people we have out of courtesy to director comey. Director comey, thank you for being here. Im always impressed with your composer and your preparation. I want to get a couple of other things first, and if i have time, come back to what the hearing has been predominantly about. When you briefed us last year, i think that you said that there were Ongoing Investigations on homeland security, potential terrorists, either homegrown or foreign inspired investigations at every stage, is that still the case . Yes. Can you give me roughly an idea of the number investigations hashtag just north of a thousand. That caseload has stayed about the same since last time we talked about it. Some of closed, some have open, but about 1,000 homegrown investigations in the United States. Also asked the question about to what extent you can discuss in the setting. The people who came in through various programs, there were questions about betting that have been raised as to whether or not theyre accurate. At the time, there were a dozen and a half. Are there any rough numbers . Yes. We have about 1,000 homegrown violent extremist investigation and about another 1,000 or so i should define my terms. Homegrown violent extremist, they are not tied with anyone. Then there is a big group of people who we see some contact with foreign terrorists. You take that 2,000 plus cases, about 300 of them are people who came to the United States as refugees. Okay. To what extent and all of those investigations you mentioned earlier that there were probably about half of the various Computing Devices you access that you cant get into it with any the i assume at some of the most advanced available. To what extent is the access to that information relevant in these investigations . Is a feature of all our work, but especially concerning here. We are trying through lawful process to figure out, are they consuming this poison on the internet and are they in touch with anybody . Its true in terrorism cases come about half of the devices we can open. About 90 some percent of our subjects are using at least one encrypted app as well. Because of physical and technological restraints without 702, how much with the remaining half would be harmed . The 702 would be disastrous because it is relevant in these investigations . Half of the physical aspects you cant already get access to. Then theres the metadata that would be constructive to these investigations. By going dark, we mean 100 . 702 is our window into the really bad guys overseas. If we close that window i dont know why on earth we would. We have thousands evenly split by people who are self radicalized were some who have been influenced. We will basically pull the rug out from underneath them. Certainly impair investigating them. Thats why people say why dont you get metadata . You cant convict somebody based on metadata. And my remaining time, i want to go back to the investigation. I want to give you another opportunity to maybe finish by expending the context i want to create a context going back to when the investigation first began it was all part of media attention. By june 27, the then attorney general met with the spouses of someone who is related to an active investigation. It was an unusual encounter that was spun by the media. Then it was july 5th that he the statement. A few of the things you said based on the evidence you were gathering, there was one component. It was like removing a frame from a huge jigsaw puzzle and domain pieces on the floor. Something else of the media ties into. You went on to say that under similar circumstances, the person who is engaged in these activities would likely be subject to security or administrative sanctions. That was the tough part of the statement that you made. You went on to say that you didnt believe a reasonable minded prosecutor would bring a case, even though there is evidence of a potential violation and that you are expressing your view that the Justice Department should not proceed. It is not typical for you to go to a point and say ive gathered this information, there may be evidence of violations, but we dont think any reasonable prosecutor in the doj would pursue it, therefore we are going to not pursuing it . For an fbi director to do that . I never heard it, i never imagined it ever until the circumstance was there some logic in that at the time youre making that decision based on the information that you are provided. Was that of the same sort of thought process you are going for that led to your october 20th notification of congress that you had to look at other evidence that had been identified on Anthony Weiners pc . What im trying to do is say it looks like you are trying to provide as much transparency and as much realtime information as you had. On november six, the fbi apparently got something done in a matter of days which they thought were going to take on the election. I want to give you an opportunity to glue together the decision for your actions on july 5th and how i think theres parallel between that which will ultimately end on october 28th and november 6th. Ive lived my whole life caring about the credibility and integrity of the criminal justice process. The American People believe it to be and that it be in fact fair, and dependent, and honest. When i struggled with in the spring of last year was how to be credibly complete the investigation of Hillary Clintons emails if we conclude there is no case there . The normal way to do it as have the department of justice announce it. I struggled as we got closer to the end of it with the number of things and had gone on, some of which i cant talk about yet, that made me worry that the Department Leadership could not credibly complete the investigation and declined prosecution without damage to the america peoples confidence in the justice system. That cap there was, not picking on the attorney general loretta lynch, who i like very much, but her meeting with president clinton on that airplane was the capper for me. I then said the department cannot by itself credibly end this. The best chance we have is i do something i never imagined before, step away from them and tell the American People, heres with the fbi did, heres what we found, heres what we think. If that offer us the best chance for the mac people believing the system that it was done in a credible way, that was a hard call to make to call the attorney general that morning and say im calling a press conference and im not telling you what im going to say. I wasnt loving this. I knew this would be disastrous for me personally, but this is the best way to protect these institutions that we care so much about. Having done that, and then having testified repeatedly under oath, we are done, this is done in a credible way, there is no there there. When the Anthony Weiner thing landed on me on october 27th and there was a huge, new step to be taken, we may be finding that golden missing emails that would change this case. If i were not to speak about that, it would be a disaster acts catastrophic installment. It was incredible a painful choice, but not all that hard between very bad and catastrophic. I had to Tell Congress that we were taking these additional steps. I prayed to find a third door, i couldnt find it. Two actions, speak or conceal. I dont think many reasonable people would do a different leave than i did no matter what they say today. If you are standing there staring at that on october 28th, would you really conceal that . I spoke. Again, the design was to act credibly, independently, and honestly so the American People know the system is not rigged in any way thats why felt transparency was the best path. I wasnt seeking transparency in october. I sent that letter only to the chairs and rankings. I knew they were going to leak it, but i do not make it an announcement at that point. Then my amazing people moved heaven and earth to do what was impossible to get to go the most by working 24 hours a day and then set honestly, we found tons of new stuff. It doesnt change our view. I said are you sure, dont do it just because youre under pressure. They said we are sure. Then i said by god, weve got to Tell Congress that. What i can promise you all, you may think we are idiots, we are honest people. We make judgments trying to do the right thing and i believe even with hindsight we made the right decisions. Im sorry for the long answer. Director comey, we have 42 minutes. I hope you wont want to take a break. I made of stone. Thank you. On march 6, i wrote you about the fbis relationship with the author of the trump dossier, christopher steele. Most of these questions have not been answered, so im going to ask them now. Prior to the bureau launching the investigation between the Trump Campaign in russia, did anyone from the fbi have interactions with mr. Steel regarding the issue . At sonic question that i can answer in this forum. As you know, i briefed you privately on this. If there is more thats necessary, that i would be happy to do it privately. Have you ever represented that the fbi had interaction with mr. Steel with her by or not regarding the Trump Campaign and russia prior to the bureau launching in its investigation into the matter . I have to give you the same answer, mr. Chairman. This one im going to expect an answer on. Do fbi policies, just the policies, allow to pay an outside investigator for work another source is also paying him for as well . Do you want me to repeat it . Do fbi policies allow to pay an outside investigator for work that another source is also paying ben investigator for . I dont know for sure as i sit here. Possibly as my answer, but ill get you a precise answer. And writing . Sure. Did the fbi provide any payments to mr. Steel related to the investigation of mr. Trump associates . I cant answer in this forum. Was the fbi aware that mr. Steel reportedly paid his sources or paid their sub sources to make the claim in the dossier . Same answer, sir. Heres one you want to be able to answer. Is it vital to know whether or not sources have been paid in order to evaluate the credibility and if they have been paid, doesnt that information need to be disclosed if youre relying on that information in seeking approval for Investigative Authority . In general, yes. It is vital to know. The fbi and the Justice Department provided me materials with inconsistent answers and close settings about reported relationships with mr. Steel. Will you commit to fully answering the questions from my march 6th and april 28th letter in providing all requested documents so that we can resolve those inconsistencies, even if in a closed session, being necessary . As i sit here, i dont know the questions in the letters, i dont want to answer that specifically, but i commit to giving you all the information you need to address just that challenge, because i dont believe theres any inconsistency. I think theres a misunderstanding. I hope to show you those inconsistencies. I think i know where the confusion is, but in a classified setting, we can straighten out. Next question, according to a complaint from the Justice Department, the company that oversaw the dossiers creation was also working under a former russian intelligence on a prorussian lobbying process at the same time. The Company Fusion gps failed to register as a Foreign Agent for its work done under a law which allows the president to punish under human rights. Before i sent you a letter about this, were you aware of the complaint against fusion acting as an agent of russian interests . Thats on a question i can answer in this forum. You cant answer that . No, i cant. Ill go on to else. Last week, the fbi filed a declaration and court to the freedom of Court Information act. The fbi said that a grand jury issued subpoenas for secretary clintons emails, yet, you refused to List Committee whether the fbi saw it or had been denied access to a grand jury process from the Justice Department. I think a very simple question, why does the fbi give more information to someone who files a lawsuit then to an Oversight Committee in the congress and that has happened to me several times. Im not sure whether thats what happened here, but youre right. I refused to confirm and our hearings as to whether we used a grand jury and how. I think thats the right position. I dont know it well enough. I dont think i could tell you the only thing i could distinguish the details in the foia case. Just a matter of proposition. If i, as a private citizen, filed a freedom of information act and you give me information then youll give to senator chuck grassley, how do you justify that . Thats a good question. What you mean its a good question . How do you justify it . I cant come as i sit here. Was a quaint investigation named operation midyear because it needed to be finished before the Democratic National convention . If so, why the artificial deadline . If not, why was it the name . Certainly not. There is an art and a science to how we come up the code names for the cases. They assure me of son randomly, sometimes i see ones that make me smile, im not sure. I can assure you that it was called midyear exam was the name of the case. I can assure you the name was not selected for any nefarious purpose because of the timing and investigation. Was your first Public Statement about the case . Im not in a position where im comfortable confirming where or how we used a grand jury. I dont know enough about what was said in the foia case to know whether that makes my answer silly, but i want to be so careful about talking about grand jury matters. Im not going to answer that, sir. Thanks very much mr. Chairma mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, first of all, thank you for your fortitude going through this. We appreciate it. And your testimony, you noted that the first half of the fiscal year, the fbi was unable to access the content of more than 3,000 mobile devices. Even though the fbi had the Legal Authority to do so. Im aware that some of that is from the Southern California terrorist attack in which 14 people were killed in San Bernardino. Of those 3,000 devices that you werent able to access, can you say how many of these were related to a counterterrorism event . I dont know as i sit here, but we can get you that information. I would very much appreciate that. We have looked at legislation that would take into consideration events of National Security and provide that there must be some way of even going before a judge and getting a court order to be able to open a device. Do you think that would work . That would be a better place to be made Public Safety perspective, but we are not there now. This week, the british Parliaments Home Affairs sect select committee released a report finding that social media platforms such as facebook, twitter, and youtube, failed to remove extremist material posted by band jihadists and neonazi groups, even when that material was reported. The Committee Urged Tech Companies to pay for and publicize online content monitoring activities. They called on the British Government to strengthen laws related to the publication of such material. Last year, i worked with senators berg, rubio, and nelson to introduce a bill to require Tech Companies to report terrorist information to Law Enforcement. What do you advise the provision we modeled it a existing law law which requires Tech Companies to notify authorities about cases of child pornography, but does not require companies to monitor any user, subscriber, or customer. I plan to reintroduce the provision in separate legislation. Here are two questions. What the fbi benefit from knowing when Technology Companies see terrorist plotting and other illegal activity online . Yes. Speak over the fbi really willing to let the Judiciary Committee Going Forward on this provision . Yes, i dont know it well enough to offer you a view but we would be happy to work with you on it. I was so struck when San Bernardino happened, and you made overtures to allow that device to be opened and then the fbi had to spend 900,000 to hackett open. As i subsequently learned of some of the reason for it, there were good reasons to get into that device. The concern i have is once people have been killed in a terrorist attack, and there may be other dna. There may be other messages that lead an Investigative Agency to believe that there are others out there, isnt it too for the protection of the public that one would want to be able to see if a device could be open . And i have had a very hard time. Ive gone out, tried to talk to Tech Companies in my state. One facebook was very good, understood the problem, but most do not. Has the fbi ever talked with the Tech Companies about this need in particular . Yes, senator. Weve had a lot of conversations and as i said earlier, and my sense they are getting more productive because i think the Tech Companies have come to see the darkness a little bit more. My concern is that privacy is really important, but they did not see the Public Safety cost. I think they are starting to see that better. And what they dont want to something terrible to have been in the United States and be connected to our inability to access information with lawful authority. They should have the conversations before that happens, and the companies more and more get that. I think over the last year and a half, but it is vital. We were not picking on apple and the San Bernardino case. There were real reasons we needed to get into that device. That is true