Youd like to make an opening statement. You may if you like. I have no opening statement. Im ready for your questions. Thank you. And ill take a little more than five minutes here but well try to plow through it. Mr. Comey, on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the top of the line, how would you rate the cross hire hurricane investigation in terms of being done thoroughly by the book and investigation the fbi should be proud of . Im not sure i could apply a number scale. But i would say in the main it was done by the book. It was appropriate and it was essential that it be done. Okay. So youre proud of it . Overall im proud of the work. There are parts of it that are concerning, which im sure well talk about. But overall im proud of the work. Okay. Sounds good. When did you first learn of the existence of the steele dossier . Sometime towards the end of september of 2016. Okay. Do you agree with mr. Horowitz that the dossier was essential to the carter page fisa warrant application being approved . I agree that it was important. I cant tell you whether it was essential. And by that i mean that wouldnt have been granted without the steele information. Lets go through the application. There are two parts. Was there anef tort to get a warrant approved without using the dossier . Yes. My understanding is in the summer they asked doj whether they would support moving forward on a warren application. And they said no, right . Correct. That is my understanding from the horowitz report. And then you add the dossier and they say yes to the warrant application. Is that a fair statement. I think it is fair to say that doj decided to move forward after the steele information was part of it. Yes. So i would say that it was essential based on that. Now here is what id like to ask. The contacts between mr. Page and alleged russian operatives are one part of the application, is that correct . That is my recollection. Okay. Did mr. Page deny knowing people that you accused him of having contact with . I dont remember. I think the horowitz report said that in the fall of 2016 speaking to an fbi source he denied knowing certain people. But that is about all i could recall. Well here is the facts. He denied knowing these people and the fbi is yet to find any evidence that it was lying. The people that he did have contact with, did he tell the fbi that he was working for the cia and that is why he had contacts with these peoples . I dont remember. Do you do you now agree that the cia confirmed that mr. Page was, in fact, helping them . I know from the horowitz report that the cia confirmed he was what they call a contact. So the fbi in august of 2016 had information from the cia informing the fbi that, in fact, mr. Page was a resource. Did you not know that . I did not know the nature of his relationship with the cia. What im telling you is what i read in the horowitz report. Do you think it would have been fair for the fbi to tell the court that mr. Page had a ran to be talking to these people because he was working with the cia. Would that have been a fair thing to tell the court . I dont agree with your characterization of what mr. Horowitz found. Im talking about you as the director. The fbi has in its possession in august 2016 information from the cia confirming what mr. Page said. That he, in fact, was assisting the cia, which explained the contacts. That was never given to the court. Should been informed of that because that is exculpatory to mr. Page. I believe mr. Horowitz found that they should have at least considered should you youre the director of the fbi. Would you wish that had been done, if you had known about it . If what had been done . That you had informed the court that mr. Page was, in fact, working with the cia and that explained these contacts. Do you think out of a sense of fairness the court should have been informed of that fact . Again, i dont agree with your preamble. I dont think the record established that he was working with the cia. I think horowitz found he was a contact weve got weve got the email from the cia confirming that he was a source for the cia. Are you aware of the fact that that email later on was doctored . Again, i dont accept what you said. I dont think the record establishes he was a source for the cia. Im aware from horowitz why is mr. Klein smith facing criminal indictment. I only know what ive read in the public record. Youre the director of the fbi. You didnt know that your agency had information from the cia verifying what mr. Page told you, that these contacts had a basis in fact because he was working with the cia, did you know that mr. Klein smith doctored the email for it to read that there was no association between page and the cia, that he changed that there was to there was not. How do you feel about that . I know nothing about mr. Klein smith other than what ive read in the how do you feel in general about an fbi lawyer doctoring information exculpatory to somebody being surveilled. Anything during the course of the investigation but you didnt know about that. All right. When the application was submitted, what effort had been made to verify the dossier in october . I dont know specifically. I know that Counterintelligence Division was working to see how much of it they could rule in and rule out. How much time do they spend ruling in and ruling out regarding the dossier in october . I dont know. You dont know. You signed the application. Whose job . To make sure the facts are right when you present them to the fisa court . Well the most basic level, the affiant, whoever is signing the affidavit. Did you sign the affidavit. No. I signed a certification required of the fbi director. Did the fbi director have any responsibility to make sure that facts are right when theyre given to the court . Not in connection with the certification but in general the fbi director is responsible for everything under the fbi director. Were trying to find who provided the application to the fisa court and why was it so flawed. You could give me a group of people that we could look at to hold accountable for misleading the court. Who should we be looking at . To understand the process, in general and in this case, you would start with the horowitz report, where he recounts all of the many people involved in the review, production and delivery to the court of this application. But you dont know as the director of the fbi who prepared the application, is that correct. I do not. Okay. So in october, it is clear there was no effort to verify the dossier before it was given to the court. Do you agree with that. I dont know the answer to that. Well, thats the answer. In january of the 12th, 2017, the warrant application was renewed. Did you sign that . I signed a certification in connection with i think two, one in january and one three months later. Are you aware of the fact between october and january the fbi had found that the russian subsource was on the payroll of mr. Steele, was suspected of being a russian spy by the fbi, all the way back to 2009 . I dont remember learning anything additional about steele sources how could it be, mr. Director, that the fbi finds in its file that the man that prepared the dossier for steele was suspected of being a threat to National Security and it doesnt make it up to you . I dont know. I could speculate. But i dont know. I dont want you to speculate. Well try to figure this all out ourselves. Do you know who Christopher Steele was . When did you find out who he was . When the steele dossier was briefed to me sometime i think late september. Were you ever told that he hated trump and he wanted him to lose and very much down on trump as a person . Not that i recall, no. You dont remember bruce or briefing the team about the steele biases that you have to watch this guy . I dont remember bruce or ever do you remember friendly foreign governments putting us on notice that he tends to exaggerate and goes off on crusades . Did that make it to you . I dont recall that. Okay, thank you. All right. So should the court had been informed in a perfect world, that the primary subsource was a suspected russian spy . At a minimum the fbi and justice should have discussed whether to inform the court about that. Were aware in december of 2016 the cia tells the fbi they characterize the dossier as internet rumor. I dont recall being informed of that. Were you told by the cia to be careful with the dossier and steele, that this is not good craft here . I dont remember being told anything like that. Okay. All right. So lets fast forward now. The warrant application is renewed in april, 2017. You signed it in january the 12th. You didnt know that the sub source was suspected by the fbi being a russian spy, all the way back to 2009. You didnt know that the cia had told the fbi that the documents internet rumor. Are you aware of the fact that the sub source was interviewed by the fbi in january 2017 . I dont remember anything about interviews with the subsource. So as the director, was this an important case for the fbi . Or is this kind of a runofthemill thing . The overarching investigation was very important. The page slice of it, far less well, i mean, you have a sitk president of the United States by january 2017. You had a dossier that is salacious as hell that accuses the president of being involved in all kind of sex escapades and russia and a bunch of other stuff and you keep using that document over and over again to get a warrant. And here is my question. Every time you found information to put the reliability of the dossier in question, everybody seemed to ignore it and just plowed forward. So i want to know in january, youre not aware of the fact that the fbi interviewed the primary subsource, is that your testimony . I did not remember being told about any interview of okay. Should you have been told about it . I cant answer that. Because i wasnt. And so i dont know what the considerations were here is what happened. The primary subsource told the fbi in january 2017 after the dossier had been used twice to get a warrant that the subsource has no idea of some of the language attributed to him came from, that the context never mentioned some of the information attributed to them and that he did not know the origins of other information that was supposedly from his contacts. He said the statements were word of mouth and hearsay, conversations had with friends over beers and were statements made in jest that should be taken with a grain of salt. Did any of that ever get to you . Not that i recall, no. Do you agree that is pretty Important Information concerning the reliability of the dossier . It is information that should be weighed in light of a variety of circumstances. It is inherently exculpatory, the person who put the document together is telling the fbi it is bar talk, it is grain of salt and they tell the fbi and keep using the same document. You know how describe to the court the subsource . You know what they told the subsource in the application . That he was truthful and cooperative. Do you think those terms to the court, truthful and cooperative, fairly reflect the interview the fbi conducted in january and march . I know the Inspector General found that the disclosure was n inadequate in that regard. It is not only inadequate, it is criminally inadequate. This is falling apart. The cia said this is internet rumor, the person who prepared it was on a jihad against trump and the primary subsource was a russian agent. When that person was interviewed by the fbi, he disavowed the reliability of the document to the point that it should never have been used again and my question is how could the system ignore all of that and how could it be used again in april and again in june . Do you know how that is possible . Again, im not going to respond to your preamble. I think mr. Horowitz found that it was not disclosed in a variety of facts that were not disclosed. He didnt find intentional misconduct, but he found failure to disclose. All i can say is there a duty by the fbi to inform the court of the exculpatory information. It includes exculpatory information do you think it is exculpatory for the court to know when he said the people he met with was a result of him being associated working with the cia, do you think that would have been beneficial to mr. Page . Again, because i dont agree with your predicate to the question, i cant answer that. Well we got emails and ill be glad to show them to you about the association between the cia and mr. Page. And the primary sub source disavowed the dossier has being a rumor, bar talk, take half of it with a grain of salt and do you think the fbi owed it to tell the court about the stunning revelations. I think mr. Horowitz found and it seems a reasonable conclusion that they should have been how could the director of the fbi not know all of this. How is it possible that the system gathers so much exculpatory information, it is internet rumor according to the cia, that the interview of the subsource disavows the reliability of the document. That they were a suspected russian spy. How did it not get to you, the director of the fbi, of one of the important investigations in the history of fbi. How is that possible . I could only speculate because it didnt. And as i said the investigation overall was incredibly important. The piece your focused on is important but on a much smaller slice. It is very important to mr. Page. It should be important to every american. If you is there an there add oak vating for mr. Page during the warrant process . That is an ex parte application, meaning that only one person. It is an ex parte event, it means that the cops have a duty to tell the court when they find things beneficial to the person under investigation. And over and over again, between october and june, all of the information found about the dossier made it less reliable, not more reliable and you kept using it again and again and again and the question was there bias. At what point in time do you put two and two together. That the people behind this hate trump and the reason they ran all of the stop signs they didnt want to take no for an answer. Do you recall getting an inquiry from the Intelligence Community in september of 2016 about a concern that the Clinton Campaign was going to create a scandal regarding trump and russia . I do not. You dont remember getting a investigativeory lead from the Intelligence Community . Hang on a second. Let me find the document here. September the 7th, 2016, the u. S. Intelligence officials forwarded a referral to fbi director james comey and peter strzok regarding u. S. Candidate Hillary Clintons approval of a plan concerning u. S. President ial candidate donald trump and Russian Hackers hampering u. S. Elections as a mean of distracting the public from her use of a private email server. You dont remember getting that . Or being taught doesnt ring it doesnt ring a bell. That is a stunning thing. That it didnt ring a bell. But it did come to you. Let as just end with this. You get the inquiry to look at the Clinton Campaign trying to create a distraction and accused trump of being a russian agent or stooge or whatever to distract from her email server problems and how far fetched is that, mr. Comey, when we know that the Democratic Party through fusion gps hired Christopher Steele, a Foreign Agent who had a strong bias against trump who hired a russian sub source who the fbi believed to be a russian spy to compile a dossier that was a bunch of crap to be used against an american citizen working for the trump campaign. You already knew that. Seems to me you would want to investigate other allegations but you tell me you dont recall this . Im sorry, senator, is there a question. Yes. You dont recall this inquiry i just read about september the 2016 . No. As i said do you remember being told it doesnt sound do you remember being hold by the Intelligence Community, remember the episode with trump and the hotel . With the hookers and the dossier . Yes, i remember that portion of the that is pretty hard to ignore. Do you remember in december the Intelligence Committee basically said a u. S. Intelligence Community Report contained information about the falsity of the details of trump Sexual Activity in moscow and assessed that they