    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      OVERSIGHT OF THE FBI AND DOJ ACTIONS

                        IN ADVANCE OF THE 2016 ELECTION

    =======================================================================

                                 JOINT HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                                    AND THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 19, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-100

                 (Committee on Oversight and Government Reform)

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 115-34

                          (Committee on the Judiciary)

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                           http://oversight.house.gov

                             _________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     31-522 PDF             WASHINGTON : 2018

                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

                      Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland,
    Darrell E. Issa, California              Ranking Minority Member
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Carolyn B. Maloney, New York
    Mark Sanford, South Carolina         Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
    Justin Amash, Michigan                   Columbia
    Paul A. Gosar, Arizona               Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri
    Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee          Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
    Virginia Foxx, North Carolina        Jim Cooper, Tennessee
    Thomas Massie, Kentucky              Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
    Mark Meadows, North Carolina         Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
    Ron DeSantis, Florida                Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
    Dennis A. Ross, Florida              Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
    Mark Walker, North Carolina          Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
    Rod Blum, Iowa                       Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    Jody B. Hice, Georgia                Jimmy Gomez, Maryland
    Steve Russell, Oklahoma              Peter Welch, Vermont
    Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania
    Will Hurd, Texas                     Mark DeSaulnier, California
    Gary J. Palmer, Alabama              Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands
    James Comer, Kentucky                John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
    Paul Mitchell, Michigan
    Greg Gianforte, Montana
    Vacancy

                         Sheria Clarke, Staff Director
                        William McKenna, General Counsel
                Sean Brebbia, Senior Counsel for Investigations
                  Stephen Castor, Chief Investigative Counsel
                        Sharon Casey, Deputy Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                           Committee on the Judiciary

                       Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman
    Jim Sensenbrenner, Wisconsin         Jerrold Nadler, New York
    Lamar Smith, Texas                   Zoe Lofgren, California
    Steve Chabot, Ohio                   Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
    Darrell Issa, California             Steve Cohen, Tennessee
    Steve King, Iowa                     Hank Johnson, Georgia
    Louie Gohmert, Texas                 Ted Deutch, Florida
    Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Luis Gutierrez, Illinois
    Ted Poe, Texas                       Karen Bass, California
    Tom Marino, Pennsylvania             Cedric Richmond, Louisiana
    Trey Gowdy, South Carolina           Hakeem Jeffries, New York
    Raul Labrador, Idaho                 David Cicilline, Rhode Island
    Doug Collins, Georgia                Eric Swalwell, California
    Ron Desantis, Florida                Ted Lieu, California
    Ken Buck, Colorado                   Jamie Raskin, Maryland
    John Ratcliffe, Texas                Pramila Jayapal, Washington
    Martha Roby, Alabama                 Brad Schneider, Illinois
    Matt Gaetz, Florida                  Val Demings, Florida
    Mike Johnson, Louisiana
    Andy Biggs, Arizona
    John Rutherford, Florida
    Karen Handel, Georgia
    Keith Rothfus, Pennsylvania

                        Shelley Husband, Staff Director
                     Branden Ritchie, Deputy Staff Director
             Bobby Parmiter, Chief Counsel for Crime and Terrorism
                          Zach Somers, General Counsel
           Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on June 19, 2018....................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S.
      Department of Justice
        Oral Statement...............................................    11
        Written Statement............................................    14

      OVERSIGHT OF THE FBI AND DOJ ACTIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE 2016 ELECTION

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, June 19, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
      Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, joint with
                                the Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committees met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
    Room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Trey Gowdy [chairman
    of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform] presiding.
        Present from the Committee on Oversight and Government
    Reform: Representatives Gowdy, Issa, Jordan, Amash, Gosar,
    DesJarlais, Foxx, Massie, Meadows, DeSantis, Walker, Hice,
    Russell, Grothman, Palmer, Comer, Mitchell, Gianforte,
    Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Clay, Connolly, Lawrence, Watson
    Coleman, Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Plaskett, and Sarbanes.
        Present from the Committee on the Judiciary: Goodlatte,
    Chabot, King, Gohmert, Poe, Ratcliffe, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of
    Louisiana, Biggs, Rutherford, Handel, Rothfus, Nadler, Jackson
    Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries,
    Cicilline, Swalwell, and Schneider.
        Chairman Gowdy. Good morning. The Committee on Oversight
    and Government Reform and the Committee on Judiciary will come
    to order. Without objection, the presiding member is authorized
    to declare a recess at any time.
        I am pleased, as I know my colleagues are, to see so much
    interest in today's hearing. As a reminder to our guests, the
    Rules of the House of Representatives prohibit any disruption
    or manifestation of approval or disapproval of the proceedings,
    such as shouting. Disrupting the proceedings is a violation of
    D.C. law and the House Rules, and it will not be tolerated, and
    this will be your only warning.
        Welcome, Inspector General Horowitz.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. Yes.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, before we hear from the Inspector
    General, I feel compelled to say something about a topic that
    is a more immediate priority.
        We have all seen the pictures of immigrant children ripped
    apart from their parents at the border. These children are not
    animals. They are not bargaining chips. They are not leverage
    to help President Trump build his wall. They are children who
    have been forcibly removed from their parents in our name.
    Every day that they are separated from their parents is a day
    we do irreparable harm to their health and well-being.
        The United States should be better than this. We should not
    put children in cages. The minute this hearing adjourns, sooner
    if we can----
        Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, regular order.
        Mr. Nadler. --I hope our committees can work together to
    end this cruel practice without delay.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia has requested
    regular order. The gentleman from New York has been given more
    time than would have been afforded the other side had we pulled
    something like that.
        So with that, we will welcome you, Mr. Horowitz, for what I
    think is a hearing on your inspector general report and to
    decisions made and not made in 2016.
        We will be in recess until the Capitol Police restore
    order.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Gowdy. The committee will come to order.
        Inspector General Horowitz, just for your knowledge, the
    chairs and ranking members will give opening statements, then
    you will be introduced and recognized for your opening
    statement.
        What we're doing today does not happen everywhere. We are
    taking institutions with long and distinguished histories,
    institutions we need, institutions we rely upon, and we're
    applying scrutiny, review, and inspection. We're testing, we're
    probing, we're challenging, we're even criticizing.
        And we're doing this because we need these institutions to
    be above reproach. We need them to be respected and trusted. We
    need them to be above bias, taint, and prejudice. We need these
    institutions to be fair, just, evenhanded, proportional, and
    wholly immune from the vagaries of politics.
        That's what we expect and demand and need from the
    Department of Justice and the FBI, and those expectations
    should be consistently exacting, because the power we give
    prosecutors and law enforcement is an awesome power.
        The power to prosecute, the power to charge, the power to
    indict is the power to impact reputations. It is the power to
    deprive people of their liberty. It is the power in some
    instances to even try to take the very life of a citizen. And
    we give police and prosecutors tremendous powers, and with
    those powers comes a corresponding expectation of fairness and
    just dealing.
        This inspector general's report should conjure anger,
    disappointment, and sadness in everyone who reads it. This IG
    report lays bare the bias, the animus, the prejudging of facts
    by senior FBI agents and senior attorneys. And attempts to
    minimize and mitigate this bias are so antithetical to what we
    want and deserve in our law enforcement officers, and it is
    dangerous to the broader community.
        I have seen media efforts, and I have seen efforts from
    some, not all, but some of my Democrat colleagues to shift the
    burden of bias unto those impacted by that bias, that it is
    somehow the responsibility of those affected by bias to show
    how that bias negatively impacted them.
        What a dangerous shifting of the burden. It is not the
    public's job to prove the bias shown by the FBI did not
    influence decisionmaking. It is the FBI's job to prove to the
    public that this manifest bias was not outcome determinative.
        And bias and fairness cannot coexist. That is why no lawyer
    seated up here today would ever allow a biased juror to sit on
    his or her jury and no citizen would ever allow a biased police
    officer or judge to work on any matter of any significance.
        There is a presumption that bias is bad, and that is a
    presumption we should accept in nearly every single facet of
    life.
        As we read this report, we're reminded of Jim Comey's
    decision to hold the July 5 press conference and appropriate
    the charging decision away from the prosecutors. We see Jim
    Comey drafting an exoneration memo before important witnesses,
    like the target, were even interviewed.
        Ironically, this inspector general has been accused of
    softening or watering down his report when the reality is it
    was Jim Comey who softened and watered down his press release
    announcing no charges against Secretary Clinton.
        We see Jim Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding which DOJ
    policies to follow and which to ignore. We see Jim Comey and
    Jim Comey alone deciding whether there is sufficient evidence
    to support each and every element of an offense. We see Jim
    Comey and Jim Comey alone deciding whether to send a letter to
    Congress in the throes of a looming election.
        Now, his justification for this is that he did not have
    confidence in the objectivity of Attorney General Loretta
    Lynch. Whether it was her asking him to refer to this case as a
    ``matter'' rather than an ``investigation,'' or her meeting
    with Bill Clinton while Hillary Clinton was under
    investigation, or the matter he has alluded to but claims he
    cannot discuss publicly, clearly Jim Comey had lost confidence
    in the DOJ to handle a case in a way worthy of public trust.
        But that leads us to the one thing we did not see Jim Comey
    do, which was take any steps to spur the appointment of special
    counsel in the Hillary Clinton investigation.
        When he lost confidence in the Trump Justice Department he
    memorialized private conversations, he leaked them, and he
    admitted he did so to spur the appointment of special counsel
    because he didn't trust the career prosecutors at the
    Department of Justice.
        When he lost confidence in the Obama Justice Department he
    didn't make special memos. He didn't share them with his law
    professor friends. He didn't leak the information. He didn't
    lift a finger to get a special prosecutor. Instead, he
    appointed himself FBI Director, Attorney General, special
    counsel, lead investigator, and the general arbiter of what is
    good and right in the world according to him.
        And one of the last times I spoke with Director Comey was
    in a committee hearing. We had a pointed exchange on what I
    thought was the FBI making decisions based in part on politics.
    And he, in his typically sanctimonious way, told me he
    disagreed. He said, the men and women of the FBI do not, quote,
    ``give a hoot about politics.''
        Unfortunately, and I use that word intentionally,
    unfortunately, he was dead wrong. There were agents and
    attorneys at the FBI who gave a lot more than a hoot about
    politics.
        There's Andy McCabe, the former deputy director and acting
    director of the FBI, an agency which investigates and charges
    others for making false statements, himself accused of making
    false statements and showing a lack of candor.
        I think I recall, perhaps someone can correct me, but I
    think I recall some of my Democrat colleagues falling over
    themselves to offer a job to Andy McCabe when he was let go for
    making false statements and for a lack of candor, but those
    same colleagues apparently weren't hiring, they didn't have any
    openings when others in a related investigation, called Russia,
    were charged with the same offense.
        There were FBI agents and attorneys who decided to prejudge
    the outcome of the Hillary Clinton case before the
    investigation ended. I want you to let that sink in for a
    second. They prejudged the outcome of the Hillary Clinton
    investigation before the investigation ended, and these exact
    same FBI agents and attorneys prejudged the outcome of the
    Russia investigation before it even began.
        If prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it
    ends and prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it
    begins is not evidence of outcome-determinative bias, for the
    life of me I don't know what would be. That is textbook bias.
    It is quite literally the definition of bias, allowing
    something other than the facts to determine your decision.
        These agents were calling her President before she was even
    interviewed. They were calling for the end of the Trump
    campaign before the investigation even began. They were calling
    for impeachment simply because he happened to be elected. That
    is bias.
        And with all due respect, it is the FBI's job, not mine, to
    prove that bias can ever be harmless, because I don't agree, I
    think bias is always harmful.
        So we'll spend today on the small in number but significant
    in leadership group of DOJ and FBI officials, officials who had
    leadership and supervisory roles in the Clinton and Russia
    investigations and who failed to meet the basic expectations of
    fundamental fairness.
        But there are tens of thousands of FBI agents and DOJ
    employees who do meet our exacting expectations, and we will
    not be calling their names today, unfortunately, because we
    don't do IG investigations on agents and prosecutors who do
    their jobs with character and professionalism.
        To those agents and prosecutors who do the right thing the
    right way and for the right reasons, we'll get through this. It
    will be tough and it will be difficult, but we will emerge on
    the other side with a stronger FBI and a stronger Department of
    Justice because we have to. We cannot have a justice system
    that bases decisions on anything other than facts.
        To our fellow citizens watching at home, be unrelenting in
    your expectations of our justice system. Never lower those
    expectations. Respect for the rule of law is the thread that
    holds the tapestry of this country together, and it depends
    upon you having confidence in those you empower to enforce the
    law.
        And importantly, do not ever accept the notion that those
    victimized or impacted or negatively treated because of bias or
    prejudgment have any burden of proving harm. Bias is
    intrinsically harmful. It is the making up of your mind based
    on anything other than the facts.
        We use a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales to
    symbolize what we want in a justice system. And there is
    nothing more antithetical to justice than lowering that
    blindfold and making up your mind based on who is standing in
    front of you. That is not who we are. That is not what we
    should ever become.
        There's a saying in the courtroom: May justice be done
    though the heavens fall. You won't hear that saying in
    politics. You're more likely to hear: Let's win at all costs,
    the heavens be damned.
        We can survive with politicians we don't trust. We can't
    survive with a justice system we don't trust.
        With that, I would recognize the gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        When we look back to the Presidential campaign in 2016
    there's one extremely troubling image we all remember very
    well. That is the image of Donald Trump and other Republicans
    chanting: Lock her up, lock her up, lock her up. They were
    talking about Hillary Clinton using personal emails, and they
    demanded over and over again that she be jailed.
        But the Justice Department had already investigated. They
    had interviewed witnesses, reviewed documents, analyzed the
    law, and examined past charging decisions. At the conclusion of
    its investigation, the Department disagreed with the
    Republicans. They did not charge Hillary Clinton with any crime
    at all. And the entire DOJ and FBI team on the investigation
    agreed with that conclusion.
        Of course, the Republicans refused to accept that
    conclusion. They wanted Hillary Clinton to be guilty. So they
    attacked the investigation. They said there must have been
    collusion with Hillary Clinton. They called emergency hearings
    over and over and over again. They insisted on reviewing
    documents and reinterviewing witnesses. And they demanded that
    the inspector general conduct his own independent investigation
    of the FBI.
        Last week the inspector general issued his report, but it
    finds the same thing. It says, and I quote: ``We found no
    evidence that the conclusions by Department prosecutors were
    affected by bias or other improper considerations.'' The report
    goes on, and I quote: ``Rather, we determined that they were
    based on the prosecutor's assessments of the facts, the law,
    and past Department practice,'' end of quote.
        So the Republicans were wrong again. All their howling
    about ``lock her up'' was bogus. It was baseless. It was
    unsubstantiated. And now we have another report saying so. But
    again and again the Republicans refuse to accept this
    conclusion. They still want Hillary Clinton to be guilty even
    today.
        Now they're going after the investigation of the
    investigation. They're going after the inspector general's
    report issued last week. They want to rereview documents the
    inspector general already reviewed and reinterview witnesses
    the inspector general already interviewed.
        Some Republicans even want to investigate whether anyone
    tampered with the inspector general's report or watered it
    down. They simply refuse to accept the inspector general's
    findings. The Republicans point to some individual expressions
    of bias, and these are facts the inspector general already
    reviewed.
        Instead, the Republicans are now tripling down, threatening
    to impeach Rod Rosenstein and Christopher Wray for somehow
    obstructing their efforts to get to the bottom of all of this.
        They had a big meeting on Friday, by the way, Friday night,
    with Speaker Paul Ryan. No Democrats were invited, of course.
    But this weekend Chairman Gowdy described some of it during a
    press conference, press appearance.
        Apparently, after reading the inspector general's
    conclusions, House Republicans all decided that, and I quote:
    ``The House of Representatives is going to use its full arsenal
    of constitutional weapons to gain compliance,'' end of quote,
    with their never-ending demands regarding Hillary Clinton.
        At this point I think it is crystal clear that the only
    answer Republicans will accept is that Hillary Clinton must be
    guilty. They will keep going on and going until they get that
    answer, even if the facts will never support it, and even if
    multiple independent reviews come to exactly the opposite
    conclusion.
        Republicans in Congress are only willing to use their full
    arsenal of constitutional weapons to attack Hillary Clinton or
    protect Donald Trump. Neither the Oversight Committee nor the
    Judiciary Committee has issued a single subpoena to investigate
    President Donald Trump on any other topic related to his
    administration, including the key moral and ethical issue of
    the day, which is the President's new policy to separate
    children from their families.
        And so I ask the question, and it is a simple question: Are
    we really going to sit here, 70 Members of the Congress of the
    United States of America, in 2018 and have a hearing that just
    repeats the hearings the Senate had yesterday on Hillary
    Clinton's emails?
        We sent letter after letter, letter after letter asking
    these committees to investigate the Trump administration's
    policy, which is now resulting in child internment camps--
    that's what I said, child internment camps--but we have gotten
    no response.
        Look, even if you believe people entered our country
    illegally, even if you believe they have no valid asylum claims
    in their own country, even if you believe immigration should be
    halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that in the
    United States of America we will not intentionally separate
    children from their parents. We will not do that. We are better
    than that. We are so much better. We should be able to agree
    that we will not keep kids in child internment camps
    indefinitely and hidden away from public view. What country is
    that?
        This is the United States of America. We now have reports
    that parents are being deported, but the Trump administration
    is keeping their children here, 2018 in America.
        We do not need legislation. This is a policy--and
    understand this--this was a policy invented, implemented, and
    executed by President Donald Trump.
        And so in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need you. Those
    children need you. And I'm talking directly to my Republican
    colleagues. We need you to stand up to President Trump. We need
    you to join us in telling him that we reject this mean policy.
    We need you to tell him to abandon this policy. We need you to
    remind him that this is the United States of America and it is
    a great country. And we need you to stand up for those
    children.
        And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
        The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
        Chairman Goodlatte. We are here to shed light on decisions
    that have terribly tarnished the reputation of our chief law
    enforcement institutions and undermine Americans' confidence in
    their justice system. Today we will examine irregularities and
    improprieties in the FBI and DOJ's handling of two of the most
    sensitive investigations in the history of our country, and it
    all began with Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified
    emails.
        The IG's report has spawned more questions and more
    theories about the FBI and DOJ's handling of the Clinton
    investigation. It confirms that Mrs. Clinton did, in fact,
    receive special treatment from the Obama Justice Department and
    FBI during their investigation.
        The American people often get tired of political infighting
    in Washington, D.C., so I want to ask a simple question: Why
    should Americans care about what we are talking about here
    today?
        I propose this answer: Because our constitution guarantees
    equality under the law. Americans expect that those with power
    and influence will not receive special treatment.
        But as the IG report describes, DOJ and FBI did not treat
    Mrs. Clinton like any other criminal suspect and did not follow
    standard investigative procedures in exonerating her.
        The IG found many issues with this particular
    investigation, as well as serious institutional issues, and
    while only telling half the story. We are still awaiting
    conclusions with respect to the allegations of surveillance
    abuse inside the FBI. The IG identified various corrective
    actions, including recommending five additional FBI employees
    for further review and possible disciplinary consideration.
        In a nutshell, the IG report details unusual actions taken
    by law enforcement officials who were sworn to uphold the
    Constitution impartially and fairly. They failed in that duty.
        Again, why should Americans care? The Department of Justice
    and the FBI are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Who is
    mentioned in the Constitution? The President and Congress. Yet
    a handful of individuals in these law enforcement institutions
    placed the constitutional institution of the Presidency under
    attack during a heated election and mocked Congress' legitimate
    constitutionally mandated oversight.
        Equality under the law is a core American value. Our laws
    are to be administered and enforced with impartiality. The IG
    report confirms that this was not the case in the Clinton
    investigation.
        To quote from the report concerning certain individuals
    assigned to the investigation: ``We found that the conduct of
    these five FBI employees brought discredit to themselves, sowed
    doubt about the FBI's handling of the Midyear investigation,
    and impacted the reputation of the FBI...Moreover, the damage
    caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the
    Midyear investigation and goes to the heart of the FBI's
    reputation for neutral factfinding and political
    independence,'' end quote.
        I am only repeating what the IG found: Improprieties by the
    FBI and DOJ caused such far-reaching damage going to the heart
    of what is expected from agencies whose responsibility was to
    remain fair administrators of justice.
        This hearing and the IG's report underscore the importance
    of the ongoing joint investigation by the House Judiciary
    Committee and the House Oversight Committee into decisions made
    by the DOJ and FBI in 2016. To date, the committees have
    interviewed several key witnesses and reviewed tens of
    thousands of documents.
        While we appreciate the IG and his staff for a very
    detailed investigation, it is critical for the public to also
    hear what was not included in the report due to the IG's
    refusal to question, quote, ``whether a particular decision by
    the FBI and DOJ was the most effective choice,'' end quote.
        Here is what has been observed by these committees:
        Questionable interpretation by DOJ and FBI of the law
    surrounding mishandling of classified information;
        Foreign actors obtained access to some of Mrs. Clinton's
    emails, including at least one email classified secret;
        Director Comey appeared to have predetermined the
    exoneration of Mrs. Clinton at least 2 months before the
    investigation concluded;
        The Department of Justice determined any charge of gross
    negligence was off the table, reading an intent standard into
    the law that does not exist;
        Grotesque statements against then-candidate Donald Trump
    were made by top FBI officials, and they went so far as to say:
    We'll stop Trump from becoming President;
        Indiscretions involving Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page were not
    handled appropriately at the time the FBI management learned of
    them, resulting in their continued assignment as key players on
    the Clinton investigation and the Mueller Russia investigation;
        Mr. McCabe appears to have not been forthright with
    Congress during an interview conducted by the committees
    concerning his knowledge of meetings and actions taken by Mr.
    McCabe and his team;
        The FBI's top counterintelligence official was unaware of
    possible evidence indicating Mrs. Clinton's private email
    server had been penetrated by a foreign adversary and unaware
    of relevant legal process obtained during the investigation;
        Documents show significant criticism of Mr. Comey expressed
    by multiple current and former FBI agents;
        The FBI intentionally obscured the fact President Obama had
    communicated with Mrs. Clinton's private email address by
    editing Mr. Comey's final press statement, replacing ``the
    President'' with the euphemism ``senior government official'';
        Finally, top FBI officials, including Mr. McCabe and Mr.
    Priestap, through their wives had close ties to Democrat and
    Clinton-affiliated entities and should have seemingly been
    recused from the Clinton investigation.
        Public confidence in the impartiality of our law
    enforcement system is critical to ensure all are treated
    equally under the law. Fallout from the Clinton investigation,
    however, gives the impression those with money and influence
    are given lighter treatment than the so-called common person.
        Short-term damage to the FBI and DOJ's reputations is
    apparent. However, the IG and Congress' investigations will
    help to understand why certain deficiencies occurred during one
    of the most high-profile investigations in this Nation's
    history.
        This hearing is a crucial step toward repairing law
    enforcement's reputation as an impartial fact-finder and seeker
    of truth, and I look forward to the inspector general's
    testimony today.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back.
        The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Inspector General Horowitz, for being here
    today.
        In the days since you released your report, Mr. Inspector
    General, I have been struck by the total disconnect between the
    Republican party line and your actual findings. The report does
    not find, as President Trump continues to complain, that the
    FBI, quote, plotted against his election.
        The report also does not totally exonerate the President on
    the Russian matter no matter how you read it. It does not give
    any reason to conclude, as the President's increasingly
    untethered attorney Rudy Giuliani argues, that, quote, Mueller
    should be suspended and honest people should be brought in,
    unquote, or that the Attorney General should violate his
    recusal and end the special counsel's investigation altogether.
        Nor does it suggest, as Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman
    Gowdy insist, that Hillary Clinton received special treatment
    from the FBI.
        The key findings in the report are quite simple. The
    inspector general, quote, ``found no evidence that the
    conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other
    improper considerations; rather, we determined that they were
    based on the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law, and
    past Department practice,'' close quote. That sums up
    everything we're talking about.
        The report criticizes the FBI and its former leadership,
    but virtually every action criticized ultimately harmed the
    candidacy of Secretary Clinton and inured to the benefit of the
    candidacy of Donald Trump.
        And the report has nothing whatsoever to say about the
    ongoing work of the special counsel. President Trump, Rudy
    Giuliani, and some of my Republican colleagues are desperate to
    make that leap. Who wouldn't be in their position, with 23
    indictments and the President's campaign manager in jail? But
    their argument is based on innuendo and not on the facts and
    certainly not on this report.
        Now, I am not shy about my criticism of the former FBI
    Director. When James Comey testified before the Judiciary
    Committee last year I told him that he was wrong to have
    applied a double standard to the Presidential campaigns,
    speaking publicly and at length about the Clinton investigation
    but refusing even to acknowledge the existence of the
    investigation into the Trump campaign.
        I also told Mr. Comey that he was wrong to have criticized
    Secretary Clinton after announcing that he would not charge her
    with a crime, not because of the content of the criticism, but
    because issuing that statement was simply not his job, as the
    report finds.
        It is also wrong, as well as against Department of Justice
    guidelines, for the investigative agency to criticize the
    subject of an investigation for uncharged conduct. It was
    totally unnecessary and wrong.
        The inspector general's report describes both of these
    failings in detail. The report's analysis of Mr. Comey's July 5
    statement reads in pertinent part, quote: ``In our criminal
    justice system the investigative and prosecutive functions are
    intentionally kept separate as a check on the government's
    power to bring criminal charges.'' The report concludes that
    Mr. Comey's statement assumed an authority that did not belong
    to the office of the Director of the FBI.
        I am grateful for this important analysis, Mr. Horowitz.
    Unfortunately, sir, your key finding that the decision not to
    charge Secretary Clinton was based on an assessment of the
    facts, the law, and past Department practice and not on bias or
    improper consideration is now subject to the treatment that
    President Trump and some of my Republican colleagues will give
    it. ``I mean, there was total bias,'' the President argued on
    the White House lawn just last week.
        What are we to make of this disconnect between what the
    report says and what the President and his allies say it says?
    Why is it that no matter how many times we litigate this
    question House Republicans can think of nothing better to do
    than to endlessly investigate Hillary Clinton for the same
    conduct?
        Why is it that after half a dozen investigations found no
    wrongdoing at Benghazi the majority spent millions of dollars
    on their own Benghazi Select Committee? And when that body
    found no wrongdoing either, why is it that the majority moved
    on to legitimize conspiracy theories about the Clinton
    Foundation and Uranium One?
        Why is it that after the Department of Justice and the FBI
    concluded it should not charge Secretary Clinton with a crime,
    rather than accepting the conclusion, as we would in most
    criminal cases, the Judiciary and Oversight majorities launched
    an investigation into the Department of Justice and the FBI?
        Why is it that after you released this report, Mr.
    Horowitz, some of my colleagues seriously suggested that we
    open an investigation into your investigation of the
    investigation?
        Why is it that here and now, in June of 2018, we are still
    talking about Hillary Clinton's emails at all?
        I suspect it has something to do with the way Republicans
    have squandered their opportunity to govern and the
    consequences of abdicating that responsibility.
        House Republicans have done little or nothing to secure our
    next election from foreign attack; or to push back against the
    Attorney General's unprecedented refusal to defend in court the
    key protections of the Affordable Care Act; or to address an
    immigration crisis with anything other than a cruel and
    reactionary policy proposal that will never become law and with
    persecuting children at the border.
        They don't even make credible arguments about Hillary
    Clinton's emails. I suspect that if the majority were actually
    motivated by the sensitivity of classified information in the
    Clinton case they would have also said something by now about
    the highly sensitive Israeli operation revealed to Russian
    officials by President Trump; or about the way the President
    handles classified documents at Mar-a-Lago; or about the
    confidential human source whose identity was exposed recently
    while our colleagues tried to force the deputy attorney general
    to reveal his identity; or about the totally inappropriate, if
    not outright unlawful, dangling of pardons by the President and
    his attorney to those accused of participating in a conspiracy
    against the United States.
        No, too many of my Republican colleagues instead seem stuck
    in a perpetual Trump campaign rally, shouting ``lock her up''
    with the rest of the crowd, hoping that the public won't notice
    how little they have accomplished with their time in the
    majority.
        I look forward to your testimony today, Mr. Inspector
    General. I hope our conversation can be the beginning of the
    end of this long preoccupation with Secretary Clinton. We have
    so many more important things to do.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from New York yields back.
        We are pleased to introduce our witness today, the
    Honorable Michael Horowitz, inspector general for the
    Department of Justice.
        Welcome to you, Mr. Horowitz.
        Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
    before they testify, so I would ask you to do what you just
    did. Stand up, raise your right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about
    to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you God?
        May the record reflect the witness answered in the
    affirmative.
        Mr. Horowitz, you are recognized for your opening
    statement.

        STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOROWITZ, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S.
                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, Chairmen Gowdy and Goodlatte, and
    thank you, Ranking Members Cummings and Nadler, and members of
    the committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today
    regarding the report we released last week.
        Our 500-page-plus report provides a thorough,
    comprehensive, and objective recitation of the facts related to
    the Department's and the FBI's handling of the Clinton email
    investigation. It was the product of 17 months of investigative
    work by a dedicated OIG team that reviewed well over 1.2
    million documents and interviewed more than 100 witnesses, many
    on multiple occasions.
        The review team followed the evidence wherever it led, and
    through their efforts we identified the inappropriate texts and
    instant messages discussed in the report.
        Additionally, the OIG's painstaking forensic examinations
    recovered thousands of text messages that otherwise would have
    been lost or been undisclosed.
        As detailed in our report, we found that the inappropriate
    political messages that we uncovered cast a cloud over the
    Midyear investigation, sowed doubt about the credibility of the
    FBI's handling of it, and impacted the reputation of the FBI.
        We found the implication that senior FBI employees would be
    willing to take official action to impact a Presidential
    candidate's electoral prospects to be deeply troubling and
    antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Justice
    Department.
        With regard to the decision to close the investigation
    without prosecution, we found no evidence that the conclusions
    by the prosecutors were the result of improper considerations,
    including political bias, but rather were exercises of those
    prosecutors' prosecutorial discretion--an exercise of their
    prosecutorial discretion--based on their assessment of the
    facts, the law, and past Department practice.
        Our review also included a fact-based, detailed assessment
    of certain specific investigative and prosecutorial decisions
    that were the subject of controversy. It was necessary to
    select particular investigative decisions because it would not
    have been possible to recreate and analyze every decision made
    in a year-long investigation.
        In examining these decisions, the question we considered
    was not whether a particular decision was the most effective
    choice, but rather whether the documentary and testimonial
    evidence indicated the decision was based on improper
    considerations, including political bias.
        This approach is consistent with the OIG's handling of such
    questions in past reviews when assessing discretionary judgment
    calls and recognizes and respects the institutional oversight
    role of the OIG.
        Our report provides a comprehensive assessment of these
    decisions and of the Midyear investigation and details the
    factual evidence so that the public, Congress, and other
    stakeholders can conduct their own assessment of them.
        Within this framework as to the specific investigative and
    prosecutive decisions we reviewed, we did not find documentary
    or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including
    political bias, directly affected those specific investigative
    decisions in part because the decisions were made by the
    Midyear team--by the larger Midyear team or by the prosecutors.
        This determination by the OIG does not mean that we
    necessarily endorse those decisions; or concluded they were the
    most effective among the options considered; or that our
    findings should or can be extrapolated to cover other decisions
    made during the course of the investigation by the FBI
    employees who sent those inappropriate text messages.
        Conversely, we found the FBI's explanations for its
    failures to take immediate action after discovering the Weiner
    laptop in September 2016 to be unpersuasive, and we did not
    have confidence that the decision of Deputy Assistant Director
    Strzok to prioritize the Russia investigation over following up
    on the Weiner laptop was free from bias in light of his text
    messages.
        We also found that in key moments then-FBI Director Comey
    clearly departed from FBI and Department norms and his
    decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the
    Department as fair administrators of justice.
        Director Comey concealed from the Attorney General and the
    deputy attorney general his intention to make a unilateral
    announcement in July 2016 about the reasons for his
    recommendation not to prosecute former Secretary Clinton. His
    July 5 statement included inappropriate commentary about
    uncharged conduct, announced his views on what a, quote/
    unquote, reasonable prosecutor would do, and served to confuse
    rather than clarify public understanding of his recommendation
    or what the prosecutors had assessed in terms of the evidence.
        In late October he again acted without adequately
    consulting Department leadership and contrary to important
    Department norms when he sent a letter to Congress announcing
    renewed investigative activities--activity--days before the
    election.
        There are many lessons to be learned from the Department's
    and the FBI's handling of the Clinton email investigation, but
    among the most important is the need to respect the
    institution's hierarchy and structure and to follow established
    policies, procedures, and norms, even in the highest profile
    and most challenging investigations. No rule, policy, or
    practice is perfect, of course, but at the same time neither is
    any individual's ability to make judgments under pressure or in
    what may seem like unique circumstances.
        When leaders and officials adhere to bedrock principles and
    values the public has greater confidence in the fairness and
    rightness of their decisions and those institutions' leaders
    better protect the interests of Federal law enforcement and the
    dedicated professionals who serve us all.
        By contrast, the public's trust is negatively impacted when
    law enforcement officials make statements reflecting bias, when
    leaders abandon institutional norms and the organizational
    hierarchy in favor of their own ad hoc judgments, and when the
    leadership of the Department of Justice and the FBI are unable
    to speak directly with one another for the good of the
    institutions.
        Our report makes nine recommendations, most of which can be
    tied together to a common theme: that the FBI and the Justice
    Department remain true to their foundational principles and
    values in all of their work.
        That concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
    answer any questions the committee may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Mr. Horowitz follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Inspector General.
        There's a text exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa Page and
    FBI agent Peter Strzok from August the 8th of 2016. In that
    text exchange Lisa Page wrote: Trump's not ever going to become
    President, right, with a question mark, and then right, with a
    question mark and an exclamation point in case anybody reading
    it may have missed the point of her emphasis. Peter Strzok
    responded: ``No. No he's not. We'll stop it.''
        Do I have that text exchange right?
        Mr. Horowitz. You do.
        Chairman Gowdy. Now, Lisa Page was an FBI lawyer who worked
    on the Clinton email investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Chairman Gowdy. Did she also work on the Russia
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. She did.
        Chairman Gowdy. How about the Mueller special counsel team?
        Mr. Horowitz. She did for a period of time.
        Chairman Gowdy. All right. So we're three for three on her
    working on the two most important Bureau investigations in 2016
    and beyond.
        Now, is this the same Lisa Page that Andy McCabe used to
    leak information to a news outlet?
        Mr. Horowitz. She was his special counsel, and as we
    indicated in our earlier report, she was the individual through
    whom he provided that information.
        Chairman Gowdy. Wasn't there also a text about an insurance
    policy in case Trump won and a meeting in Andy's office? She
    was part of that text string, too, wasn't she?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. That was on August 15.
        Chairman Gowdy. All right. So this August 8 text was not
    the only time FBI lawyer Lisa Page was able to use the text
    feature on her phone. This is the same Lisa Page who admonished
    the agent interviewing Hillary Clinton not to go into that
    interview loaded for bear because Clinton might be the next
    President. And it is the same Lisa Page who said Trump was
    loathsome, awful, the man cannot become President, Clinton just
    has to win, and that Trump should go F himself.
        Now, most of those comments were before the Clinton
    investigation was over, and we are somehow supposed to believe
    that she did not prejudge the outcome of that investigation
    before it was over? She already had Hillary Clinton winning. I
    don't know how you can win if you're going to wind up getting
    indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony.
        So I think we understand the first half of that text pretty
    well. She didn't want Trump to win, and she wanted Clinton to
    win.
        Now, for the response. Senior FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote:
    ``No. No he's not. We'll stop it.''
        Now, I think this is the same Peter Strzok who worked on
    the Clinton email investigation. Do I have that right?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Chairman Gowdy. Same Peter Strzok who not only worked on
    the Russia investigation when it began, but was one of the lead
    investigators at the inception of the Russia probe. Do I have
    the right Peter Strzok?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
        Chairman Gowdy. Now, is it the same Peter Strzok who was
    put on the Mueller special counsel team?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Chairman Gowdy. All right. Same Peter Strzok. And this is
    not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his
    phone either. This is the same Peter Strzok who said: Trump is
    an idiot. Hillary should win 100 million to zero.
        Now, Mr. Inspector General, that one is interesting to me
    because he's supposed to be investigating her for violations of
    the Espionage Act at the time he wrote that in March of 2016.
    He's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the
    Espionage Act, and he can't think of a single, solitary
    American that wouldn't vote for her for President.
        I mean, can you see our skepticism? This senior FBI agent
    not only had her running, he had her winning 100 million to
    nothing.
        So what if they'd found evidence sufficient to indict her?
    What if they had indicted her? Is this the same Peter Strzok?
    He wasn't part of the interview of Secretary Clinton, was he?
        Mr. Horowitz. He was present for the interview.
        Chairman Gowdy. Huh. So 4 months before that interview
    where he was present he's got her running and winning 100
    million to zero. And it is the same Peter Strzok who wrote: The
    bigoted nonsense of Trump. Trump's a disaster. I have no idea
    how destabilizing his Presidency would be. He wrote: F Trump.
    Trump is an f'ing idiot. On the prospects of Trump winning he
    wrote: This is an f'ing terrifying.
        In addition to seeming to like the F word, I think we have
    the same FBI agent, Lisa Page, and the same FBI agent, Peter
    Strzok, working on the Clinton email investigation, the Russia
    probe, and on Mueller's team.
        So we have the right texts and we've got the right people.
    I want to make sure we have the chronology right.
        July 5, 2016, Comey announces no charges for Secretary
    Clinton, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Chairman Gowdy. July 28, 2016, the FBI initiates a
    counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump
    campaign, and Strzok is not only on that Russia investigatory
    team, he's actually leading it. So that's 3 weeks after Clinton
    is exonerated by Comey, Strzok is leading an investigation into
    Russia and possible connections with the Trump campaign. That's
    on the 28th of July.
        Now, on the 31st of July, 3 days after the Russia
    investigation began, Strzok wrote: Damn this feels momentous.
    The other one did, too, but this was to ensure we didn't F
    things up. This one matters because it matters.
        And if you happen to not know how important it is, he went
    ahead and put ``MATTERS'' in all caps, in case you happened to
    not focus on the importance of why this matters.
        Now, her investigation was just to make sure they didn't F
    things up. This one we're 3 days into it, Inspector General
    Horowitz, 3 days into an investigation, but this one really
    matters.
        I wonder what he meant by saying the purpose of the Clinton
    investigation was to make sure they didn't F things up, but the
    Russia investigation, nah, that one was different, that one
    really mattered. You know, it almost sounds, Inspector General
    Horowitz, like they were going through the motions with the
    Clinton investigation. But, boy, they sure were excited about
    the Russia one.
        Then we get to August 6. This is less than 10 days after
    the Russia investigation begins, and Page says: You are meant
    to protect the country from that menace.
        And then we get to August 8, 2016, less than 2 weeks after
    the Russia investigation even began. The lead FBI agent says he
    will stop Trump from becoming President. This is 2 weeks into
    an investigation and he's already prejudged the outcome. And
    we're somehow supposed to believe that that bias was not
    outcome determinative.
        I can't think of anything more outcome determinative than
    my bias against this person I'm investigating with only 2
    weeks' worth of investigating. I have already concluded he
    should not be the President of the United States.
        And then we get to August 15, just over 2 weeks into the
    Russia investigation. Strzok says: I want to believe the path
    you threw out, that there's no way he gets elected, but I'm
    afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy.
        Mr. Inspector General, that is 2 weeks into an
    investigation and he is talking about taking out an insurance
    policy because he can't fathom the target of his investigation
    possibly becoming the President.
        So I want to go back to the: No, no, he's not going to be
    President, we'll stop it. What do you think the ``it'' is in
    that phrase, ``We'll stop it''?
        Mr. Horowitz. Oh, I think it's clear from the context it's
    we're going to stop him from becoming President.
        Chairman Gowdy. That's what I thought, too.
        Now, I wonder who the ``we'' is in the ``we'll stop it.''
    Who do you think the ``we'' is.
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think that's probably subject to
    multiple interpretations.
        Chairman Gowdy. We'll see if we can go through a couple of
    them.
        Mr. Horowitz. The ``we'' is the two of them or the
    broader--or a broader group beyond that.
        Chairman Gowdy. I mean, it's hard to fathom a definition of
    ``we'' that doesn't include him. So we know he's part of
    ``we.'' You could assume that the person he's talking with is
    FBI attorney who also happens to be working on the Russia
    investigation, she may be part of the ``we.''
        But I wonder, Inspector General, did you find any other FBI
    agents or FBI attorneys who manifest any animus or bias against
    Trump?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did.
        Chairman Gowdy. How many?
        Mr. Horowitz. We found three additional FBI agents, as we
    detail in the report.
        Chairman Gowdy. And were any of them working on the Russia
    investigation----
        Mr. Horowitz. Let me just correct, two agents and one
    attorney.
        Chairman Gowdy. Two other agents, one other attorney. Were
    they working on either the Russia investigation or the Mueller
    probe?
        Mr. Horowitz. I believe two of the three were, but I'd have
    to just double check on that.
        Chairman Gowdy. Okay.
        Now, Bob Mueller was named special counsel on May the 17th,
    2017. One day later, Mr. Horowitz, 1 day later Peter Strzok is
    back on his phone texting some more: For me, and this case, I
    personally have a sense of unfinished business. I unleashed it
    with the Clinton email investigation. Now I need to fix it and
    finish it.
        Fix what?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, there is outlined in the report what
    Mr. Strzok's explanation for this was. Our view----
        Chairman Gowdy. Oh, I know what he says. I'm asking--I'm
    asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the Southern
    District of New York and had a distinguished career at the
    Department of Justice. Would you rather cross-examine Peter
    Strzok on that explanation or would you rather direct the
    examination on that explanation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Probably cross-examine.
        Chairman Gowdy. That's what I thought.
        How about ``finish it,'' when he said, I unleashed it, now
    I need to fix it and finish it? What do you think he meant by
    ``finish it''?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think in the context of the emails that
    occurred in August, the prior August, that you outlined, I
    think a reasonable explanation of it or reasonable inference of
    that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his
    official authority to take action.
        Chairman Gowdy. But this is 24 hours into him being put on
    the Mueller probe. There's no way he possibly could have
    prejudged the outcome of the investigation--maybe he did. Maybe
    that's the outcome-determinative bias that my Democrat friends
    have such a hard time finding.
        Inspector General Horowitz, if one of your investigators
    talked about Lisa Page and Peter Strzok the way they talked
    about Donald Trump, would you have left them on the IG
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. No.
        Chairman Gowdy. Did you ever have an agent when you were a
    prosecutor with this level of bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, as I have laid out here, I thought
    this was completely antithetical to the core values of the
    Department and extremely serious.
        Mr. Nadler. Can you speak up, please?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry.
        Chairman Gowdy. I heard you, but you can say it where Mr.
    Nadler can hear you, too.
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, my view of this was that this was
    extremely serious, completely antithetical to the core values.
    My personal view, having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI
    agents, I can't imagine FBI agents suggesting even that they
    might use their powers to investigate, frankly, any candidate
    for any office.
        Chairman Gowdy. I can't either.
        Let me ask you this in conclusion. I think you've already--
    you laid out in your opening that Peter Strzok's obsession with
    Donald Trump and the Russia investigation may have led him to
    take his eyes off of the Weiner laptop and, in a notably ironic
    way, caused James Comey to be a little bit later in sending
    those letters to Congress. So that is one example of outcome-
    determinative bias.
        But I've got to ask you, you used to be in a courtroom. You
    were on the side of the United States and you worked for the
    Department of Justice. If someone is prejudging the outcome of
    an investigation before it ends and someone is prejudging the
    outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more
    textbook bias than prejudging this investigation before it's
    over and this one before it begins? I am struggling to find a
    better example of outcome-determinative bias than that. So what
    am I missing?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think certainly with regard to the
    Russia investigation you mentioned, as you know, we are looking
    at that in an ongoing way.
        With regard to the Clinton email investigation, I think as
    we lay out here and go through it, we looked at text messages,
    emails, documents to try and assess whether the specific
    decisions that we were asked to look at and then the ultimate
    prosecutorial decision were impacted by Strzok, Page, and the
    others' views.
        And what we ended up finding, particularly as to the
    prosecutor's decision, was that that was a decision they made
    exercising their discretion on their view of the policy, the
    law, and the facts as it was found. We have laid that out, and
    in our view we didn't find or see evidence that the prosecutors
    were impacted by that bias.
        But as I mentioned in my opening statement, the idea here
    was to put out the facts for the public, Members of Congress to
    see, and so the folks who want to take a look at those issues
    obviously can assess them themselves.
        Chairman Gowdy. Well, my time is up. I hope one of my other
    colleagues will explore that. Because the explanation I have
    heard is that the failure to prosecute was predicated upon
    their belief that there was not sufficient evidence of intent
    on her behalf. And I don't know where in the hell you would go
    to find better evidence of intent than interviewing the person
    who actually was doing the intending.
        And when you make up your mind that you're not going to
    charge someone, and you make up your mind that you need to not
    go in loaded for bear, and then you read the 302 and there's
    not a single damn question on intent, it is really hard for
    those of us who used to do this for a living to not conclude
    they'd made up their mind on intent before they even bothered
    to talk to the single best repository of intent evidence, which
    would be her.
        With that, I would recognize----
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, may I make an inquiry? Mr.
    Chairman, in order to prepare our questions, could I have your
    guidance on how much time each member is to be allowed?
        Chairman Gowdy. Five minutes. And Mr. Cummings can have the
    amount of time he thinks is necessary. The other members will
    have 5 minutes.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of
    all, I want to thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for your work. And I
    want to thank all of the IGs. We have always been, both sides
    of the aisle, impressed with your efforts. And to your staff, I
    thank you.
        Mr. Horowitz, I want to focus on whether Secretary Clinton
    received, as some of my colleagues put it, special treatment
    from the FBI and the DOJ.
        On the decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton, your
    report found, and I quote, ``We found no evidence that the
    conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other
    improper considerations. Rather, we determined that they were
    based on the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law, and
    past Department practice.
        We want Justice Department officials to make their
    decisions based on the facts, the law, and the past Department
    practices.''
        Isn't that correct? Is that accurate?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Cummings. And your report also concluded that the FBI
    team interpreted and applied the law to Secretary Clinton in a
    way that was, and I quote, ``consistent with the Department's
    historical approach in prior cases under different leadership,
    including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former Attorney
    General Alberto Gonzalez for mishandling classified documents.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Cummings. But Director Comey did apply a double
    standard to Secretary Clinton in a way that helped Donald Trump
    and severely hurt Secretary Clinton. Director Comey followed
    the Department policy and kept secret from the American people
    the FBI's investigation of the Trump campaign in Russia, but
    repeatedly ignored Department policy and released information
    about Secretary Clinton.
        Regarding Director Comey's July 5, 2016 public statement
    about his recommendation not to charge Secretary Clinton, your
    review found, and I quote, ``Comey's unilateral announcement
    was inconsistent with Department policy and violated
    longstanding Department practice and protocol by, among other
    things, criticizing Clinton's uncharged conduct.''
        Can you explain why the Department has a policy against
    criticizing the uncharged conduct of an individual?
        Mr. Horowitz. Certainly. The Department, and actually one
    of the things that was interesting in the report is we found
    that it's a norm, it's accepted, but there actually isn't a
    policy that explicitly states that.
        So that is one of our recommendations. And I would--as we
    talk about this issue, the reason you don't speak about
    uncharged conduct--there are many--but it is fairness to the
    individual, if an individual isn't going to be charged with
    criminal conduct or wrongdoing, you don't speak about it. You
    speak in court. That's what we've been trained from day one as
    prosecutors and anybody who has worked in the Justice
    Department.
        Doing that publicly, not only tarnishes an individual, but
    raises questions of the fairness of justice and applications of
    various principles, as you indicated.
        Indeed, as we point out here, while there isn't an explicit
    policy at the Department about not speaking on uncharged
    conduct in a case where you don't charge any criminal activity,
    there actually is language that prohibits Department's
    prosecutors from speaking about uncharged conduct of
    coconspirators.
        And so, in other words, where there is, in fact, a charge
    of criminal wrongdoing and a conspiracy and some individuals in
    the conspiracy are charged and some individuals aren't
    charged--and that can happen because there's stronger evidence
    against some than others--Department policy says you can't
    speak about the uncharged individuals, even though you believe
    they committed a crime. And yet there is no corresponding
    policy, which at the time--where there are no charges, which is
    why we make that recommendation in this report.
        Mr. Cummings. I see. You also found that Director Comey's
    October 28, 2016 letter to Congress about Secretary Clinton,
    and I quote, ``originated with Comey's elevation of maximal
    transparency as a value overriding for this case only, the
    principles of stay silent and take no action that the FBI has
    consistently applied to other cases.''
        Now, Mr. Horowitz, one of those investigations where
    Director Comey decided to follow Department policy and practice
    and keep silent was the Russia investigation into allegations
    of collusion with the Trump campaign.
        Is that accurate?
        Mr. Horowitz. It is. And I'll add it also had that policy
    with regard to the Clinton Foundation.
        Mr. Cummings. And so, say that again. Explain that, what
    you just said.
        Mr. Horowitz. So there are two investigations he declined,
    as we lay out, here to speak about. One was the Russia
    investigation and one was a then-ongoing Clinton Foundation
    investigation.
        In fact, that was the basis for the report about Deputy
    Director McCabe's misconduct that we released a few months ago.
        Mr. Cummings. So do you believe that Secretary Clinton
    received some favorable action?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to sort of judge whether it was
    favorable to whom or what. I'll just say that it was not
    consistent with Department policy, practice, and it shouldn't
    have been done.
        Mr. Cummings. Now, Mr. Horowitz, President Trump and his
    Republican allies are trying to use your report to discredit
    Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. Let me read a few
    headlines from the press about your report, and I'm sure you've
    seen them. Trump allies--quote, ``Trump allies seize on DOJ
    report as they seek to undercut Mueller's probe. Giuliani calls
    for DOJ to end Mueller probe after IG report.'' Quote, ``Trump
    claims vindication in a report on FBI that wasn't about him.''
    And, quote, ``Republicans want to shut Mueller down over a
    report that isn't even about him,'' end of quote.
        President Trump stated last Friday, and I quote, ``If you
    read the IG report, I've been totally exonerated,'' end of
    quote.
        Mr. Horowitz, my copy of your report must be missing a
    page, or a few pages. Did your investigation examine whether
    President Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to impact the
    election or whether the President obstructed an FBI
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our report was focused on the Clinton email
    investigation. And the only place where it touches the Russia
    matter is with regard to the text messages and then the October
    decision about the Weiner laptop.
        Mr. Cummings. The President also said, and I quote ``The
    Mueller investigation has been totally discredited,'' end of
    quote. I don't see that in your report anywhere. Maybe I missed
    it.
        Does your report reach any conclusions about the validity
    or credibility of Special Counsel Mueller's investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. As we noted in the report, it relates to the
    Clinton email investigation, and the Russia matter was not part
    of this review, other than what, the exception I mentioned
    earlier.
        Mr. Cummings. Now Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal
    attorney, said, and I quote, ``Tomorrow Mueller should suspend
    his investigation,'' end of quote.
        Does your report recommend that the special counsel suspend
    his investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. We don't address issues with regard to the
    special counsel.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Giuliani also said, and I quote, ``The IG
    report basically tells you that both prongs of the Mueller
    investigation are either corrupt or answered,'' end of quote.
        Did your investigation determine that the special counsel's
    investigation is corrupt?
        Mr. Horowitz. As I said, our report was concerning the
    Clinton email investigation.
        Mr. Cummings. Well, did your investigation answer the
    questions being considered in Special Counsel Mueller's probe?
        Mr. Horowitz. Same answer.
        Mr. Cummings. The conclusion in your report states, and I
    quote--and I will finish with this, Mr. Chairman--``Through the
    collective efforts of generations of FBI employees, the FBI has
    developed and earned a reputation as one of the world's premier
    law enforcement agencies. The FBI has gained this reputation,
    in significant part, because of its professionalism,
    impartiality, nonpolitical enforcement of the law, and
    adherence to detailed policies, practices, and norms.''
        Did you find that the FBI as an institution is corrupt,
    politically biased, or untrustworthy?
        Mr. Horowitz. We didn't reach the larger question of, you
    know, had this broadly affected the FBI, beyond noting that, in
    fact, this kind of conduct undermines that credibility, impacts
    people's perceptions of the FBI in a way that should never have
    happened. And is very concerning for all the reasons, I think
    everybody cares about, the fair administration of justice.
        Mr. Cummings. And I listened very carefully to Chairman
    Gowdy's questions, which were excellent. And the cloud that you
    talked about with regard to Ms. Page and Strzok and the others
    that you mentioned, how do you get--the method that you used to
    figure out that their opinions did not have a negative impact,
    you know, or inappropriate impact on this investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. So, what we did was----
        Mr. Cummings. Because that is a crucial question. I mean,
    in fairness to all. I think it is important that that be
    addressed. Go ahead.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, absolutely, Congressman. I think it is
    very important, because as we've talked about, the language,
    the messages, the appearance, the implication that any law
    enforcement officer would be willing to use their authority to
    impact any election, any individual, whatever side that person
    is running on or running from is so antithetical to the core
    values of justice and the FBI.
        And so the question we looked at was with the comments of
    the five individuals we identified here in looking at their
    various messages, how did those--how did those impact the
    specific decisions we looked at and then the prosecutor's
    decision, ultimately. Because, obviously, the prosecutors are
    the one--despite what Director Comey said publicly--were
    responsible for making the ultimate decision on whether to
    charge or not charge.
        What we did was, we questioned witnesses closely, we looked
    for all the documentary evidence we could, we looked at the
    specific decisions. As to the specific decisions we outline
    here in the report, they were either the result of larger team
    decisions that were not exclusively within the domain of the
    individuals who had very troubling messages, or were
    prosecutors' decision, and not the decisions of these
    individuals.
        And we also noted that at least for some of these
    decisions, the individuals are actually seeking more aggressive
    approaches than the prosecutors were, in some regards. So we
    looked at all of that evidence, and we assessed whether on that
    record, we could make a finding that bias turned into action by
    those other individuals. And we didn't believe there was
    evidence to reach that conclusion.
        And as to the prosecutors' decision, it was the
    prosecutors' decision. And folks can debate and discuss, and
    there's clearly been a fair amount of it on whether the
    precedent and the current--and the assessment here on the
    application of the gross negligence provision was an
    appropriate application of that provision. But that's a
    decision that the prosecutors made based on their judgment, as
    you indicated, looking at the----
        Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you this: In coming to that
    conclusion that you just talked about, was there--because it
    seems like we're having an investigation of the investigation
    of the investigation. But so I ask you this: Your staff, the
    people that you work with, your IG assistants and----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Mr. Cummings. --were you all solid behind what you just
    said, or did you have people say, Nah, you know, like a jury.
    Half of them----
        Mr. Horowitz. You know the great thing about having a large
    team like we had working on this is, much like I've done in
    other reports, Fast and Furious and others, we sit in a room,
    sort of hash it out, exchange ideas. But I'm comfortable saying
    this is the conclusion of all of us in the IG.
        I obviously am the one who has to, and is the one
    responsible for ultimately issuing this, but that was our team
    conclusion of it. But, you know, I hasten to add, we understand
    and recognize and state explicitly on how serious the conduct
    was, and how it cast a cloud over the whole investigation. I
    don't think I can be lost either.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Maryland yields back.
    The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Mr. Horowitz, welcome. We know from the
    report surrounding former Deputy Director McCabe's termination
    that the Department of Justice at high levels sought to
    terminate the Clinton Foundation investigation.
        We also know that you found communication between Secretary
    Clinton and President Obama.
        During your investigation, did you seek access to
    communications from the Department of Justice?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, we did.
        Chairman Goodlatte. What about former Obama White House
    officials?
        Mr. Horowitz. We sought Department records and Department
    information. We have, in the past, when we've sought White
    House records--and this is true of administrations going way
    back--it's been made clear to us that the executive office of
    the President does not provide records to inspectors general of
    agencies.
        So we would look for them if they were incoming to the
    Department and those would be records that we would seek and
    obtain, but we don't have authority over any other agency
    outside government--outside, I'm sorry, the Justice Department.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Did you seek to interview any officials
    at the White House? The Obama White House?
        Mr. Horowitz. I would have to go back and ask the team
    whether we sought interviews.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Denis McDonough?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't believe so.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Valerie Jarrett?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't believe so.
        Chairman Goodlatte. How about the President himself?
        Mr. Horowitz. No, we did not.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Neither the Department of Justice--
    would you have liked to have had that information if you could
    get access to it?
        Mr. Horowitz. I would have to think about that and talk
    with the team, frankly, about that and how they would view
    that.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Neither the Department of Justice nor
    the FBI are mentioned in the Constitution. However, each
    institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of Congress'
    constitutionally mandated oversight.
        The infamous text from Peter Strzok saying ``We will stop
    President Trump from taking office,'' which we received on the
    day of your report's release, is a prime example.
        This text was revealed to you late in your interview as
    well, as I understand.
        Do you believe this text shows political bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think as we found, it clearly shows a
    biased state of mind.
        Chairman Goodlatte. And if so, do you believe the political
    bias shown by this text had an effect on the initiation of the
    Russia investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think, as you know, Mr. Chairman, that's a
    matter we've got under review and are looking at right now.
        Chairman Goodlatte. More to be determined on that?
        Mr. Horowitz. More to be determined.
        Chairman Goodlatte. But the time proximity, as Mr. Gowdy,
    pointed out is significant.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. In fact, there are these other text
    messages that are roughly in the same time period.
        Chairman Goodlatte. You were an assistant United States
    attorney for eight years. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Chairman Goodlatte. In that time, did you ever charge any
    Espionage Act case or a case under Section 793(f)?
        Mr. Horowitz. I did not.
        Chairman Goodlatte. I'm trying to understand more about the
    seeming need for intent in this statute. Of course, as some
    have noted, people never intend the bad things that happen due
    to gross negligence, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Chairman Goodlatte. So some courts have stated that willful
    blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge. For example,
    this happens in cases where a defendant is transporting a
    package containing narcotics. Courts have never allowed the
    defendant to claim he didn't know what was in the package
    because he should have known and exercised criminal
    recklessness by failing to determine what was in the package.
        In your opinion as a former prosecutor, isn't a similar
    analysis appropriate here?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to demur on what I would have done
    as a prosecutor or my views as a former prosecutor. I will say
    what was explained to us in terms of intent was actually,
    really knowledge. The focus was largely on the fact that these
    documents that were classified weren't clearly marked as
    classified.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Didn't Mrs. Clinton, as Secretary of
    State, having the authority not only to read all levels of
    classified documents, but also to classify documents herself,
    didn't she have a duty to determine whether the unclassified
    server she used to transact all her official business was
    moving classified information?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think it's fair to say there's a
    responsibility on senior officials to understand and know what
    classified information may be present.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Wasn't that the least amount of care we
    should have expected from her with information that could cause
    serious harm to our national security?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think I'm going to rely on the evidence
    that we had here and our review, which was to look at what the
    prosecutors made as an assessment, and as we described here,
    their view was, unless it was marked, unless it was clear
    knowledge, they believed that it would be inconsistent with
    past practice and how they would look at this provision, and,
    therefore, not charge it.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Following the 2016 election, many of my
    Democratic colleagues called for the resignation or termination
    of former FBI Director James Comey for his mishandling of the
    Clinton investigation.
        Curiously, these same colleagues cried foul when President
    Trump, upon the recommendation of Department of Justice, Deputy
    Attorney General Rosenstein did, in fact, terminate Comey.
        For instance, on November 14, 2016, one of our Democratic
    Judiciary Committee colleagues told CNN's Chris Cuomo that
    Comey should be fired immediately, and that President Trump
    ought to initiate an investigation into his actions.
        Conversely, on May 9, 2017, that same Democrat made a
    complete U-turn and stated that, quote, ``The firing of FBI
    Director Comey by President Trump is a terrifying signal of
    this administration's continued abuse of power on so many
    levels,'' end quote.
        Additionally, following the 2016 election, another of our
    Democratic colleagues insisted that Comey should ``pack his
    things and go.'' However, a year later, the same person
    insisted that James Comey's firing suggests an attempt to
    squelch an investigation in an effort to cover up wrongdoing.
        Lastly, on October 31, 2016, a third Judiciary Committee
    Democrat stated that Comey's actions make it clear he should
    resign immediately for the good of the FBI and the Justice
    Department.
        Fast forward a year, and the same Democrat is then
    advocating for Director Comey to receive--get this--the
    Profiles in Courage Award following his termination.
        So to clear up the apparent confusion among my colleagues,
    do you believe the termination of former FBI Director James
    Comey was justified following your recent findings that
    describe Comey as insubordinate in his handling of Hillary
    Clinton's email investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Chairman, as inspector general, my
    responsibility is to get the evidence and the facts, and it is
    then up to others to decide what the appropriate penalty or
    adjudication should be of that.
        So I'm going to, for the reasons that we found here, that
    people should stay in their roles and responsibilities and
    understand those, I'm going to----
        Chairman Goodlatte. You would agree, however, that
    insubordination, in the matters that you outlined in your
    report, is a serious matter?
        Mr. Horowitz. Oh, I agree. It is a serious matter.
        Chairman Goodlatte. So on page 147 of your report, there is
    a text exchange that I'm curious about. About halfway down the
    page, Agent 1 stated he could not recall anything specific to
    add to this exchange.
        In another exchange on February 4, 2016, Agent 1 and an FBI
    employee who was not assigned to the Midyear investigation
    discussed Agent 1's interview with a witness who assisted the
    Clinton's at their Chappaqua, New York residence.
        Part of this exchange follows:
        ``FBI employee: Boom. How did the witness go?
        ``Agent 1: Awesome. Lied his ass off. Went from never
    inside the SCIF, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility
    at residence, to looked in to when it was being constructed, to
    remove the trash twice to troubleshot the secure facts with HRC
    a couple of times, to every time there was a secure fax, I did
    it with HRC. Ridic.'' End quote.
        ``FBI employee: Would be funny if he was the only guy
    charged in this deal.
        ``Agent 1: I know, for 1001"----
        Now that's referring to 18 USC 1001, is it not?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Chairman Goodlatte. All right.
        ``Even if he said the truth and didn't have a clearance
    when handling the secure fax, ain't no one going do S blank,
    blank, blank.''
        Now, we asked Agent 1 about the implication in this
    message--this is your report.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Chairman Goodlatte. --that no one would be charged
    irrespective of what the team found.
        And Agent 1 stated, ``Yeah, I, I don't think I can say
    there's a specific person that I worked with in this case that
    wouldn't charge him for that, wouldn't charge him for that. I
    think it's a general complaint of, you know, of FBI agents that
    are kind of, kind of being emotional and complaining that no
    one is going to do something about, about something, so, but
    there's nothing specific that I, that I can tell you.''
        Now, this individual, Agent 1, is expressing an opinion
    that that, was a circumstance under which charging somebody
    would be appropriate. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's certainly the--what he's suggesting
    here.
        Chairman Goodlatte. All right. Now, what is Title 18,
    Section 1001? What is that about?
        Mr. Horowitz. Making a false statement to a government
    official in the course of a review or investigation.
        Chairman Goodlatte. So is that not exactly the same statute
    under which Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Flynn were charged?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't specifically, but I assume so.
        Chairman Goodlatte. All right. Thank you. Those are all the
    questions I have, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back.
    The gentleman from New York is recognized.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, first, of all,
    let me state before I ask questions of Mr. Horowitz, the
    President told us why he fired Mr. Comey, and it wasn't for any
    of the things mentioned in the report. It was because of the
    Russia investigation.
        He told that to us on NBC News in an interview with Lester
    Holt. I believe the President, unless there's evidence he was
    lying, but I haven't heard any suggestions of that.
        Now, Mr. Horowitz, the special counsel's investigation has
    resulted in five guilty pleas, and 23 indictments so far. Do
    any of your reports, findings, call into question any of these
    serious criminal indictments?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our report focused on the Clinton emails.
        Mr. Nadler. The answer is no, it has nothing to do with it?
        Mr. Horowitz. The only place we touched on Russia is that
    October time period.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. On May 2nd, 2017, President Trump
    tweeted, ``FBI Director Comey was the best thing that ever
    happened to Hillary in that he gave her a free pass for many
    bad deeds,'' unquote.
        Over the course of your investigation, did you find that
    the FBI gave Hillary Clinton, quote, ``a free pass from any bad
    deeds,'' unquote?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry. Could you restate that
    Congressman?
        Mr. Nadler. Did you find that the FBI gave Hillary Clinton,
    quote, ``a free pass for many bad deeds,'' unquote?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think we've laid out here quite clearly
    what the investigative steps were and how the decision was
    made, so 500 pages worth of information here to make that
    assessment.
        Mr. Nadler. You stand on that?
        In fact, you found, did you not, that the specific
    investigative decisions that you reviewed, quote, ``were based
    on the prosecutor's assessments of the facts, the law, and the
    Department practice,'' close quote.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Nadler. On July 22nd, 2017, the President tweeted,
    quote, ``So many people are asking why isn't the AG or special
    counsel looking at the many Hillary Clinton or Comey crimes,''
    close quote.
        Did you uncover evidence of any crimes committed by James
    Comey?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to, again, rely on this report.
        Mr. Nadler. Let me rephrase the question. Does the report
    discuss any alleged crimes committed by James Comey?
        Mr. Horowitz. The report does not discuss----
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Does not.
        Mr. Horowitz. --crimes.
        Mr. Nadler. And in fact, although you found reason to
    question Mr. Comey's judgment, you found no evidence that his
    actions were, quote, ``the result of bias or an effort to
    influence the election.'' Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Nadler. It is correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. It is correct.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. On September 1, 2017, the President
    tweeted quote, ``Wow, looks like James Comey exonerated Hillary
    Clinton long before the investigation was over and so much
    more. A rigged system,'' close quote.
        Did you uncover any evidence supporting President Trump's
    assertion that Mr. Comey prejudged or, quote, ``rigged'' the
    outcome of the investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, I'm going to rely on what's here. I
    can only speak to what----
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. Then let me rephrase the question.
        Mr. Horowitz. Well----
        Mr. Nadler. Did the report note any evidence of that?
        Mr. Horowitz. We've got the May drafting of the statement,
    which some people have raised concerns about. I'm not going to
    sort of extrapolate beyond the facts here, but I think there is
    that information about the drafting of the statement back in
    May.
        Mr. Nadler. And your office reviewed evidence that showed
    Director Comey resisted acknowledging the existence of the
    Russia investigation in October 2016 because he wanted to avoid
    taking action that might influence the election. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. And he wanted to be fair to
    then-candidate Trump.
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know what his----
        Mr. Nadler. I think it can be fairly stated that if the FBI
    acknowledged an investigation into the Trump campaign, it might
    not have inured to Trump's benefit, and, therefore, being fair
    to Trump may not----
        Mr. Horowitz. I understand.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay.
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm saying we--he explained in here what his
    rationale was----
        Mr. Nadler. On December 3, 2017, the President tweeted,
    quote, ``After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest
    Clinton investigation and more, running the FBI, its reputation
    is in tatters, worst in history,'' close quote.
        Did your investigation uncover any evidence that the
    Clinton investigation was, quote, ``phony and dishonest''?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, I'm going to rely here. We found that
    the prosecutors made the judgments they made based on the
    facts, the law, and the evidence they uncovered. We had
    concerns about the text messages and the implications for the
    investigation.
        Mr. Nadler. I'll take that as a no.
        On June 5, 2018, the President tweeted, quote, ``What is
    taking so long with the inspector general's report on crooked
    Hillary and slippery James Comey? Numerous delays. Hope report
    is not being changed and made weaker,'' close quote.
        Did you omit horrible things from this report or otherwise
    weaken it to paint Hillary Clinton, James Comey, or any other
    Department official in a better light?
        Mr. Horowitz. We handled this report like we did any
    others. No, we didn't.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Last week, the President said that the FBI, quote,
    ``plotted against his election,'' close quote, and that your
    report shows ``total bias,'' in quotes, at the FBI against the
    President and in favor of Secretary Clinton.
        Did your investigation uncover evidence of an FBI plot
    against the President's election?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think those August text messages reflect
    individuals suggesting that they could take action based on
    their beliefs.
        Mr. Nadler. But your report also said that they did not, in
    fact, that the FBI's decisions were not influenced by that?
        Mr. Horowitz. If we're focused on Midyear on the Clinton
    investigation, that's correct, that's what we found as to the
    decision to decline back in July.
        Mr. Nadler. Did your investigation find that FBI is totally
    biased against President Trump?
        Mr. Horowitz. We lay out here what we found on bias and
    what we did, and at least as to certain individuals, we had
    concerns about what their texts indicated.
        Mr. Nadler. So your report concludes that the outcome of
    the Clinton investigation was based on the facts and the law
    and not on political bias. Do you stand by that conclusion?
        Mr. Horowitz. We stand by that conclusion in this report.
        Mr. Nadler. Can you explain why you reached that
    conclusion?
        Mr. Horowitz. We looked at the decision to decline
    prosecution. We interviewed the prosecutors, we looked at their
    notes, their emails, the documentary evidence. And as a result
    of that, we did not see evidence of bias by the prosecutors,
    political bias, I'm talking about, which is what we were
    looking at and looking for, and looked at past precedents they
    cited as their reasons for what they did. And based on all of
    that information, we concluded that there wasn't evidence of
    political bias infecting that decision, and we describe here
    how they reached the decision they reached.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Now, during the rollout of the
    report, your office confirmed that it continues to investigate
    the improper disclosure of information about the Clinton
    investigation to Trump campaign surrogates like Rudy Giuliani.
    Can you confirm that this work is ongoing?
        Mr. Horowitz. The only thing I'll say about that is that,
    as we indicate here, our investigative work continues. I'm not
    going to speak as to what particular leak, matter, individuals
    might be part of that ongoing review.
        Mr. Nadler. So you can confirm--I will take that as a
    confirmation of the existence of a specific investigation into
    Mr. Giuliani's comments in the week before the election?
        Mr. Horowitz. You shouldn't take that as any specific
    confirmation of anything. I'm not going to do the same thing.
    We lay out here, it was inappropriate----
        Mr. Nadler. Fair enough.
        Mr. Horowitz. --as to what occurred.
        Mr. Nadler. When is the timeline for this work? When can we
    expect the next report?
        Mr. Horowitz. We will, much like this review, we will
    follow the evidence where it leads, and when it is completed,
    we will issue our report. We will----
        Mr. Nadler. Now, on page--thank you. On page 387 of the
    report, I'm going to read it. It said, ``He said it's clear to
    me''--this is Attorney General Lynch quoting FBI Director
    Comey--``He said it's clear to me that there's a cadre of
    senior people in New York who have a deep and visceral hatred
    of Secretary Clinton. And he said it is deep. It's--and he
    said, he said it was surprising to him or stunning to him,''
    close quote.
        Is there evidence that, in fact, there were people in the
    FBI office in New York who were very--who had a hatred of
    Secretary Clinton?
        Mr. Horowitz. We looked at individuals connected to the
    Midyear Review. We were not out there looking at every single
    FBI agent's personal devices, text messages, who had no role in
    the Midyear investigation.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. Now, I want to get back to the Peter
    Strzok matter. And I would like to discuss what appears to be
    the most troubling--well, let me ask first.
        You would agree, I take it, that there's a crucial
    distinction between appearance of political bias on the part of
    an FBI agent or whoever, and whether any investigative actions
    are actually taken as a result of political bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. They are two different issues.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. I would like to discuss--and by the way,
    let me ask a different question. We keep using the word
    ``bias,'' is the word ``bias'' synonymous with the word
    political opinion, or is it used in a different sense?
        Mr. Horowitz. No, we used it, and I'm using it in the
    context of political bias.
        In other words, you're using your personal views to impact
    your decisions in a way that's non-investigatory. In other
    words, for other reasons----
        Mr. Nadler. So you found that Strzok, for instance, had
    this bias but that it didn't impact the investigative action?
        So is that a--in what way is that bias, if it didn't impact
    the investigation, different from a political opinion, or is it
    the same thing?
        Mr. Horowitz. Let me just--we found he exhibited bias. We
    found decisions that were made by others were not infected by
    that bias, we did have concerns about how his, what we thought
    was a biased state of mind impacted his October decision
    regarding the Weiner laptop. I think it is important to keep
    them separate.
        Mr. Nadler. You couldn't say it didn't or it didn't in that
    one?
        Mr. Horowitz. We could not say one way or the other but we
    couldn't rule it out----
        Mr. Nadler. Okay.
        Mr. Horowitz. And that's a pretty significant----
        Mr. Nadler. Now, I would like to discuss what appears to me
    the most troubling text exchange, which has already been talked
    about. On August 8th, 2016, Page asks, quote, ``Trump''--
    actually, she didn't use the word Trump, it's clear it's
    referring to him--``not ever going to become President. Right.
    Right.''
        Strzok responds, ``No, no, he won't. We'll stop it.''
        Many have used this text as proof that Strzok actually
    intended to use his position at the FBI to stop Donald Trump
    from becoming President of the United States. But Peter Strzok
    did not have that kind of power.
        Your report found that Strzok was, quote, ``not the sole
    decision-maker for any of the specific Midyear investigative
    decisions. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Pre-July 5, just to be clear. Preclosing in
    July. I think it is important to keep it separate from where he
    could have been a decision-maker in October with regard to the
    Weiner laptop.
        Mr. Nadler. Peter Strzok certainly knew about the Russia
    investigation before the election. And if he had publicly
    disclosed that information, he might have prevented Mr. Trump
    from being elected.
        But your investigation did not find that Mr. Strzok
    disclosed the details of the Russia investigation to the press
    before the election, did it?
        Mr. Horowitz. No, we don't.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. Your report goes on to point out that
    despite the appearance created by his texts, you, quote,
    ``found no evidence, and in some instances, Strzok and Page
    advocated for more--I'm sorry--you, quote, ``found evidence,''
    I added the word ``no''--``you found evidence that in some
    instances, Strzok and Page advocated for more aggressive
    investigative measures than did others on the Midyear team,
    such as the use of grand jury subpoenas and search warrants to
    obtain evidence. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Nadler. So, in general, I think it is fair to say that
    the evidence does not show that--well, it shows that pre-July
    5th, certainly, Strzok left his bias or political opinions at
    home and didn't bring it to the office. And after July 5th, it
    doesn't show one way or the other, is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. I wouldn't go that far in terms of what our
    finding is pre-July 5. I would say that at the investigations,
    we looked at his bias, we didn't find cause for those
    decisions. You know, as we noted, there are lots of decisions
    in investigation. I can't go through all of them.
        Mr. Nadler. So you could not point a finger and say, he
    made this decision or influenced this decision because of his
    bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. And were there FBI agents, to your
    knowledge, or officials, who had negative opinions of Hillary
    Clinton?
        Mr. Horowitz. We have the text messages we laid out here.
    There are some that you could, I think, imply that. Certainly
    Peter Strzok's attorneys have made that argument. Almost
    everything we found was the other way, was anti-Trump.
        Mr. Nadler. By Strzok and Page?
        Mr. Horowitz. By Strzok and Page and the other three agents
    that we----
        Mr. Nadler. The other three agents, but you didn't look
    at----
        Mr. Horowitz. Or two agents and lawyer.
        Mr. Nadler. But you didn't look at other agents, like in
    the New York offices?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not look at agents beyond the Midyear
    team, the Clinton email investigation team. I am not here to
    tell you----
        Mr. Nadler. I will simply observe, in conclusion, that an
    organization as large as the FBI, in a country that was pretty
    closely divided where half the American people thought Trump
    was a great guy and half thought Hillary was wonderful, and
    half thought the opposite in both cases, it will be pretty
    amazing if there weren't lots of people in the FBI who loved
    Donald Trump, and lots of people who couldn't stand him.
        And that there's nothing wrong with people holding their
    political opinions as long as they didn't let those opinions
    impact their jobs. Would you agree with that statement?
        Mr. Horowitz. People are free to have their personal views
    and their job is to check them at the door when they walk into
    work.
        Mr. Nadler. And I'll say one other thing.
        If it is true that Strzok did not impact any decision based
    on his personal political opinion, then expressing his
    political opinion to his girlfriend was wrong only because he
    used the FBI phones?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think it is very troubling because it
    undercut confidence in the investigation as we laid out here,
    and as I said, I can't say definitively that his actions didn't
    result in action. I can only speak to the ones we looked at and
    the ultimate----
        Mr. Nadler. So there's no evidence it did.
        Mr. Horowitz. There's no evidence as to those pre-July 5
    ones they did. I'm very concerned about what occurred in
    October. And I, you know, again, I go back to what I said
    earlier. I think frankly anybody should be concerned about any
    law enforcement officer expressing these kinds of views while
    they're investigating those very individuals. I don't care
    whether it's a presidential race or a local election. It just
    shouldn't happen.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        Two quick housekeeping matters. Inspector Horowitz, if you
    need to take a break for any reason or no reason, just let me
    know.
        To my colleagues, I am acutely aware that all four
    chairpersons went over the time limit. And I am acutely aware
    of how manifestly unfair it would be for me not to allow you to
    do the same. Nevertheless, I will not be able to allow everyone
    the same amount of time.
        Mr. Horowitz. Thank you.
        Chairman Gowdy. Because some people have July 4th plans.
        So I'm going to try to do a better job. What I've done in
    the past is if you ask a question after 5 minutes, I'll say
    ``the witness may answer but no more questions.'' And I
    apologize. I appreciate your attendance, but I'm trying to get
    us out of here before Friday.
        With that, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Horowitz, does Peter Strzok like the
    President?
        Mr. Horowitz. I can only speak to what his text messages
    say, and they're obviously not positive comments about the
    President.
        Mr. Jordan. February-March of 2016, Peter Strzok said
    Trump's abysmal, Trump's an idiot. He's a bleeping idiot.
    Hillary should win 100 million to 0. It sounds to me like he
    hates the President.
        Mr. Horowitz. His text messages would certainly leave that
    as the implication.
        Mr. Jordan. Your report says Strzok ran the Clinton
    investigation on a daily basis. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Jordan. And Peter Strzok, in your report, he was the
    lead investigator on the Russian investigation. Is that true?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding for the time period
    he was on it.
        Mr. Jordan. So the guy, he ran the Clinton investigation,
    he runs the Russian investigation, he hates the President, but
    your report says ``while his bias cast a cloud, it didn't
    impact final decisions.'' Is that accurate?
        Mr. Horowitz. It didn't impact the prosecutors' final
    decision.
        Mr. Jordan. Right. Let's look at a few other things Peter
    Strzok had to say.
        On May 4, 2016, the day after President Trump secures the
    Republican nomination, Mr. Strzok says ``Now the pressure
    really starts to finish the Clinton investigation.''
        I'm not sure why the pressure would be more or less the day
    after. It seems to me you just want to do the investigation.
        On July 31st, as was mentioned earlier, the FBI opens the
    Russian investigation. One week later, Peter Strzok says ``I
    can protect my country on many levels.'' Two days after that,
    he says, We will stop Trump.'' One week after that, he says No
    way he gets elected. It's like an insurance policy.
        So think about this, Mr. Horowitz, Peter Strzok opened--the
    FBI opens the Russia investigation on July 31st, 2016. Peter
    Strzok is the lead investigator. Within the next 15 days, he
    says, ``I can protect my country on many levels.'' ``No way he
    gets elected. We will stop him. We have an insurance policy.''
        Now that seems like, at least, think a lot of regular folks
    would interpret that as more than just casting a cloud on what
    the FBI ultimately did. I mean, it is one thing to say Trump is
    an idiot. It is another thing to say, We've got an insurance
    policy.
        It is one thing to say, Trump's awful. It's another thing
    to say, We're going to stop him, especially when those
    statements are made within 15 days, just days after you've
    launched an investigation into that individual.
        Would you agree?
        Mr. Horowitz. And I think the important thing here is the
    time period we're talking about. Because those messages in the
    July-August period, which we found extremely concerning and
    antithetical to core values of the FBI, concerned, as we noted,
    the Russia investigation--and as you noted--and that's why we
    had so much concern about what occurred in late September and
    October.
        Mr. Jordan. Exactly. Mr. Horowitz, was Peter Strzok put on
    Special Counsel Mueller's team?
        Mr. Horowitz. He was.
        Mr. Jordan. So, again, the guy who hates the President, the
    guy who ran the Clinton investigation, the guy who ran the
    Russian investigation, then gets assigned to the special
    counsel team.
        Do you know what date, Mr. Horowitz, the special counsel
    was named?
        Mr. Horowitz. I believe it was around May 17th.
        Mr. Jordan. May 17, 2017. May 17, 2017.
        Mr. Horowitz, do you remember what Peter Strzok said on May
    18, 2017?
        Mr. Horowitz. I do. It's in our report on page 405.
        Mr. Jordan. I unleashed it on the Midyear Exam, this one?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. And now I need to fix it and finish it. There's
    unfinished business, and this could be an investigation leading
    to impeachment. That's what he said the day after.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Jordan. Again, don't you think that sounds and looks a
    little bit like, to regular Americans, a little bit more than
    just casting a cloud on the overall investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, I go back to what the report concerns,
    which was the Clinton email investigation, which was concluded
    about a year earlier with Director Comey's announcement. But it
    is precisely why we were concerned about what occurred in late
    September and October, when Mr. Strzok had the choice between
    working on the Russia investigation----
        Mr. Jordan. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. --or on the Weiner laptop Clinton
    investigation.
        Mr. Jordan. He was prioritizing the one over here.
        Mr. Horowitz. Chose Russia.
        Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Let me just finish with this. And this is
    probably what bothers me more than all what we just went
    through. More than that, probably what bothers me the bother is
    Peter Strzok's attitude. I think it's what bothers Americans
    the most about this whole ordeal.
        I just want to go to one more text message that, one more
    thing Mr. Strzok said. This is back in that August time period
    again. August 26, 2016, Peter Strzok says, ``just went to a
    southern Virginia Walmart, I can smell the Trump supporters.''
    This is what ticks Americans off more than anything else I'm
    convinced about. All this Clinton investigation, all this
    Russia investigation, is this idea that there are two sets of
    rules, or two standards. One set of rules for us regular folk
    who shop at Walmart, but a different set if your name is
    Clinton, Comey, Lynch, McCabe, or if your name is Peter Strzok.
        And the arrogance and the condescension and elitist
    attitude, that is what ticks people off. And as they look at
    all this and see what Strzok said throughout this
    investigation, that's why their confidence is shaken. And
    frankly, that's why they're so mad.
        And that's why we got to get some answer from Mr.
    Rosenstein and Mr. Wray about this whole ordeal.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Ohio yields back. The
    gentlelady from New York is recognized.
        Mrs. Maloney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
    Horowitz for your service.
        Chairman Gowdy and others have mentioned the very troubling
    emails that were very critical of President Trump. So my
    question to you, none of these emails were made public during
    the election, correct? That's what I read. They were not made--
    --
        Mr. Horowitz. No, they were not. The text messages were
    not----
        Mrs. Maloney. They were not made public during the
    election. And so therefore, it's fair to say that these emails
    did not influence the election, correct? They weren't made
    public, so they did not influence the election.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, I don't think these text messages at
    all were out there during 2016.We uncovered them in 2017.
        Mrs. Maloney. Okay. Did they did not influence the
    election.
        Now the FBI conducted investigations related to both
    presidential candidates. But Director Comey publicly released
    information only about Secretary Clinton, while he kept secret
    information about the investigation related to the Trump
    campaign and the Russian Government, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. He followed the rules on the Trump--the
    Russia matter. He followed the rules on the Clinton Foundation
    matter. He didn't follow the Department's practices on the----
        Mrs. Maloney. And that was very troubling to me that he did
    not follow the protocol.
        Mr. Horowitz. I just worry when people say ``kept secret,''
    he actually followed the rules.
        Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Horowitz, in a Senate Judiciary hearing
    the other day, one of our colleagues from the other side of the
    aisle, he said that your report only confirms that Hillary
    Clinton got kid-gloved treatment from the FBI.
        I would say the opposite is true. And as my good friend Joe
    Biden would say, that that is total malarky.
        I think that your report makes clear that the reverse is
    true. And that there was a fact and element within the FBI that
    was biased against Secretary Clinton.
        For example, according to your executive summary, one of
    the reasons cited for Mr. Comey's extraordinary October 28th
    letter to Congress about the discovery of additional emails on
    a laptop was, quote, ``the fear that the information would leak
    if the FBI failed to disclose it.'' And that, to me, is very
    troubling.
        And then it went on to say that there were selective leaks
    throughout the investigation on Clinton, serious errors in
    judgment. I quote, ``serious errors in judgment'' in the
    unprecedented action by the Director of the FBI in the final
    weeks right up next to the election of 2016 presidential race
    in violation of protocol, as you've mentioned.
        And I would say that this all worked in one direction and
    to the detriment of candidate Clinton and to the benefit of
    candidate Trump. And I would say that it may well have
    determined the outcome of the 2016 election.
        So my question to you is, what are you doing to make sure
    that this doesn't happen again? That it does not become
    politicized, that it can't influence another election?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's a very important question,
    Congresswoman. And what we've done is we've made nine
    recommendations in this report. One of which is precisely to
    that issue. That the Department needs to consider putting in
    place some guidance and rules and policies, practices, to
    memorialize what it believes prosecutors and agents should be
    doing in the time period before the election.
        Mrs. Maloney. Well, I think that's very, very important to
    make sure that no future election is swayed and no collusion is
    overlooked because of politics, pure and simple. And the main
    question that remains, and that I'd like to see a report on was
    why was there a different standard on the Russian
    investigation, which followed protocol, but on the Clinton
    area, there were press conferences, there were testimony before
    Congress, there were statements about emails that he hadn't
    even read. Why was there such a difference in standards? And
    how can you enforce a standard?
        You have a standard. It wasn't enforced. It was violated.
    So how would you enforce the standard in the future?
        Mr. Horowitz. So, you know, as we describe in here,
    Director Comey explained what his rationale for treating the
    Clinton email, the Weiner laptop issue differently than the
    Russia investigation, the Clinton Foundation investigation,
    even the request of the Intelligence Committee put out a
    statement about it, which is described in here.
        Mrs. Maloney. Well----
        Mr. Horowitz. And I think what has to happen going forward,
    and one of the most concerning parts, many concerning parts of
    this is Director Comey, rather than speaking with the Attorney
    General about it or consulting directly with them, did what he
    did in terms of his guidance.
        I think the bottom line here is, the leadership of the
    Department needs to have rules in place, policies in place,
    norms in place, practices in place to consider this. And when
    an issue like this arises, they should be able to talk to one
    another.
        Mrs. Maloney. Well, he violated protocol with one
    candidate. And followed it with the other helping President
    Trump and hurting the candidacy of Secretary Clinton.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady's time is expired. The
    gentleman from California is recognized.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
    thank the gentlelady from New York for making the case for
    firing Comey. Making the case for why both Democrats and
    Republicans had very valid reasons that we wanted the President
    to let him go for his unprofessional and insubordinate
    activity. And yet, once the President did it, somehow he was
    wrong.
        In your report, Mr. Horowitz, you bring out the fact that
    the former Director was, in fact, at times, unprofessional,
    didn't follow rules, and even insubordinate, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Issa. So we have a reason to fire somebody. The
    gentlelady from New York just made the case in resounding ways
    if what she believes to be true is true, that he should have
    been fired and fired immediately. And probably would have been
    fired by President Clinton had she become President.
        But I want to go on to two other points. And one of them
    is, the standard for bias. Now I'm a former--I guess I'm an
    employer now, but in the years that I was manufacturer and so
    on, you know, the definition for most of us for a bias if
    reviewing text or emails and anything close to what Strzok and
    Page were saying and others, occurred, and we were in an EEOC
    or some other kind of complaint, we would be held clearly for
    this to have met the requirement for any action whatsoever that
    was less than favorable for an employee, a termination, and so
    on. We would be held as having a bias.
        As a matter of fact, every member up here on the dais had
    to go through 90 minutes of training in which they gave us
    examples that for a fraction of what Page and Strzok had done,
    if there were any adverse action whatsoever, we would be held
    as biased.
        How is it you can say you found no evidence of bias? What
    makes the standard different for the Department of Justice?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, let me be clear. We did not say that
    their words and texts and these messages were not indicative of
    bias. In fact, we were very concerned with them because that
    kind of bias and those kind of----
        Mr. Issa. So you found bias, but the actions----
        Mr. Horowitz. That's the question.
        Mr. Issa. --the famous insurance policy, the likelihood
    that they were in, quote, Andy's office and were plotting,
    conspiring, to figure out a way to either keep the President
    from winning or hurt him, that conspiracy, that evidence of
    that conspiracy is not enough to be an action?
        Isn't a conspiracy an action separate from what you might
    do? If you conspire to blow up the Oklahoma City Federal
    Building, you don't have to succeed for there to be a crime.
    Isn't that true?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes. A conspiracy, you don't have to actually
    carry it out at all. And I agree with you the concern evident
    in those texts in August.
        Mr. Issa. So they had a bias, and they had a conspiracy to
    do something, we just don't know exactly what that is. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I'm going to put aside what they had a
    conspiracy to do. But I do think that what was reflected there
    in August translated directly for us into concerns about what
    occurred a month later in September.
        Mr. Issa. Okay. So I see it as there's a bias, a
    conspiracy, and they did do some things wrong, and that came
    out clearly in your report. Very clearly there was a reason to
    fire the former FBI Director Comey. And it was a bipartisan
    effort. I guess I would say that maybe Republicans would have
    objected if President Clinton had fired him, but that isn't the
    case.
        I want to ask, though, a question back to Mr. Comey. Last
    Thursday when you issued your report, basically 4 hours before
    that was issued his op-ed came out showing that he had clearly
    read the report. How did he get to see the report before it was
    public?
        Mr. Horowitz. So as with all of our reviews--first of all,
    he did not see the whole report--but as with all of our
    reviews----
        Mr. Issa. But he is a former member----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Mr. Issa. --a former person. Do all former employees get
    this?
        Mr. Horowitz. So the process is--and we did this from Fast
    and Furious on forward to ones that never make headlines--if
    individuals whose conduct we criticize in a report have
    testified to us and voluntarily agreed to speak to us--as you
    know this has been an issue that you've supported us on----
        Mr. Issa. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. --getting testimonial subpoena authority, one
    of the--without that authority----
        Mr. Issa. We want you to have it for former employees.
        Mr. Horowitz. Right. Without that authority they have to
    come in voluntarily. And one of the things that we do is, if
    they come in voluntarily and speak to us, we allow them----
        Mr. Issa. Okay. So the quid pro quo is you let him see it.
    Did he sign a----
        Mr. Horowitz. Only those portions of the report that
    related to him.
        Mr. Issa. Did he sign a nondisclosure?
        Mr. Horowitz. He did.
        Mr. Issa. So when he published before it came out he
    effectively breached the nondisclosure, didn't he?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to look at the timing----
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired, but you
    may answer the question.
        Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to actually look at the exact timing
    on that, on when it came out on Thursday versus when our report
    came out. I, frankly, didn't focus on that question before.
        Mr. Issa. Well, he certainly disclosed it to the newspaper
    to get it published in that timing. He must have been
    disclosing it to newspaper personnel hours or days ahead of
    time. That would seem to be a violation of that nondisclosure.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlelady from Texas is recognized.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Horowitz, thank you for your service.
        Let me apologize. I'm going to be wanting yes/no answers. I
    think some of these you have already, but because of the nature
    of the time.
        Let me just repeat, your report does not vindicate the
    President or conclude that the Trump campaign did not conclude
    with the Russians. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our report doesn't address the Russia
    investigation.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And your report doesn't have anything to
    do with the numbers of individuals that were--the numbers of
    individuals that were connected to the Trump administration--
    Trump campaign with Russia, you didn't deal with any of these,
    including the picture of Papadopoulos, who was indicted in the
    meeting in Trump Tower?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our review focused on the Midyear
    investigation.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
        Donald Trump is the first sitting President in history
    whose campaign chairman spent his time behind bars doing his
    own Presidential campaign, but none of these issues were
    investigated by your investigation. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our review concerned the Clinton email
    investigation.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And then let me quickly. Your report does
    not--excuse me, I am interested to know about chapter 7, pages
    260-262. You cite all the reasons for concluding that Secretary
    Clinton did not break the law or have any basis to conclude
    that she broke the law for her use of a private server. Is that
    accurate still?
        Mr. Horowitz. That are the prosecutor's reasons as given to
    us and explained to us and it is our analysis----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And you didn't counter that in your
    report?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Did you say that it was grounded in the
    law, facts, and applicable DOJ precedent?
        Mr. Horowitz. Based on the evidence we had reviewed, that
    is what we found with regard to the prosecutor's decision.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And her campaign was not subject of a
    Federal counterintelligence investigation by the Nation's law
    enforcement to your knowledge or at least you didn't
    investigate that?
        Mr. Horowitz. There was a review on that issue, and I could
    talk a little bit more about it. I'd need to tease that out
    just a little, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. But it did not impact the original or the
    basis of your report?
        Mr. Horowitz. The finding was that there was no intrusion.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. In light of what you saw, would you think
    it was reasonable for Americans to conclude that Secretary
    Clinton was a victim of a double standard in light of the
    information that the FBI had about the Trump administration--
    or, excuse me, campaign--and its opening of the investigation
    that was not leaked?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to focus on what our conclusion was
    as opposed to the public's. Our conclusion was the standard
    that should have applied was the same one that the Director
    applied to the Russia investigation and the Clinton Foundation
    investigation.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And it was not the same standard?
        Mr. Horowitz. It was not the same standard.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I want to show these documents which show
    the leaks from the Southern District and others from the FBI.
    Do you find that troubling, that leaks in your report went out?
        Mr. Horowitz. Just to be clear, we do not say where those
    are from. We simply put in there the individual's titles. But
    we're very concerned, as we explained in here, we're asked to
    look at leaks all the time in this matter, other matters. And
    if there are, as you know, multiple people who have had
    disclosures or contacts it makes it very hard to figure out who
    did it.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Do you think they were biased toward Mrs.
    Clinton?
        Mr. Horowitz. I have no idea one way or the other.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me move to the Strzok-Page questioning
    that I have.
        On November 2016, the day after the Presidential election,
    Lisa Page sent a quote to Peter Strzok: Are you going to give
    out your calendars? Seems kind of depressing. Maybe it should
    be just the first meeting of the secret society.
        Mr. Horowitz, are you familiar with that text?
        Mr. Horowitz. I am.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. On January 24, 2018, Ron Johnson went to
    FOX News and indicated, shouting: It is further evidence of
    corruption, more bias, corruption of the highest levels, the
    secret society. We have an informant that was talking about a
    group holding secret meetings off-site. There's so much smoke
    and there's so much suspicion.
        Mr. Horowitz, did your report find any evidence of a secret
    society at the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not find any.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Did your report find any evidence that
    there was a group at the FBI holding secret meetings off-site?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure we looked for that, but
    certainly as part of the Midyear investigation we didn't see--
    --
        Ms. Jackson Lee. In fact, Page explained that the calendars
    referenced in this text message was funny and snarky calendars
    of Russian President Vladimir Putin in different poses, such as
    holding up a kitten.
        Mr. Horowitz, Page and Strzok both told your investigator
    that secret society was used as a joke. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's what they told us.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. On August 15, 2016, Strzok had sent Page a
    text that stated, quote: I want to believe the path you threw
    out for consideration in Andy's office, and there's no way he
    gets elected, but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like
    an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're
    40.
        Mr. Horowitz, in your report Strzok explains a reference in
    his text to an insurance policy, quote, reflected his
    conclusion that the FBI should investigate the allegations
    thoroughly right away as if Trump was going to win. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That was his explanation.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Did your report reach any conclusions that
    would contradict Mr. Strzok's explanation?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think it's fair to say we had concerns
    about what his intentions were there.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Did any of what you came across suggest
    that they had a plan to undermine the election of Donald Trump?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not. We did not investigate, as we
    said here, the Russia matter. We have ongoing work in that
    regard. So----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And was there--in your opening statement I
    think you said the Director, Director Comey, clearly departed
    from the norms and undermined the perception of fairness of the
    FBI. Those are my paraphrasing words. Is that in relation to
    his handling of former Secretary Clinton's emails, which you
    found that she did not break the law based upon their report?
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady's time has expired, but you
    may answer the question.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, Comey violated the norms, as you said.
    We didn't find that she didn't break the law. We found what the
    prosecutor's assessment was of it and determined that it was
    based on the facts and the law.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And that was that she did not break the
    law?
        Mr. Horowitz. That was their conclusion, correct.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, having spent the last 2 years down in the Old
    Executive Office Building, along with our colleague Mr. Issa, I
    didn't get an opportunity to hear all the other questions and
    the answers to those questions. So rather than repeat what a
    lot of others may have said, I would like to yield to my
    colleague from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, my time.
        Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Horowitz, how many text messages were exchanged between
    Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't have an exact number, but tens of
    thousands.
        Mr. Jordan. Tens of thousands. And we got to see most of
    these last fall and over the last several months. But there was
    one we didn't get to see, one text message we didn't get to see
    until last week when your report came out.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. And it just happened to be the most explosive
    one, the one that says: We'll stop Trump. How come we didn't
    see that beforehand?
        Mr. Horowitz. Let me explain how we ended up finding that,
    because I think it's important to also appreciate----
        Mr. Jordan. I guess I'm more interested in if someone was
    trying to hide it.
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, we uncovered it in May, so last month.
    We uncovered it in our fourth round of work on their personal--
    on their FBI devices.
        Mr. Jordan. That's my question. If you uncovered it a month
    ago, why did we not see it until last Thursday?
        Mr. Horowitz. I can't answer that question. We provided the
    materials to the Department----
        Mr. Jordan. But who made the decision? Was it Mr. Wray? Was
    it Mr. Rosenstein? Was it Mr. Sessions? Who made the decision?
        Mr. Horowitz. What we have done, as we have found these
    texts, is send them to the Department and for them to produce
    it to Congress, and that's what we did in May.
        Mr. Jordan. And who at the Department, though?
        Mr. Horowitz. We sent it to the Office of Deputy Attorney
    General and----
        Mr. Jordan. So Mr. Rosenstein?
        Mr. Horowitz. In his office.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Rosenstein made a decision that instead of
    us seeing the most explosive text message between these two key
    agents who were on the Clinton team, the Russia team, and on
    the special counsel team, he made a decision to wait a month
    for us to see that text message.
        Mr. Horowitz. I can't speak to whether anyone made a
    conscious decision. I would just say we--there was in that
    fourth recovery that we made in May there was 100,000-plus
    lines of texts to go through. Most all of them we'd found
    before. This one was one we hadn't. We didn't see it or pick it
    up until June.
        Mr. Jordan. And did you not see it or was it hidden from
    you? Because we have the text message right before it and the
    one that happened right after it, but somehow that one, the
    most explosive one, was missing from the pages that we got
    months ago.
        Mr. Horowitz. And I can explain how we ended up finding it,
    because it was missing from--we did not have it either. We
    recovered it.
        Mr. Jordan. So the Department didn't give it to you either?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't think the Department had it, and I
    can explain why I don't think they had it.
        Mr. Jordan. Okay.
        Mr. Horowitz. These text messages were retained by the FBI
    pursuant to a data collection where they were pulling text
    messages--I'm not a tech person, I'll do my best here--they
    were pulling them off the FBI devices. They each had their own
    FBI phones. They were pulling them.
        As we got these texts and found these concerning messages
    in 2017, we then asked the FBI for all their text messages.
    When we got all their text messages, as you know, we found a
    window, a period of several months where there was zero.
        Mr. Jordan. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. We then went and got their phones and said:
    Okay, if the FBI isn't collecting them, we're going to try and
    extract them from the phones.
        We did a first run-through using our cyber forensics
    capabilities, collected material. We went to our outside vendor
    that we use to see what else that contractor had. We did
    another go-round with some additional tools, found more.
        We then went to the Defense Department.
        Mr. Jordan. Okay.
        Mr. Horowitz. Did the same thing.
        Mr. Jordan. Yeah, I'm thankful that Mr. Chabot yielded me
    time, but I got the gist of it. You jumped through all kinds of
    hoops to retrieve it.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Jordan. The point is when you did get it Mr. Rosenstein
    decided we couldn't get it until your report came out. He sat
    on it for a month of time.
        Mr. Horowitz. I can't speak to how they----
        Mr. Jordan. Well, it's not the first time Mr. Rosenstein
    has kept us from getting information. I mean, he's hid
    information from us. He redacted all kinds of important
    conversations between Strzok and Page. He redacted that from
    us. We had to go over to the Justice Department and find it. So
    this wouldn't be the first time he hasn't given us information,
    frankly, I think we're entitled to.
        I want to--well, I got 30 seconds. I don't have time to get
    into another subject area here.
        Mr. Horowitz, I appreciate that, but I do think it is
    interesting that you had it, you discovered it, and we couldn't
    get it right away. Like all the other text messages, we had to
    wait until the final report.
        With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlelady from the District of Columbia is recognized.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, if there's a bottom line to your report it
    appears to be that while there were mistakes made, the mistakes
    that have been discussed, that the Clinton email--that the
    investigation itself was not politically motivated. Is that a
    fair rendition?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think what I would say about the final
    decision by the prosecutors is that we found their decision was
    not based on political bias but on their assessment of the
    facts, the law, and the precedent.
        Ms. Norton. Now, that, of course, in spite of what has been
    made at this hearing by some of my colleagues about Mr.
    Strzok's testimony, you know. If one hears that testimony, it
    could sound like a textbook example of bias.
        So could you explain why, notwithstanding the renditions we
    have heard of his virtual on-the-record, because it has been
    quoted, bias, nevertheless the investigation itself was not
    biased given the leading role he played in the investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. What we found was with regard to the specific
    decisions we looked at pre-July 5 that there were other team
    members involved in some of those. He and Ms. Page took a more
    aggressive view than the prosecutors. In some of those
    instances or many of those instances actually it was the
    prosecutors who were making the decision, not the agents.
        And so when we looked at the notes, the emails, the other
    evidence we could find, and the testimony we got, we concluded
    that there wasn't evidence of bias in how those decisions were
    actually made or carried out, the specific ones we looked at.
        Ms. Norton. Notwithstanding Strzok's involvement, there
    were a sufficient number of other investigators so that the
    bottom line here of no political motivation stands as far as
    you're concerned?
        Mr. Horowitz. As to the specific decisions we looked at,
    correct, and as to the prosecutorial decision for the reasons I
    indicated.
        Ms. Norton. Now, there's a lot of concern about Mr. Comey's
    speaking out. He used words like ``extremely careless.'' And he
    has been criticized for, after the case was closed, speaking
    out again.
        Yet your report said, and here I'm quoting, sir: ``The
    problem originated with Comey's elevation of 'maximal
    transparency.'"
        I tell you, sir, if someone said, ``Eleanor,'' to me,
    ``you're being maximally transparent,'' especially as a Member
    of Congress, I would take that as a compliment. So I need to
    understand your use of that word, rather than perhaps a more
    critical use of language.
        Mr. Horowitz. Right. Well, that was Mr. Comey's explanation
    to us as to why he did it. I will say as inspectors general, as
    you know, we stand for----
        Ms. Norton. No, I was quoting the OIG report----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Ms. Norton. --found the problem originated with Comey's
    elevation of maximal transparency as overriding this case. That
    is to say overriding the principle that you've got to stay
    silent----
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Norton. --if you are the FBI.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Look, I'm--we are as IGs for government transparency in all
    ways possible. But there are places where there are other
    rules, like classified material, like ongoing criminal
    investigations, for the reason we said: Individuals' reputation
    should not be tarnished if they're not going to be charged with
    a crime. And that's a rule----
        Ms. Norton. So he went beyond--his transparency is not what
    you're recommending----
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Norton. --for Members of Congress.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Iowa is recognized.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks for your testimony, Mr. Horowitz. It has been a busy
    week for you this week.
        First, I'd like to turn to the question of how many emails
    were exchanged on the unsecured server between Hillary Rodham
    Clinton and President Barack Obama.
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the exact number. We can go back
    and look. We understood he was 1 of 13 individuals in that.
        Mr. King. Do you have any sense of the volume that was
    exchanged between the Secretary of State and the President?
        Mr. Horowitz. I can get back to you on that. I'd have to
    refresh my recollection on that one.
        Mr. King. At this point you don't have a sense of that
    volume?
        Mr. Horowitz. I just don't.
        Mr. King. And then do you have the information or a sense
    of were those emails secret, top secret, classified?
        Mr. Horowitz. My recollection is, as I sit here, that they
    were not among the classified material, but I'm not certain of
    that. So I'd need to go back and double check that.
        Mr. King. And I want to ask you formally that you produce
    those records for us.
        Mr. Horowitz. I will do that.
        Mr. King. I think it is essential that this committee
    understand those facts surrounding that. And I'll get to that
    hopefully in a moment.
        Could you point out to us your first encounter with the
    replacement of the words from the statute in 793, ``gross
    negligence,'' with the words ``extreme carelessness,'' the
    first encounter with that switch?
        Mr. Horowitz. That was back in May as this--as the drafts
    were--the Comey statement as the drafts were evolving into
    June.
        Mr. King. And were the fingerprints of Peter Strzok on that
    exchange?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. King. Anyone else's fingerprints on that exchange?
        Mr. Horowitz. I believe Ms. Page, as well.
        Mr. King. And what about James Comey, had he----
        Mr. Horowitz. He was very much in the middle of the
    drafting that was going on.
        Mr. King. The three of them were in communication and
    drafting that. So it would be hard to identify exactly who
    inserted it the first time. Is that a fair analysis?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think we actually do have some idea of how
    it got changed and who put it in, but not necessarily because
    it was their decision as opposed to who was the sort of scribe
    on it as opposed to the decision-maker.
        Mr. King. I would like a little bit more information on
    that, too, if you could, Mr. Horowitz.
        Mr. Horowitz. We can do that, yes.
        Mr. King. So while we're searching back for the genesis of
    ``extreme carelessness'' as a replacement for the statutory
    language of ``gross negligence,'' could you inform the
    committee here as to the genesis of the word ``intent'' as it
    found its way into this dialogue?
        Mr. Horowitz. So it looks like in a variety of discussions
    with the team and the prosecutors, the investigative team from
    the FBI and the prosecutors, that the focus was on in a
    significant way--there were other factors as well here--but in
    a significant way the focus was on the fact that the classified
    material that was transiting through the email server was not
    clearly marked as you're supposed to have it marked, with
    banners saying it is classified and what level it is classified
    at.
        Mr. King. To more clarify my question, actually the
    insertion of the word ``intent'' as a condition to a violation
    of 793, when did that word first find itself in the dialogue
    that you looked at?
        Mr. Horowitz. That is in the dialogue months earlier, well
    before the investigation reached its conclusion.
        Mr. King. About when would you guess that is the months
    earlier?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to----
        Mr. King. In 2016?
        Mr. Horowitz. It's in 2016.
        Mr. King. Not in 2015?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure whether it went back that far,
    although, frankly, it could have, because there's some
    indication that early on people thought that it was unlikely to
    be the case.
        Mr. King. Mr. Horowitz, let me assert that the evidence I'm
    looking at suggests that President Barack Obama spoke that word
    into law and that a taped program October 10 of 2015 he said
    Hillary Clinton was careless but not intentional. That program
    was aired on October 11, CBS ``60 Minutes.'' And I have the
    article printed in The New York Times, that's dated the 16th of
    October, the article that references the October 11, where it
    says in this article, quote: ``Mr. Obama said he had no
    impression that Mrs. Clinton had purposely tried 'to hide
    something or to squirrel away information,' close quote.
    Continuing: ``In doing so, Mr. Obama spoke directly to a core
    component of the law used against Mr. Petraeus, intent, and
    said he did not think it applied in Mrs. Clinton's case.''
        So I'm going to suggest that the President suggested that
    language through the open medium and spoke the word into the
    law, that it would require intent, which shows up throughout in
    the following months, in particular in James Comey's July 5,
    2016, exoneration--well, let's say summary of the prosecution/
    exoneration statement, six times that word ``intent,'' and I
    find it no place else.
        Would you have any comments on your thoughts of how that
    might have been--the genesis might have gone back to the
    President of the United States on that idea?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know that that was necessarily the
    genesis. We don't have evidence of that. But we do have in
    here, as you noted, references to the statements made by
    President Obama and by his press secretary and the concerns
    that those raised and the issues that--and how it was viewed
    and perceived by the team, by the investigative team.
        Mr. King. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
        I yield back the balance.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Iowa yields back.
        The gentlelady from California, Ms. Bass.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Horowitz, thank you for this report. It lays out in
    clear and unequivocal terms a conclusion that Republicans have
    resisted for years: The investigation into Secretary Clinton's
    emails and the decision to decline prosecution were both done
    properly, without bias.
        In this report you concluded, quote: ``We did not find
    documentary or testimonial evidence that improper
    considerations, including political bias, directly affected the
    specific investigative decisions...or that the justification
    offered for these decisions were pretextual.''
        Is that right?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Ms. Bass. Republican Members have repeatedly declared that
    the investigation was illegitimate and have questioned many
    aspects of that investigation, from the Justice Department's
    use of immunity agreements to the timing of James Comey
    drafting process.
        Did you investigate these allegations?
        Mr. Horowitz. The questions of--I'm sorry, could you say
    that again?
        Ms. Bass. Republican Members repeatedly declared that the
    investigation was illegitimate and questioned many aspects of
    the investigation, from the Justice Department's use of
    immunity agreements to the timing of James Comey drafting
    process.
        Did you investigate these allegations?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. In response to your report Chairman Gowdy wrote,
    quote: ``This report confirms investigative decisions made by
    the FBI during this investigation were unprecedented and
    deviated from traditional investigative procedures in favor of
    a much more permissive and voluntary approach.''
        Chairman Goodlatte similarly wrote, quote: ``The Justice
    Department and FBI didn't treat her like any other criminal
    suspect and didn't follow standard investigative procedures.''
        This doesn't seem to reflect your report's findings to me.
    In fact, your report explicitly states, and I quote: ``Contrary
    to public perception, the Midyear team used compulsory process
    in the Midyear investigation.''
        Your report also stated, quote: ``We found that these
    specific decisions were the result of discretionary judgments
    made during the course of an investigation by the Midyear
    agents and prosecutors and that these judgment calls were not
    unreasonable.''
        Is that right?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Ms. Bass. The report also concluded, quote: ``We found no
    evidence that the conclusions by the [Department] Prosecutors
    were affected by bias or other improper considerations; rather,
    we determined that they were based on the prosecutors'
    assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department
    practice.''
        Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. As to the prosecutorial decision, yes, that's
    correct.
        Ms. Bass. Mr. Horowitz, I appreciate you being here today.
    I do want to ask you a couple of other questions.
        On June 29 Democrats on this committee and the House
    Judiciary Committee sent you a letter raising concerns that
    Attorney General Sessions may have violated his recusal when he
    participated directly and personally in President Trump's
    decision to fire FBI Director James Comey.
        You testified last November that you had not made a
    decision, but that you were holding off while special
    prosecutor Mueller has an ongoing investigation, but you also
    said you would revisit your decision if new information came to
    light.
        Is this an accurate description?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Ms. Bass. It now appears that Attorney General's violation
    of his recusal impacts issues well beyond the scope of the
    special counsel's probe.
        On November 13, the Department of Justice sent a letter
    stating that the Attorney General has been directly involved in
    decisions regarding the appointment of a special counselor to
    investigate, and I quote, ``the sale of Uranium One, alleged
    unlawful dealings related to the Clinton Foundation, and other
    matters.''
        This letter says that the Attorney General, and I quote,
    ``directed senior Federal prosecutors to evaluate whether a
    special counsel should be appointed and told those prosecutors
    to report their findings,'' quote, ``directly to the Attorney
    General and deputy attorney general.''
        Representative Raskin asked you about that letter and you
    said you would receive and review this additional information.
        On November 30 Ranking Member Cummings followed up and sent
    you a letter providing this additional information and again
    requesting you to conduct this review.
        On December 12 you responded with a letter that said, and I
    quote: ``Your letter asked the OIG to conducted an
    investigation separate from that of the special counsel.''
        Do you have any update to provide at this time?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't, and I stand by what I said earlier.
    I think it's important for us as an OIG to consider what other
    investigative activity is ongoing out there and consider that--
    keep that in mind as we're deciding when would be an
    appropriate time to make a determination whether to go forward
    with a review.
        Ms. Bass. The report your office issued last week that is
    the subject of today's hearing discusses text messages sent by
    FBI employees who previously were working on the special
    counsel's investigation.
        Can you explain why in that instance you were willing to
    conduct a review related to the special counsel's investigation
    but you will not review the Attorney General's potentially
    ongoing violations of his recusal agreement?
        Mr. Horowitz. Certainly.
        So when we undertook this review and started finding the
    problematic text messages back in 2017 and ultimately gathered
    the evidence we gathered in July of 2017, and then met with the
    Deputy Attorney General and the special counsel to inform them
    of what we had found, because at the time Mr. Strzok was
    working for the special counsel, I also discussed the matter
    with the special counsel about what we believed was our need to
    collect all of the text messages from those individuals even
    beyond the Clinton email investigation so that we could make an
    assessment of how their views and their conduct impacted the
    Clinton email investigation.
        Ms. Bass. Okay. Thank you.
        I believe that you could review today whether the Attorney
    General is violating his recusal when he participates in
    matters that are unrelated to the special counsel's
    investigation.
        I yield back my time.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady from California yields back.
        The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
        Mr. Amash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my friend,
    the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
        Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Horowitz, I want to go back to where we were just a few
    minutes ago. This text message, this mysterious one, that was
    the most explosive one disappeared, refound, but the Department
    sits on it for a month.
        Can we get a copy of the correspondence that you had with
    Mr. Rosenstein? Was there any type of--how did you communicate
    to the Justice Department that you had found this text message?
        Mr. Horowitz. My agent sent it by email.
        Mr. Jordan. So you sent an email. Did you get----
        Mr. Horowitz. This printout, the spreadsheets, you know, of
    all the texts. We had 120,000 or so, 100,000 lines of texts.
        Mr. Jordan. So you didn't specify we found this one that
    had been missing?
        Mr. Horowitz. I then--when we found it I specified to the
    associate deputy attorney general on June 8 that he ought to
    look at this one.
        Mr. Jordan. Oh, so you sent it to him last month, but then
    you specifically pointed it out to him last week or 2 weeks
    ago?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. When we identified it and saw it as
    we were going through these hundred thousand pages.
        Mr. Jordan. What response did he give you when you pointed
    it out, the most explosive text message?
        Mr. Horowitz. Thank you for telling me about it.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank you for telling me about it. Well, yeah,
    I think so. But not like, well, we need to get this to Congress
    like we did all the others right away?
        Mr. Horowitz. I didn't engage him on that.
        Mr. Jordan. Do you know if there's anything nefarious at
    work? Because when we got the original pages of the text it had
    the prompting question from Ms. Page that says: He is not ever
    going to become President, right? We had that one.
        Mr. Horowitz. As did we.
        Mr. Jordan. We have had it for months, as did you. So why
    didn't we get the response? All the other times we get the back
    and forth, this time we didn't.
        Mr. Horowitz. I think actually it goes to the technical--
    technological issue that we think needs to get addressed and
    fixed, frankly. Because what happened here is on the fourth go-
    round, when we were doing our quality control check on what we
    had done, we found an operating system program in the phone
    that was----
        Mr. Jordan. So you think it was technical, you think it was
    a technical problem?
        Mr. Horowitz. To us that's what it appears as to why this
    wasn't found before May.
        Mr. Jordan. I'm more concerned about why Mr. Rosenstein
    didn't give us the information when he first got it. It seems
    to me he should have.
        Let me go to something else here. How many different
    investigations do you have going on right now? Are you looking
    at--you're looking at Mr. Comey, you're looking at FISA,
    potential abuse of the FISA court process. And are you looking
    at the leak issue with the FBI? Are you looking at--you got
    three other ones going on?
        Mr. Horowitz. We've got lots of investigations going on.
        Mr. Jordan. Well, I know, but with all this stuff, I know
    you've got lots.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, we're looking at the leak issue, as
    well. That's ongoing.
        Mr. Jordan. So all three of those----
        Mr. Horowitz. Remain ongoing.
        Mr. Jordan. --within ongoing investigations, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Do you have any idea when--I'm particularly--
    well, I'm interested in all of them, but I'm particularly
    interested in the FISA--potential abuse of the FISA process. Do
    you have any idea when that one will be complete?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't, Congressman. In part, as you know, a
    few weeks ago we were asked to broaden that and look at some
    additional information and issues.
        Mr. Jordan. Do you anticipate it taking 18 months like this
    Clinton investigation one did, Mr. Horowitz?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't anticipate it, but let me just say,
    if we had released this report in January you would not have
    most of these text messages.
        Mr. Jordan. No. I understand. I mean, you got to do your
    work.
        Mr. Horowitz. So I can't--I didn't expect that.
        Mr. Jordan. As important as it is, when you look at looking
    at the FISA, potential abuse of the FISA process, will you be
    looking at the question of whether Mr. Rosenstein threatened
    staff members on the House Intelligence Committee?
        Mr. Horowitz. I've read about that recently, and I'm
    certainly, as in all instances, available to take information.
    I only know at this point what I've read from the newspaper.
        Mr. Jordan. Would that be within the parameters of your
    investigation, that question?
        Mr. Horowitz. Frankly, I would have to understand a little
    bit more about it and what occurred and how it might connect to
    this, if at all, or whether it's something separate.
        Mr. Jordan. Will you look at the issue of why when the
    dossier was taken to the FISA court they didn't tell the court
    who paid for the document? Will you look at that question?
        Mr. Horowitz. Certainly within the FISA review----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman,
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Horowitz, when you--when you----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Jordan. In the course of your investigation will you
    look at the question of why when the application was taken to
    the FISA court they didn't reveal the fact that the author of
    the document, the author of the dossier----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary
    inquiry.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Is it not appropriate to raise the
    question as to what is the germaneness of the gentleman's line
    of questioning and whether or not we are dealing with the
    report of Mr. Horowitz or are we dealing with the Republicans'
    attempt to undermine the Mueller investigation and as well to
    fire deputy secretary--excuse me, Attorney General Rosenstein,
    which they're planning to do on Friday.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady has not stated her
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. This is not the agenda.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time,
    and I would ask that the time be put back on the clock that was
    usurped by the gentlelady from Texas.
        Mr. Jordan. I would just respond, Mr. Chairman, it's been
    widely understood that when the dossier was taken to the FISA
    court to get a secret warrant to spy on a fellow American
    citizen they didn't tell the court two important facts. They
    didn't tell the court who paid for the document, they didn't
    tell the court the guy who wrote it had been fired by the FBI.
    And I'm just asking as Mr. Horowitz undergoes this important
    investigation if he will be examining those two fundamental
    questions.
        Mr. Horowitz. We will take under advisement those and other
    questions that have been raised. And as we said with this
    review, if we find additional issues we will look at those, as
    well, and partly that's why----
        Mr. Jordan. One last question, if I could, Mr. Horowitz.
        May 17, 2017, Rod Rosenstein writes a memo outlining the
    scope and parameters of the special counsel investigation. On
    August 2, 2017, he writes another memo that in some way alters,
    amends, modifies the initial scope of the investigation. And
    yet we can't see that, the American people can't see that.
        Seems to me if you're altering the scope of an
    investigation into the guy that the American people made
    President of the United States, we as Americans deserve to know
    exactly the parameters and scope of that investigation.
        So will you be able to get ahold of that August 2 memo and
    make that available in the course of your investigation?
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired, but you
    may answer the question.
        Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to think about how that connected to
    our investigation and what connectivity, germaneness it would
    have to ours. I'm happy to consider it. I have not seen either
    of those memos myself. And like I said, on its face I'm not
    sure the connection between that and the FISA. But I will
    certainly take it under advisement, Congressman.
        Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        For planning purposes, we will plan to break at 1 o'clock,
    if that's okay with the Inspector General.
        Mr. Horowitz. Fine with me.
        Chairman Gowdy. With that, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
    Clay, is recognized.
        Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And here is where I see where we are. A Presidential
    candidate was targeted by Russia, Russian intelligence. Members
    of Congress, including myself, were targeted, as well. And at
    least 21 States had their voter information penetrated by
    Russian intelligence.
        That information obtained by the Russians was weaponized
    with the clear intention to harm Hillary Clinton and support
    the election of Donald Trump. Time will tell, when Special
    Counsel Mueller issues his report, whether or not the
    President's campaign actively colluded with the Russians.
        Now, Mr. Horowitz, thank you for being here.
        On February the 2nd, 2018, the President tweeted, and I
    quote: ``The top leadership and investigators of the FBI and
    the Justice Department have politicized a sacred investigative
    process in favor of Democrats and against Republicans,
    something which would have been unthinkable just a short time
    ago,'' end of quote.
        This is an accusation that has been repeated by multiple
    Republican Members, including Representative Jim Jordan, who
    stated in an interview about your report, and I quote: ``I
    think one of the big takeaways is the exact same people who ran
    the Clinton investigation, who had a bias in favor of Clinton,
    who did all of these things that are not the typical practice
    when you're doing an investigation, those same people took over
    and ran the Russian investigation.''
        You know, these are serious allegations, and I would like
    to address them head on.
        Mr. Horowitz, did you find any evidence that James Comey
    took any investigative actions in the Clinton matter based on
    political bias and, quote, in favor of Democrats and against
    Republicans?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not find evidence that Mr. Comey had
    acted out of political bias.
        Mr. Clay. And your investigation undiscovered five FBI
    employees who had exchanged texts or instant messages
    reflecting strong personal political views, but you found that
    even those individuals did not let their personal political
    views determine the outcomes of the Clinton matter.
        Your report states, and I quote: ``Our review did not find
    documentary or testimonial evidence directly connecting the
    political views these employees expressed in their text message
    and instant messages to the specific investigative decisions we
    reviewed.''
        And you also quote: In some instances Strzok and Page
    advocated for more aggressive investigative measures in the
    Midyear investigation, such as the use of grand jury subpoenas
    and search warrants.
        Did you find that there is a pro-Democrat or anti-
    Republican conspiracy at the FBI or Justice Department?
        Mr. Horowitz. We didn't reach the question of whether there
    was a conspiracy or not. We've just laid out here what the text
    messages indicated and, as you noted, the fact that the
    specific decisions we reviewed we found weren't impacted or
    affected or resulted from political bias.
        Mr. Clay. I see. Do you know if the Office of Professional
    Responsibility is taking any actions on the subjects that you
    have, on the people----
        Mr. Horowitz. Director Wray testified yesterday that he had
    referred--provided our information and report to the FBI's
    Office of Professional Responsibility.
        Mr. Clay. I see. Thank you so much for your responses.
        And at this time, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield my
    remaining time to the gentlewoman from Texas.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady is recognized for 33
    seconds.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Director--excuse me, Mr. Horowitz--did
    you investigate any questions about Mr. Rosenstein's actions in
    your report as relates to any inappropriate behavior?
        Mr. Horowitz. No.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I didn't hear you, sir.
        Mr. Horowitz. No.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And did you--let us finish the question
    that I had dealing with the FBI agents in the Southern District
    of New York. You did confirm that they leaked. Is that not
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not say anything at all about whether
    they leaked or didn't leak. We're not speaking, or speak at
    all, to who we are looking at or what we're looking at, other
    than we're looking at the issues we were asked to look at about
    investigative leaks.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And so you will continue that
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. We will.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Thank you very much.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlewoman from Texas yields back.
        The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, there has been a massive amount of bias
    documented by you in your investigation. You have concluded
    with recommendations that appear to just be more policies of
    the same policies the FBI, the DOJ already had. You understood
    it was already against FBI, DOJ policy to let bias come into
    play in these investigations, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, you made references in your report, even
    quoted from unnamed but numbered prosecutors and agents. Have
    you given us the names of those individuals?
        Mr. Horowitz. So we have a request for them, and we are----
        Mr. Gohmert. So you haven't given us the names and now you
    can't decide whether you're going to give them to us?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, let me be clear. We engaged the
    committee on this. We went out, went to the FBI. The FBI raised
    the concern----
        Mr. Gohmert. Okay. The answer is no, you haven't given them
    to us.
        So let me just tell you, we're here because prosecutors and
    agents at the DOJ have been biased and it may have and some of
    us believe you have laid out a case that bias did affect what
    was going on. And then you come in here and say: We're going to
    number these people, we're not going to let you know who they
    are.
        But let me ask you this. Have you checked to see what
    normally wouldn't matter, how they voted in a Presidential
    election, except when you're investigating a nominee or a
    President? Do you know how they voted? Did they donate money to
    either of the candidates?
        Mr. Horowitz. I have no idea how they voted, and I don't
    have an idea----
        Mr. Gohmert. So you're bringing this investigation in here
    based on or utilizing opinions and information provided by
    prosecutors and agents who may be just as biased as the people
    that we're investigating, we just don't know because we hadn't
    seen their texts, we hadn't seen their emails.
        Normally, putting back on my felony judge hat, if a jury is
    going to make a decision on guilt or innocence of a felony of,
    say, a Presidential nominee, I'm going let them ask the jury
    panel: Did you vote for this person, did you give money to this
    person, do you have a bumper sticker for this person, did you
    put a sign in their yard, did you talk this person up?
        And yet you're coming in here, you don't know if these
    people you were relying on actually had any biases like the
    very ones you were investigating.
        Well, let me ask you this. Among the supervising special
    agents you referenced and the prosecutors, do you have any idea
    of the percentage that may have voted for Hillary Clinton?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not ask people who they voted for.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, let me tell you, I know my friend Mr.
    Nadler had referenced, said, oh, you know, a big organization
    like that, probably just as many people supported Trump. I
    heard Newt Gingrich yesterday said the fact is 97 percent of
    the people in the DOJ that donated, don't to Democrats, 97
    percent.
        So there's a good chance that the people that you're
    relying on did support Hillary Clinton. We don't know because
    you haven't asked. It is important to know who the
    investigators are and the people you're relying on.
        You mentioned in here, in the report, about Strzok and the
    relationship that he mentions with Judge Contreras. Do you know
    why Judge Contreras was recused, was removed from the Mike
    Flynn case?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know why he was recused.
        Mr. Gohmert. Is that something you would investigate?
        Mr. Horowitz. It's not within the scope of this
    investigation.
        Mr. Gohmert. I'm going reinforce the request for the
    identities of the supervising special agent, the prosecutors,
    and agents that were only identified by numbers and ask who
    they contributed to, if anyone, in the last two cycles.
        Now, in your report you said: The SSA us that the FBI did
    not consider Pagliano as a subject or someone to prosecute in
    connection. But this guy set up the unsecured server, as I
    understood it. This is a guy that you had a laydown case, or
    the DOJ did, and yet they don't put--they don't use that
    leverage, they don't treat him like they did Manafort or any of
    these other people.
        The DOJ had leverage. And this is where bias came into
    play. They didn't go after him. You said the SSA told us he
    believed Combetta should have been charged with false
    statements, yet nobody charged him. And why? Because bias
    played a role.
        I understand when you have an investigation you like to
    give something, a little something to both sides, makes you
    feel good. You gave us hundreds of pages of bias, but the
    conclusion was just, I'm sorry, whether it was subconscious or
    conscious, you had a little throwaway to go to the Democrats.
        But the fact is bias is all the way through this, and I'm
    sorry that you were not able to see that with what is very
    obvious from your evidence.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, is recognized.
        Would you like to respond, Mr. Horowitz?
        Mr. Horowitz. Mr. Chairman, can I just finish on the
    identity issue, just so the record is clear on that?
        We were asked to--when we write a report we obviously
    comply with the Privacy Act and the other laws Congress has in
    place on who we can speak to and who we can't. That's the first
    step we do here. Much like what we lay out here with the
    criticisms of folks who didn't follow the rules and the norms
    and law, we followed that.
        We then got the committee's request. Consistent with our
    support for transparency, we would be supportive of getting the
    committee that information. The FBI interposed an objection:
    Because these individuals work on and have worked on
    counterintelligence matters, that there might be a security or
    safety issue.
        That's what we've talked to the committee about. We're
    happy to facilitate that issue with the committee and the FBI.
    But that's the objection that was raised--what's today,
    Tuesday--Monday, I think it was, by the FBI.
        Mr. Gohmert. Mr. Chairman, to clarify my request, it was
    not for anything to do with any counterintelligence. I don't
    want to know anything about that, just who worked on this
    matter.
        Chairman Gowdy. I think the request is clear and his
    response is clear.
        We're going to go to the gentleman from New York, and then
    we're going to go to the gentleman from Montana, and then we
    will break, Inspector General Horowitz, just so people can know
    what we're doing.
        My friend from New York, Mr. Jeffries.
        Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, we live in a democracy, not an authoritarian
    state. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And in your view, is it generally appropriate
    to begin to ask American citizens how they voted in a
    Presidential election or in any election for that matter?
        Mr. Horowitz. In my view that's not a question we should be
    asking, certainly from my standpoint.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Thank you.
        Special counsel's investigation into possible Russian
    interference with the 2016 election has resulted in 23
    indictments, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know actually.
        Mr. Jeffries. Twenty individuals have been indicted in
    connection with that investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz. I'll accept your representation.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Three corporate entities have been
    indicted in connection with the special counsel's
    investigation, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, I don't know as I'm sitting here, but
    I'll certainly accept your representation.
        Mr. Jeffries. Special counsel's investigation into possible
    Russian collusion identified 75 different criminal acts,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Same answer.
        Mr. Jeffries. There have been five guilty pleas, true?
        Mr. Horowitz. Same answer.
        Mr. Jeffries. Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort has
    been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Same answer. I believe that's correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And Paul Manafort is now sitting in jail,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And that's in connection with alleged witness
    tampering, true?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's what I've read.
        Mr. Jeffries. And Trump's former National Security Advisor,
    Michael Flynn, has pled guilty to lying to the FBI, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
        Mr. Jeffries. His deputy campaign manager, Rick Gates, has
    been indicted on conspiracy to defraud the United States, true?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, I would accept your representation.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And George Papadopoulos, a former Trump
    campaign national security adviser, has pled guilty to lying to
    the FBI about his contacts with Russians during the campaign,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. I believe that's correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, former FBI Director James Comey
    initiated the criminal investigation into possible collusion
    between the Trump campaign and Russia, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Actually I'm not sure who and precisely how
    it was opened.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. But he was FBI Director at the time,
    true?
        Mr. Horowitz. He was the FBI Director at the time.
        Mr. Jeffries. And James Comey is a lifelong Republican,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
        Mr. Jeffries. Bob Mueller is the special counsel leading
    the criminal investigation into possible collusion between the
    Trump campaign and Russia, true?
        Mr. Horowitz. He is now the special counsel, correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And Special Counsel Bob Mueller is a well-
    respected law enforcement professional, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'll speak for myself. I have respect for
    him.
        Mr. Jeffries. He is a man of integrity, true?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my opinion.
        Mr. Jeffries. And Special Counsel Bob Mueller is a lifelong
    Republican, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now Rod Rosenstein is the Justice
    Department's deputy attorney general, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And in that capacity the deputy attorney
    general oversees the special counsel's criminal investigation
    into the Trump campaign, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, Donald Trump, the Republican President,
    appointed Rod Rosenstein to that position of deputy AG, true?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And Rod Rosenstein is a registered
    Republican, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
        Mr. Jeffries. Christopher Wray is the current FBI Director,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. He was appointed to that position by Donald
    Trump, true?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Jeffries. And in that capacity the FBI Director helps
    lead the criminal investigation into the Trump campaign,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm actually not sure of that with the
    special counsel, how that plays out.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. We think that he is involved.
        FBI director Christopher Wray is a registered Republican,
    correct.
        Mr. Horowitz. That I don't know.
        Mr. Jeffries. For the last few hours we have sat in this
    hearing, and some of my colleagues, part of the Cover-Up
    Caucus, have attempted to peddle conspiracy theories that the
    investigation into the Trump campaign's potential criminality,
    where we were attacked by a hostile foreign power, is a witch
    hunt.
        There is not a scintilla of evidence that a witch hunt
    exists right now. In fact, if any, individual connected to the
    2016 Presidential campaign was victimized by prosecutorial
    misconduct, her name was Hillary Clinton.
        The report that you produced, 500-plus pages, makes clear
    that the former FBI Director violated Department of Justice
    protocol on multiple occasions, most severely in July of 2016
    with a public explanation of Hillary Clinton's conduct,
    recklessly calling it extremely careless, violating DOJ
    protocol, and then, of course, again in October of 2016, with
    11 days prior to the Presidential campaign.
        What are you guys complaining about? You know what
    happened. James Comey decided to play judge, jury, and
    executioner. And on October 28 he executed the Hillary Clinton
    campaign, killed her in Pennsylvania, killed her in Michigan,
    killed her in Wisconsin, and handed Donald Trump the
    Presidency; and at the same time decided to pardon the Trump
    campaign in the court of public opinion by refusing to confirm
    to the public the investigation that was taking place in the
    Trump campaign.
        It's a phony, fraudulent, and fake argument. Stop peddling
    lies about a so-called Democratic witch hunt to the American
    people.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from New York yields back.
        The gentleman from Montana is recognized.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz--over here, sorry--I appreciate the work you
    have done and continue to do on your ongoing investigations.
    I'd like to focus my short time with you on the improper
    interactions and leaking of information to the media.
        On page 19 of your report you state that the FBI policy and
    regulations forbid the confirmation or denial and any
    discussion of an active investigation, except in limited
    specified circumstances. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Gianforte. Also, only the FBI Director, deputy
    director, associate deputy director, and other limited staff
    are authorized to speak to the media. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
        Mr. Gianforte. So why does the agency have such a policy?
    And could you briefly describe the consequences of not
    following it?
        Mr. Horowitz. The agency has the policy because leaks harm
    cases, they can terribly damage an ongoing criminal
    investigation, and they harm people's reputations. No one
    should want to see anybody tarnished with mud, other
    allegations that are never charged, never proven.
        Mr. Gianforte. So leaks are damaging?
        Mr. Horowitz. Leaks are damaging to people and
    investigations.
        Mr. Gianforte. Okay. So on page 430 of your report you
    state that the FBI policy limits employees who are authorized
    to speak to the media, but you found that that policy was
    widely ignored and that numerous FBI employees at all levels of
    the organization were in frequent contact with reporters. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct, yeah.
        Mr. Gianforte. Further, your team identified instances
    where FBI employees received tickets to sporting events from
    journalists, went on golfing outings with media
    representatives, were treated to drinks and meals after work
    with reporters, and were guests of journalists at nonpublic
    social events. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Gianforte. Some might consider such gifts as bribes. At
    the very minimum these are serious ethics violations.
        In appendixes G and H you identify over 50 FBI employees
    who had over 300 interactions with reporters during the period
    you looked at. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Gianforte. What evidence did you find that these 300 or
    so interactions and outings and meals and golf tournaments were
    authorized and in compliance with FBI policy?
        Mr. Horowitz. It appears that most, many, were not, and
    that is precisely why I wanted to put this--make this public.
    We have this work ongoing, so I can't speak to any individual
    matter or issue, but I thought it was critical because of our
    concern as we do these reports on systemic issues that the
    public and policymakers and the Department of Justice and the
    FBI itself understand what the challenge is. When we have to
    look at leaks and there are that number of contacts it makes it
    very, very, very challenging to figure out how it occurred.
        Mr. Gianforte. So you noted that this leaking of
    information to the media was widely known within the
    organization and even played a role in decisionmaking.
        Mr. Horowitz. And in addition here very concerning,
    correct, that a number of people made decisions based on
    concerns over what might be leaked.
        Mr. Horowitz. And you note on page 429, quote: ``We have
    profound concerns about the volume and extent of unauthorized
    media contacts by FBI personnel that have been uncovered during
    the review.''
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Gianforte. So given the policy to limit contact with
    the media was very clear, knowledge of the practice of leaking
    was widespread, and the potential consequences great, what
    evidence did you find of any disciplinary action against
    violating employees?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, when leaks were, in fact, uncovered
    there was discipline. Our concern was that the contact alone
    wasn't being addressed effectively and that that's where the
    FBI needs to focus on and that's what Director Wray has said
    publicly that he will look at.
        Mr. Gianforte. So based on your investigation, how many
    people have been referred to investigation in possible code
    conduct violations?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure that number, but I can assure
    you that when we find contacts, even when we can't prove the
    leak going forward, when we find contacts, even if we can't
    prove that someone actually leaked, but if they contacted in
    violation of policy, we will refer that to OPR for their
    investigation.
        Mr. Gianforte. Okay. And at this point how many FBI or DOJ
    employees have been fired for violating the leaking policy or
    accepting improper gifts?
        Mr. Horowitz. I would have to get back to you on that. I
    don't know off the top of my head.
        Mr. Gianforte. Okay. It is very important, given the extent
    of your findings.
        And finally, the real issue here is can the American people
    trust that these individuals will be held accountable. And can
    we count on you and your organization in your role as inspector
    general to ensure that this kind of improper behavior does not
    persist?
        Mr. Horowitz. I can. And I will say that we will, to the
    extent the law permits us, make public our findings when we can
    make them public.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Inspector General, how long of a break would you like?
        Mr. Horowitz. Long enough to get a sandwich or a bite to
    eat.
        Chairman Gowdy. Is 45 minutes enough?
        Mr. Horowitz. Plenty of time.
        Chairman Gowdy. Why don't we reconvene at 1:45?
        With that, we're in recess.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Gowdy. The committee will come to order.
        The gentlelady, Mrs. Watson Coleman, is recognized for 5
    minutes of questions.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And good afternoon to you, Mr. Horowitz. Thank you for your
    testimony. Thank you for the work you've done. Thank you for
    the investigation that you've overseen here today, and thank
    you for the report that you've made.
        I'm very struck by the report that you made: 500 pages, 17
    months of investigative work, 1.2 million documents, including
    over 100,000 text and instant messages, and interviewed more
    than 100 witnesses, many on multiple occasions.
        Am I correct that your findings, as it relates to this
    Clinton email investigation, is that the decisions that were
    made, the findings that were made, the investigations that were
    conducted were not negatively--the outcomes were not negatively
    impacted by the biases of any individuals?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. The decision was--our conclusion was
    that the decision of the prosecutors was not the result of
    political bias, based on the evidence we reviewed.
        Mrs. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
        And I am very disturbed about the behavior of many people
    in the FBI, starting with Mr. Comey. I find his ego exceeded
    his ability to discern right from wrong. I am very concerned
    about those individuals that had negative things to say about
    either one of the candidates. And I am very concerned about
    what I think was a failure of the leadership in the Justice
    Department, who seems to me to have been intimated by Mr. Comey
    and not pushing back on him and not holding him accountable.
        Having said that, I'm tired of this discussion.
        I thank you for your findings.
        I would like for my committee, the Oversight Committee, as
    well as the Judiciary Committee, of which I get the chance to
    sit today but do not belong to, to look at the issues that are
    impacting the safety and security of our Nation, our
    reputation, and whether or not we should be using tax dollars
    to try to figure out why the President of the United States of
    America, his administration are doing things that are so un-
    American as to rip children and babies from the hands and the
    hearts of their parents and putting them in cages.
        We've seen in our history two times in particular that we
    should be so offended by. The first was slavery, when we ripped
    families apart and wouldn't let parents be parents to their
    children or wives to their husbands, and then during the World
    War, when we took Japanese Americans and we put them in
    internment camps.
        We have seen what this kind of behavior has done in the
    world when we saw what Germany did to the Jews. And now we're
    doing it in the United States of America.
        And I need to understand why my colleagues, who've been
    elected to Congress to protect and preserve this Constitution,
    this Republic, and this Nation, is sitting silently by while we
    consistently observe this un-American activity on behalf of
    this administration, coming from this administration, and their
    complicitness in this and their silence.
        I want to know why we haven't used our taxpayer dollars and
    our responsibility here to look at the constant violations of
    the Emoluments Clause by this President and his family and how
    they consistently are intermingling their desires to get richer
    and richer and richer with our safety and security with other
    nations.
        I want to understand why my colleagues here in this room,
    in this committee, in the Judiciary Committee, and even in
    Congress are silent as we become enemies to our friends and
    friends to dictators.
        Who are we? We are better than that.
        I want to say that, if we were going to utilize our good
    time, our communication to the Nation, our exploration of
    what's right and what's wrong, what's going on, then we've got
    lots of opportunities, from an arrogant, dismissive Secretary
    of Homeland Security who has not a heart in her to a President
    who doesn't even read the material before him.
        So I am feeling very discouraged by where this committee
    has taken us all day long. I am very discouraged by what my
    colleague Mr. Hakeem Jeffries referred to as the antics of the
    cover-up caucus.
        And before I yield back, I just want to say that we are the
    people for whom this government has been organized. It is of
    us, by us, and for us. And the people must have the final word
    here. Pay attention.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from Arizona is recognized, Dr. Gosar.
        Mr. Gosar. It's good to see you, Mr. Horowitz. Sorry you
    had to hear some of the ranting and raving and people talking
    out of both sides of their mouth. I mean, we can bring up
    abortion. And, oh, my God, how is that not the ultimate in
    hypocrisy?
        But I'm going take a little different tact. I want to talk
    about the foreign access to the Clinton email server.
        Mr. Horowitz. Uh-huh.
        Mr. Gosar. So what difficulties did the FBI have during the
    intrusion analysis process of the capacity of the servers?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, in terms of difficulties, what they
    were trying to do is understand who had intruded, if at all.
    And one of the challenges they had was getting the servers
    themselves and, obviously, recreating what was on the servers
    and what emails and evidence trafficked through it, but also
    the fact that foreign adversaries might not leave footprints if
    they did attack the server.
        Mr. Gosar. Right, but we didn't have all of the server
    materials and that.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Gosar. So that leads me to my next question. So how did
    the FBI square its lack of the complete data with a definitive
    statement on whether an adversary compromised Clinton's server
    or system?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think, you know, one of the issues
    was trying to understand Director Comey's statement where he
    both--in his July 5th statement--indicated that there wasn't
    evidence of a--that they had uncovered evidence of an
    intrusion, but they wouldn't necessarily know that either. And
    that was a question we had. And, as we lay out here, they
    explained to us the steps that they took, and we questioned the
    individuals who were involved in the intrusion analysis.
        Mr. Gosar. Well, that kind of gets me back to the point. So
    why wouldn't you ask any and all sources, like the DNI, the
    military, CIA, special ops, any remote centers, if they had
    hacked into the server during this time? I mean, because it was
    offline, no one really realized what this really was. This was
    off--the server was here. So we could ask a number of questions
    in regards to that opportunity of how they looked at that
    server.
        And the reason I say that is, when I asked the question
    last Thursday as to who looked at that server, I was told that
    it was an individual from the FBI. So, to me, that's
    bothersome, because once again we saw upper-echelon FBI with
    problems with this aspect.
        And I'm going to come back to another aspect here, and that
    is, there was a megadata abnormality that happened with Mr.
    Strzok, and Mr. Strzok blew it off.
        So my point is, why wouldn't we go outside the FBI to look
    at the servers and this data?
        Mr. Horowitz. Let me--my understanding was there was some
    contact with other agencies, but I'd have to go back and just
    refresh my----
        Mr. Gosar. I'd love to know exactly who that is and who
    they were, because my understanding is that there's something
    peculiar in that regards. There were other people that noticed
    something totally different than what the findings that you're
    showing----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Mr. Gosar. --okay?
        Now, I want to go back to this comment in regards--who told
    Comey that ``reasonably likely'' was the proper way to explain
    the results for the intrusion analysis?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't recall, as I sit here. I'd have to go
    back and take a look at the report.
        Mr. Gosar. Do you feel that you delved into that issue deep
    enough to have a thorough conversation on that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think, to be clear, what we did was look at
    what the FBI did, as opposed to do the intrusion analysis
    ourselves, where, you know, as an IG, inspector general's
    office, we don't do an intrusion analysis. We're looking at
    what the FBI did----
        Mr. Gosar. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. --to effect that.
        Mr. Gosar. Well, I mean, I'm going to get back to Mr.
    Strzok. I mean, so he's--my understanding is he responded to
    the ``reasonably likely'' formation when providing edits back--
    --
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Mr. Gosar. --to Comey, did he not?
        Mr. Horowitz. He did.
        Mr. Gosar. So, once again, there's a common thread that
    we're seeing here with Mr. Strzok, not just in the parsing of
    words but also in megadata anomalies, as well as looking at
    sources within the data.
        So is Strzok's edit advice to Comey not a clear example of
    where Strzok's bias is not publicly sound--to sound not too
    harsh on Clinton and change the public's perception on that?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, it's certainly a place where he weighed
    in and had an effect on the statement and had an impact on what
    ultimately was said publicly by Comey about whether or not
    there was evidence of intrusion.
        Mr. Gosar. Well--and I'll get back to reiterating. I'd love
    to know all the sources and actually have the server and these
    devices looked at by other groups, particularly some hotshots
    within DOD, DNI, to really look at this aspect, because I think
    there's more to this story than meets the eye. It seems to me
    that I'd want different validation than just the FBI.
        Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
        Chairman Gowdy. For what purpose does the gentlemen from
    New York seek recognition?
        Mr. Nadler. To make a point of order.
        Chairman Gowdy. State your point of order.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Gosar, a moment ago, referred to a member
    on our side of the aisle as, quote, ``ranting and raving,''
    speaking out of both sides of her mouth. I ask that his words
    be taken down.
        Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Chairman, I think it would do us all
    good to make sure that we have personalties that are not
    involved in this. And I think it really degrades the overall
    importance of this issue as we bring personalities in, whether
    it be with other Members or others in the administration. So I
    think it's important, maybe a gentle reminder would be
    appropriate.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I would insist on--I would insist
    either that his words be taken down or that there be an
    apology.
        Chairman Gowdy. Well, I'm not going to instruct the
    gentleman from Arizona to apologize any more than I am other
    Members who today have also said things that came precipitously
    close to the line.
        Mr. Nadler. I don't think anybody----
        Chairman Gowdy. I will ask the gentleman from Arizona--if I
    may continue. If I may continue.
        Mr. Nadler. All right.
        Chairman Gowdy. I will ask the gentleman from Arizona if he
    wishes to rephrase or restate his comments in any way or to
    make clear that he wasn't directing this at his colleague.
        Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was acknowledging
    that the other side has been ranting and raving about issues
    that are not pertinent to today's hearing. And that's what I
    was confronting, not just one individual person.
        Chairman Gowdy. So it was a general comment as opposed to
    one directly--specifically directed at an individual colleague?
        Mr. Gosar. No.
        Chairman Gowdy. Does the gentleman from New York still wish
    to----
        Mr. Nadler. Well, as long as it's clear that he was talking
    in general political terms and not about an individual, okay.
        Chairman Gowdy. I think it's pretty clear.
        We will now recognize the gentleman from the great State of
    Texas, Judge Poe.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here. You probably think
    you are in the lion's den. I don't think you are. You're
    handling the questions quite well.
        As the chairman alluded to, I'm a former judge, a former
    prosecutor like you. And the justice system, we strive--whether
    we're a prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, we strive for the
    goal of fairness. Whatever happens, whether it's a hearing on a
    search warrant, whether it's a criminal case, we strive for
    fairness.
        And things must not only be fair in the Justice system,
    they've got to look fair. And if they don't look fair, that's,
    to us in the system, like you, just as bad as if it weren't
    fair.
        Prosecutors, when I was one, I had the rule, as you have,
    that prosecutors must seek justice, not convictions. That's our
    role when we're a prosecutor. I tried a lot of cases, and
    lawyers always wanted to know from the prospective jurors if
    they're biased for or against one side. If they're biased, it's
    happy trails, they can't serve on the jury.
        So, in this case--and it may not be an exact analogy, but
    here we have a jury taking place on a case, and we find out
    five of the jurors are biased for whoever they're investigating
    or hearing a criminal case. Neither side would tolerate that.
    They could not be involved in that proceeding. And, in some
    cases, if we're proceeding in a trial and the jury's biased
    from the outset, there's a mistrial. We may try it again, or it
    may be dismissed with prejudice, depending on the severity of
    the bias.
        But, in this case, we've got two named individuals, Page
    and Strzok. We know who they are. We know what they've done.
    All of the things that you've mentioned.
        But there are also three other unnamed biased people based
    on your investigation, one lawyer and two other FBI agents.
    What are their names?
        Mr. Horowitz. So, as I mentioned earlier, Congressman, the
    request has come in from the committee to give their names. We
    went to the FBI. The FBI raised a concern because they work on
    counterintelligence matters. And we are working with the
    committee to try and get the information you've asked for to
    the----
        Mr. Poe. So the FBI does not want their names released.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Poe. And so the FBI makes the decision as to who those
    other three biased people are, and they say, we're not telling
    you because of some other internal reason on what they also
    work on, counterintelligence----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Mr. Poe. --whatever that means to whoever is hearing it.
        So my point is we let the FBI determine not to tell us who
    the other three biased people were in this 500-page
    investigation that we all now have. Does that seem a little odd
    to you? I'm just asking your opinion.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, no, and there's a legitimate request,
    reasonable request from the committee, and I don't think it is
    a final decision at this point from the FBI or, in my view, a
    final decision.
        It's something I'm looking forward to working with the
    committee to try and get the answers to, because I completely
    understand what the interest is of the committee in getting
    that information.
        Mr. Poe. Well, it just seems to me that, in the name of
    fairness, we ought to know the names of those three people who
    you determined were biased in this investigation that has taken
    place, this 18-month investigation that you have been working
    on. I think that's in fairness, and I think the American public
    would like to know who they are.
        I think in this issue, changing gears a little bit to
    Comey, he has done a great disservice to the reputation of the
    FBI. I mean, when FBI agents would walk in my courtroom back in
    Texas, you know, the jury wanted to stand up and say the
    pledge, because they just trusted what they were going to say.
    I think now those days are over, because the investigation must
    not only be fair, it has to look fair, and it no longer looks
    fair, as to what the FBI is doing.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Texas yields back.
        The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        How many years have you known Jim Comey?
        Mr. Horowitz. He was in the U.S. attorney's office when I
    started in 1991 there. So sometime after I started in 1991 I,
    obviously, met him.
        Mr. Cohen. How many years do you think y'all worked in the
    same area? Eight years? Ten years?
        Mr. Horowitz. No, no, no. He left, I think, within a year
    or 2 of my arriving to come down to Virginia to work in the
    U.S. attorney's office there. I'd have to go back and try----
        Mr. Cohen. And then, in your position at Justice, he was at
    FBI, so you had----
        Mr. Horowitz. When I became IG, a year later he became the
    FBI Director.
        Mr. Cohen. Okay. So you've known him long enough to have an
    idea about what his reputation for truth and veracity was among
    other members of the Justice Department and the FBI? Is that
    accurate?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Cohen. And what was his the reputation for truth and
    veracity?
        Mr. Horowitz. He had a very strong reputation.
        Mr. Cohen. In your report, do you ever say at any point
    that Jim Comey lied?
        Mr. Horowitz. We do not.
        Mr. Cohen. Do you know of any time when Jim Comey has lied?
        Mr. Horowitz. I can't think of any as I sit here.
        Mr. Cohen. So when President Trump said there's not a
    bigger--a person who's told more lies in the world than Jim
    Comey, you would disagree with that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to answer what other people's
    views are. I think I can only speak to what my interactions
    with him were----
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
        Mr. Horowitz. --in my capacities.
        Mr. Cohen. I know that your report basically said that Jim
    Comey was exceedingly careless in coming forward before the
    election with his reportage of the renewal of the investigation
    of Hillary Clinton and the laptop and Anthony Weiner but that
    there was no malicious intent. Is that accurate?
        Mr. Horowitz. As to Mr. Comey, we didn't find any malicious
    intent.
        Mr. Cohen. And what he did could have possibly affected the
    election. You don't know if it did or it didn't, but it could
    have.
        Mr. Horowitz. I have no idea.
        Mr. Cohen. But it could have.
        And he also could have gone into the Trump/Russia
    investigation, which could have affected the investigation, and
    he didn't. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. When you say ``go into,'' I'm sorry----
        Mr. Cohen. He could have let the public know----
        Mr. Horowitz. Oh.
        Mr. Cohen. --that there was such an investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz. The only thing I would say is he did not do
    that----
        Mr. Cohen. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. --which was consistent with policy.
        Mr. Cohen. Some of the attacks were made on your decision
    not to prosecute or the Justice's Department's decision not to
    prosecute Secretary Clinton, and they stem from the Justice
    Department and the FBI's interpretation of the legal statute
    and term ``gross negligence.'' The Justice Department and FBI
    interpreted the statute to require deliberate intent, and they
    agreed there was simply no evidence in the Clinton case.
        And your report examined this and stated, ``We found this
    interpretation of section 793(f)(1) was consistent with the
    Department's historical approach in prior cases under different
    leadership, including the 2008 decision not to prosecute former
    Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for mishandling classified
    documents.''
        Mr. Horowitz, did you find the Department's prosecutors
    investigating Secretary Clinton considered both the caselaw and
    the Department's previous decision to decline the prosecution
    of Mr. Gonzales?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Cohen. Can you explain to us a little bit about the
    decision not to prosecute Alberto Gonzales and how that was
    similar to or parallel to Secretary Clinton?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think the issue there--and I'd have
    to go back and refresh myself on the Gonzales case--but it was
    the fact that it wasn't being sent to a third party who--
    classified information wasn't being provided to a third party,
    and some of the other factors overlapped with the factors in
    this matter, according to the prosecutor's assessment.
        Mr. Cohen. The FBI has been referred to in somewhat
    disparaging terms since this report. Did your report find that
    the rank and file of the FBI were at all guilty of bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. No, not at all. In fact, as we lay out in the
    conclusion here, they worked hard to create a strong
    reputation, and, as we know, conduct like this creates such
    harm to that reputation that's been built up that that's why
    it's, in part, so important to address and to avoid having this
    kind of activity occur.
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman Gowdy, my friend, said that the
    confidence in our system of law enforcement and public
    prosecutions is important to its confidence in our government
    and the rule of law, and I agree with him.
        Would a statement to say that the FBI was a den of thieves
    contribute to the soured climate that we have in this country
    towards law enforcement and the rule of law?
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, Congressman, I'm going to stick to
    what we concluded in our report, and others can assess what
    they think this----
        Mr. Cohen. Is there a den of thieves at the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. We--in this investigation or any others we've
    done, we've not identified a den of thieves.
        Mr. Cohen. I thank you for your service and yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Tennessee yields back.
        The gentleman from Illinois is recognized.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Good afternoon, Mr. Horowitz.
        Mr. Horowitz. Good afternoon.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I just want to go through some things.
        Isn't it true that, regarding the FBI's investigation of--
    --
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman's mic's not
    on.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Do I get 10 more seconds?
        Chairman Gowdy. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Horowitz, isn't it true that,
    regarding the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email
    servers, also called the Midyear review, your report found,
    quote/unquote, ``no evidence'' that the conclusions of the
    Department of Justice prosecutors were affected by bias or
    improper considerations?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And isn't it true that the report found
    that decisions made during the 2016 campaign Midyear review
    were, quote/unquote, ``based on the prosecutors' assessment of
    the facts, the law, and past Department practice''?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, turning now to Agents Strzok and
    Page, it is true that your report says that their actions
    brought discredit to themselves, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. However, it's also true that you,
    quote/unquote, ``did not find documentary or testimonial
    evidence'' directly connecting these political views that these
    employees expressed in their text messages and instant messages
    to the specific investigative decisions that you reviewed.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, unpack that for them. How could it
    be that these two individuals who texted back and forth--and I
    reviewed hundreds of these texts. They're unprofessional. They
    say bad things about Donald Trump. They say bad things about
    Hillary Clinton. If they knew me, they'd say bad things about
    me too, I'm sure.
        How could it be that these two individuals, who were
    tainted by this political bias, could have done what they did
    and yet you say that the ultimate decisions made by the
    prosecutors were not tainted by political bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. So the reason and how we got to our
    conclusions was by looking at all the records of all the
    individuals involved in those specific decisions we looked at
    as well as the prosecutors' ultimate decision. And going
    through those records, the question was, was the biased
    evidence by those individuals translated into action by what
    turned out to be, in most instances, other people--
    prosecutors----
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Oh, so other people were involved. Is--
    --
        Mr. Horowitz. --others that were involved.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. --that what you're saying?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Oh, so it wasn't just Strzok and Page
    who called all the shots on this investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz. Certainly as to the decisions we looked at
    pre-July. Again, I'm separating out the October events because,
    in that instance, Mr. Strzok was a key decision-maker.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Okay. So let's unpack this. There's
    more than two people involved here investigating the Hillary
    Clinton email server situation. How many other people were
    involved?
        Mr. Horowitz. My understanding, there was somewhere over a
    dozen. So whether it was in the 15 or so range--I don't have a
    precise number, but it was certainly in that 10 to 15, 20
    range, as I understand.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Oh, wow. So as many as 20 people could
    have been involved in basically making decisions of this group.
    And what you're saying is that these 2 people, though they
    personally may have been tainted by political bias, did not
    railroad the other 20 into making a decision that was
    politically tainted.
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my--that's--in looking at those
    decisions we're talking about, that's precisely the case.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it.
        Mr. Horowitz. There was either a broader team decision or
    the prosecutors, not the agents, who made the decision.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Got it. Got it.
        Now, let me take you to another point. You would agree with
    me that Jim Comey, although he did announce that there was an
    investigation into Hillary Clinton, did not announce any
    investigation into Donald Trump, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. In October--in that fall period, he did not
    announce the ongoing Russia investigation or, for that matter,
    as I said, the Clinton Foundation investigation.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct.
        Now, Strzok and Page, if they wanted to really tank Donald
    Trump, the way that some of my colleagues assert that they
    wanted to do, could have leaked that this investigation was
    happening. But you did not uncover any evidence that Strzok and
    Page did that, did you?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not uncover evidence that they
    disclosed the Russia investigation. And that was one of the
    arguments their lawyers made as to their conduct.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, there's no evidence in your
    report that anybody leaked evidence of an ongoing investigation
    into Donald Trump and Russia, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. We didn't touch on the Russia investigation
    in this. This was focused on the Clinton email investigation. I
    will say that, obviously, we're looking at the leak question.
    It could be a broader question, depending on what we find.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sure. But in this report----
        Mr. Horowitz. This report does not reference that.
        Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Correct. That's what I thought.
        Thank you so much.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yep.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Tennessee, Dr.DesJarlais, is recognized.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for your time and testimony
    here today.
        You did determine in your report that there was political
    bias against President Trump evidenced by the Strzok-Page text,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. These same agents assigned to the
    Clinton investigation were then assigned to the Russian probe,
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Do you think that this probe, the Russian
    probe, then, could potentially have been tainted by the same
    political bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to opine on that, Congressman.
    We focused in this review on the Midyear investigation. As you
    know, we have the ongoing work that we're doing. So I'll defer
    on that, if I could.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. But it's reasonable, then, if you
    found agents with political bias against the President that
    were then assigned to the Russia probe, that certainly that is
    something that needs to be looked at.
        Mr. Horowitz. It's certainly a reasonable question and
    something, as I said, that we're looking at in our ongoing
    review.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Now, I assume you watch the news.
        Mr. Horowitz. Occasionally. I try not to, actually, as much
    as perhaps I have in the past, but----
        Mr. DesJarlais. Do you believe that there is anti-Trump
    bias in the news, not as inspector general but just as a
    private citizen?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to opine on that.
        Mr. DesJarlais. You don't have an opinion as a private
    citizen?
        Mr. Horowitz. I might have a private citizen opinion----
        Mr. DesJarlais. But you won't in a hearing.
        Mr. Horowitz. No.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Would it surprise you to know that 90
    percent of the mainstream media coverage is anti-Trump?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, I wouldn't weigh an opinion on that,
    Congressman.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Would it be safe to assume that FBI
    agents and attorneys watch the mainstream news?
        Mr. Horowitz. I assume the public at large does, and since
    they're a part of that, I assume they do.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. So I guess what I'm getting at,
    wouldn't it be fair to conclude that some of the biased
    coverage has impacted their ability to fairly conduct their
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. I couldn't draw that--I wouldn't be able to
    draw that conclusion, sitting here, Congressman.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay.
        While your report highlighted some of the most blatant
    anti-Trump sentiments within the FBI, it concerns me that this
    problem is more pervasive than we think. The FBI is oath-bound
    to remain neutral and enforce the law impartially and fairly.
    How can we accomplish this when there is--when there are agents
    that are actively biased against our sitting President?
        Mr. Horowitz. Look, I think, Congressman, you know, having
    been an AUSA, worked with agents, tremendous agents, at the FBI
    and other law enforcement agencies, the one thing I thought we
    all understood is you're entitled to be and you should be part
    of the public, the government, the democracy that we live in,
    but when you get to the work and to your office, you leave your
    views outside the door when you walk through, and you just
    focus on your work, the law, the evidence. And that's what you
    focus on.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Knowing what you know, though, if you were
    the subject of the investigation and knowing that the people
    you just investigated were the ones doing the work, would you
    not be concerned?
        Mr. Horowitz. Look, I think, again, it goes to what I just
    said. There are--I was a public corruption prosecutor, and the
    key, the most important thing--I supervised our unit. People
    who were working on those cases needed to leave whatever their
    views were outside the office. They needed to come in and be
    committed to focusing only on the facts and the law.
        Mr. DesJarlais. But that didn't happen in this case. That
    didn't happen, at least with multiple agencies----
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, certainly with regard to what occurred
    in October, we were concerned that that did not happen.
        Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, I thank you for your time.
        I would like to yield the balance of my time to our
    chairman, Mr. Gowdy.
        Chairman Gowdy. Thank you, Dr. DesJarlais.
        Mr. Horowitz, I'm trying to understand, drafts of the Comey
    memos indicated that the missing element was the failure to
    expose the material to potentially hostile actors. And then I'm
    going back to his press conference and his subsequent testimony
    where he said the missing element was intent.
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Chairman Gowdy. So I want you to put on your old hat. It's
    rare, when your job is to prove intent, that you have a
    defendant or a suspect who walks in and has a card out and
    says: To whom it may concern, I would like to admit that I had
    the intent to commit a violation of each and every essential
    element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
        I've never had that happen. Have you?
        Mr. Horowitz. I can't recall that happening as an AUSA.
        Chairman Gowdy. You have to prove intent with
    circumstantial--usually it's circumstantial evidence. Rarely do
    you have direct evidence of intent. Is that fair?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's fair, although there are times people
    do things on camera and admit things----
        Chairman Gowdy. They do.
        Mr. Horowitz. --in a wiretap that gives you pretty good
    evidence of intent.
        Chairman Gowdy. Those don't go to trial that much.
    Sometimes those plead.
        Mr. Horowitz. Those plead.
        Chairman Gowdy. When you're going to trial, the best you
    can have sometimes is circumstantial evidence.
        Mr. Horowitz. Sometimes that is the best you have.
        Chairman Gowdy. All right. Such as false exculpatory
    statements, false nonexculpatory statements, concealment,
    destruction of evidence, knowledge, absence of mistake, notice
    of wrongdoing. I can't think of a better source for that
    potential circumstantial evidence than the actor, the target,
    the defendant himself or herself, can you?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's usually where you find some of your
    best evidence.
        Chairman Gowdy. All right. I'm out of time.
        If any of my colleagues give me any more of their time, I
    want to close the loop on how to prove this missing element and
    whether or not, in your judgment, in this case, a fulsome
    effort was made when they did interview the target.
        With that, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, between Republican-led committees, there have
    been numerous hearings on the topic of Hillary Clinton's
    emails. Hillary Clinton has been the gift that Republicans
    can't get enough of.
        The American people will recall that, during the run-up to
    the 2016 Presidential election, House Republicans held numerous
    hearings about then-Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. We
    remember what House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy admitted
    when he told a reporter, quote, ``Everybody thought Hillary
    Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi
    special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers
    today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's
    untrustable,'' end quote.
        Well, Mr. Chairman, today finds us again mired in another
    hearing about Hillary Clinton's emails. And instead of holding
    hearings to muck up Hillary Clinton, today we're holding this
    hearing hoping that the American people are distracted from
    important issues of today.
        As chants of ``Lock her up'' fade from our memories, our
    consciences are being disturbed as we hear the ProPublica
    footage of the little children crying, ``I want my mama,'' ``I
    want my daddy.'' As I prepared for this hearing last night, all
    I could hear were the cries of those children being held in
    private, for-profit jails crying out for their parents.
        Mr. Chairman, I think we should have hearings about how the
    Trump administration is deporting their parents as those
    children remain wards of this country. And we also can be
    looking into issues like what was reported last week, the New
    York attorney general's investigation and criminal referral to
    the Department of Justice.
        The same day that the OIG report came out, New York
    attorney general, his office--or her office sued Donald Trump,
    his children, and the Trump administration, with alarming
    allegations about flagrant violations of the law and
    potentially criminal acts.
        The New York attorney general found, and I quote, ``In sum,
    the investigation revealed that the foundation was little more
    than a checkbook for payments to non-profits from Mr. Trump or
    The Trump Organization. This resulted in multiple violations of
    State and Federal law because payments were made using
    foundation money regardless of the purpose of the payment. Mr.
    Trump used charitable assets to pay off the legal obligations
    of entities he controlled, to promote Trump hotels, to purchase
    personal items, and to support his Presidential election
    campaign.''
        The complaint included images of emails from campaign
    staff, such as Corey Lewandowski, directing political spending
    out of the foundation's accounts. It included a note, clearly
    in the President's own handwriting, directing foundation money
    to be used to settle a lawsuit against Mar-a-Lago, his country
    club estate for the ultra-rich.
        This is simply stunning. The New York attorney general
    alleged that there were, quote, ``multiple violations of State
    and Federal law,'' end quote. The New York attorney general
    sent an official criminal referral letter to the IRS and also
    to the Federal Election Commission to investigate tax and
    election law violations. The letter to the FEC copied an
    official from the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal
    Division of the Department of Justice.
        Now, more than ever, we need strong and independent
    oversight to ensure that Federal law enforcement and
    prosecutors can do their job free of political pressure. Based
    on the President's past statements and actions, I have serious
    concerns that he or his political allies will attempt to make
    this new potential criminal case go away.
        And so I think we will once again need to rely on your
    office, Mr. Horowitz, for that oversight. Can you commit to us
    here today that your office will look into this criminal
    referral to ensure that there is no improper outside
    influence--or inside influence, for that matter--including any
    attempts from the President or his staff to shut down an
    investigation into the conduct of the President or his family?
        Mr. Horowitz. So certainly matters that are within our
    jurisdiction and our authority we're prepared to conduct
    appropriate oversight on. There are some things that will be
    within our jurisdictions, some things that are not within our
    jurisdiction, and I think it really depends ultimately on what
    comes to us in terms of a referral or not, if and when one does
    come.
        So that's what I can tell you in a hypothetical. But thatis
    why we're here as Inspector General Office, and if it's within
    our jurisdiction, we will obviously take any referrals and look
    at it carefully.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I thank you for your exhaustive
    investigation in this report. I think you've done a great job,
    and I thank you.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Georgia yields back.
        The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, did Lisa Page work on the Hillary email
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. She did.
        Mr. Massie. Did she work on the Russian investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. She did.
        Mr. Massie. Did she work on the Mueller investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, she did.
        Mr. Massie. When you or your people asked her why she used
    her FBI phone for personal purposes, what did she tell you was
    the predominant reason?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, as she indicated, she and Mr. Strzok
    were having a relationship, and they were using the phone to
    communicate with each other for that purpose.
        Mr. Massie. To cover up the affair, to keep their spouses
    from knowing?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
        Mr. Massie. So she texted something that you asked her
    about. This is an April 1st, 2016, text. I want you to tell me
    why she told you she sent this text.
        She said, ``So look, you say we text on that phone when we
    talk about hillary because it cant be traced, you were just
    venting bc you feel bad that youre gone so much but it cant be
    helped right now.''
        Why did she--what did she tell you was the reason she sent
    that to Strzok?
        Mr. Horowitz. The--she told us this was an example--and I'm
    looking at our report here--why she had used the phone to keep
    this information from their spouses, and this was an example of
    that.
        Mr. Massie. And, in this text, she said she was coaching
    Strzok, basically, on what to tell his wife, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Massie. So she was telling him how to lie. She was
    using a government phone to tell her husband how to cover up an
    affair, coaching him on how to lie, and using the pretext of
    this investigation to carry out this affair with her coworker.
        So she coached her coworker and lover on how to lie to his
    wife, used government resources to do it and the pretext of
    this investigation to conceal what they both knew was immoral
    behavior. Did that give you any reason to doubt her testimony
    to you in the interviews?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think, frankly, as to all the individuals,
    when we go in, we come in with a healthy skepticism, as you
    would expect us to. And I think we, you know, treated her no
    differently than we would treat others in terms of going in and
    looking. And I think, you know, as you can see here, we
    expressed our skepticism of some of the explanations we got.
        Mr. Massie. Your report's really good at uncovering bias,
    so I want to talk about some bias that has been uncovered by
    your report that's not being covered in the news. So I want to
    read you five texts.
        March 12th, 2016, Page forwarded an article about a
    conservative candidate in Texas, stating, ``What the f is wrong
    with people?'' Strzok replied, ``That Texas article is
    depressing as hell. But answers how we could end up with [Trump
    as President].''
        August 26th, 2016, Strzok sends to Page, ``Just went to a
    southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support.''
        August 29th, 2016, Agent 5 to Agent 1: ``I would rather
    have brunch with Trump and a bunch of his supporters like the
    ones from Ohio that are retarded.''
        October 28th, 2016, Agent 5 lists things that he's sick of,
    and he lists on there the ``average American public.''
        And then on November 9th, 2016, unnamed FBI employee says,
    ``Trump supporters are all poor to middle-class, uneducated,
    lazy POS''--we know what that stands for--``that think he will
    magically grant them jobs for doing nothing. They probably
    didn't watch the debates and aren't fully educated on his
    policies.''
        This is bias at the FBI at the top level. I'm not saying at
    the field agent level. They probably more reflect the American
    people. But at the top, highest-most level, you have a bias
    against the American people. And this terrifies the average
    worker, who is paying their salary with their tax dollars. So I
    think that's something we need to look at.
        I want to yield my remaining minute to the gentleman from
    Ohio, Mr. Jordan.
        Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Horowitz, James Comey, Director of the FBI; Andy
    McCabe, Deputy Director; Chief of Staff Jim Rybicki; General
    Counsel Jim Baker;FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and Deputy Head of
    Counterintelligence Peter Strzok--these were six important
    people at the FBI. Is that right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Jordan. And they were the key players on the Clinton
    investigation and on the Russian investigation, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. They were certainly important on both.
        Mr. Jordan. Has Mr. Comey been fired?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Has Mr. McCabe been fired?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Did Mr. McCabe lie under oath, according to
    your report?
        Mr. Horowitz. In our view, yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Yeah. Is there a criminal referral for Mr.
    McCabe?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to comment on that.
        Mr. Jordan. Has Mr. Rybicki left the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Has General Counsel Jim Baker left the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Was he removed from his position prior to
    leaving the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure of that.
        Mr. Jordan. Has Lisa Page left the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Was she reassigned prior to leaving the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. I believe so.
        Mr. Jordan. And has Peter Strzok been removed from his
    position as Deputy Head of Counterintelligence?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Jordan. Now, Mr. Horowitz, you've been in the DOJ for
    10 years. You've been inspector general for 6 years. You're
    chief of all the inspector generals. Have you ever, ever seen
    anything like this at any other Federal agency in your time in
    the Federal Government, six of the top people fired, demoted,
    reassigned, or left?
        Mr. Horowitz. I obviously can't speak broadly to other
    areas that I haven't known before, but, yes, this is
    concerning.
        Mr. Jordan. I've been in this town 11-1/2 years. I have
    never seen anything like this. Even the IRS scandal didn't come
    close.
        And, again, this is not any type of reflection on the rank-
    and-file agents who I know you respect, we all respect, and do
    a great job. But these were the six key people. I have never
    seen anything like this in my time in government. My guess is
    there's not a person on this dais who has, as well.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The gentleman from Maryland, Professor Raskin.
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        Mr. Horowitz, our committee seems deeply lost in the forest
    today. A lot of my constituents are baffled why, at a moment
    when the U.S. Government is separating thousands of children
    and parents at the border in a way that threatens to make us an
    international pariah, the Judiciary Committee and the Oversight
    Committee are doing nothing about this scandalous policy but,
    rather, seem stuck in a time warp, doing another investigation
    into an investigation into an investigation of Hillary
    Clinton's emails.
        The amazing thing is that the majority chose to reenter
    this maze when your report was perfectly clear on its findings.
    And I quote, ``We found no evidence that the conclusions by the
    prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper
    considerations. Rather, we determined they were based on the
    prosecutors' assessment of facts, the law, and past Department
    practice.''
        Indeed, you seemed to find that the major case of
    prosecutorial wrongdoing here took place at the expense of
    Secretary Clinton. While Director Comey properly kept secret
    the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign's involvement with
    Russian agents throughout the campaign, he repeatedly ignored
    Department policy to release information about the Clinton
    email investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz, did you make a finding about why Director
    Comey violated DOJ policy and tradition in the Clinton case
    while steadfastly refusing to talk about Trump/Russia? This
    might have cost the Democrats the election. And Comey, of
    course, was a lifelong Republican.Was he motivated by
    partisanship and bias? Was that something that you found?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not find that Director Comey's
    decisions were based on political bias.
        Mr. Raskin. Do you think we're making a mistake not to
    blame that decision on partisan bias because he was a
    Republican?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, I'll stick with our finding, which is
    that we did not see evidence of political bias.
        Mr. Raskin. Well, all of this seems to come down to, in my
    view, the text in this sophomoric texting relationship between
    Strzok and Page, a couple now made almost as famous as Bonnie
    and Clyde or Romeo and Juliet by this committee.
        We've all read and heard these titillating messages between
    the two. Sure enough, they don't like Donald Trump. They're
    very snarky about him. They called him an idiot. They were also
    snarky about Eric Holder, Chelsea Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and
    my good friend Martin O'Malley.
        So, if the question is whether they liked Donald Trump, of
    course not. They called him an idiot. But your job as the
    inspector general is not to diagnose their private biases as
    government employees but, rather, the character of their public
    actions. Mr. Gohmert seemed to think it's sufficient to
    disqualify public prosecutors or investigators because of their
    private biases.
        And I'm wondering whether you could illuminate for the
    committee the difference between a private bias or political
    opinion someone might have and a public bias that actually gets
    activated in the character of a public investigation or policy.
        Mr. Horowitz. I think it's fair to say, if you are involved
    in a democracy, whether you're a Federal prosecutor, an agent,
    or just a citizen going about your business, you have views,
    political views. You vote; you have positions. That's what you
    would want people to do and be engaged in democracy.
        When you are a law enforcement agent, when you are a
    Federal prosecutor, you have to understand and appreciate that
    whatever your views are as a citizen, you keep them outside the
    office and away from your decision making.
        And what was troubling here is--and I understand the
    explanation that was provided to us by Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page,
    that they thought these were private. But they weren't. They
    were using their FBI devices, sometimes at work, sometimes not
    at work, to speak about individuals they were investigating.
        So they weren't just speaking about a generic election that
    they cared about. It just so happened that the people they were
    speaking about had a connection to the investigations they,
    themselves, were working on. And, in some instances, they tied
    that discussion to their investigative work, and that's what's
    concerning.
        Mr. Raskin. Okay.
        When these text messages came out, it turned out that
    representatives of the Department of Justice actually convened
    a select group of reporters in advance to show them the texts.
    And there was great mystery about why that happened.
        Have you made any progress in investigating why this was
    leaked in advance by the Department of Justice to certain
    reporters?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, we haven't undertaken a full
    investigation of it. We made clear to the committee that we
    were unaware of that until after it happened and we got
    complaints in from it. We were told it was considered by the
    Department and by its lawyers.
        And so, as you know, the IG doesn't have authority over
    decision by lawyers in the course of their legal authority.
    Under the IG Act, those go to the Department's Office of
    Professional Responsibility. And so they would be the ones who
    would have to be consulted as to what they ultimately found----
        Mr. Raskin. So you're not doing any further investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz. We don't have jurisdiction, actually. Because
    what we first learned right away was that lawyers had been
    consulted and lawyers had given advice. And once that happens,
    while we would--and the committee has supported given us that
    jurisdiction, at this point we don't have it.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Meadows, is
    recognized.
        Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, thank you. And for your entire team, some of
    which are Republicans, some of which are Democrats, some of
    which are unaffiliated, I thank you for your unbiased way that
    you conducted this comprehensive report, and for the rest of
    the team at large that's probably back at DOJ watching this.
        And so I want to get right to the heart of the matter. One
    of the concerns that I have when we look at bias in the
    analysis that you made at the very end, it is incumbent upon
    any team to make sure that they do the investigation without
    bias. And it is clear that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had some
    bias. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Meadows. And so, if you were to learn that they had a
    disproportionate role in the investigation, both on this
    investigation and the Russia investigation, that would mean
    that their bias would have a disproportionate contribution to
    that decision, would that not?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, and I'm going to stick to this review,
    since I know this one at this point, but, yes, that would be a
    concern.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. So let me go further. You're the
    one that actually discovered the text messages.
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Meadows. Your forensic team.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Meadows. So why would the FBI not have been able to
    find that?
        Mr. Horowitz. So----
        Mr. Meadows. Did they look?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, the first batch we recovered in 2017--
    --
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. --we found because we asked for text
    messages.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. And so they produced them to you.
        Mr. Horowitz. They produced them to us. Then we asked for
    more.
        Mr. Meadows. So the ones that you found forensically----
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Meadows. --why did they not find those?
        Mr. Horowitz. If you didn't do the forensic work on the
    phones, you wouldn't have found the text messages on the
    phones.
        Mr. Meadows. So they really just didn't look is what you're
    saying. The FBI didn't look.
        Mr. Horowitz. Nobody looked beforehand, correct.
        Mr. Meadows. So you looked, but they didn't look.
        Mr. Horowitz. They hadn't looked.
        Mr. Meadows. So was it a lack of curiosity on their part? I
    mean, because you're the ones----
        Mr. Horowitz. I think you'd have to ask the FBI on that, as
    to why they didn't----
        Mr. Meadows. Well, but if they were really serious about
    oversight and they were really serious with the confines of
    these text messages, I think an investigator would want to know
    if they had bias within their own agency, wouldn't you?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes. And I would just add, we've had those
    phones in our custody for probably about a year now or 6 months
    now. So, just to be clear, we've had them the last 6----
        Mr. Meadows. Since then. Well, you've done a lot more with
    them than they did, and I'll give you that.
        And so let me--I want to focus on what's not in the report.
    Because, as we look at what's not in the report, what's not in
    the report is, as you know, the intelligence community IG
    actually was part of the predication for this investigation. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Meadows. They were so concerned that there might have
    been foreign infiltration into this that they went immediately
    to the FBI to let them know about that. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. I know they went to them. I don't know the--
    --
        Mr. Meadows. Well, I talked to the IG, and he indicated
    that he went literally that day, got in a car, went over and
    met. And so he was really concerned that there were some
    anomalies in the metadata that would----
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Mr. Meadows. --suggest that a foreign actor was getting
    copies of potential emails. Are you aware of that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I am. And I've talked to him as well.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. And so, if they are that concerned, do
    you not find it curious that the FBI investigators, Peter
    Strzok and his team, did not ever talk to them other than that
    initial meeting where they did that? Would you think that part
    of an investigation would be to go back to the very people that
    brought up the accusation to say, what did you find?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah, I assume that would be----
        Mr. Meadows. But that's not in your report.
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Meadows. And they didn't do that, did they?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to double check that.
        Mr. Meadows. Yeah. I can tell you that the last time that
    they talked to them was when they gave the referral to close it
    out after the Comey incident.
        So wouldn't you find that curious, that they wouldn't have
    looked any further?
        Mr. Horowitz. If they didn't, yes.
        Mr. Meadows. All right. And so you can get back to the
    committee on that.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Meadows. All right.
        So let me go on a little bit further. So, if they didn't
    look and if we don't have that information, your staff
    indicated that, indeed, emails with at least some classified
    information did go to a foreign entity or a third party.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes. One of the individuals who was on
    Secretary Clinton's staff, his email account, private email
    account, Gmail account, was hacked.
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        And so let me look at four other things that I need to hear
    some clarification. Because there are some text messages. We
    know that Peter Strzok worked on both the Russia and the
    Hillary Clinton investigations, so I want to make sure that
    these text messages don't apply to Hillary.
        So, on July the 29th, before the investigation into the
    Russia investigation started, there was a text message that
    says, do you want us to reach out to Gurvais? And I think
    they're referring to Gurvais Grigg at that particular point.
    And they said, well, why do you want to do that? Well, we want
    to see if he actually has the names that we already have.
        Now, I'm troubled by this a little bit. Did that apply to
    the Hillary Clinton investigation? It was already closed at
    that point.
        Mr. Horowitz. It was already closed. I'd have to go back
    and double check.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. Why I'm curious is, why would they be
    checking with someone who his specialty is, quote, ``FBI
    advanced electronic surveillance''? Why would he be checking
    before a Russia investigation is opened with somebody who does
    essentially bugging and monitoring to find out anything that
    might have been going on? Why would that have happened?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay.
        So let me go on a little bit further then. The text message
    that says the White House is running this, which happened on
    August 5th, was that in reference to Russia or Hillary Clinton?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our assumption and understanding was it was
    not Hillary Clinton's matter because that had been closed
    already.
        Mr. Meadows. That's my assumption as well.
        And the one that says that the President wants to know
    everything about this that happened on September 2nd, was that
    with Hillary or with the Russia investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our understanding is that would not have been
    Hillary, that would have been the Russia matter.
        Mr. Meadows. Yeah.
        So, looking at the difference between the way that the
    Hillary Clinton investigation was notified and researched
    versus the way that it appears that the Russia investigation,
    did the administration, the previous administration, take an
    abnormal interest in all of that?
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman's time has expired, Mr.
    Inspector General, but you may answer.
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the answer to that at this point
    because that was not part of this review. But, certainly, it's
    something we, as we look at the matters that have recently been
    referred to us, we will be considering.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank you.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
    back.
        The gentleman from California is recognized, Mr. Swalwell.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Horowitz.
        I want to see if we can summarize your findings after a
    long day going through your testimony.
        Do you agree, yes or no, that Hillary Clinton committed no
    crimes?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our finding is that the prosecutors looked at
    the facts along with the evidence to conclude she shouldn't be
    charged.
        Mr. Swalwell. Do you agree, yes or no, that Page and Strzok
    acted inappropriately?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Swalwell. And you agree they were removed by Bob
    Mueller from his team?
        Mr. Horowitz. He was removed. Ms. Page had already returned
    prior to our notification to the special counsel.
        Mr. Swalwell. You agree that Director Comey never leaked
    the Russia investigation, the existence of it, prior to his
    testimony to Congress?
        Mr. Horowitz. He did not disclose it back at the time
    period we looked at.
        Mr. Swalwell. You agree there's no evidence that Jim Comey
    lied to you in your investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not make any finding that he lied to
    us.
        Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Horowitz, do you think it is time to move
    on past the Hillary Clinton emails?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think we have put forward our report.
    Congress has a separate oversight authority and interest, and
    I'm not going to speak to what Congress should or shouldn't do.
        Mr. Swalwell. Because I appreciate your work on this, and I
    think it was fair findings all around, but the only text
    messages that I really care about right now are the hundreds of
    people at home and across the country who are asking me what in
    the hell is the Judiciary Committee doing right now? I mean,
    this is maddening. I don't know if my colleagues are checking
    their voice mails or checking your you emails or checking your
    Twitter feed; people aren't talking about the God-damned
    emails. They're not. They're talking about kids separated from
    their mom and their dad sitting in cages on our southern
    border.
        And then they say: Hey, Congressman Swalwell, which
    committee is responsible for that?
        And I tell them: Well, it is the Judiciary Committee.
        Great. So, when you get back to Congress on Tuesday, you
    guys are immediately going to look at why this is happening,
    right?
        No, we're having a hearing, I tell them, but our hearing is
    on Hillary Clinton emails.
        You know how upsetting that is? That is upsetting to
    Republicans, Democrats, people who don't give a rip about
    politics.
        This is important. People should be held accountable for
    inappropriate behavior, Mr. Inspector General, and again, I
    appreciate that you're doing that, but our responsibility is to
    act on behalf of the American people, and we're not helpless.
    We're actually the one committee in Congress that is not
    helpless to act when families are being ripped apart.
        So I would ask Chairman Goodlatte, please interrupt me if
    you intend when we conclude today to hold a hearing on how
    we're going prevent future families from being separated and
    reunite those who have already been torn apart.
        Mr. Gowdy, again, interrupt me if you have a plan for what
    we're going to do next what I can tell my constituents because
    the only thing they care about right now is that the United
    States that they know is no longer a compassionate one.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Would the gentleman yield?
        The gentleman may be pleased to know that, on the floor, on
    Thursday, as soon as Thursday, there will be a bill to address
    the very problem the gentleman is talking about, but it has
    nothing to do with the importance of making sure that the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation does not repeat what it did in
    2016 and into 2017.
        Mr. Swalwell. And reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I
    understand that's a partisan bill without Democratic support,
    and that did not come through this committee. Again, we have an
    opportunity to act now. I saw Mr. Meadows at the White House
    today, and, Mr. Meadows, I was encouraged by what you said that
    families shouldn't be ripped apart, but here we sit.
        Mr. Meadows. Well, if the gentleman will yield.
        Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
        Mr. Meadows. I have a nonpartisan bill that does not deal
    with a wall, does not deal with sanctuary cities, that I
    introduced an hour ago. If he would like to cosponsor with me,
    we'll bring it together.
        Mr. Swalwell. Let's work on that, Mr. Meadows, because my
    constituents, and I think all of our constituents want to make
    sure that we show compassion, that we show heart, and that
    Congress acts. There's consensus on this issue. And it is just
    maddening that the one committee that has the responsibility to
    do something is focused on this.
        I yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, is recognized.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, with the Weiner laptop issue, I think that
    you had said Peter Strzok's explanation for his conduct was not
    really persuasive.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. DeSantis. So it would be reasonable for somebody to
    infer that his actions, at least with the Weiner thing, were
    motivated by his bias.
        Mr. Horowitz. And that was precisely our concern.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay. July 31 Strzok, the same Strzok that's
    bias affects how he is handling the Weiner laptop, opens up a
    counterintelligence investigation against Trump's campaign.
    Why? We're trying to get the reason. Some guy made a comment in
    a bar, so he opens up an investigation. Eighth of August he is
    asked: Trump can't be President, right, right? No, he can't.
    We'll stop it.
        Why was that text message not originally produced to you?
    What did the FBI tell you?
        Mr. Horowitz. So what appears happened is that its
    collection mechanism, the program it used, was not collecting
    all the text messages.
        Mr. DeSantis. But you had every other text message from
    that day, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Actually, I don't know the answer to that. I
    thought I did, but I'm not sure.
        Mr. DeSantis. So, when you guys went back recently and got
    this damning one, was that the only one from that day that you
    found that was new?
        Mr. Horowitz. I would have to go check, but there was at
    least one other--actually, there were several others, but at
    least one other relevant to our review that we had not seen
    before that we found as we went back through it.
        Mr. DeSantis. And that was--so it was their explanation
    that it was not human agency, that it was some type of glitch?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct, right.
        Mr. DeSantis. Well, look, this is the most damning one of
    all.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. DeSantis. I guess theoretically possible it could be
    the glitch, but I need an explanation for that.
        Now, the 16th of August, the infamous insurance policy text
    message. They have a scenario thrown out in Andrew McCabe's
    office that Trump can't win. Strzok says: No, no, no. We can't
    take that risk. We need an insurance policy.
        Their explanation: Oh, we don't really know. We don't
    remember the meeting.
        I mean, was it persuasive or credible how they explained
    that text message?
        Mr. Horowitz. It wasn't persuasive to us.
        Mr. DeSantis. It was total not at all. And so here's the
    thing that I get with the insurance policy. If the
    investigation was validly predicated in the Trump's campaign,
    who the hell cares whether he was going to win or not? If it is
    an investigation, you should want to do it. This tells me that
    they're saying: Well, heck, if the guy may win, then we have to
    do this.
        Peter Strzok, the same guy who said, ``We'll stop him,''
    who opened this up on the 31st of July based off some errant
    comment in a bar. This stinks to high heaven.
        Let me ask you this: The three other FBI agents who you're
    not naming you said because they're involved in
    counterintelligence, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Not me. The FBI has asked they not be named.
        Mr. DeSantis. Why did we get Peter Strzok's name, though.
    That's what I don't understand.
        Mr. Horowitz. So what we do is, when we prepared the
    report, we do an analysis under the Privacy Act Federal law,
    and our determination was that because of his--the level he was
    at at the agency, Deputy Assistant Director, the Privacy Act
    balance weighed against him, and we would make it public. As to
    the others, they're lower down.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay.
        Mr. Horowitz. And the balance went the other way.
        Mr. DeSantis. Two of the three had worked for Mueller?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
        Mr. DeSantis. Do they still work for Mueller?
        Mr. Horowitz. My understanding is no.
        Mr. DeSantis. So did they get removed because of bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. I believe at least one of them--and I can
    double-check this--was removed after we alerted again the
    special counsel to the text messages. It may have been both of
    them, but I think it was one.
        Mr. DeSantis. Is it fair to say that your investigation
    identified a culture of leaking in the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's precisely what we say here and is a
    very big concern.
        Mr. DeSantis. Okay. Let me ask you about the Clinton-Lynch
    tarmac meeting. Is that plane monitored in any way, either
    audio or visual monitoring, Lynch's plane?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't believe there's audio monitoring.
        Mr. DeSantis. You were never given any type of document
    that memorialized any conversation between the two?
        Mr. Horowitz. No, not at all.
        Mr. DeSantis. And what was your report's view of Lynch's
    explanation for the meeting? I know it was about a 20-minute
    meeting. She said it was about grandkids. Could you fill up--I
    don't think she has grandkids. So what did you think? How did
    you guys view that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think we laid out there what the
    explanation was from former Attorney General Lynch, President
    Clinton, that was the sum total of the evidence that we had,
    and they both explained, and we detailed here what they said
    occurred during the during the meeting, and that is the basis
    for our evidence at this point.
        Mr. DeSantis. Comey in his statements to you guys said that
    there was, you know, they were grappling with the Hillary
    stuff; there's no evidence of willfulness. But was there any
    doubt that Hillary intended to create a separate server? I
    mean, that was done willfully, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, that was never the question.
        Mr. DeSantis. So the question is, if you take a willful
    action, and there are certain consequences that are reasonably
    foreseeable--I mean, there's certainly aspects of the law where
    you would be held liable for that. So you're setting up a
    parallel system knowing you're going to conduct the main
    business of Secretary of State, one of the most sensitive
    positions in our government. The idea that Comey's like, ``Oh,
    there was just no willfulness here,'' I didn't really find his
    explanation credible. I know you guys have looked at it, but I
    just wanted to put that on the record.
        I'm out of time. So I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands is recognized, Ms.
    Plaskett.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here.
        I have--since, you know, I'm further down in seniority I
    have the ability to now ask you some questions trying to
    clarify what my other colleagues were discussing with you.
        In your discussion with Mr. Meadows, there was a question
    that the texts sent between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page discussed
    the White House running this. You said you assumed that this
    text was not referring to the Clinton email matter and that you
    assumed it referred to the Russian investigation. I just want
    to clear up, do you actually know who the text was referring
    to?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm sorry. The particular----
        Ms. Plaskett. The text that says the White House is running
    this.
        Mr. Horowitz. No, my understanding just the general
    reference to the White House. I don't know if there was a
    particular person.
        Ms. Plaskett. And if it was to discuss the Russia
    investigation, it is not the Russia collusion investigation by
    the special counsel; it is referring to the Russia election
    interference investigation, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Plaskett. We have so many investigations here. Let's
    keep them in line. Now also in your discussion with Mr.
    Meadows, there would seem to be some logical analogy that was
    made, and as an attorney, you know, that's one of thing that we
    look at is the logical inferences, and I wasn't sure if it was
    necessarily correct. The discussion was that if you have a
    person who has a disproportionate bias in their personal, that
    you also then have to look at their disproportionate amount of
    decisionmaking in determining how that. Is that necessarily how
    one determines if their bias, in fact, affects the outcome?
        Mr. Horowitz. I had understood it as that they would have a
    disproportionate, given their role, impact on decisions that
    were made.
        Ms. Plaskett. Okay.
        Mr. Horowitz. And that may be----
        Ms. Plaskett. And that is if their personal bias then bled
    into their work, as well, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct, and I think that--I think in terms
    of answering, it wasn't, was there disproportionate--did they,
    in fact, cause an impact, but rather, given their role, did
    they have a disproportionate----
        Ms. Plaskett. So the disproportionate bias of Page and
    Strzok in terms of their bias against now President Trump, was
    that disproportionate in size to their decisionmaking?
        Mr. Horowitz. I wouldn't know. You know, as I said earlier,
    I don't have precisely which decisions they made over this
    period of time.
        Ms. Plaskett. Let's move on to someone else who may have
    had a bias. My former boss, Director Comey, was a Republican,
    was he not?
        Mr. Horowitz. I have read that. I don't know at the time
    whether he was.
        Ms. Plaskett. I worked with him in a Republican
    administration----
        Mr. Horowitz. --I've heard also he changed his
    registration----
        Ms. Plaskett. --appointed by----
        Mr. Horowitz. --I just I don't know----
        Ms. Plaskett. So I worked with him in a Republican
    administration when he was the Deputy Attorney General of the
    Justice Department. Would his bias as a Republican and him
    being the decision-maker have affected why he decided not to
    leak or not to discuss the Russia investigation itself?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our concern about what Mr. Strzok did, what
    Ms. Page does, wasn't based on their political affiliation,
    but, rather, on the text messages, so whether Mr. Comey----
        Ms. Plaskett. Did you know their political affiliation?
        Mr. Horowitz. I do not know their political affiliation.
        Ms. Plaskett. But we know the affiliation of Mr. Comey, but
    we're not going to count that against him?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think you have every right to register with
    whichever political party or none at all, and that----
        Ms. Plaskett. Sure, because we are still a democracy, are
    we not?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Plaskett. But listening to my colleagues, it would seem
    that if anyone has a personal opinion about someone, that it
    should automatically exclude them from working in the FBI or
    working any place else and that justice should not be blind
    anymore.
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't think, and I don't think I have
    suggested, that your personal opinion prohibits you from
    working in the FBI or the Justice Department. The concern here
    are the text messages that they exchanged about people they
    were looking at.
        Ms. Plaskett. Sure, because bias--I mean, before the
    election, many of my colleagues had a bias against Trump, but
    it appears now that he is the chief executive, that they have
    all fallen right in line and follow right behind whatever he
    says, even though many of them made public statements against
    him and against some of the opinions that he had before he
    became President.
        In your investigation, you said you looked at 1.2 million
    documents, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Plaskett. And in those documents, which are now being
    subpoenaed by Chairman Gowdy as well as Chairman Goodlatte, on
    the documents for investigation on the FBI's handling of
    Secretary Clinton's emails, have you had access to all of the
    documents that the Justice Department has subpoenaed but
    haven't received? Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That the Justice Department--you mean the
    Congress has subpoenaed? Right.
        Ms. Plaskett. Subpoenaed, correct.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, we have had access to all the records--
    --
        Ms. Plaskett. And your office was able to review those
    documents and any other documents that's needed as part of your
    investigation for this report?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Plaskett. And your report concluded, and I quote: We
    found no evidence that the conclusions by the Department
    prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper
    considerations. Rather, we determined that they were based on
    the prosecutor's assessment of the facts, the law, and past
    Department practices. Correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Ms. Plaskett. And so I just want you to be careful because
    now that you have not followed the conclusion that the
    Republicans would like you to, you may, in fact, be up for a
    special counsel investigation yourself.
        And I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. On that sobering note, Inspector General
    Horowitz, we will now go to the gentleman from North Carolina,
    Mr. Walker.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        If I could take just a moment, I would like to say thank
    you for your leadership. You have been the voice of justice,
    not just for today but for more than 7 years. I have no doubt
    that you will continue to be a warrior against injustice and
    for the underprivileged, and I am proud to have served with you
    and call you my friend.
        Mr. Horowitz, you previously testified that, during the
    investigation, you found additional texts between Agents Strzok
    and Page on FBI devices which the FBI had not analyzed,
    including texts about meeting in Andy's office. I'm assuming
    that wasn't Andy Griffith, Andy Cohen, or Andy Rooney. The
    closeness of referring to Andy bothers me a little bit because
    evidently it says there may have been some relationships. Of
    course, according to your words, according to your report
    somebody denies--which one denies that meeting happened? Is it
    former FBI Director Andrew McCabe or is it Peter Strzok?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think the denial is that Mr. McCabe says he
    does not recall being present for that meeting.
        Mr. Walker. He doesn't recall being present for that
    meeting. Have we investigated that further? Have you referred
    that to be investigated further because that's a pivotal point
    in all of this as far as what was said, who was involved in
    these meetings, whether there was intent, or whether there was
    bias.
        Mr. Horowitz. I think we have investigated, frankly, as far
    as we can take it and could find evidence to see whether he was
    present, and, you know, we have laid out here what we found
    ultimately.
        Mr. Walker. Does it concern you that the FBI did not
    further investigate this issue of these discovered text
    messages? Seems like it raises larger questions with some of
    the behavior at the FBI. Does that offend you, bother you?
        Mr. Horowitz. What has concerned us is that the FBI has
    this imperfect system of collecting records, has known that for
    some time, and needs to get it fixed. Frankly, once we started
    looking at these text messages, we were going to be the ones
    who kept digging to get them, so I didn't expect at that point
    the FBI----
        Mr. Walker. Fair enough. Because of Strzok's actions--I
    have a question, can you with certainty express that the
    Hillary Clinton investigation was without bias or interference?
        Mr. Horowitz. I cannot speak to every single decision that
    was made he might have been involved in. So I can't speak to
    that broader point.
        Mr. Walker. So you're not saying that there wasn't bias. It
    appears that you are saying that bias may have existed in all
    of this but not to the place that you could prove that it
    influenced the investigations.
        Mr. Horowitz. Where we looked on the decisions we looked at
    and the prosecutor's decision, we made the finding we felt we
    could make.
        Mr. Walker. Do you understand why the American people are
    having some trouble with all of this when you begin to talk
    about, well, there's biased behavior, but is it a subject of
    call to where that bias level may have reached whether it
    influenced--the amount of time that Peter Strzok spent as the
    lead investigator, do you understand why the American people
    would be upset at least the appearance of all of this?
        Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely, and I'm upset at all of this. I
    think it is precisely why it cast a cloud over the
    investigation. It undermines confidence in it. All of those
    impacts are very serious and very significant on a very
    important FBI investigation. That should never happen, and it
    happened because of these text messages and what these
    employees were doing. It should not have occurred, period.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, and it is one of the reasons that
    you're respected on both sides of the aisle. I do remember--in
    fact, it might have been my question or another member on the
    House Oversight Committee--that when asked of former Director
    James Comey as far as why not to bring charges, I believe his
    response that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. As
    good as the job that you are doing, my question to you would
    be, is there any room that if there was other investigations or
    if there was other inspections, if you will, would people--do
    you feel like do you agree with James Comey on your conclusion
    that this would be the same conclusion or is there room that
    other people, other investigators might find different
    conclusions?
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, I think, as you have seen in
    commentary about the findings and the report, what we try to
    lay out: This was the policy. This is how they reached the
    decision. And others are free to disagree with that.
        Mr. Walker. When it comes to the number of FBI employees
    who were in contacts with the journalists, was it the FBI
    employee or the reporter who seemed to initiate contacts that
    resulted in this back-and-forth conversation, or did they seem
    like long-term relationships?
        Mr. Horowitz. Some of them, based on what we have, you
    know, seen, did not seem like--well, let me just, looking at
    the charts here, you can see these are not, generally speaking,
    one call, so I would leave it at that. We are looking at that
    deeper question.
        Mr. Walker. When you say you're looking at it, does that
    mean it may warrant more investigations for some of those who
    have been players in this situation?
        Mr. Horowitz. There are active investigations ongoing by
    our office.
        Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
    back.
        The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to begin by lamenting the fact that we are not
    having Judiciary oversight hearings to address this barbaric
    child separation policy. I just came back from Brownsville,
    Texas, and McAllen. It is despicable what is happening in our
    name. We're not having bills to address dozens of ideas to
    reduce gun violence in this country. We're not marking up the
    Dream Act. We're not marking up legislation to protect the
    special counsel or to protect our elections from foreign
    interference. But, alas, we're having another hearing on the
    Clinton emails.
        So let me just start, Mr. Horowitz, with a basic question.
    Your investigation was to focus on the investigation of Hillary
    Clinton's emails, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Cicilline. And was part of your investigation to
    examine whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians?
        Mr. Horowitz. That was not part of this investigation.
        Mr. Cicilline. Did you investigate or make findings about
    collusive behavior between the Trump campaign and the Russians?
        Mr. Horowitz. The only matter we touched on with Russia was
    that October matter----
        Mr. Cicilline. I take it that's a no. Was part of your
    investigation to review whether the President of the United
    States obstructed justice during the course of the special
    counsel's investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. We looked at the Clinton email investigation.
        Mr. Cicilline. That's yes or no. Was that part of your
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. It was not.
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. And you didn't make any investigation
    or findings related to the President's potential obstruction of
    justice. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. It had nothing to do with this investigation.
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. So the President's claim that your
    report makes clear that he is completely exonerated--there's no
    obstruction of justice and no evidence of collusion--is a lie
    or at least unsupported by your report?
        Mr. Horowitz. Our report focused on the Clinton email
    investigation----
        Mr. Cicilline. Does your report in any way support the
    President's claim that he is completely exonerated, there's no
    evidence of collusion, no evidence of obstruction of justice?
    The answer is no.
        Mr. Horowitz. Our investigation focused on the Clinton
    email investigation.
        Mr. Cicilline. And so your report does not contain any
    findings, not a single one in 500 pages that would support the
    President's claim that your report, authored by you, exonerates
    him fully and presents evidence of no collusion and no
    obstruction of justice. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm going focus on our report, and there are
    individuals----
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Horowitz, the truth matters. Can you say
    in open--I'll finish my question. I get to ask the questions.
    Will you admit in open session that your report does not
    support the claim from the President of the United States that
    he is completely exonerated, that there's no evidence of
    collusion between his campaign and the Russians and that
    there's no evidence of obstruction of justice? Your report does
    not investigate or make findings on those issues at all, does
    it?
        Mr. Horowitz. We do not make findings on those.
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. So that would mean that's not a
    truthful statement. I'm not asking you to say that. I know it
    is hard for you to do that. It is the President; I get it. But
    it is important that the American people know that the 500
    pages that you dedicated your career to developing with
    professionals does not support any such claim by the President.
    I'm not asking you for an answer. That's a statement.
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah.
        Mr. Cicilline. Let me go next, Mr. Horowitz, to your--the
    part of your investigation that focuses on--you may have heard
    the President and many of his allies make numerous statements
    about your report that were designed to make the American
    people believe the opposite of what is obvious from your
    report's findings, that the FBI's actions had an impact on the
    2000 Presidential election and in Donald Trump's favor. Your
    report found no evidence that the FBI or DOJ's conclusions in
    the investigation of Secretary Clinton's emails were
    politically motivated, and your report found that Director
    Comey violated Department of Justice policies by speaking
    publicly about Secretary Clinton's closed case in July of 2006
    and by disclosing the reopening of the investigation in October
    of 2016. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Certainly the latter part, I----
        Mr. Cicilline. That it violated Department policy?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes. The earlier part I was----
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. And your report discusses why the
    Justice Department and the FBI have a policy and practice of
    refusing to speak publicly about ongoing investigative
    activity. It explains the stay silent principle exists to
    protect the privacy and reputational interests of the subjects
    of the investigation and also the Department's ability to
    effectively administer justice without political or undue
    outside influence, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Cicilline. Would you agree that the FBI--when the FBI
    speaks publicly about an ongoing case, it risks harming the
    subject's reputational interest?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Cicilline. In this case, that subject of potential harm
    was Hillary Clinton.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Cicilline. Your report, Mr. Horowitz, also has a
    subsection entitled ``Avoiding the Perception that the FBI
    Concealed the New Information to Help Clinton Win the
    Election.'' In that section, Director Comey says his decision
    to disclose the investigation reopening was to avoid, quote,
    corrosive doubt that you had engineered a cover up to protect a
    particular candidate. Your report found, however, that Director
    Comey, quote--and this is your words--did not assess risks
    even-handedly. In weighing his actions, did Director Comey ever
    express fear that his notification to Congress would tip the
    scales or at least appear to tip the scales against Hillary
    Clinton in favor of Donald Trump?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't recall him saying that to us as sort
    of one of his explanations.
        Mr. Cicilline. But Director Comey was afraid that if he
    stayed silent about the reopening of the case, that he would
    unfairly be accused of helping Hillary Clinton. Isn't that
    correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That was one of the concerns he expressed.
        Mr. Cicilline. And so, sir, when the President said, when
    he praised Director Comey's actions when he made that
    disclosure and said, ``It took guts for Director Comey to make
    the move that he made,'' end quote, what he did was the right
    thing, Chairman Goodlatte said he was very appreciative that
    Director Comey had the courage to step forward and our very own
    Chairman Gowdy went on to FOX News and stated Director Comey
    did the right thing in supplementing his testimony. Isn't it
    true, Mr. Horowitz, just to reiterate, your report concludes
    Director Comey's October 26 notification to Congress was not
    the right thing?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes, on October 28, correct.
        Mr. Cicilline. So I hope the Justice Department and the FBI
    learned their lesson from your report and do not cave to the
    ongoing bullying of President Trump and his allies in Congress.
    Instead, they must once again uphold longstanding principles
    and the rule of law, even while facing the onslaught of unfair
    political attacks. We expect nothing less of you.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back. Since my name
    was invoked, before we go to the gentleman from Texas, I would
    just point out that we don't live in a binary world. You can
    notify Congress without writing a letter that is publicly
    disseminated. You have other options, including notifying
    Congress in a confidential manner.
        With that, the former United States attorney from Texas Mr.
    Ratcliffe.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Chairman.
        Inspector Horowitz, in your report and now in your
    testimony, you said that you are deeply troubled and very
    concerned that the anti-Trump bias reflected in the Strzok-Page
    text messages was so great as to have possibly impacted Peter
    Strzok's conduct about in the Weiner laptop part of the Hillary
    Clinton investigation. Is that fair?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. So, if the Department of Justice and the
    FBI's own inspector general is very concerned and deeply
    troubled about Peter Strzok's anti-Trump bias affecting his
    actions as an FBI agent, is it unreasonable for President Trump
    as the subject of an investigation to likewise be very
    concerned and deeply troubled that Mr. Strzok was put in charge
    of the Trump Russia investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, I'm going to step back on that,
    Congressman, and speak to the broader point that that's
    precisely why we were concerned, generally speaking, about the
    election review, that those kind of messages create that
    appearance of bias that undercuts credibility and the ability
    to do investigation. I can't speak to----
        Mr. Ratcliffe. I'm not asking you to make any findings
    about the Trump Russia matter. I'm asking you about the people
    that you investigated in your report, people whose actions you
    found so deeply troubling and very concerning. I just want to
    find out if you think it is unreasonable for the President to
    feel the same way you do.
        Mr. Horowitz. My concern on that is, as you know, we're
    currently reviewing that, and I want to be careful. I don't
    want to be myself seen as prejudging any outcomes here. So I'm
    going to let folks draw----
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Again, I'm not----
        Mr. Horowitz. --what they want to draw from this, but I
    don't want to be seen as making any judgments on that.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Well, do you think it is unreasonable for
    President Trump to be very concerned or deeply troubled, as you
    were, that 8 days after Peter Strzok was put in charge of the
    Trump Russia investigation, that he promised another FBI
    employee, Lisa Page, that Trump would never be President
    because he would stop it?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think any individual in this country should
    be concerned about that kind of language.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. And the reason you're concerned about that,
    Inspector General, I think is because you have said numerous
    times here that Strzok's stated bias and stated willingness to
    act on that bias are antithetical to the core values of the
    FBI, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Right.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Another thing that is antithetical to the
    FBI and the Department of Justice and our entire justice system
    is putting people in charge of investigating people they hate,
    of people that they are biased against and that they are
    prejudiced against, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. And we don't do that in our justice system.
    We can't do that in our justice system, a system where the
    bedrock principle has to be the fair and impartial
    administration of justice, free from bias and prejudice, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. So I think the point that you're making and
    that I agree with is that anyone--you, me, any member of
    Congress, any American--who becomes the subject of an
    investigation should not be investigated by people who have
    sent hundreds of hateful text messages about them before the
    investigation ever began and then continued to send them while
    the investigation was occurring. That is, by definition,
    prejudicial to the fair and impartial administration of
    justice, isn't it?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think that is precisely the concern.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. And yet that is exactly what happened to
    President Trump. Now, to your credit, Inspector Horowitz, you
    revealed the astonishing level, the outrageous level of bias
    and prejudice, and when you did, Special Counsel Mueller
    removed Peter Strzok from the case, but you and I are former
    prosecutors, and you and I both know that it is impossible to
    remove bias and prejudice from all of the actions taken, all of
    the decisions made, all of the investigative plans implemented,
    all of the evidence gathered by Peter Strzok and at least two
    other Trump-hating FBI agents and lawyers who were assigned to
    the investigation. That's pretty hard to do, isn't it?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, that is precisely the question, as you
    know, we're looking at.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. So my colleagues over there just keep
    pointing out that your report doesn't state any conclusions
    about the Trump Russia investigation, and they're right. The
    report doesn't state any conclusions, but your findings of
    fact, your findings of fact about the people in charge of the
    Trump Russia investigation in the case of Peter Strzok, for 9
    months, the person in charge of the investigation, well, that
    leads to all sorts of undeniable conclusions about pervasive
    bias and prejudice against President Trump by the people who
    never, ever should have been in charge of gathering evidence
    against him.
        Let me switch topics in the remaining 20 seconds I have.
    Did Jim Comey make the decision not to prosecute Hillary
    Clinton before or after her July 2, 2016, interview?
        Chairman Gowdy. I'm going to let you answer the question
    even though the gentleman from Texas grossly misjudged the
    amount of time he does not have left anymore. It is actually 20
    seconds over, rather than under, but you can answer the
    question.
        Mr. Horowitz. As we laid out here and described here, prior
    to the July 2nd interview, absent, as we were told, either a
    confession or a false statements, the decision had been made to
    close the investigation.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. So the fact that Director Comey testified
    under oath to Members of Congress, in response to a question
    about whether or not the decision was made before or after,
    unequivocally stated after, do you think it is reasonable for
    Members of Congress to think that they were misled by that
    answer?
        Mr. Horowitz. I probably would have to look at the
    transcript. As you know, so much of that turns on the precise
    question and answer so----
        Mr. Ratcliffe. So can I take that as a promise to look at
    that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'll take a look at the question and answer,
    and then we can talk further, Congressman, about that.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Inspector Horowitz. I appreciate
    your work.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here, and I want to
    commend you and your team for a very thorough report. You have
    taken extreme care to make sure you don't jump to conclusions.
    You've indicated where the lines are between judgment acting in
    accordance with various protocols and norms and rules of the
    Department and so forth. You have indicated that the bias that
    you have identified did not affect or contaminate the
    investigative decisions that were being made at the highest
    levels, which is important.
        When you focus on Jim Comey and his conduct, you point to
    issues of compliance with Department guidelines and norms and
    standards that you think are very important. I think that's
    valid. I think it is also important to observe that that
    doesn't in any way get to the question of the credibility or
    truthfulness of an individual. You can say this person is not
    adhering to what we think is a departmental standard. That
    doesn't go to whether they're being truthful to their basic
    credibility and so forth. If I didn't comply with a rule on how
    much time I'm supposed to take here in asking you a question
    and then I went out in the hall and I saw someone knock someone
    else over and run down the hall and I wanted to testify to
    that, you wouldn't say, ``I'm not going to believe you because
    you didn't follow the clock when you were in the hearing.'' And
    that's important because it may be that Jim Comey down the line
    becomes a witness in various contexts, and there's nothing in
    your report that I see, and I think you said this in response
    to Congressman Cohen, that would suggest that you have any
    reason to think that he has lied, that he misled you, that he
    was not truthful in the course of your conducting this
    investigation. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Now, I wanted to move to the question of--as
    I step away from this, and I sort of don't consider particular
    individuals but look at the standards you're articulating for
    what's a good investigation and how to carry it out, you have
    identified a variety of things: First of all, follow the rules
    that exist. Be consistent in following those; that's one of the
    major concerns you had in terms of the process for taking
    certain decisions on investigations. So be consistent. Follow
    the rules. Another thing you have talked about is the
    importance of there not being leaks, and you have identified
    some issues with that at the FBI, but that is also--that goes
    to the overall legitimacy of an investigation, that there not
    be leaks. You have talked about the issue of bias, and I assume
    that your expectation would be that a good investigation would
    be one where, if there's evidence of bias in a way that could
    affect the investigation, that steps need to be taken to
    address that bias.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. Or the appearance potentially.
        Mr. Sarbanes. Or the appearance of bias. So stepping away
    from that and thinking about those kinds of standards on how an
    investigation should proceed, you've actually left me in a
    position of being--having a lot of confidence in the way Bob
    Mueller is conducting his investigation because, if you take
    those standards that you are highlighting and you apply them to
    how he and his team are conducting themselves, he passes with
    flying colors. Where there's been evidence of bias, he has
    taken steps.
        In fact, you acknowledge that Ms. Page, Mr. Strzok are not
    part of that team anymore because he took quick action when
    there was evidence of bias or even the appearance of bias.
    There's no suggestion that there have been improper leaks from
    this investigation. And by all accounts, both Bob Mueller and
    Rod Rosenstein are following to the T the rules and standards
    that ought to apply to the investigation.
        So I want to thank you and your team for describing a set
    of standards for how to conduct an investigation because I
    think when you take that set of standards and you apply it to
    the way Bob Mueller is conducting his investigation, you can
    see that he is doing it in a diligent and conscientious way as
    a straight arrow, and that's why I think we need to support
    that investigation.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
        Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Horowitz, for being here.
        In late September of 2016, the FBI came into possession of
    the Anthony Weiner laptop, which contained hundreds of
    thousands of potentially emails related to the Clinton
    investigation.
        My first question, would you say that this discovery was
    rapidly communicated with the Midterm Clinton investigation
    team and the FBI, or was it slow-walked?
        Mr. Horowitz. The New York office promptly reported it to
    the Midyear Clinton investigation team.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. And when did Peter Strzok, of course, who
    was leading the Clinton investigation, when did he--when was he
    made aware of the laptop?
        Mr. Horowitz. On September 28.
        Mr. Hice. All right. So the next day or close within days.
    All right. So this is the same Peter Strzok has come up in
    multiple ways, repeatedly bashed President, well, candidate
    Trump at that time, and then committed to stop him from
    becoming President.
        Now, from Strzok's--from the perspective of his superiors,
    Bill Priestap, for example, was he at this time committed to
    the Clinton investigation, or was his focus more on the Russian
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. At the time of September 28th and -9th, Mr.
    Strzok was working on the Russia investigation. And his
    supervisor was working, not just on that but as you might
    expect, as Assistant Director of Counterintelligence, a wide
    variety of matters as we lay out here.
        Mr. Hice. Right. On page 297 of your report, Priestap said
    that the Weiner laptop was not his top priority at this time
    due to his involvement in the Russia investigation. You said
    that Priestap himself said that: I don't want to say
    distracted, but, yeah, my focus wasn't on the Midyear anymore.
    And Strzok himself was assigned to both the Russia and Clinton
    investigations at this point, but he was still the lead in the
    Clinton investigation.
        So it is fair to say, by your report, that the superiors
    were distracted at this time. They were not focused on the
    Midyear investigation but on the Russia investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. And to be clear, for Mr. Priestap,
    he was also talking about the election interference issues more
    broadly than just what has now come to be known as the Russia
    investigation.
        Mr. Hice. Which adds to the whole scenario that he was
    distracted; his focus was not on the Clinton investigation
    anymore. So here we go back to Strzok. He is presented now with
    a choice. He receives the information from the discovery of the
    Weiner laptop, hundreds of thousands of emails, potentially
    damaging and at least related to the Clinton investigation. He
    has a choice now to either follow up on the leads from that
    laptop and report them in a timely manner, or knowing that his
    superiors are distracted, he can conveniently place this laptop
    discovery on the back burner. And so how long did it take
    Strzok and the Midyear team to finally get around to the
    laptop?
        Mr. Horowitz. So there was activity the next day, September
    29, and then there was some discussions back and forth up
    through October 3 or 4, and then no activity whatsoever until
    the New York field office again raised a concern on October 21
    ultimately--or around October 21--ultimately resulting in a
    call on October 21 from the U.S. Attorney's Office from the
    Southern District of New York to the Deputy Attorney General's
    Office inquiring about why there's been no activity.
        Mr. Hice. So Strzok was taking this slow. I mean, he was
    not--he did not report it in a timely manner and pursue this
    thing. It was only after the New York group pushed it that he--
    that Strzok got on board and said we've got to do something
    about this
        Mr. Horowitz. Strzok and others, yes.
        Mr. Hice. All right. But that's the timeline in all of
    this.
        And so, I mean, from every appearance, he did everything he
    could to prevent this discovery from becoming public because it
    may hurt the Clinton campaign. And you, yourself, stated that
    you could not with any confidence say that Strzok's political
    bias did not lead him to delay looking at the laptop. Do you
    still stand by that?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Hice. Okay. So this is where the whole cycle comes back
    to me, where every appearance and action by Strzok at this
    point is that his political bias did, in fact, prevent him from
    bringing forth this information, because it may hurt the
    Clinton campaign.
        And this is precisely, really, one of the big things that
    to me is just the elephant in the room where there not only was
    political bias, but action based on that bias to protect one
    individual over the other, Clinton over Trump. And this is the
    same Strzok who is leading the Russian investigation, which, of
    course, is the foundation of the Mueller special counsel. So
    tremendous concern here.
        Again, I thank you for being here.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        Inspector General Horowitz, how about we take a 10-minute
    break, recess, and then reconvene?
        Mr. Horowitz. Whatever is good for the committee.
        Chairman Gowdy. That suits you, 10 minutes?
        Mr. Horowitz. It suits me.
        Chairman Gowdy. In 10 minutes we'll reconvene.
        [recess.]
        Chairman Gowdy. The committee will come to order.
        The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Hello? Are the mikes on? Hello?
        Can I reclaim my time, sir?
        Chairman Gowdy. You've lost no time.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you.
        It's concerning to me that we've spent almost 5 hours here
    of this esteemed body which I am a Member of to discuss tapes
    of Hillary Clinton when we know that we have a humanitarian
    issue happening in our country that we need to resolve.
        But with that being said, President Trump fired Director
    Comey on May 9, 2017, and on May 10, 2017, Chairman Jason
    Chaffetz sent a letter to you, sir, asking that you investigate
    the decision to fire James Comey. Did you receive that letter?
        Mr. Horowitz. I did.
        Mrs. Lawrence. You separately stated that if circumstances
    warranted, the OGI will consider including other issues that
    may arise during the course of the review and the
    recommendation to remove Comey, indeed, warranted some
    consideration. Am I correct, sir, you said that?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yeah. If circumstances warranted, we would
    expand----
        Mrs. Lawrence. My question to you is, did you expand the
    scope of your review into the 2016 election to encompass the
    firing of Director Comey?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Why didn't you?
        Mr. Horowitz. For similar reasons to what I mentioned
    earlier, which is my understanding that it may be the subject
    of an ongoing special counsel review, that there wasn't a
    reason for us to make a determination at that point in time----
        Mrs. Lawrence. Did someone direct you not to?
        Mr. Horowitz. Nobody directed us not to.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Is your office currently investigating the
    firing of Director Comey?
        Mr. Horowitz. We have not announced any review regarding
    that.
        Mrs. Lawrence. I didn't say announcement. Are you currently
    investigating?
        Mr. Horowitz. As I said a minute ago, if there is a basis
    for us to look at it, we will assess and look at it. But my
    understanding is that it is something that the special counsel
    is reviewing, and if----
        Mrs. Lawrence. And that's your sole decision to make?
        Mr. Horowitz. It is my sole decision to make.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Have you encountered any attempts to
    interfere with, obstruct, or curtail that investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. Zero, of my own investigations. This
    investigation or other work, we've had no interference at all.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Has any entity or individual denied you
    witnesses or documents that you have requested as a part of
    your investigation that you have presented to us?
        Mr. Horowitz. We got access to everything. And as we note
    here, two witnesses did not agree to voluntarily be interviewed
    by us, and we had no ability to compel them.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Is there--and I will ask you again--is there
    a role that your office will play in the investigation that
    does not interfere with Special Counsel Mueller's probe?
        We have multiple investigations that have happened with the
    Hillary Clinton emails. Why are you making that sole decision
    that because there is one investigation that you will not
    investigate the firing of FBI agent Comey?
        Mr. Horowitz. As a general matter, Congresswoman, and it's
    not unique to this matter, as a general matter, when there are
    ongoing Justice Department investigations, FBI, others, we
    understand that we don't want to be in the middle of an ongoing
    investigation. And we defer and wait until the conclusion of
    that to assess whether there's something for us to review.
        And the special counsel, as does the deputy attorney
    general and others, understand that under the IG Act, if they
    see misconduct by Justice Department officials, they're
    obligated to notify us of that.
        Mrs. Lawrence. So you are stating on the record now that
    there will be no investigation from your office, based on your
    sole decision, of the firing of Director Comey?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not saying that. I'm saying we have not
    made a decision with regard to the request we received as to
    whether we should or should not do that.
        Mrs. Lawrence. So how long will that process take for you
    to make a decision?
        Mr. Horowitz. In all likelihood, until we understand that
    there is no other investigation going on of that within the
    Justice Department, we would wait until that point in time. And
    obviously, that----
        Mrs. Lawrence. I would like to ask a question. Repeatedly
    we've heard about the possible obstruction of the election of
    our current President. And last time I checked, even though the
    crowd numbers don't match his statements, he is the President
    of the United States.
        So we are investigating whether a person's personal opinion
    is one that is conduct that we are finding to be, as far as
    employment, because it was a government phone, is that the
    issue that is the core of this, the fact that someone does not
    support a certain political candidate?
        Mr. Horowitz. It has nothing--from my standpoint and our
    findings, it has nothing to do with that.
        Mrs. Lawrence. Well, that's been brought up multiple times
    today, that you said because of the email where he said that
    we'll stop that.
        Mr. Horowitz. My point being it doesn't matter who he's
    trying to stop. What I've said repeatedly is I don't care
    whether he was trying to stop the local election, the
    Presidential election, or any candidate. An FBI agent cannot
    take a position or state like that that they would consider
    using their official action to affect any candidates.
        Mrs. Lawrence. I agree with that, but I do not want a
    slippery slope that this President is immune to anyone not
    agreeing with him. And I've heard that repeatedly today as if
    it's a capital crime because someone did not agree or support.
        But I do support what you're saying, in the role of an FBI
    agent, that we do not expect that. And I want to be clear, this
    is a democracy still and we still have freedom of speech.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentlelady from the State of North Carolina is
    recognized.
        Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to yield my
    5 minutes to you.
        Chairman Gowdy. I thank the gentlelady.
        Inspector General Horowitz, I want to go back for a couple
    minutes on the issue of intent. Am I correct, is that your
    understanding from what Jim Comey said, that the missing
    element was some element of intent that he was reading into the
    statute?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's what he said. I think what the
    prosecutors were looking at was knowledge and----
        Chairman Gowdy. Knowledge of the wrongfulness of her
    conduct or knowledge that her arrangement with herself may have
    allowed classified information to traverse her server?
        Mr. Horowitz. Knowledge that classified information
    actually did transit through her server----
        Chairman Gowdy. All right.
        Mr. Horowitz. --as of the absence of markings.
        Chairman Gowdy. Well, the questions I have for you are
    equally applicable whether the missing intent is knowledge or
    intent.
        Can you think of a better way to determine what an actor
    knew than to ask the actor what he or she knew? Am I missing
    some better repository of evidence than to actually interview
    the target or the suspect yourself?
        Mr. Horowitz. I would say there could be instances where
    there would be better evidence, like contemporaneous
    recordings, as opposed to the interview where the person might
    not be candid. But you clearly would want to----
        Chairman Gowdy. I'm not aware of those in this case.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Chairman Gowdy. But perhaps you know something I do not.
        Mr. Horowitz. No, I'm not. But I'm just saying you asked
    hypothetically is there a better way to get evidence of
    someone's state of mind about the----
        Chairman Gowdy. Given the evidentiary restrictions in this
    case, can you think of any better way to resolve that issue of
    knowledge than to actually interview the target herself?
        Mr. Horowitz. No. I think you would want to interview the
    target herself.
        Chairman Gowdy. All right.
        And what would you ask the target? You were a highly
    decorated Federal prosecutor from one of the most prestigious
    districts in the country. What would you ask the defendant if
    you were trying to determine whether or not that person, that
    suspect, had knowledge?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, you'd certainly want to start at the
    beginning, which is, why did the server come to be set up, what
    was the rationale behind it, what did you understand it would
    be used for, questions like that, because so much of it would
    be focused on what the intent, rationale, thinking was behind
    creating your own separate server or domain name from the
    outset.
        Chairman Gowdy. If multiple explanations have been given in
    the past on that very issue, would you ask the suspect or the
    target to reconcile those different explanations?
        Mr. Horowitz. Presumably, you would ask the subject during
    the interview in any area where there might be differing
    reports of testimony or recollections.
        Chairman Gowdy. If there had been false exculpatory
    statements made in connection with the fact pattern, would you
    ask the target or the suspect to explain those false
    exculpatory statements?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think if you were interviewing any witness
    you would want to ask them about information that was out there
    that would suggest there was a false exculpatory.
        Chairman Gowdy. When I use the phrase ``consciousness of
    wrongdoing,'' what does that mean to you?
        Mr. Horowitz. That means you have an awareness, perhaps
    unstated, that the conduct that you've engaged in is wrongful
    in some way.
        Chairman Gowdy. What about concealment?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, that can mean, I guess, different
    things, depending upon the nature of the concealment. It can be
    active. It can be passive at some level. But it's keeping
    something from somebody else. And, you know, we have a concern
    here about concealment on what happened in connection with July
    5th.
        Chairman Gowdy. How about the destruction of evidence?
        Mr. Horowitz. Again, that can be personal or it can be
    knowing that someone else is going to do it, but it is
    obviously destroying evidence or information that has
    evidentiary value.
        Chairman Gowdy. I guess what I'm kind of struggling with a
    little bit, I was actually asked over the weekend whether or
    not I think she should have been charged. I can't answer that
    question because I don't think she was interviewed properly.
    And it's very difficult to go back and conduct a proper
    interview after one has already been botched.
        Did you see all of the questions that you and I just went
    over in the 302? Were all of those asked of her during that
    July interview?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think one of the concerns that's been
    raised is that, a 302 only being a summary of what was said,
    that there isn't a transcript or other more definitive report
    on precisely all the questions and answers.
        So we have a summary, and that's what we're working off of,
    that. It's an extensive summary, but it's still not a
    transcript.
        Chairman Gowdy. Well, given the fact that you and I agree
    that actually talking to the witness, the suspect, the target
    might be, absent a contemporaneous recording, some of the
    better evidence on knowledge and intent, how in the hell was
    Jim Comey able to draft an exoneration press release 6 weeks
    before that interview took place?
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, I think it's clear from looking at
    what we uncovered that by that point in time they had largely
    concluded what they had concluded. And if you----
        Chairman Gowdy. But my question is, if what you're missing
    was knowledge and/or intent and the single best repository for
    that evidence is the person you've yet to talk to, how in the
    hell can you make that conclusion?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think--I'll give you what the answer was
    that we got back, which was: Of course we kept open the
    possibility that we would find some evidence that would change
    that view. That was the explanation we were given.
        Chairman Gowdy. If that were true, did you find drafts of
    inculpatory press releases?
        Mr. Horowitz. We did not.
        Chairman Gowdy. You found no memos or drafts where he had
    decided to charge her?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct. We were told, by the way, by
    the prosecutors, as you see here, that they did not draft
    anything until after the interview, precisely because they
    wanted to wait before making a final judgment for the
    interview.
        Chairman Gowdy. Isn't that what we normally do, wait until
    the last interview is----
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Chairman Gowdy. This is my last question I'll have for you.
    Back when you did trial work, do you remember the judge ever
    admonishing the jury that you are not to make up your mind
    until the last witness has testified and the last piece of
    evidence has been introduced? Do you remember a jury ever being
    told that by a judge?
        Mr. Horowitz. Not only do I remember that as a prosecutor,
    but I actually served on a jury last year. So I remember that
    from the judge's instruction.
        Chairman Gowdy. It's kind of one of the basic precepts of
    our justice system, is that you wait until it's over before you
    draw a conclusion. And I am just dumbfounded that Director
    Comey would draft a press release and cite the missing element
    when the single best repository of potential evidence on that
    element had yet to be talked to. I just--I find that stunning.
        But I'm also stunningly out of time, so I'll go to the
    gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And from the Amazon jungles to the streets of Shalimar,
    Florida, I've had a chance to observe the patriotic service of
    many frontline FBI agents, and I'm in violent agreement with
    Director Wray that the information in your report does not in
    any way impugn the incredible work that they do.
        Refresh my recollection. We know who Lisa Page is, she sent
    all these bad text messages about Donald Trump, but we don't
    know who FBI Agents 1 through 5 are. Why the disparate
    treatment?
        Mr. Horowitz. So when we write up our report, we apply
    Privacy Act and other laws to decide who we can--whose name we
    can disclose and whose name, on balance, we think as a legal
    matter we can't. That's why you see some names in here and some
    names anonymized. We have the request from the committee.
        As I mentioned, we sought to get approval from the FBI to
    send that information forward. They----
        Mr. Gaetz. What's the reason the FBI gave you as to why we
    couldn't learn who FBI Agents 1 through 5 are?
        Mr. Horowitz. They mentioned a couple of reasons, but the
    primary reason was that because those individuals--two of them
    were agents, one's a lawyer--work on counterintelligence
    matters, they had a security and safety----
        Mr. Gaetz. Peter Strzok worked on counterintelligence
    matters, and we know who he is.
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Gaetz. Why the disparate treatment?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm just telling you what was reported to us.
    And, you know, as----
        Mr. Gaetz. Who's Attorney Number 2?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'd have to think about who that is, but I,
    again, I'd want to make sure that what I was saying wasn't
    putting someone in jeopardy or at risk.
        Mr. Gaetz. What was the reason the FBI gave for not telling
    us who Attorney Number 2 is?
        Mr. Horowitz. The same reason, that that individual works
    on counterintelligence matters and safety and security reasons
    as well as some other reasons.
        Mr. Gaetz. What were they? I want to obtain the full
    universe of reasons. Because, you know, I feel as though
    sunshine, transparency will be the way to root out this bias
    that we seem to see reflected.
        Are you familiar with the resistance movement in this
    country?
        Mr. Horowitz. I am familiar with it from looking at some of
    these text messages, but I am not personally familiar----
        Mr. Gaetz. What's your general understanding of what that
    movement is?
        Mr. Horowitz. I just could tell you what it says here.
    Somehow, you know, resist what's going on in the country in
    terms of the government, governance. I have no real personal
    knowledge of----
        Mr. Gaetz. Does it mean resist Donald Trump, resist his
    Presidency?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding certainly as it was
    played out here.
        Mr. Gaetz. So you've got Peter Strzok, who goes from the
    Hillary Clinton email investigation to the FBI Trump-Russia
    investigation to the Mueller probe. You've got Lisa Page, who
    goes from the Hillary Clinton email investigation to the FBI
    Russia investigation to the Mueller probe. And then you have
    Attorney Number 2, who similarly goes from the Hillary Clinton
    email investigation to the Trump-Russia investigation to the
    Mueller probe.
        It seems like a very bizarre coincidence that the way
    people tended to end up on the Mueller probe was some
    association with Hillary Clinton, whether it was the people I
    just identified or whether it was Andrew Weissman, who attended
    Hillary Clinton's election night party, or whether it was
    Jeannie Rhee, who had defended the Clinton Foundation in FOIA
    defenses.
        It seems so bizarre that the people you would go and
    accumulate to prosecute the President of the United States and
    investigate him would be so intertangled with these fact
    patterns regarding Hillary Clinton. Does that strike you as
    odd?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know if it strikes me as odd other
    than I know it, as to the three individuals you mentioned,
    occurred.
        Mr. Gaetz. Is that usual, for someone who's like directly
    tied to one element of a fact pattern to then migrate over to
    these other investigations?
        Mr. Horowitz. It's an excellent point, Congressman. We
    actually make that here as well, that from a management matter,
    having done corruption cases, you wouldn't put someone who just
    investigated an individual on one side to go investigate the
    other person.
        Mr. Gaetz. Who made those staffing decisions?
        Mr. Horowitz. It would have been the leadership of the FBI.
        Mr. Gaetz. So it would have been James Comey, who's been
    fired. It would have been Andrew McCabe, who has been referred
    for criminal prosecution as a consequence of your good work.
        Attorney Number 2 says ``viva le resistance'' while
    actively investigating President Trump. Is that right?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's my understanding.
        Mr. Gaetz. And does it trouble you that someone who is
    tasked with investigating the President was associating himself
    with a resistance movement against the very same President?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'll say what I said earlier. I don't care
    who that person was investigating, that person should not be
    making comments about an individual or related to a person
    they're investigating or the FBI is working on.
        Mr. Gaetz. It will be totally unacceptable to my
    constituents to say that there was a person who went from the
    Hillary Clinton email investigation to the Trump-Russia
    investigation to the Mueller probe who identified himself and
    who you identified as the lead FBI lawyer on the Mueller probe
    and we don't get to know who that person is. Associating with
    the resistance, going after the President after this totally
    botched Hillary Clinton email investigation that you've
    appropriately highlighted.
        In this country, we cannot live in a world where unelected
    people at the FBI get to shelter someone who I believe was
    actively working against the President and actively associating
    and identifying with a movement that is intended to frustrate
    everything that this President is trying to do.
        So I hope we get that information, Mr. Chairman, and I
    yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized.
        Mr. Russell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Inspector General Horowitz, not only for
    your long patience today, but for your professionalism on so
    many levels.
        One of the things that I think the facts seem to bear out
    from this hearing today, that there was bias by key
    investigators collecting evidence; their investigative evidence
    was provided then to prosecutors; these prosecutors, based on
    that evidence, acted accordingly, without any bias of their
    own, in coming to their conclusions.
        Is it possible that prosecutors can be misled by biased
    investigators who guide or withhold evidence?
        Mr. Horowitz. It's certainly a possibility that, you know,
    something like that could happen. I don't--we didn't--in the
    evidence we reviewed, we didn't see that here, but certainly--
    --
        Mr. Russell. Well, given the actions of the investigators
    expressing bias, which was very detailed in the report, and the
    statements and draft statements of the Director months before
    the investigation was complete, do you think it possible they
    already had an outcome in mind?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think clearly they had an--that the
    FBI, through Director Comey, had an outcome in mind, given the
    drafting starting in early May.
        Mr. Russell. And while prosecutors were found to be
    unbiased in their conclusions, did that same conclusion exist
    with those making investigative decisions whose evidence would
    ultimately be provided to the prosecutors?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, Director Comey obviously heading up the
    FBI and his folks, we lay out here that they believed by early
    May that, absent confession, some unusual event or discovery of
    evidence they didn't anticipate or false statements, that they
    thought this was heading towards a declination.
        Mr. Russell. I guess that, you know, that's the concern
    that the American people have, is the investigation was not
    even closed, that we have the Bureau, the Justice Department,
    in fact, in your own reports, and I quote: ``We were
    particularly concerned about the text messages sent by Strzok
    and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance
    that investigative decisions they made were impacted by bias or
    improper considerations.''
        Along that same vein, quote: ``We did not have confidence
    that Strzok's decision to prioritize the Russia investigation
    over following up on the Midyear-related investigative lead
    discovered on the Weiner laptop was free from bias.''
        And then a last one to highlight here: ``It is not only
    indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously,
    implies a willingness to take official action to impact the
    Presidential candidate's electoral prospects.'' And then you
    highlight that this is antithetical to the core values of the
    FBI and the Justice Department, and I think that's true.
        In your report you discuss also that Mr. Comey was
    concerned about a classified issue specific to Lynch and that
    there are questions that many of us have related to these
    issues that arose in March 2016 that alleged bias or attempts
    by Attorney General Lynch to impede the Midyear investigations,
    and that some of that information suggests, or could, that
    Comey may have also been attempting to influence the
    investigation.
        Your report says that you detail perhaps some answers to
    some of these questions and others in a classified appendix.
    When will you provide the committees copies of the classified
    index?
        Mr. Horowitz. So that classified appendix was classified by
    the intelligence community. We don't do that. It ended up--
    we're not the classifiers. They classified it at such a high
    level, some of the information, that it made it impossible to
    make it available to the Members as we wanted to. Only certain
    Members would have been able to see it.
        We have gone back to the intelligence agencies and said:
    Please let us know what is the material that gets us to this
    level so we can bring it down to a level where everybody can
    look at it. We just got a report back from some of the intel
    agencies today. We're hoping--or last night--we're hoping to
    get the rest of it in the next few days.
        I've raised this with the deputy attorney general's office,
    that we need this changed, you need to see it. It's important
    for the Congress to see it. And we're going to work hard to get
    that.
        Mr. Russell. Absolutely. And can the House hold a copy in
    our secure SCIF----
        Mr. Horowitz. That's exactly what I'm working to----
        Mr. Russell. --an unredacted copy?
        Mr. Horowitz. Right. That's exactly what I'm working to
    get.
        Mr. Russell. Because we've been through this rodeo before.
    And I've gone down to the tank and I've read redacted things,
    and then had members, high-placed members of our Bureau and
    Justice Department say, well, this is because of Freedom of
    Information Act redactions, as if that were a grounds to
    withhold information from Congress.
        Which agency in specific? Is it the CIA that's making the
    determination that members of committees are not authorized to
    view the classified index?
        Mr. Horowitz. My understanding is it's--speaking with the
    ODNI, the Office of Director of National Intelligence, and the
    CIA, that they're working through these issues with the FBI.
        Mr. Russell. Well, I thank you for that, Inspector General,
    and thank you for your great work. And we will be right there
    backing you up, that Oversight and Judiciary Committees, with
    obvious jurisdiction, need, for the sake of the American
    people, to see what it is that they are concealing. And we
    await those answers.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Oklahoma yields back.
        The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, thank you for your time today and your
    dedicated work. I'm going to speak fast.
        18 U.S.C. Section 793(f) reads in relevant part, as you
    know: Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession
    or control of any document or writing relating to the national
    defense, through gross negligence permits the same to be
    removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone
    in violation of his trust, shall be fined under this title or
    imprisoned for not more than 10 years or both.
        Isn't it true that Director Comey's initial draft
    statement, which he shared with FBI senior leadership,
    criticized Clinton's handling of classified information as,
    quote, ``grossly negligent''?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. And according to your report,
    Lisa Page is identified as the person who raised concerns about
    the term ``gross negligence'' in that draft statement, and it
    was later replaced with the phrase, quote, ``extremely
    careless.'' Is that right?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Isn't it true that ``gross
    negligence'' is a legal term with criminal implications, while
    ``extremely careless'' is a subjective term with no criminal
    implications?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I want to pick up on what
    Chairman Gowdy asked you a few moments ago. You've said a
    couple times today the focus in this particular investigation
    was on actual knowledge. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. The problem I have and the real
    question here is that that's not a standard of focus or an
    interpretation that's provided in the express language of the
    operative statute. Isn't that right?
        Mr. Horowitz. That is correct. And when I say this
    investigation, it obviously means the Department's Midyear
    investigation, not our review.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Right. And so the Department used
    this application of the statute, there's no express language in
    the statute to give them that authority. The question is, where
    did that come from? By what authority did these investigators
    unilaterally decide to employ an actual knowledge standard in
    interpreting the statute?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, as we looked at their--at the written
    evidence, the documents, and then interviewing the prosecutors,
    they describe their rationale for interpreting the statute that
    way as both a legal consideration, because of concerns over
    whether a prosecution would be upheld if it was successful, and
    their belief that, based on the legislative history of the
    statute, it required something more than gross--pure gross
    negligence, and the statute's absence of a definition of gross
    negligence.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. And was there any precedent,
    specific precedent for them to do that?
        Mr. Horowitz. They were relying on prior Department
    precedents. In other words, how the Department they believed
    interpreted the statute over time.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me move on.
        Of course, everyone in America now knows the sordid history
    and the infamous text messages between FBI agents Peter Strzok
    and Lisa Page, including the August 8, 2016, exchange where
    Strzok assured Ms. Page that they would, quote, stop the
    election of Donald Trump.
        Isn't it reasonable to conclude that criminal charges
    brought against Mr. Trump's opponent, Hillary Clinton, would
    hurt her campaign and thus potentially help Donald Trump to be
    elected?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think that's probably a given I might have
    to think a little bit about.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. A matter of common sense, right?
    And wouldn't it--and wouldn't that outcome be the opposite of
    what Strzok promised his paramour in those text messages that
    we've all seen now?
        Mr. Horowitz. I guess so, though, frankly, I haven't
    stepped back and thought about and, frankly, haven't focused on
    what the implications of it ultimately could be as it played
    out. Just sort of as it was, it was problematic.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, the American people have,
    and many Americans would logically conclude that this political
    bias directly affected specific investigative decisions and
    judgment calls. But we'll disagree about that.
        I'm running out of time. I want to get to something that's
    very personal for you.
        By all accounts, you're an American patriot. You're an
    esteemed and trusted public servant. We thank you for that
    service.
        Let me ask you this personal question. Is the American
    people's trust in our justice system and the people's faith in
    our institutions important to you as an individual?
        Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. And do you believe those things
    are important to our Republic as a whole?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. In your important role at DOJ, do
    you believe you have a personal duty to help guard the
    integrity of and maintain the people's faith in our
    institutions?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Let me ask you this very
    important question then, based on that. If your report had
    concluded that the evidence showed that improper
    considerations, including political bias of FBI agents, did
    directly affect specific investigative decisions, do you think
    that would have risked eroding the American people's trust in
    our justice system and the people's faith in our institutions?
        Mr. Horowitz. It could have had I guess even--it could have
    had a greater impact. I think this has an impact, standing
    alone.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. But Does it--would you agree that
    it stands to reason that a man in your position might be
    tempted to rationalize a report that political bias did not
    affect the Clinton investigation as somehow serving the greater
    good of not completely undermining the country's faith in our
    FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. Look, I look at this evidence and my team
    looks at this evidence based on our judgments, our best
    judgments on this. We don't pull our punches because of
    concerns over how it'll seem or appear. I think anybody who
    tells me that having just completed an investigation where I
    called the former FBI Director insubordinate and issued a
    report about the deputy director lying under oath, I don't
    think anybody can accuse us of pulling our punches on that.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Could you at least see--I'm out
    of time--could you at least see how reasonable people might
    reach a different conclusion, though?
        Mr. Horowitz. As I said in my opening, Congressman, the
    purpose of laying out this in 500-plus pages is precisely so
    the American public, who are the people who I serve, we all
    serve, can make their own judgments. And people will agree or
    disagree. We've done our best to put our judgment on it. I
    would just assure everybody we didn't pull any punches on it.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I appreciate your service.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Louisiana yields back.
        The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
        What a long day, Mr. Horowitz. Thank you for your patience.
        You know, following up on the gentleman from Louisiana's
    style of questioning as well as content, would it be fair to
    conclude by the American people that a hearing such as this is
    designed to discredit an ongoing investigation, criminal
    investigation by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, and using
    your report to do that? Might that be something?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not going to speculate----
        Mr. Connolly. Of course, you're not.
        Mr. Horowitz. --on anybody's intent.
        Mr. Connolly. Of course, you're not. But that kind of
    leading question deserves a leading question in return.
        One suspects, sitting here, that we're up to no good. Two
    committees with a big hearing to try to prove that there was
    such unbelievable bias within the FBI, political bias, that it
    taints everything they're doing.
        And I look at your conclusion. You say there are many
    lessons to be learned from the Department and the FBI's
    handling of the Midyear investigation, but among the most
    important is the need to respect the institutions' hierarchy
    and structure and to follow established policies, procedures,
    and norms even in the highest profile and most challenging
    investigations. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That is correct.
        Mr. Connolly. Is it established policy, Mr. Horowitz, DOJ
    policy, to disband an investigation, an ongoing investigation,
    because, say, somebody's personal lawyer says it's an
    investigation that will be cleared up with a pardon?
        Mr. Horowitz. No policy in the Department.
        Mr. Connolly. There's no such policy?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Connolly. In fact, that would be bad policy, would it
    not?
        Mr. Horowitz. That would not be good policy.
        Mr. Connolly. Is it established Department of Justice
    policy to disband an investigation because, let's say, the
    subject or one of the potential subjects of the investigation
    calls it a witch hunt?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think, as the Director said yesterday
    during our Senate hearing, that that decision is made solely by
    the FBI.
        Mr. Connolly. Is it established Department of Justice
    policy to disband an ongoing criminal investigation because a
    high-level government official says it's time to wrap it up?
        Mr. Horowitz. Not unless it's someone who has authority
    over it and has made that conclusion that it's reasonable,
    based on the facts and the law.
        Mr. Connolly. So I take your report to basically say we
    have to return to a normal process and allow investigations to
    work their will, but we can't infect them with bias.
        I thought I read in your report, despite hours of hearings
    here, with 76 Members, I thought your report concluded that in
    the conclusion with respect to Secretary Clinton's emails you
    did not detect any evidence of the effect of bias in that
    conclusion?
        Mr. Horowitz. On the conclusion of the prosecutors on
    whether or not to charge.
        Mr. Connolly. Right. Right. So despite all this Sturm und
    Drang, there's no evidence that a bias influenced that
    conclusion.
        Mr. Horowitz. The prosecutor's conclusion, correct.
        Mr. Connolly. Hmm. By the way, I remember Mr. Nadler a
    little earlier asking about the--because we're hearing so much
    about two particular FBI agents who favored, apparently,
    Hillary Clinton or at least did not like Mr. Trump--a lot of us
    join in that sentiment--but are you aware of any FBI agents
    who, in fact, loved Mr. Trump and didn't like Mrs. Clinton?
        Mr. Horowitz. We looked at the team that worked on this
    investigation and the Clinton email investigation and we
    reported what we found in terms of biased texts.
        Mr. Connolly. Did anyone ever refer you to, say, the New
    York field office of the FBI?
        Mr. Horowitz. There were comments made by the FBI general
    counsel about his understanding of the view of agents in the
    New York field office.
        Mr. Connolly. My time is almost up. There are a lot of
    people who believe the New York office had profound bias that
    was anti-Clinton that actually influenced Mr. Comey's thinking.
        I just wish the fervor shown here was reflected in our
    willingness to look objectively at other needs for
    investigation, especially with respect to Cabinet members in
    the current administration. I believe we now have over 50
    subpoena requests in my committee to the chairman, none of
    which have been issued. I wish we had in-depth hearings with
    respect to potential corruption and ethical lapses by members
    of the Cabinet, but we haven't done that.
        But we are going to spend a joint committee hearing, full
    committee, looking in the past at something that's already been
    adjudicated.
        I want to thank you, Mr. Horowitz, and your colleagues for
    a fine piece of professional work, and I hope it doesn't get
    distorted through this process.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields back.
        The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
        Mr. Grothman.Okay. We've already spent a lot of time on Mr.
    Strzok and Ms. Page, but they have obviously said things that
    you would consider that they had a strong bias towards Ms.
    Clinton becoming President, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. We were concerned about their biased
    statements, yes.
        Mr. Grothman. Oh, and by the way, if something happens or
    they make decisions that favor Ms. Clinton and they have talked
    about bias towards Ms. Clinton, you will not say that it has
    necessarily affected their decision, correct? You will give
    them the benefit of the doubt in your paper?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know if it's right to say we give
    them the benefit of the doubt as opposed to we would go and
    look for the evidence to see if we could find evidence of bias.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. But if they make a decision that
    happens to favor Ms. Clinton or happens to hurt Mr. Trump, you
    do not by itself say that's an indication of bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I would say that with regard to the
    October decision to not prioritize the Weiner laptop and
    prioritize the Russia investigation, we reached the
    determination we were concerned that it could have evidenced
    bias.
        Mr. Grothman.Okay. Now, there were five other people that
    you mentioned specifically in the report that apparently said
    things that would indicate they either did not like Mr.--they
    did not like Mr. Trump, correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. Three others plus the two of them. Five
    total.
        Mr. Grothman. So a total of five. Did you find anybody else
    in any of the emails you looked at throughout the
    investigation, even minor bit players, that would indicate
    political bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, we saw in various messages sort of
    discussions that are--that were tangential, in our view, to the
    events. And so I can't sit here and I have to check to see
    which side everybody was on and who they spoke about, but
    nothing that we thought connected in any way----
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. But there were other comments on the
    election?
        Mr. Horowitz. There's going to be people making comments.
        Mr. Grothman. Comments. Of course, they're going to make
    comments.
        Mr. Horowitz. So that's--I'm just hesitant to say----
        Mr. Grothman. It would seem to me in this environment it
    would stick in your mind if anybody happened to make a comment
    indicating they wanted President Trump to win. Do you ever
    remember any comments like that from any of these emails?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't remember anything as I sit here.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. Several of these people were involved
    in more than one investigation, which kind of concerns me. Was
    it a coincidence that people who had an anti-Trump bias wound
    up in two separate investigations or three separate
    investigations?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, what we describe here is the decision
    was made in July after the Clinton investigation was closed in
    Director Comey's announcement and the Attorney General's
    announcement when the Russia matter opened to take some of
    those same members and put them on that next investigation,
    which we state is from a management standpoint something we
    would be--thought was a concerning decision.
        Mr. Grothman. Was it a coincidence, though, they happened
    to be Clinton partisans? I guess that's my concern. Of all
    these seas of FBI people, and we're told they're so
    professional, is it a coincidence that people who have so
    brazenly expressed anti-Trump sentiment would wind up on these
    two key political investigations?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, just keep in mind these texts aren't
    discovered until 2017 when we start our review. So----
        Mr. Grothman. Right. I understand that. But would you think
    it was--it hits me as unusual, given the huge volume of work
    the FBI has to do, that these clearly anti-Trump people wound
    up on these two politically charged investigations. No?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know exactly how they ended up on the
    other investigation--other than Mr. Strzok was at the time the
    deputy assistant director of counterintelligence. So----
        Mr. Grothman. Are you investigating the Russian
    investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. We are now looking at, in light of the
    referrals we've had over the last several months, the question
    about the FISA issues that were referred to us as well as the
    campaign-related questions that have been referred to us.
        Mr. Grothman. Okay. But you're not prepared yet to talk
    about any information on political bias?
        Mr. Horowitz. No. It would certainly be premature. We're
    still investigating it, for the very reasons that people have
    expressed concern about the--you know, the----
        Mr. Grothman. I'll give you a broader question, which
    involves not just this investigation but the whole what we'll
    call the swamp. I don't mean this to be a partisan thing,
    because this was an unusual Presidential election. It wasn't
    really a Republican versus Democrat election, it was kind of a
    swamp versus nonswamp, because a lot of the Republicans I don't
    think wanted Mr. Trump to win either, because they were kind of
    wedded to the swamp.
        When I look at the voting results in the District of
    Columbia and surrounding areas, I see--I think the whole
    country in general was about half Clinton, half Trump. But you
    look at Montgomery County, 19 percent Trump; Alexandria County,
    17 percent; Arlington County, 16 percent; Prince George's
    County, 8 percent; District of Columbia, 4 percent.
        We're living in an area here which is just so out of whack
    with the rest of the country, you know, so right across the
    board that it's hard to believe.
        Are we in a situation here in which not just with regard to
    the FBI, but other Federal agencies as well, we have to worry
    that political bias may creep into decision making?
        And my constituents are worried, IRS, EPA, everything, that
    if it's known that they are supporters or people who want to
    reduce the swamp, that these agencies may come after them. Is
    this a--should be an overriding concern of people living in
    this rather unusual area here?
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman is out of time, but you may
    answer the question.
        Mr. Horowitz. I mentioned, Congressman, I think what's so
    concerning about this and these texts is because it creates
    that appearance and, rightfully so, that concern. You know, the
    Justice Department and the FBI has offices in every part of
    this country. Some parts of the country have voting records one
    way, some have the other way.
        When you show up in an office and you work for the Justice
    Department, you work for the FBI, it doesn't matter whether
    you're in a red State, a blue State, a purple State, a red
    district, a green district, it should have zero bearing. You
    walk in that door, if you can't be a professional and walk in
    that door and do your job, you got to get a different job.
    That's what it's all about.
        And I've seen commentators write about this, and I had a
    colleague in Southern District of New York who's written about
    this. We went to the office, and I didn't know what my
    colleagues' political views were. I just knew they cared about
    investigating the heck out of the case. And if someone deserved
    to be charged, they were charged; and if someone deserved to be
    convicted, they brought the case to the courtroom to see if
    they could--to see what the jury would decide.
        And that's what the Justice Department's about. And if you
    can't walk in the door and leave your views behind, you got to
    get a different job.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Arizona is recognized.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It was reported that on May 15 you completed a draft of the
    report that we're discussing today and then you circulated all
    of it or portions of it to various individuals: Mr. Comey,
    McCabe, Loretta Lynch, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok. Were there
    others that received portions of that draft?
        Mr. Horowitz. So individuals who provided voluntary
    testimony whose conduct is critiqued in here, as a matter of
    fairness--and we do this in every single review we do. We
    changed no practices here. We give them a chance to come in, as
    a matter of fairness, to tell us if they think we got it wrong
    or to give us additional evidence if they think we missed
    something. And that's what we do.
        Mr. Biggs. Right. So I appreciate that. You testified to
    that earlier today. So I'm wondering did you give it to anyone
    else other than those people I just named?
        Mr. Horowitz. We--yes.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay.
        Mr. Horowitz. So any--the individuals in here who you see
    whose conduct was critiqued, we would give it to them and, as a
    matter of course--every IG does this--you give it to the
    Department and the----
        Mr. Biggs. Sure. And that would be like--so you gave it
    to--and I don't mean to interrupt, but we only have 5 minutes.
    I've been waiting for hours. You've been very good here being
    many hours, but you've got to at least talk and I haven't got
    to do that until just now, and I live to talk.
        So I guess what I'm asking is, did you give it to
    Prosecutor 1, Agent 1? They all got it, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Biggs. So did they respond?
        Mr. Horowitz. Some did, some didn't.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay. And I guess my question at this point is,
    we've sent you a letter asking for copies of the original
    draft, any alterations made, edits, red lines. And I hope that
    we can get that from you.
        I want to go to--is there a chance we're going to get any
    of that information from you?
        Mr. Horowitz. What I'd like to do is, as we normally do and
    I like to do, is engage with you and----
        Mr. Biggs. Perfect.
        Mr. Horowitz. --the committee about it. I understand the
    concern. I want to talk it through with you and the other
    Members who signed the letter and the chairs and the ranking
    member and have a candid discussion about it.
        Mr. Biggs. Love to do that. We can do that offline.
        Mr. Horowitz. Absolutely.
        Mr. Biggs. Yeah. Great. Thank you.
        So you testified earlier this morning when Mr. Jordan from
    Ohio first questioned you--he took several hits at you. You
    must have felt like a pinata. Don't feel bad.
        Mr. Horowitz. Not at all.
        Mr. Biggs. I get that all the time. That Peter Strzok led
    the Hillary Rodham Clinton--the investigation into her emails.
    Do you remember saying that?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay. Then on page 148 of your report you
    mentioned the critical roles that both Strzok and Page played
    in most of the decisions made by the FBI, right?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Biggs. Fair statement?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Biggs. And so Lisa Page's duty was she was advising the
    deputy director, Andrew McCabe, legally, and from reading this,
    I get the impression that on a lot more than legal. She's
    giving perhaps even some strategic information and advice, as
    well, and counsel.
        And as you just said, Mr. Strzok, he basically led the
    investigation and he was acting in some ways, through that
    chart of order, he's kind of--he's kind of the liaison between
    all the other analysts and the decision-makers. But he is kind
    of in the decision-maker, because he's always there with the
    decisionmaking body. He's giving inputs. And that's what I want
    to talk about today.
        We're talking about--we've been talking about bias a lot.
    And everybody walks in with bias and you have to be able to set
    it aside. But in this particular thing the output, the output,
    and the way you phrased it, and you've been very careful as
    you've answered today, and in this report you said it didn't--
    the bias of these people did not directly affect the outcome.
    But I'm here to suggest to you that inputs affect outcomes. The
    outputs come on.
        So when you have this very notion of these people, for all
    we know, they're filtering information, we don't know anything
    really what's going on in the decisionmaking process, you can't
    recreate it, but we know that there's certain outputs, and
    those outputs point to Hillary Clinton's not going to be
    charged.
        The biases that are reflected by these two people who have
    extraordinary inputs seems to indicate that they could have
    impacted those outputs. Am I wrong on that? I mean, I view what
    you've said here. So what I want to say is, could they have
    indirectly affected the outcome here?
        Mr. Horowitz. It could have, and we don't rule it out. And,
    frankly, I think what you have a right to expect from us is
    this kind of report laying out the facts, so that you and every
    Member and every person in this country can make their own
    assessment.
        Mr. Biggs. Well, I will say in my last minute, in my last
    second, that you've written a report that the other folks that
    disagree with me will say that, see, there was no bias here,
    you know, if there was any bias, it was against Hillary
    Clinton.
        And people on my side look at it and say, you've got people
    working here at the highest levels who appear to have been
    controlling the inputs that are going into the decisionmaking
    process, and that indicates that the ultimate output may,
    indeed, have been biased.
        Thank you. I have no further time.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Arizona yields back.
        The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General, let me paint a little picture of the FBI that I
    knew for many years, and I think most would agree. They are the
    premier law enforcement agency not just in the United States,
    but I think most likely in the world. Would you agree with
    that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think they're viewed--and I'll say one of,
    because we oversee other law enforcement agencies at the
    Justice Department.
        Mr. Rutherford. Okay. I'll let you off the hook on that
    one.
        But also that Mr. Strzok, who's risen to a very high level
    within that organization, has to be a premier agent within the
    premier agency, the FBI.
        Mr. Horowitz. That's certainly what we were told.
        Mr. Rutherford. Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Horowitz. Yes.
        Mr. Rutherford. And so--and, in fact, I don't know that the
    FBI, at least in the 40 years that I've been in law
    enforcement, ever conducted an investigation that brought the
    integrity of the agency and the investigative process under
    such scrutiny and questioning of the integrity of the agency.
    Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Horowitz. It certainly has brought incredible scrutiny
    and undercut the credibility of the organization in a way that
    is unfair to all these thousands of agents out there.
        Mr. Rutherford. Exactly. I've never seen anything like it.
    And in fact even Agent Strzok, I don't know of anything in his
    past that ever questioned his integrity and his service to the
    FBI or his country. Do you?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not aware of anything.
        Mr. Rutherford. So when I look at your report and then you
    outline several investigative and prosecutorial missteps in
    this particular case--and I'll read just a few of them for you.
    This is from Roman numeral I in the summary:
        The preference for consent over compulsory process to
    obtain evidence; decision not to obtain or to seek to review
    certain evidence, such as the personal devices used by
    Secretary Clinton's senior aides; the use of voluntary
    witnesses over these interviews; quote, ``decisions to enter
    into 'Letter Use' or 'Queen for a Day' immunity agreements with
    three witnesses,'' some of which I think might have been
    potential targets as well, had the potential anyway; the use of
    consent agreements and active production immunity to obtain the
    laptops used by Clinton's attorneys, Cheryl Mills and Heather
    Samuelson, to cull her personal and work-related emails; the
    handling of the Clinton interview on July 2; the tarmac
    meeting; the Midyear Exam delay in looking into the Anthony
    Weiner laptop situation; Director Comey's drafting of an
    exoneration letter in May.
        So my question is, when you look at these things in their
    totality--you look at them individually, you may not--you may
    not see much. But you know in a civil rights prosecution, you
    look at patterns or practices, it will overcome any written
    policy that they may be presenting. And all a plaintiff has to
    do is show a pattern or practice to overcome a defense by an
    organization that, you know, we have this policy against, you
    know.
        So when you say that you found political bias but it had no
    effect on the investigation, it seems to negate this pattern or
    practice that clearly existed in this investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz. I just--I want to say we didn't find that it
    didn't have any impact on the investigation. We couldn't
    possibly have looked at all these decisions, as you said, that
    covered all this period of time. What we found was focused on
    the individual investigations.
        And I think what's important for people to understand is
    our responsibility as an inspector general or as inspectors
    general in looking at these issues, not to say this was
    thorough or not thorough or the best choice or not the best
    choice or could have been done more aggressively or not, but
    we're looking at was there misconduct.
        Mr. Rutherford. Let me ask one more question very quickly.
    Have you ever seen a public relations campaign mounted
    surrounding an investigation like we saw here where there's a
    SAC conference so that the agency can pass down information on
    this case so that they can swat down, quote, swat down stories
    about it, and they even briefed retirees. Have you ever seen
    that before?
        Mr. Horowitz. It's a great question, Congressman, actually
    the first in yesterday's hearing and today who's asked about
    that portion of the report. And it doesn't directly affect this
    investigation, but for the reasons you indicated, I think we
    were concerned particularly in the context of when it was
    occurring, which was in October----
        Mr. Rutherford. Correct.
        Mr. Horowitz. --during the campaign.
        And in our view, you look at that and you say, you know
    what, when there's a campaign going on and either side
    commenting on this, the best place for the Justice Department
    to be is on the sidelines. The political debate will be the
    political debate. It might be fair; it might be unfair.
        But when you start doing that and sending out talking
    points across the country you might actually be encouraging
    people--maybe unintentionally, we didn't make an intent finding
    here--but maybe unintentionally encouraging people to, as you
    suggested, get the word out. Well, it may cause other people to
    want to speak who maybe don't agree with the talking points.
        And so that was one of the areas that we had concern about.
    And I appreciate you raising that, Congressman, because I----
        Mr. Rutherford. My time is up. I just can't figure out how
    Peter Strzok is still at the FBI.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good to see you, General Horowitz. I have a very high
    regard for you. And I think you know that.
        Your report states that various witnesses told you that the
    mishandling of classified information was a persistent practice
    at the State Department. And the State Department is so screwed
    up in the handling of classified information that if they had
    wanted to prosecute Secretary Clinton, that they would have had
    to prosecute 150 State Department people.
        Does that basically invalidate the statute?
        Mr. Horowitz. It doesn't. That's what they told us was one
    of their rationales though for it.
        Mr. Palmer. I don't know if you're going to allow me to do
    this with you, but I want to do this in regard to the statement
    of an insurance policy, okay? It's not in regard to the Russia
    probe. I know that's coming later. But, obviously, Andrew
    McCabe put Peter Strzok in charge of the Russia probe.
        Are you aware that Strzok went to London in July of 2016?
        Mr. Horowitz. I've learned of that through various public
    reports.
        Mr. Palmer. And I think it would be fair to say that McCabe
    approved that trip and approved the expenditures for that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the answer one way or the other.
        Mr. Palmer. I just wonder what other justification there
    could have been for a trip to London at that particular time
    other than the Russia probe? And what concerns me was that when
    he returned he almost immediately launched that probe. That
    McCabe, I think approved him going to London, he came back and
    he launched it.
        Do you think there's any possibility that Strzok had prior
    knowledge that Christopher Steele was assembling the dossier?
        Mr. Horowitz. You know, that's one of the issues we are--
    have been asked to look at, and so we're in the middle of that
    work on how that played out with regard to the FISA
    application.
        Mr. Palmer. And I'm glad that you made that point because I
    think another question I need to ask, was there any possibility
    that the dossier was at least part of Strzok's insurance
    policy? Because that statement came later, I believe.
        Mr. Horowitz. Right. The insurance policy statement came up
    on----
        Mr. Palmer. Well, here is what concerns me about it, is
    that you've got McCabe, whose wife received almost $700,00 in
    campaign contributions from the Clintons. It was almost 40
    percent of her total campaign contributions. And obviously
    there was a very strong relationship. McCabe put Strzok in
    charge of this. He either sent Strzok to London or allowed him
    to go or approved it.
        Do you think that either of them had knowledge that the
    Clinton campaign paid for the dossier?
        Mr. Horowitz. I don't know the answer to that as I sit
    here, but that, you know, is something that is part of the
    review that we're doing. It will be touched on in terms of the
    dossier.
        Mr. Palmer. Well, and I appreciate that. I look forward to
    reading that report. And I understand, you know, what you're
    trying to do.
        But let me ask you this in regard to bias. And I want to be
    maybe the one guy that doesn't go over time today.
        All things being equal, if someone said they thought that
    another inspector general would be more qualified than you to
    do this investigation, I think we'd both agree that there was
    some bias involved there. It might be qualified. It might be
    justified. But there would be some bias there that they
    preferred someone else over you, okay.
        But if that same person called you and your colleagues
    pieces of crap, and that's not what they--the word they used--
    or repeatedly referred to you as loathsome or an idiot, awful,
    used the F word in regard to you, referred to your team as
    retarded, crazies, or, as Mrs. Clinton said, deplorables, I
    think that would go beyond bias. I think you might even
    consider that extreme prejudice or maybe even extreme animus.
        Would you agree with that?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think, you know, as we've talked about when
    we----
        Mr. Palmer. I'm just asking this, you know, hypothetically.
    If I were responsible for the job, the assignments you got, and
    I made comments privately like that about you that later became
    public, how would you feel about that?
        Mr. Horowitz. Oh, I think it certainly is evidence of a
    biased state of mind like we----
        Mr. Palmer. But it would indicate that I had made a
    determination that I was going to prevent you from advancing
    your career. I just would ask you, would you have any
    confidence that you would be treated fairly under those
    circumstances?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think I'd have--you'd have reason for
    concern, and it is precisely why this is so problematic.
        Mr. Palmer. And especially if it were persistent, right to
    the very end.
        Mr. Horowitz. That's right.
        Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Alabama yields back.
        The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.
        Mrs. Handel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Horowitz, for being here.
        A January 14, 2016, letter from IG Charles McCullough
    discusses sworn declarations that dozens of Secretary Clinton's
    emails were top secret and special access program levels. This
    information, as you well know, is so sensitive that even for IG
    McCullough he had to get special clearance in order to even see
    them. Treating information like this improperly would almost
    certainly have resulted in serious consequences for just about
    anybody, not in this situation.
        The letter, this letter from IG McCullough, was out well
    before Comey changed the May memo language from, quote, ``gross
    negligence to extremely careless.'' And since we have a lot of
    viewers watching this, and we tend to in this committee, both
    of these committees, be very legalese, could you describe for
    everyone the difference between those two phrases?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, ``gross negligence'' is a legal term
    found in Section 793. Whereas, ``extremely careless'' is a
    nonlegal term to describe, as used here by former Director
    Comey, to describe what his characterization was of the
    conduct.
        Mrs. Handel. So did I hear you correctly that there's
    really nothing in the U.S. Code that deals with, quote,
    ``extreme carelessness'' or ``extremely careless'' when it
    comes to handling classified information?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mrs. Handel. Okay. So information classified at this level
    contains very critical information, critical to national
    security, protecting the identity of U.S. intelligence assets.
    Is it possible that Comey chose ``extremely careless'' or
    ``extreme carelessness'' precisely because of the fact that
    that phrase is not in the U.S. Code?
        Mr. Horowitz. In fact, that's what we were told, is the
    reason for the change was to take it from what was in the
    statute to something outside the statute.
        Mrs. Handel. Well, thank you. I think all of us on the
    committee and those watching appreciate that clarity.
        I want to follow up on something that Chairman Gowdy
    brought up earlier, and that has to do with the interview
    process.
        Secretary Clinton was voluntarily interviewed rather than
    appearing before the grand jury?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's correct.
        Mrs. Handel. Were Secretary Clinton's attorneys, Ms. Mills
    and Samuelson, I believe their names were, present for that
    interview?
        Mr. Horowitz. There were multiple lawyers present,
    including Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson.
        Mrs. Handel. Mills and Samuelson. Interesting.
        Were they not also witnesses in this investigation?
        Mr. Horowitz. They were.
        Mrs. Handel. It would strike me that's a little bit unusual
    to have witnesses a party to an interview with the subject of
    the investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz. Which is why we found that it was not
    consistent with normal investigative practice. And actually
    Director Comey--sorry, Director Wray yesterday also suggested
    that.
        Mrs. Handel. Was that interview recorded?
        Mr. Horowitz. It was not.
        Mrs. Handel. Why?
        Mr. Horowitz. The FBI, as a matter of its practice, does
    not record interviews of witnesses.
        Mrs. Handel. Is that one of your recommendations, to change
    that? I would hope so.
        Mr. Horowitz. We actually don't have that in a
    recommendation. That's been a subject of discussion for many,
    many years within the Justice Department.
        Mrs. Handel. So there was a written report?
        Mr. Horowitz. There was a written summary report of the
    interview.
        Mrs. Handel. Oh, so only a summary.
        So when I read your report, the IG report, that the
    decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton was essentially
    made prior to her interview, did I read that correctly?
        Mr. Horowitz. What we were told is absent a confession or a
    false statement, the plan was to close the investigation
    immediately after the interview.
        Mrs. Handel. So if the decision not to prosecute was
    largely made prior to even talking to her, how could it--and
    there's been all of the discussion today about whether or not
    she had willful knowledge of intent--how could anybody even
    know if she had willful intent or knowledge if they didn't talk
    with her before they made the decision?
        And then secondly, with the conversation and what we now
    know is the very extreme bias, particularly of Strzok and
    several other agents who, as I read the report, were part of
    that investigation, how can anyone really be sure that there
    wasn't bias in the way that interview was conducted when it
    went to the prosecutorial decision?
        Mr. Horowitz. And what we went and looked at was the
    summary and the preparation that went into the interview to see
    whether the questions that were intended to be asked were in
    fact asked.
        During that, in terms of whether individuals who were in
    the room were biased or expressed biased----
        Mrs. Handel. You would have absolutely no idea.
        Mr. Horowitz. We wouldn't know one way or the other.
    Although, I would, you know, say, you know, Mr. Strzok was in
    the room, but not one of the questioners, and we had concerns
    about his text messages. And one of the two questioners was one
    of the other three individuals we've referenced here with
    problematic text messages.
        Mrs. Handel. Very disturbing.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentlelady yields back.
        The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized.
        Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairman Gowdy.
        Mr. Horowitz, I have a statement and then a quick question.
        I go home to Kentucky every weekend. And when I'm home I'm
    talking to a lot of people all across the State. My district is
    very vast, from one State to the other. When we're home during
    recess, I talk to a lot of people.
        The biggest complaint that I hear from the good,
    hardworking people in my congressional district in southern
    Kentucky is thedisgusting news that they've seen about the
    obvious bias from the FBI and from the investigators. And it
    leads in to people's minds exactly what the President has been
    saying, that this is a witch hunt. This is a witch hunt that
    every time they turn on the television there is news about the
    Russia investigation, very little news on certain media outlets
    about the things that obviously Hillary Clinton did that were
    illegal.
        The approval ratings for the FBI and the Department of
    Justice now, I would assume are at record lows, probably lower
    than Congress, and that's not very good.
        What steps must the FBI take to restore confidence, to
    eliminate the obvious political bias that was displayed by
    reading your report with the FBI in this investigation? What
    steps does the FBI need to take to eliminate, not reduce, but
    eliminate political bias in the agency?
        Because any time there's an investigation of any type--and
    one of the main items in the case is conversations with the
    FBI. And as Congresswoman Handel said, you don't record things
    in the FBI, it's your word. The word today isn't worth what it
    should be from the Nation's premier intelligence agency.
        So this is a very serious issue that is dividing America.
    It's really frustrating those of us on the Oversight Committee
    that have tried to find answers from an agency that, quite
    frankly, has not been transparent with the American public.
        What steps can the FBI take in the future to eliminate this
    and correct this problem and restore the confidence of America?
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, I think one of the things we've laid
    out here, we have nine recommendations in here on various
    systemic issues, but I think, as I said in my opening and as we
    say here, really getting back to core values and understanding
    and making sure that the organization at a leadership level and
    at a senior level across the organization understands the
    principles and the norms and follows them.
        And, again, I will say, having been an AUSA, obviously it
    was many years ago now, but I don't think what occurred here
    represents what thousands of agents would do in terms of their
    political views or other biases they may have. They understand
    they may have views, but they understand when they go to work
    those views stay behind.
        And that's what, at a core level, that's what really has to
    happen, because it is why these kinds of text messages are so
    corrosive. It's because people see them and they say, how can
    someone be an FBI agent who has these views?
        It happens in civil rights cases. How can people have views
    we sometimes see when you look at their messages about the
    people they're investigating. It can't happen?
        Mr. Comer. Well, when you have an agency that has a black
    eye, whether it is the VA or the FBI, I think the best decision
    a leader could do is change leadership.
        I support what President Trump did in firing Comey. I think
    that was the right decision. And hopefully, with your report
    and with the work of Congress, we can work to restore the
    confidence of the American public in the FBI and the Department
    of Justice.
        And Mr. Chairman, I have about a minute left. I would like
    to yield my time to my friend Mark Meadows.
        Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Horowitz, I want to come back to something we talked
    about earlier, the disclosure of FBI Attorney 1 and FBI
    Attorney 2. And you said, I think I'm correct, that they did
    not want that divulged because they actually worked in
    counterintelligence. Is that correct?
        Mr. Horowitz. That's what we were told by the FBI.
        Mr. Meadows. Okay. But you know who the people are?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Meadows. And I would say, based on your report, I know
    who they are. And what I guess I'm concerned about is you know
    that they don't work for the counterintelligence division.
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, two of the agents do.
        Mr. Meadows. Agents. I'm talking about attorneys.
        Mr. Horowitz. There's one lawyer who is in here. So there
    are five people total.
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. Page, Strzok, two other agents.
        Mr. Meadows. But you had a dialogue between FBI Attorney 1
    and Attorney 2?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Meadows. And those two attorneys, do they not work for
    Trish Anderson?
        Mr. Horowitz. Those two attorneys work in the Office of
    General Counsel----
        Mr. Meadows. Yeah. And so would one of those attorneys be
    Sally Moyer?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm going to defer to what the----
        Mr. Meadows. But they don't work in counterintelligence. I
    mean, if that's the reason the FBI is giving, they're giving
    you false information because they work for the general
    counsel.
        Mr. Horowitz. Well, let me just add, they were talking
    about----
        Mr. Meadows. Is the other one Kevin Kleinsman?
        Mr. Horowitz. They were talking about the other attorney
    there that we have their text messages in here----
        Mr. Meadows. Right.
        Mr. Horowitz. --that they were concerned about, along with
    the other two. I'm not here to articulate the FBI's interest.
    We oversee the FBI----
        Mr. Meadows. Well, we're going to get to the bottom of it,
    like Mr. Comer was talking about.
        And I think the other thing that I would ask you to look
    into, there is growing evidence that 302s were edited and
    changed. And it gets back to what Mrs. Handel said in terms of
    those particular interview sessions. And those 302s, it is
    suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not
    prosecute individuals, and that is very troubling.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz. If I could just mention, we have been getting
    those kind of referrals. And as often happens when we issue
    reports like this, we get other information coming to us, and
    we're intending to follow up on that.
        But I just want to reassure you and the committee, I'm here
    to let you know what we're being told by the FBI is their
    concerns. Obviously, Director Wray and the leadership of the
    FBI and ourselves, I'm certainly not looking to step aside on
    this, but it is their interests that need to be articulated to
    the committee.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from North Carolina yields
    back.
        The gentleman, Mr. Rothfus, is recognized.
        Mr. Rothfus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Inspector, for being here this afternoon and
    all day here.
        You identified a lot of devices that were part of the
    investigation in your report, the different servers and
    personal devices.
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct.
        Mr. Rothfus. In your investigation, did you review whether
    those conducting the Midyear investigation searched for emails
    with the Clintonemail.com route on databases that held data
    collected pursuant to FISA?
        Mr. Horowitz. I'm not sure as I sit here, but I can
    certainly get back to you promptly on that.
        Mr. Rothfus. Yeah. I'd like to know that.
        Page 186 of the report, when discussing the topic of
    whether the FBI would have a separate announcement from the DOJ
    about the declination to prosecute, Director Comey said the FBI
    was in the middle of a 500-year flood.
        And the quote here is, quote: I mean, to my mind, it was a
    crazy idea, but we were in a 500-year flood. As you all have
    now investigated enough and lived enough to know, that this is
    a circumstance that has never happened before, we're criminally
    investigating one of the candidates for President of the United
    States. President Obama's comments obviously weighed on me as
    well. You've got the President who has already said there's no
    ``there'' there. So all of that creates a situation where how
    do you get out of this without grievous damage to the
    institution.
        Reading this sounds as though Director Comey, his decision
    in this context of having a separate statement, was imbued with
    political considerations, does it not?
        Mr. Horowitz. He was certainly speaking about the political
    perceptions that resulted from President Obama's comments and
    other actions he was concerned with.
        Mr. Rothfus. Well, he was considering matters just beyond
    facts, was he?
        Mr. Horowitz. Correct. Correct.
        Mr. Rothfus. And he was considering how in his own
    subjective view that the FBI was going to be viewed in response
    to this investigation.
        Mr. Horowitz. Agreed.
        Mr. Rothfus. And the same would hold true not just for his
    July 5 press conference but his October 28th letter?
        Mr. Horowitz. Agreed.
        Mr. Rothfus. You wonder how the FBI gets to a point where
    there's a 500-year flood. You know, I represent Johnstown,
    Pennsylvania, and they had a horrific flood back in 1889. And
    there was a big rainstorm before that flood, but there were
    things going on years before. And if you read David
    McCullough's book about the flood, you understand that things
    were going on before.
        And to understand this in context, we're here today because
    you had the third-highest official in the executive branch
    decide to conduct official business on a private server for
    whatever reason. And I read through this report and just see
    political consideration after political consideration.
        Isn't Mr. Comey's decision to usurp the authority of the
    Attorney General in order to protect the Bureau inherently a
    political decision?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think you can certainly view it that way.
        Mr. Rothfus. On Page 10, the report states that Mr. Comey's
    decisionmaking--his decisionmaking process made an implicit
    assumption that President Clinton would be President. Isn't
    that yet another example of politics playing a role here?
        Mr. Horowitz. It is certainly his reading the politics tea
    leaves, in his view.
        Mr. Rothfus. When Mr. Comey described Attorney General
    Lynch's presence imbued corrosive doubt into the entire
    process, doesn't this confirm the need for a special counsel in
    this investigation from the very beginning?
        Mr. Horowitz. I think if Director Comey's view was, as he
    laid out, the answer wasn't, I'm going to take over and
    announce the decision. The answer was, I'm going to go to the
    Attorney General, explain my concerns, and ask her to either
    recuse or get a special counsel.
        Mr. Rothfus. You know, going back over the years, and I
    talk about how the 500-year flood, things happening for years,
    and you look at everything that was circulating in, first, the
    Clinton administration and all the scandals that we saw then,
    and the continuing scandals.
        I remember the '96 campaign and the fundraising scandal
    there and Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung and Johnny Huang and
    Maria Hsia. And Louis Freeh was looking at that, the Director
    of the FBI, and he said: It is difficult to imagine at that
    time a more compelling situation for an independent counsel.
    But Janet Reno never appointed one.
        Why wasn't a special counsel ever appointed in this Clinton
    email investigation looking at Attorney General Lynch? Why is
    it that they never?
        Mr. Horowitz. We have explanations here as to why it was.
    Attorney General Lynch said she didn't think the standard was
    met and that there should be one applied. Director Comey
    essentially told us that he was using it as a leverage point to
    get the investigation moving as opposed to it actually being
    presented for serious consideration.
        Mr. Rothfus. But we see instance after instance where
    Director Comey was making political calculations.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman is out of time.
        Mr. Horowitz. I think the start, I'll go back to what we've
    talked about in here and what I talked about earlier.
        And as you referenced, it is easy to say there's a 500-year
    flood, but the reality is we're faced all the time with what
    people perceive to be unique circumstances. That doesn't mean
    you make various judgments along the way. In fact, I think many
    people would argue that's when it's most important to stay true
    to what the institution's values are, norms are, procedures
    are.
        And you're right, the right approach here, if there was a
    concern that the Attorney General could not fairly or by
    appearance decide this, the right response would have been for
    Director Comey to present that to the Attorney General and for
    her to make a decision. But she ultimately was the one who was
    politically accountable in our system of government for that
    final decision, not him.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        This concludes today's hearing. I'll recognize the
    gentleman from Virginia, then the gentleman from Maryland for
    any concluding remarks.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank Mr. Horowitz. It's been a long day. I think
    you're going on 7 hours here with very little respite from
    that. But I think you've handled yourself well and we very much
    appreciate that.
        You know, at the beginning of this hearing I posed the
    question, why should Americans care about what we're talking
    about here today?
        And, unfortunately, I think we heard from some of our
    members that we don't care about these emails anymore, we don't
    care about these GD emails and texts, I assume they're
    referring to as well, from Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.
        But I'd like everyone here to think about, what if the shoe
    was on their foot? What if high-ranking people in the Nation's
    most important law enforcement organization were talking about
    an investigation into them and they showed that kind of animus,
    that kind of bias in the process?
        You, Mr. Horowitz, have a number of times today made it
    very clear that you understand how important it is that the
    American people have the assurance that when it comes to the
    enforcement of our laws that justice is blind and that the
    guarantee of our Constitution of equality under the law for all
    people is fulfilled.
        I don't think we can say that here right now,
    unfortunately, about this very sorry circumstance. And we're
    going to continue to pursue this until we have the assurance
    that the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of
    Justice have cleaned house and are making the necessary changes
    to ensure that in the future, whether it is the 2020
    Presidential election or whether it's Jane Doe or Joe Smith's
    criminal investigation, that they will, indeed, experience
    equality under the law and the kind of extreme bias that we've
    seen in looking at some of the most prominent investigations in
    American history will not happen again.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman from Virginia yields.
        The gentleman from Maryland.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Horowitz, I want to thank you so much. I want to thank
    the ladies and gentlemen behind you and all of those who have
    had anything to do with pulling this report together.
        I want to thank you for the recommendations, because I
    think they go to the heart of the problem.
        You know, as I sit here and I think about life, you know,
    and I tell my constituents this, I tell them I wish there were
    not a Republican and a Democratic party. I wish I was not a,
    quote, ``politician.'' You know why? Because I think that when
    people hear us a lot of time, or hear me, they just assume that
    I'm saying things based upon political expediency or trying to
    help a party. My party.
        But there are certain things that are about--are bigger
    than party, like country and being a human being.
        And I think that when we talk about--you know, when I read
    your report and I looked at what you've done, it's the people
    like the ones that's sitting behind you that take an oath to do
    their very, very best and to be honest and to uphold the
    Constitution of our country. Those are the people that will
    keep our democracy together. And I say it with all of the
    sincerity I have in my heart.
        Everywhere I go, Mr. Horowitz, and I want you to understand
    this, I've never seen so many people scared. They're scared. I
    mean, American citizens scared. And they're scared of where our
    country is going.
        But I think what you have done here today, that is
    examining--first of all, bringing to the table integrity,
    bringing to the table integrity and honesty, and just calling
    it like it is.
        You may have come out with a report that I didn't like. I
    mean, there are certain things I saw in the report that didn't
    sit well with me. But you know what? I'm able to walk away from
    here believing that you all upheld your oath and your
    principles for honesty and integrity. Not about party. Not
    about gender. None of that. Not pro-Trump, against Trump,
    Republican, whatever. But integrity.
        And that integrity, and I tell my staff, that integrity
    will--you don't have to change from time to time. Whatever that
    integrity is and you meet that level, it's always going to be.
        So, you know, the thing I'm trying to get through to you is
    that I want you to continue to do what you're doing. Because
    the people like the people who are sitting behind you and you
    are the folk who are going to make sure that this democracy,
    which so often we take for granted, so often we forget that
    this democracy allows us to be the people that we are and to do
    the things that we do and allow us to be all that God meant for
    us to be.
        But it takes people with that high standard, those high
    standards, that no matter what happens, no matter where the
    wind may blow, no matter how difficult it may become, no matter
    how unpopular it may become--and by the way, that's where Comey
    made a mistake.
        Comey got so--this is my own personal opinion--he got so
    rattled by our Republican friends trying to get the 302s and
    all that, I think he buckled. That does not mean that he's not
    a good man. That means that he used poor judgment at that time.
        But, again, the democracy is held together by us, by
    people, determining that--and I'll close with this. I keep
    going back to something that Martin Luther King said, and I
    think about it all the time, when he talked about, and he's
    quoting another preacher, but he said: Silence can become
    betrayal. Silence can become betrayal. When you see something
    wrong, you've got to deal with it.
        And because if we don't, then we go down a slippery slope
    of betraying not only the people that we represent, all of us--
    and that includes, I'm just talking about all of us in
    government--not only do we betray them, but we betray
    generations yet unborn.
        And so, again, I thank you.
        And as to the FBI, you know, Strzok and Page and the other
    folks, they did some damage, ain't no doubt about it. No doubt
    about it. And I cannot get away from the questions that--the
    excellent questions that the chairman asked.
        But I believe in my heart--and I wanted to listen to your
    answers very carefully and how, you know, when you say that the
    problem originated with Comey's elevation and he got a little--
    he got off the track. I think the idea is that we have created
    a track through the practices of the DOJ that we've created a
    road, and all he had to do is stay on track and he would have
    been fine. He may have gotten battered a bit, but he would have
    been fine.
        And that's why the integrity issue becomes so significant.
    And so I'm just glad that we have people like you all who are
    able to come to the table. And yeah, you're going to catch some
    hell, probably, you already have. But you can stand, no matter
    what, and you can say we've looked at it, we gave it our best.
    You may not agree with us, but we believe in our hearts that
    this is--these are the right decisions. And I accept that.
        And with that, I thank you.
        Chairman Gowdy. The gentleman yields back.
        The hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks for any
    member on either committee to submit written opening statements
    for the record.
        I will just say this quickly. Mr. Horowitz, it has been a
    long day. There are many important and many would argue,
    including me, urgent issues facing our country today. Some of
    them have been alluded to today. But there is nothing more
    important and nothing is ever more urgent than us having
    confidence in our justice system.
        So I will apologize to no one for having a hearing on your
    report which takes a really hard look at some institutions we
    desperately need.
        And I'll say this as a compliment to you and your team. I
    was thinking over the weekend how much better off our country
    would be had you and your team conducted the investigation that
    is the subject of your report. And make no mistake, you and I
    probably would have reached some different conclusions as old,
    washed up prosecutors do from time to time. You can look at a
    fact pattern and draw different conclusions.
        I don't mind if people are wrong. I really mind if they're
    unfair. We can survive being wrong. We can survive calling jump
    balls differently. We're not going to make it if our system is
    perceived as being biased and unfair.
        So thank you for your work. I know it took a long time. But
    as you correctly noted, some of the information that my
    colleagues found most probative came towards the end. So it's a
    good thing that you did not succumb to all of our pressures and
    wrap this thing up before its natural chronology.
        And we wish you the same objectivity and fact-centricity
    that you showed in this investigation with the others. Our
    country, I think, is counting on you and your team to do in
    your subsequent investigations exactly what you've done in this
    one, which is just call balls and strikes. And people are
    welcome to draw different conclusions, but they're not entitled
    to their own version of the facts.
        With that, to you and your team, thank you.
        We're adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:10 p.m., the committees were adjourned.]