needs to be taken in the context i m asking look. if you want to have a debate over a two-letter word, we re going to have to do that some other time. what and who did you mean by it ? mr. gowdy, as i ve stated, that text was written late at night in shorthand i don t care when it was written. i don t care whether it was longhand, cursive. i don t care about any of that. i want to know what it meant, agent strzok? it would be his candidacy for the presidency. my sense it s not that tough. would not vote him into office. right. we hadn t gotten to the will yet. your testimony is i m trying to explain the text. the will is the american people, right? that s your testimony. the we ll stop it. you were speaking on behalf of the american people, is that correct? mr. gowdy, what my testimony is and what i said during extensive asking of this question during my prior interview is, i don t recall writing that text. but you deny writing the text. what i ca
the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. sandford for five minutes. i appreciate mr. chairman. i am going to yield my time to my colleague in ohio. agent strzok, i want to go back to the e-mail you sent on january 10th of the dossier. you have that in front of you again? i do. my last round of question, you said you spoke with bruce for several times in the 2016 and 2017 time period, is that accurate? that s correct did you know that he was meeting with representatives including glenn simpson. sure can. you can hold my time, please.
i suppose, yes. that s a difficult question to answer. mr. strzok, former director comey played judge, jury and exxon e exoarator in the hillary clinton investigation. mr. chairman, i would not agree with that characterization of director comey and in answer to your question i have not seen it before. was that a appropriate, what he did? to hold a news conference and publicly announce the decision that was supposed to have been made by the department of justice? sir, that was his decision. was it appropriate. i understand same of the factors that went into that decision. that decision was not made lightly at all.
i was the number two in the counter intelligence division. if it was important, i had a role in the oversight of it. there were people below mow me, who were working on this. t there are many things that you said about the i.g. s report that were absolutely misrepresentations. the response and the facts within the report is that within hours of hearing from new york that there was potential material relevant, i had assigned subordinate supervisors, attorneys and others to look into it, which they did within hours. as a result, less than a day after finding out about it, i set into motion a team who had nothing to do with the russia investigations to pursue that investigation. they came back and said, new york s still working on it. my assumption from there was that it s your representation of the i.g. report that s inaccurate. the time of the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. strzok, are you familiar
find their children, how to keep a roof over their head, clothes on their back, food on the table, care for an ailing parent. and we re in here wasting time. with that, i ll just yield the balance of my time. if there s anything that you think you need to add or that you were cut off and not had the time to add to this discussion, i ll give the balance of my time to mr. strzok to do that. sir, i appreciate that offer. i m struck listening to your statements and i know the history of the fbi. i certainly want the fbi to be something that you immediately leap to the defense of and i think that s something we re working very hard to become. i appreciate the offer and thank you. when it comes to the fbi, i asked years ago to have a hearing on the fact that we don t know or track how many