point? mr. chairman, my counsel has reiterated that counsel for the fbi has directed that i may not answer that question. mr. strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing, and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation. point of order, mr. chairman. will the committee also consider contempt for mr. ban none, who refused to answer mr. gowdy s questions when he was under subpoena? that is not a proper inquiry. parliamentary inquiry. that is not in order. the gentleman from south carolina controls the time.
in five guilty mpleas. the truth hurts, but no matter how you hate it and how much it hurts, it s not going away. that s the real story here. and we need to keep our eyes on the ball and not chase ghosts through the halls of the department of justice while letting the important work of both of these committees go undone. but since we re here, mr. strzok, i want to get your reaction to the president s tweet on december 3rd, 2017. after years of comey with the phony and dishonest running the fbi, the reputation in tatters. but fear not, we will bring it back. mr. strzok, do you agree that the fbi s reputation is in tatters and is the worst in history? not at all. do you agree with the characterization that the clinton investigation was phony
conduct and as we surveyed that, as the attorneys looked at it saw a number of very fatal areas where elements of the crime were lacking. our ability to demonstrate facts to prove those elements of a crime. so i think we had begun to arrive at a sense that it was going to be difficult, if not impossible identify any statute where we could satisfy those elements of the crime. my assumption certainly is from the department of justice s perspective those attorneys were briefing their supervisors who were briefing their supervisor, ultimately briefing the attorney general and the attorney general and that she would have that same sense that it was a difficult if not impossible proposition to conclude that there were viable charges to be brought against secretary clinton. mr. strzok, did you ever believe these texts would become public? i did not. given that, you felt free to express your true feelings, didn t you?
witness s time and our own. the inspector general s report must have been a very big disappointment to the president and to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. let me say this. law enforcement officers and you said it earlier, mr. strzok, not only do they have political opinions, but they are encouraged to have them. as the chief of police, i encouraged them to have them and express them. but their expression never interfered with their ability to conduct their job. perhaps congress could learn something from members of the law enforcement community, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle allow political bias to influence
unrefutable, that the russians work to undermine our democracy and to elect donald trump president of the united states and that is something that is irefutable. you can say what you want about mr. strozk. yet we do not investigate that. we want to investigate mr. strozk. i want to ask you, mr. strozk because they kept saying you have this bias. when did you learn and how did you learn about the investigation into the possible collusion between the donald trump campaign and russian influence in our 2016 election? sir, i m limited to what director comey was authorized to say by the department of justice, but in late july. and when did the public learn about the investigation into russian collusion and donald trump s investigation? i don t know a specific date but well into the following year. it was after the election. yes, sir.