[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2024
__________
Serial No. 118-93
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
56-425 WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
MATT GAETZ, Florida Member
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona ZOE LOFGREN, California
TOM McCLINTOCK, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida Vacancy
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacancy
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AARON HILLER, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, July 24, 2024
MEMORIAL STATEMENTS
Page
Memorial statements for the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, former
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
Texas, from the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York; and the
Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 2
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 4
WITNESS
The Hon. Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the
Judiciary are listed below..................................... 97
QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD
Questions to the Hon. Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, submitted by the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald,
a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of
Wisconsin; the Honorable Barry Moore, a Member of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Alabama; the Honorable
Wesley Hunt, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from
the State of Texas; the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New
York; the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Tennessee; and the Honorable
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., a Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of Georgia, for the record
No response at time of the publishing
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
----------
Wednesday, July 24, 2024
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Gaetz,
Biggs, McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Bishop, Spartz,
Fitzgerald, Bentz, Cline, Armstrong, Gooden, Van Drew, Nehls,
Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Lee, Hunt, Fry, Rulli, Nadler, Lofgren,
Cohen, Johnson, Schiff, Swalwell, Jayapal, Correa, Scanlon,
Neguse, McBath, Dean, Ross, Ivey, and Balint.
Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Oversight of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to
lead us all in the pledge of allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Chair Jordan. I want to begin today's hearing by
recognizing the fact that we no longer have one of the great
Members with us, Sheila Jackson Lee, as we all know passed
away. She was a dedicated public servant. Her service on this
Committee spanned nearly three decades and included shepherding
through countless pieces of legislation. I said yesterday at
Subcommittee hearing that I don't know that there was any
Member of Congress who got more out of five minutes than Sheila
did. She was just a pleasant spirit who we all enjoyed and we
are thinking about her family. We all certainly will miss
Sheila.
I yield to the Ranking Member for comments.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this room in
our hearts feels a little emptier today to mourn the loss of
our dear friend colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee. In the nearly 30
years that I served with Sheila on the Judiciary Committee, I
witnessed her boundless energy, her courage, and her character
as she lent her voice in her legislative talents to nearly
every issue that came before this Committee. Whether it was
advocating for just and humane immigration reform, working to
protect voting rights and preserve our civil liberties, or
delving into the technical details of administrative law and
property, intellectual property, Sheila was always at the
forefront of our work.
Sheila made perhaps her greatest mark serving as the Chair
and later Ranking Member of the Crime Subcommittee. In this
role, she worked in a bipartisan fashion to re-authorize the
Violence Against Women Act and to protect victims of
trafficking among many other successes.
She was also a leader of such issues as sentencing reform,
gun safety, police accountability, and racial justice. Sheila
engaged in many spirited debates, but she always had the
deepest respect for all her colleagues, even though to whom she
vehemently disagreed. She deeply loved the institution of
Congress and particularly the Judiciary Committee because it
gave her platform to make a meaningful impact on the lives of
millions of Americans.
If Sheila took up a cause, she could be relentless in her
determination to see it through whether that meant making one
extra phone call, going to one more meeting, or frame one more
amendment, or making one more speech. She would not rest until
she thought she had done everything she could to fight for the
issues she cared about. Through it all, she stayed true to her
values and always had the people of Houston close to her heart.
We are all better for having known her. The American people
are better for having had her in their corner all these years.
I will deeply miss my friend and colleague. May her memory be a
blessing. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I want to thank the Ranking Member. Well
said. Now, the Chair will recognize himself for an opening
statement.
On July 13th it was a terrible day for America. We all
agree spirited debate, fighting for what you believe in, is
part of what makes this country the greatest nation in the
world. The First Amendment and robust political debate are not
consistent in any way with violence. What happened in Butler,
Pennsylvania, was a tragedy. It took the life of a good man,
Corey Comperatore, leaving a wife without a husband, and two
daughters without a father. Others were injured and of course,
former President Trump, by the grace of God, survived the
assassination attempt.
There are a lot of unanswered questions about the security
failures that day, questions about decisions made before the
rally, questions about actions during the rally, and questions
about statements made after the event concluded.
Prior to the rally, why was the President's security detail
denied requests for extra resources? Why weren't all the
buildings secured? There were a finite number of buildings that
needed to be secured. Why wasn't that done? Why was the
President allowed to walk out on the stage when there was a
suspicious person on the property?
During the rally, what exactly happened between 6:09 and
6:14 p.m., those critical five minutes? We know from briefings
from the Director and the Deputy Director of the FBI and other
information we have gathered, that at 6:09, the shooter was
identified on the roof. At 6:10, the counter sniper was
notified. Counter sniper teams were notified about the shooter.
At 6:11, the shooter fired several shots injuring and killing
one person, injuring others. At 6:12, the counter sniper took
down the shooter, and at 6:14, President Trump was escorted off
the stage by Secret Service agents. We need to know what
happened play by play, moment by moment, second by second, the
communications that took place, again, during that critical
five minutes.
Then, finally, after the rally, why did both the Secret
Service and Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas lie to the
American people? July 14th, the day after the attack, Secret
Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said this,
The assertion that a member of the former President's security
team requested additional security resources that the U.S.
Secret Service or the Department of Homeland Security rebuffed
is absolutely false.
The next day, Secretary Mayorkas said,
That is an unequivocally false assertion. We had not received
any requests for additional security measures that were
rebuffed.
Five days later, top officials repeatedly rejected requests
from Donald Trump's security detail for more personnel, and on
the 21st of July, The New York Times confirming what The
Washington Post reported said,
Mr. Guglielmi acknowledged that the Secret Service had turned
down requests for additional Federal security assets for Mr.
Trump's detail.
A 180+ change. Why did they initially lie to us in the days
after the attack in Pennsylvania?
Finally, we hope to learn more today from Director Wray
about the shooter, his use of the drone, the explosives that
were in his car, how he got on the roof, and a host of other
questions. It is our hope that Director Wray's testimony can
begin to get answers to the American people about all those
questions and concerns.
So, Director, we appreciate you being here, and we trust
that you are going to be as transparent with the Committee and
the country as you possibly can. I am sure you understand that
a significant portion of the country has a healthy skepticism
regarding the FBI's ability to conduct a fair, honest, open,
and transparent investigation. That skepticism is based on what
they have witnessed over the past several years. The American
people have seen a Biden-Harris Justice Department. They can't
tell us who planted the pipe bombs on January 6th. They can't
tell us who leaked the Dobbs opinion. They can't tell us who
put cocaine at the White House.
The Biden-Harris Justice Department who raided President
Trump's home, the Biden-Harris Justice Department who worked
with social media companies to censor Americans, the Biden-
Harris Justice Department who let the country believe that the
Hunter Biden laptop was misinformation when they knew at the
time it was authentic. Maybe most importantly, a Biden-Harris
Justice Department who retaliated against whistleblowers who
came to this Committee and spoke to us about these issues.
Last week, we sent you 12 questions about what occurred on
July 13th. We expect you to answer those questions and the
others that I have just outlined. Again, we thank you for being
here today and appreciate your willingness to answer the
questions that the Committee is going to have. With that, I
would yield to the Ranking Member for an opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, two weeks ago
our country witnessed the shocking assassination attempt on a
Presidential candidate. Now, I disagree with Donald Trump on
almost every policy area imaginable. I am frequently shocked
and outraged at the plans he has for our country and the words
that come out of his mouth. I have dedicated much of the last
eight years to fighting his agenda. Regardless of my strong
feelings about Donald Trump's behavior, I unequivocally and
unabashedly condemn with every fiber of my being the attempt
against his life. This is not just an attack on a man, but an
attack on our democracy.
Political violence erodes the very foundations of our
Nation. The concepts of freedom of speech, of peaceful
transitions of power, of a democratic government at its core,
these cannot exist if political violence is allowed to fester
and to go unchecked. If you think that this one assassin's
bullet was a bolt out of the blue, and not quite of a wave of
violence that has threatened this Nation for years, then you
have missed the point of what my Democratic colleagues and I
have been imploring you to hear for some time.
Election workers, many of them working for free, face near
constant threats of violence. In one recent instance in
Indiana, a man pleaded guilty to threatening to kill an
election worker who said that there were no irregularities in
the recent election. That man said, ``Ten million plus patriots
will surround you when you least expect it and will, expletive,
kill you.'' That is political violence.
In another instance, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi's husband
was bludgeoned over the head with a hammer by an intruder in
his home who had been there to capture Ms. Pelosi, interrogate
her, and possibly ``break her kneecaps'' because of her liberal
views. That is political violence.
The death threats surging against Vice President Harris,
former President Obama, his wife, Michelle, and Governor
DeSantis, as well as many others, including videos online of
individuals holding guns making assassination threats, that is
political violence. The plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen
Whitmer and overthrow parts of the State Government, that is
political violence. The brutal deadly attack three years
against this very building with rioters breaking through police
barriers, running through these halls chanting kill Nancy and
hang Mike Pence and even hanging a noose outside the building,
these rioters battering Capitol Police Officers and forcing the
Members of Congress and their staffs to go into hiding,
squatting in spaces under desks or in closets, that is
political violence.
This assassination attempt, as horrific as it is, should
surprise no one. You would think a political party that almost
lost their Presidential Candidate through an act of political
violence would have something to say about the way their
leaders keep talking about the next election. Donald Trump has
warned there will be a ``blood bath'' if he loses. The
Republican of Ohio State, Senator George Lang said just last
week at a rally for J.D. Vance that,
He is afraid that a civil war might be necessary if Republicans
lose the November election.
The President of the right-wing think tank and Project 2025
leader of the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, said on
Stephen Bannon's podcast,
We are in the process of the second American Revolution which
will remain bloodless if the left allows us to be.
Republican former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said in August of
last year of Trump's indictments,
You want us to be in civil war? Because that is what is going
to happen. We are not going to keep putting up with this. We do
need to rise up and take our country back.
I could go on, but it is more and more of the same and to
hear nothing from the other side of the aisle in this room
about these statements. You support a blood bath, if you don't
get the election outcome you want? You justify violence if the
left does not agree with you? What exactly has preoccupied this
Republican Majority where their allies threaten violence to
their political enemies, real and imagined?
We have chased down baseless conspiracy theories designed
solely to influence the 2024 election in favor of Donald Trump.
We have spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of
staff time and more than 100 transcribed interviews chasing
false accusations against President Biden supporting an
impeachment effort that seemed designed to fail and hunting for
a smoking gun that simply does not exist.
Instead of admitting that these investigations found no
corruption, coercion or unethical behavior for the Biden
Administration, Republicans chose to just dig deeper and spend
more money. Imagine what could have happened if we had spent
these thousands of hours of staff time and those millions of
taxpayer dollars addressing even one aspect of the political
violence that now threatens our country. Perhaps, had this
Republican majority lifted a finger to help a Nation that is
awash in guns, the assassin in Butler would not have had such
easy access to the weapon he used to fire on that crowd.
Director Wray, your agency is responsible for addressing
some of the most serious issues of our time. The Bureau fights
gun violence which claims the lives of 40,000 Americans every
year. It protects election security from growing threats from
malign foreign actors who are working tirelessly to influence
our elections. It protects against domestic terrorists and
violent extremists who have been a growing threat in recent
years and have carried out horrific mass shootings and deadly
events around the country and so, so much more.
I apologize to you, Director, that instead of supporting
you in these missions in the 118th Congress, some of my
colleagues have instead hindered your work, maligned your
agents, and called to abolish and defund your agency, all for
political gain. It is despicable, especially from the party
that claims to ``back the blue.'' I know that you and your many
agents and employees have paid the price to these baseless
attacks. I know you have faced a barrage of threats, distrust,
and vitriol from the public as a result of these wild,
politically driven conspiracies. I know it has become even more
dangerous and difficult for you to come to work each day. I may
not agree with you on everything, but I sincerely thank you and
every employee in your agency who continues to protect our
country.
The FBI is vital to keeping America safe and I pray that
today we can focus on the real, substantive work of the agency.
It is the least we owe our country in these times. I yield
back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Without objection,
all other opening statements will be included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witness.
The Honorable Christopher Wray has been the Director of the
FBI since 2017. He previously served as the Assistant Attorney
General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice,
the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Associate
Deputy Attorney General, and as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of Georgia. Again, Director Wray, you have
been here many times. We appreciate you being here today. We
look forward to your testimony and answering our questions.
We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and
raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm under penalty of
perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and
correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief
so help you God?
Let the record reflect that the witness has answered in the
affirmative. Thank you. Please be seated. We have votes coming
in about 10 minutes, but we definitely want to get through your
opening statement as far as we can and this is going to be an
interesting day on Capitol Hill with the Prime Minister of
Israel here as well.
So, Director Wray, you are recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY
Mr. Wray. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, and the Members of the Committee. I want to begin by
offering my condolences on the passing of Representative
Jackson Lee who served the people of Texas in this body and on
this Committee for so long.
Thank you all, for your support of our efforts to protect
the American people and uphold the Constitution. I am proud to
be here today representing the 38,000 special agents,
intelligence analysts, and professional staff who make up the
FBI, men and women who everyday work relentlessly to counter
the most complex threat environment I have seen in my tenure as
FBI Director and maybe in my entire career in law enforcement.
Before I go any further, I also want to acknowledge and
offer my deepest condolences to the victims of the horrific
assassination attempt in Butler County. To the friends and
family of Corey Comperatore, who by all accounts lost his life
protecting others from danger, to the other victims, two of
whom were critically wounded, and of course, to President
Trump, former President Trump and his family.
As I have said from the beginning, the attempted
assassination of the former President was an attack on our
democracy and our democratic process and we will not and do not
tolerate political violence of any kind, especially a
despicable account of this magnitude. I want to assure you and
the American people that the men and women of the FBI will
continue to work tirelessly to get to the bottom of what
happened. We are bringing all the resources of the FBI to bear,
both criminal and national security.
Now, there is a whole lot of work underway and still a lot
of work to do. Our understanding of what happened and why will
continue to evolve, but we are going to leave no stone
unturned. The shooter may be deceased, but the FBI's
investigation is very much ongoing to that point.
I also want to acknowledge that I recognize both the
congressional and the public interest in this case and the
importance of this investigation to the American people. I
understand there are a lot of open questions. So, while the
investigation is very much ongoing and our assessments of the
shooter and his actions continue to evolve, my hope here today
is to do my best to provide you with all the information I can
give where we are at this point.
I have been saying for some time now that we are living in
an elevated threat environment, and tragically, the Butler
County assassination attempt is another example, a particularly
heinous and very public one of what I have been talking about.
It also reinforces our need at the FBI and our ongoing
commitment to stay focused on the threats, on the mission, and
on the people we do the work with and the people we do the work
for. Everyday, all across this country, and indeed around the
world, the men and women of the FBI are doing just that,
working around the clock to counter the threats we face.
Just in the last year, for example, in California, the FBI
and our partners targeted an organized crime syndicate
responsible for trafficking fentanyl, meth, and cocaine, all
across North America. We charged the Mexican-based suppliers
who brought the drugs into the United States, a network of
Canada-based truck drivers who delivered the drugs, and the
distributors in the United States who spread the poison into
our communities. Staying on threats emanating from the border,
I have warned for some time now about the threat that foreign
terrorists may seek to exploit our Southwest border or some
other port of entry to advance a plot against Americans.
Just last month, for instance, the Bureau and our Joint
Terrorism Task Force has worked with ICE in multiple cities
across the country as several individuals with suspected
international terrorist ties were arrested using ICE's
immigration authorities. Leading up to those arrests, hundreds
of FBI employees dedicated countless hours to understanding the
threat and identify additional individuals of concern.
Now, the physical security of the border is, of course, not
in the FBI's lane, but as the threat has escalated, we are
working with our partners in law enforcement and the
intelligence community to find and stop foreign terrorists who
would harm Americans and our interests. As concerning as the
known or suspected terrorists encountered at the border are,
perhaps even more concerning is those we do not yet know about,
because they provided fake documents or because we didn't have
information connecting them to terrorism at the time they
arrived in the United States.
Staying ahead of today's threats demands that we work
together and for the FBI that means doubling down on our
partnerships, especially with State and local law enforcement.
Whether it is working through our hundreds of Joint Terrorism
Task Forces to build outsource networks, to identify those who
slipped through the cracks or targeting the worst of the worst
responsible for the violence that still plagues far too many
communities, to our Safe Streets Task Forces, we are taking the
fight to the cartels responsible for trafficking the dangerous
drugs like fentanyl pouring into our country and claiming
countless American lives.
Staying ahead of the threat also means continuing to
disrupt the cyber criminals ravaging businesses, large and
small, and confronting Nation States like China targeting our
innovation and our critical infrastructure. At the Bureau, we
are proud to work side by side with our brothers and sisters in
Federal, State, and local law enforcement, our partners in the
intelligence community, and others around the world to fulfill
our commitment to keep Americans safe.
Now, on Friday, the FBI will celebrate its 116th
Anniversary, 116 years of protecting the American people and
upholding the Constitution, 116 years of working with our
partners to safeguard the communities we serve, 116 years of
innovating to stay ahead of the complex, evolving and very real
threats out there. I am proud of the legacy the men and women
of the FBI have built and all they have accomplished for the
American people.
So, if I may, as we approach this week's anniversary, I
would just like to say to all those who are part of the FBI
family, from our current employees to our formers, and to our
partners across law enforcement and the intelligence community,
thank you. Thank you for dedicating your lives to this country
and to its people. It is both humbling and an honor to serve
alongside you and I look forward to the work we are going to
continue to do together. With that, thank you again for having
me, and I look forward to our discussion.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Wray follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Director Wray. We will now proceed
under the five-minute rule. The gentleman from North Carolina
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Wray, I am way
down here, and I appreciate the Chair giving me this because I
have got to leave but let me ask this question. Why doesn't the
FBI disclose to the American people all the investigative
detail and evidence that you are gathering as it is gathered?
Mr. Wray. Well, we have tried to be transparent with both
Congress and the American people as we are going along in the
investigation, frankly, unusually so for an ongoing
investigation given the sheer nature of it. We have provided a
lot of information. I expect to continue to provide
information. I expect to be able to provide some additional
information here today in response to your questions and your
colleagues, but part of the issue is that as like in any
investigation, as we proceed, facts evolve. Our understanding
of what somebody said turns out to have more context than we
didn't have before. We have additional leads out there. So,
part of our goal is not just to respect the ongoing
investigation process, but also to make sure that we don't
prematurely provide information that then two days later turns
out to be different than what told people because that is very
much kind of a natural part of any investigation.
Mr. Bishop. So, did Crooks fire eight shots?
Mr. Wray. We have recovered eight cartridges on the roof.
Mr. Bishop. Why was Crooks allowed to get off eight shots?
Mr. Wray. Well, that, is something we are still digging
into. Again, maybe this is a good place for me to make clear
the different investigations that are going on. So, certainly,
I understand--
Mr. Bishop. Well, given that I have only got three minutes
left, I am really interested because I appreciate your
invitation. You said you are prepared to disclose things as
questions are asked. So, I don't want to waste time. I just
want to get to the questions that might--and as many Members
that can ask questions that you will answer. I actually think
you--I would be glad for you to go on soliloquy, frankly, and
tell us what you know. I think the American people want to
know.
Why was President Trump not kept off the stage?
Mr. Wray. We don't know the answer to that, but I want to
be clear, and this is important because I think it goes to the
questions that I can and cannot answer. Our investigation, the
FBI's mandate, is focused on the shooter and all things related
to his attack. Now, obviously, I understand very much the
intense interest and focus on the Secret Service's performance,
actions, decisionmaking, et cetera. There are two separate
after-action reviews that the DHS Inspector General and the
outside independent panel that's been convened to focus on
this. Now, our investigation--
Mr. Bishop. Here is the problem. We are out 13 days, and
you say we have been disclosing. We had the colonel from the
Pennsylvania State Police in front of Homeland yesterday. He
was quite candid. He disclosed to us that Butler Emergency
Services Unit personnel were posted into the windows on the
second floor of the AGR Building, that they left there to go
pursue the person that they spotted, Crooks; that they texted a
photo of Crooks to the PSP representative in the Command
Center. That information was relayed to the United States
Secret Service. They asked that it be texted to someone else.
That was many minutes before President Trump took the stand.
What we don't know is why they were not keeping him off the
stand? To the extent--I know we always hear when there is a
criminal investigation, you have to wait for that to develop,
but do you have any reason--do you have any other target in
your criminal investigation other than Crooks who is dead?
Mr. Wray. We are investigating the shooter both to
determine his motive and his preparations and activities before
the shooting, but also to make sure whether or not there are
any coconspirators, accomplices--
Mr. Bishop. At this point, have you developed any evidence
to suggest that there are any accomplices or cooperators or
assisters?
Mr. Wray. Not at this time, but again, the investigation is
ongoing.
Mr. Bishop. Here is the thing. Why we wait, maybe for
months, and I hate to say this because I am not trying to take
a pot shot, the country went for years with the understanding
that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation as
offered by respected former Intel Officials and the whole time
the FBI had the laptop and then let that happen in public until
finally offering testimony in the case. To the degree we wait
to hear as a country and as a Congress, what has happened in
this event, because the FBI's conducting an investigation it
provides quarter for the U.S. Secret Service not perhaps to
reckon with the problems that are obvious to everyone.
So, let me get a couple in, well, I have 13 more seconds,
one more question perhaps. Senator Grassley says the records of
the day show that there was a counter unmanned aerial
surveillance operator onsite. Was there? Why did that person
not prevent Crooks from being able to use a drone?
Mr. Wray. So, again, questions about the Secret Service's
performance are better directed to those other reviews. What I
can tell you when it comes to drones, is that Crooks himself
had a drone and I am prepared to answer questions here today
about the shooter and his use of the drone, for example.
Mr. Bishop. My time has expired.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The Ranking Member
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said in my opening
statement, political violence is a scourge and entirely
unacceptable no matter the source or the target. Last October,
the far-right conspiracy theorists broke into Nancy Pelosi's
home and bludgeoned her husband. Prominent Republicans mocked
the attack and promoted conspiracy theories about it.
Last August, an armed Utah man who threatened to kill
President Biden was killed as FBI agents attempted to serve a
warrant on him hours before President Biden landed in this
State. Some on the right claim that the man was simply a
``Second Amendment enthusiast.'' In recent weeks and months,
those on the right have repeatedly quoted the civil war with an
Ohio State Senator saying that if Republicans lose the election
``it is going to take a civil war to save the country and it
will be saved.'' The president of The Heritage Foundation
likewise said that,
We are in the process of the second American Revolution which
will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.
Director, it is obviously important that we respect First
Amendment protection, but there is clearly a point that with
some violent rhetoric crosses over into threats of violence or
leads to actual violence. Could you describe how the FBI looks
at this relationship between rhetoric and action and what you
have seen around the country?
Mr. Wray. So, I appreciate the question, and this is an
issue that I've been talking about for some time. In our view
there is a right way and a wrong way under the First Amendment
to express your views no matter how passionate or even angry
you are. Violence and threats of violence is not the right way.
We don't care what you're upset about or who you're upset with,
from the FBI's perspective when it turns to violence and
threats of violence, that's when we have to draw the line.
That's when we get engaged.
There is an alarming phenomenon that we've seen over the
last several years of that kind of passion and heated rhetoric
turning into actual violence and threats of violence. We've
seen it against public officials of all sorts, we've seen it
against law enforcement. The number of officers shot and killed
in the line of duty in this country is frankly outrageous and
alarming. I know that because every time an officer is shot and
killed anywhere in this country since the day I started as the
FBI Director, I personally call the Chief or the Sheriff to
express my condolences and to talk to them about the victim's
family.
The number of those shootings that are ambush-related,
meaning somebody is targeting law enforcement because they're
law enforcement, is particularly alarming. I have made around
400 of those phone calls. It's almost every five days that a
law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty. That is
an example of the kind of ways in which passions and heated
rhetoric can bubble over into violence.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Members of Congress, their families,
and their staff have witnessed an alarming rise in threats
against them. I appreciate the work your agency has done to
investigate and address these threats, but I am concerned that
we do not seem to be stemming the tide. What is the FBI doing
to ensure that the Members of Congress, their families, and
their staffs are safe?
Mr. Wray. So, we have a very close relationship with the
Capitol Police, and we have members of the Capitol Police, for
example, who are on some of our task forces. We share
intelligence information about things that we're seeing, trends
that we're seeing with Capitol Police and others in law
enforcement. Obviously, if we have specific information about
an effort to target a Member of Congress, then we're getting
with Capitol Police in a much more specific way. Those are some
of the things that we're doing.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Now, Director, your office is
leading the investigation into the attempted assassination of
Donald Trump. Republicans in Congress including Members of this
Committee have repeatedly called for defunding the FBI. What
impact would the defunding, or even just limiting your funding
have on the FBI's ability to conduct this and other
investigations?
Mr. Wray. So, I understand that there are heated views,
opinions about us, just like there are about every institution
in today's America, but cutting our funding is incredibly
shortsighted. The people it really hurts are State and local
law enforcement and the American people we're all sworn to
protect.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. During my remaining time I want to
turn to a different matter. In recent days Republican Members
of Congress have attacked Presumptive Democratic Presidential
Nominee Kamala Harris as a, quote, ``DEI candidate,'' which
presumably is code for woman and person of color. It is not a
new theme for them. In May, Chair Jordan wrote to you claiming
that because of DEI initiatives the FBI is no longer hiring,
quote, ``the best and brightest candidates to fill the position
of special agent.''
With the remaining time--with my remaining time, Director
Wray, can you please answer the following questions? Is it true
that hiring women and people of color means that FBI is no
longer hiring the best and the brightest to serve as law
enforcement officers? Is there any evidence that women and
people of color are less effective in law enforcement roles?
What message does it send to perspective applicants when their
leaders demean them and make judgments about them based solely
on their race or gender?
Chair Jordan. The witness may respond.
Mr. Wray. So, any notion that we have lowered our
standards, our hiring standards is just not accurate. In fact,
our standards are as competitive and selective as ever. We have
tens of thousands of people applying. Our selection rate is
about 3.1 percent, which is more selective than just about any
university in the country. Most of our applicants--I think
something like 50 percent of them are coming from military or
law enforcement backgrounds. About 50 percent of them also have
advanced degrees. The average age is around 31, which means
they're bringing a wealth of personal and professional
experience when they arrive.
To suggest that those people because of efforts related to
diversity or anything like that are less qualified, frankly is
not at all consistent with what I see having visited all our
field offices and seen these young people in action, I think is
an insult to those hardworking men and women who've signed up
to dedicate their lives for this country.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, director. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
Director, let me go back to where Mr. Bishop was. Tell me
about the drone. You acted like you wanted to fill us in on
that. Fill us in.
Mr. Wray. So, we have recovered a drone that the shooter
appears to have used. It's being exploited and analyzed by the
FBI lab. The drone was recovered in his vehicle. So, at the
time of the shooting the drone was in his vehicle with the
controller.
In addition, our investigation has uncovered--
Chair Jordan. Do you know what time of day he flew it and
if he flew it on the day of--
Mr. Wray. So, in addition, it appears that around 3:50-4:00
p.m., in that window on the day of the shooting that the
shooter was flying the drone around the area--
Chair Jordan. Two hours--
Mr. Wray. I want to be clear, when I say the area, not over
the stage and that part of the area itself, but I would say
about 200 yards, give or take, away from that.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Mr. Wray. We think, but we do not know--so again, this is
one of those things that's qualified because of our ongoing
review--that he was live streaming, viewing the footage from
again about 11 minutes in around the 3:50-4:00 p.m. range.
Chair Jordan. Two hours before he is flying a drone in the
vicinity of the rally?
Mr. Wray. Yes, about 200 yards away. Yes.
Chair Jordan. OK. Two hundred yards? That is important
information. What about the bombs that we have heard about in
the shooter's car?
Mr. Wray. So, again, the FBI lab is exploiting those
explosive devices. We've recovered three devices: Two in his
vehicle and one back in his residence.
Chair Jordan. Are these what you would call--your experts
would call sophisticated operations or--
Mr. Wray. I think--
Chair Jordan. I don't know. That is what I have been told
by people who have some understanding of this area.
Mr. Wray. Yes, I think it's--we've seen more sophisticated
and less. I would say these are relatively--again, key word
relatively--crude devices themselves, but they did have the
ability to be detonated remotely. So, to that point, in
addition to the two devices that we recovered out of his
vehicle there were receivers for those two explosive devices
with the devices. Then on the shooter himself when he was
killed by law enforcement he had a transmitter with him.
Now, I do want to add one important point here is at the
moment it looks to us--again, ongoing review, and I can't say
that too many times--
Chair Jordan. Right, right.
Mr. Wray. --at the moment it looks because of the on/off
position on the receivers, that if he had tried to detonate
those devices from the roof, it would not have worked.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Mr. Wray. That doesn't mean the explosives weren't
dangerous.
Chair Jordan. I am sure we are going to get into all these
subjects a little bit later as well. Tell us what you can about
the encrypted platforms we have heard about.
Mr. Wray. So, one of the things that we're drilling into
hard with the shooter in an effort to try to learn more about
his state of mind, his motive, his ideology, his contacts, and
everything else is to look at all his devices, any social media
accounts he had, et cetera.
Chair Jordan. Right, right.
Mr. Wray. One of the things we've learned in finally
getting into his phone, which was also a significant technical
challenge from an encryption perspective--but in addition, once
we got on the phone it turned out he was using some encrypted
messaging application.
Chair Jordan. Again, the same question relative to the
bombs, was this pretty sophisticated or this is kind of the
norm you see with folks in similar situations, or how would you
describe it?
Mr. Wray. Yes, on this subject I would say this is
unfortunately now become very commonplace and it's a real
challenge for not just the FBI, but State and local law
enforcement all over this country.
Chair Jordan. Tell me exactly the scope of--does the scope
of your investigation include what I call that critical five
minutes from when the--6:09 when--this is based I think on
information you have given to Congress--6:09 when the shooter
is identified on the roof, and 6:14 when President Trump is
ultimately escorted off, and all that happens, the shots that
take place in between there? Do you have access to the
communications that were going on at the time in that critical
five minutes?
Mr. Wray. So, our investigation--when you say scope, our
investigation includes that timeframe, although focused again
on the shooter himself and as part of that--
Chair Jordan. Understand. The shooter is involved in that--
he is obviously involved in that timeframe.
Mr. Wray. Correct. As part of that, as part of our focus,
our investigation of the shooter and the attack, of course, we
are interviewing law enforcement from the scene, because those
are some of the most significant witnesses. We're obviously
getting access to their materials and that kind of things. The
Secret Service has been fully cooperative.
Chair Jordan. You are getting access to any--you have
access to the communications that exist there?
Mr. Wray. That exact question I don't--as I sit here at the
moment, I don't know the exact answer to that question, but I
know the Secret Service has been cooperative with us.
Chair Jordan. Congress would like access to those
communications as well. Not just that five minutes, although I
think that is the critical timeframe. There are lots of
communications we would love to have access to as well.
I see my time is up and they have called votes on the
floor. I think there are about six minutes left in votes. So,
the Committee will stand in recess until approximately 10
minutes after votes conclude on the House floor.
[Recess.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California for
five minutes.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Director Wray, for being here with us today.
Before I ask anything let me just echo the comments made by
others and especially the Ranking Member decrying the State of
political violence in this country. It is completely
unacceptable. We have a democratic system that allows us to
disagree, but not to take those disagreements to violence. That
is what we have elections for.
I want to also thank you and all the FBI for the work that
you do and frankly the abuse, unwarranted abuse and criticism
that have been directed to you by conspiracy theorists and
others. It doesn't make your hard job any easier and I want you
to know that many of us notice that and appreciate the work
that you and your team are doing.
Let me just ask a couple of quick questions: First, many of
us are interested in the motives of the shooter here. When it
is an assault on a political figure you immediately assume
there is a political motive. That may be the case here; we
don't know yet.
I was interested in what you are seeing on his phone. The
press has reported that he had pictures not only of Mr. Trump,
but of Mr. Biden, and various other Members and political
figures. Can you discern was there an element of mainly
Republicans, mainly Democrats? Was it all over the board? Can
you enlighten us about that?
Mr. Wray. Well, this is a place where it's particularly
important for me to reiterate the caveat that I've included
before because in this instance in particular we have a lot of
legal process out for additional accounts, and things like that
the shooter is associated with. So, we're hoping to learn more.
We're still exploiting a number of the digital devices.
Ms. Lofgren. Right.
Mr. Wray. I think it's fair to say that we do not yet have
a clear picture of his motive. I think it's important for me to
explain because I understand of course why everybody wants to
know the answers to those questions.
Often in an investigation from interviewing people that the
subject was in close contact with, looking at the individual's
social media accounts, messages, often things--physical
evidence in the person's residence. You might see a manifesto,
things like that. We're not seeing that yet, but we are digging
hard because this is one of the central questions for us.
What I can say is that the shooter appears to have done a
lot of searches of public figures in general. So far, we're
seeing news articles and things like that, and so the images
that have been reported about. Really what we're talking about
there are when you do a news search of an article--
Ms. Lofgren. I see.
Mr. Wray. --the image appears in the cache as opposed to
like a search for that specific individual.
Ms. Lofgren. For that specific person.
Mr. Wray. Again, I really want to be clear that's a place
that we're doing a lot of work right now. So, more to come on
that.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I thank you for that clarification. We
are interested also in the role of access to weapons when it
comes to this terrible crime. The shooter used a semiautomatic
rifle, really a weapon of war that sadly has also been used in
mass shootings around the country including in my own district.
It seems to me that the assault weapons ban that was once in
place has to be a part of the national answer to curbing the
epidemic of gun violence in America.
I wonder if you could, with your help, Director Wray,
understand a few aspects of the investigation. It is my
understanding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives, ATF, was quickly able to trace the gun, the
gun's purchaser, using records from an out-of-business gun
store, records that the government is required to collect. Some
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested
that collection should stop. There have been efforts to
digitize it which have been resisted.
Can you tell us about how the origin of this gun purchase
was discovered, and the technology used?
Mr. Wray. Well, I guess what I can say is we located a
number of firearms associated with the shooter and his family.
I think it was a total of 14 in the house. The weapon that he
used for the attempted assassination was an AR-style rifle that
was purchased legally, that he--it's my understanding
acquired--I think bought actually from his father who was the
one who originally bought it, again legally.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, my time is expired so I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Director, I will try to ask questions that are answerable,
too. I think that has been done pretty well on both sides.
You do the advanced threat assessment and deliver that
information as to the general threat, and then specifics as to
protected people to the Secret Service. Is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, sort of. The Secret Service does a threat
assessment, but they're doing that based on intelligence that
they receive from a number of sources, including of course the
FBI. So, whenever we have threat information related to a
particular individual or protectee, then we share it with the
Secret Service at a number of levels.
Mr. Issa. So, you are a participant but ultimately the
responsibility for threat assessment as to these individuals
belong to the Secret Service?
Mr. Wray. Well again, the threat assessment for the
individual belongs to the Secret Service, but we are an
important part of that because we share threat information if
we have any. They get threat information from a variety of
sources.
Mr. Issa. OK. You get them from the same variety of
sources? They have got no sources that are excluded from the
FBI, do they?
Mr. Wray. I'm not aware of any that are excluded from the
FBI, but they may receive information that comes directly to
them that didn't come to us.
Mr. Issa. Sure. OK. Director, do you believe that the
former President Trump was a high-risk threat under your
assessment?
Mr. Wray. Well, I believe that former President Trump,
really frankly like any President or former President, is a
very high-profile figure and attracts a lot of unfortunately
the kind of threats that we've been talking about.
Mr. Issa. So, it is fair to say--not on a scale of one to a
million with little nuances, but on a scale of 1-10, President
Trump's risk was very similar to a current President, very
similar to--because he was the presumptive nominee and leading
in the polls, and so on that he was a high risk by any
standard. Is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Certainly, there's a reason why he had some much
protection around him.
Mr. Issa. OK. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the son of an
assassinated Senator and the nephew of an assassinated
President--would you say he was also as a Presidential
candidate at significant risk?
Mr. Wray. Again, I think any Presidential candidate raises
some level of risk.
Mr. Issa. OK.
Mr. Wray. It might vary from candidate to candidate.
Mr. Issa. No, but it is clearly a risk. OK.
So, in a nutshell the day before this attack President
Trump was documented not to have gotten on multiple occasions
from the Secret Service what they asked for. The day after it
looks like they are getting more. The day before RFK had been
denied by the President multiple times Secret Service
protection. The day after he now has it.
So, now my question is; is the actions of a 20-year-old
with--a lone gunman on a roof sufficient to change the risk
assessment in your mind for President Trump and RFK, or are we
just realizing the threat that was always there and being more
appropriate in matching it?
I know that is a little vague, but you have been at this
for a long time. Hindsight is 20/20. Now that we have
hindsight, is it fair to say that giving Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr., security, upping the security including drones overhead
support for the President--former President, these are things
that in hindsight should have done the day before?
Mr. Wray. Well, let me try to answer your question this
way: Of course, as I said, the assessments of the level of
security to be provided to individual protectees--
Mr. Issa. No, I understand it is the Secret Service's
decision.
Mr. Wray. What I would say to you is that--and I've been
saying for quite some time, including in front of the
Committees of this Congress, that we are in an elevated threat
environment, and we have been for some time. That comes from a
variety of quarters. It is quite frankly a dangerous time to be
a prominent public official.
Mr. Issa. Well, in regard to that, the other side has spent
a lot of time talking about what people in the right have said,
but there was an attempted assassination on a Supreme Court
Justice. We have had the highest-ranking Senator on the other
side of this body saying that there were actions, that they
were accountable.
We have had multiple Members of Congress in both the House
and the Senate berating the character of members of the Supreme
Court as a result of their decisions made, sometimes 6-3,
sometimes unanimous, whatever. Are those comments, not any one
of them, but are those comments and the generation of that sort
of, oh, this guy is bad for democracy, this Supreme Court
Justice is a threat to democracy--is that the kind of thing
that raises the threat level and would you caution against
that?
Mr. Wray. Well, I do believe that we've seen an increase in
threats of violence, which again, that's the FBI's lane, not
rhetoric, no matter how despicable or heated it is. Violence
and threats of violence, we have seen an uptick in threats
toward judges, among other prominent public officials,
including as you say a case that we helped investigate
involving a threat to a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
Mr. Issa. An attempt.
Mr. Wray. An attempt. Correct. Right.
Mr. Issa. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Wray. It's a reflection of a broader phenomenon that we
are seeing in this country where people--again, very
passionate. I respect that. Very angry. I respect that. There's
a right way and wrong way to express yourself when you're
angry. Violence and threats of violence just can't be it.
That's where we fit in. It's not my role as FBI Director to
call out particular people's rhetoric. There's a place for
that, but that's not my role as FBI Director. When it turns to
violence and threats of violence, that has to be treated as
unacceptable and that's the way we look at it.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. Director, when did the FBI learn that Iran
was threatening President Trump's life?
Mr. Wray. So, I want to be a little bit careful here, not
talk about specific classified information. We have been for
quite some time--and I'll stick with what's in the open record.
We for some time, and I, in particular, for some time have been
calling out the efforts by the Iranian government to attempt to
retaliate for the killing of Soleimani by going after current
or former prominent U.S. officials. We've had an indictment
against it.
That we need to recognize the brazenness of the Iranian
regime including right here in the United States. I expect that
we're going to see more of it, and I expect there will be more
coming on that. I'm not aware of any threat information related
to protectees that wasn't passed in a timely way, but I can't
really get into specifics here.
Chair Jordan. It is the minority's time here, but I just
felt that was a question the Committee needed to understand. It
sounds like you have known that for a long time. That
information was conveyed to the Secret Service?
Mr. Wray. Any information related to threats against the
former President, which again as we've talked about happens all
too often. It's something that we have a whole process of. We
routinely share with the Secret Service on a number of levels
in a timely way. To my knowledge that has consistently been
followed.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here, Director Wray. Director Wray, the
FBI is the independent law enforcement agency under the
Department of Justice, is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Does the FBI Director currently report to
anyone?
Mr. Wray. Well, you mean in a chain of command reporting
structure kind of thing?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Wray. Yes, so the FBI is part of the Justice
Department. On the org chart you would see that the FBI
Director, and it's been true for decades, reports to the Deputy
Attorney General, who reports to the Attorney General.
Obviously, reports in a communication sense. I report to any
number of people.
Mr. Johnson. As opposed to a micromanagement reporting
system?
Mr. Wray. Correct.
Mr. Johnson. You would take issue, would you not, with any
proposal that would change or alter that chain of command and
place you, or place a FBI Director in the position of reporting
directly to the President, would you not? You would oppose
that?
Mr. Wray. I don't think that would be a wise reporting
structure. I think the structure that we've had for decades now
makes sense. I think there's a difference between independence
in a sort of organizational structure perspective and
independence in terms of the way you do the work. Obviously,
the FBI is part of the Justice Department.
Mr. Johnson. Well reporting directly to the President would
eliminate your independence, would it not?
Mr. Wray. I don't think it would help.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. You are familiar with Project 2025, are
you not?
Mr. Wray. I've seen news reports about it. I'm not
particularly familiar with it.
Mr. Johnson. You are aware that it is a game plan for
President Trump's first 120 days in office, correct?
Mr. Wray. I'm not really familiar with the details. Again,
I've seen reporting about it.
Mr. Johnson. Well, it is. It is. What he proposes to do is
to force the FBI Director to report directly to him. That is
what he wants to do within the first 120 days. He also wants to
eliminate the position of FBI General Counsel. That is also set
forth in Project 2025. Would you recommend that?
Mr. Wray. I think the FBI's Office of General Counsel
serves an incredibly important role, including in terms of
advising our workforce. We have 38,000 people. The idea of
having an organization like ours, an independent law
enforcement agency like ours that doesn't have its own General
Counsel's office doesn't make sense to me.
Mr. Johnson. Well, it would seem like any proposal that
would force the Director to report to the President and then
there would be no legal counsel for the Director of the FBI--
that seems like it is an attempt to neuter the FBI, and render
it accountable only to the President. Isn't that correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, let me put it this way: I recognize that
the FBI Director, this FBI Director and every FBI Director
before me, serves at the pleasure of the President. That's part
of our system. I was appointed by President Trump. I respect
that. I think that's a part of our structure. Independence in
terms of how we do our work is what matters to me. We need to
be able to do our work in a way that is free from political
interference.
Mr. Johnson. Well, you wouldn't be able to do that by
reporting everything you do to the President and getting his
authority and approval before you take action, correct?
Mr. Wray. I don't think that would be a wise approach.
Mr. Johnson. Then there is even a proposal to replace many
of those 38,000 dedicated civil servants who work for the FBI,
replace them with a MAGA group that has pledged its allegiance
to Donald Trump. What danger would that bring to the FBI if
that were to happen?
Mr. Wray. Well again, I haven't read or reviewed this thing
that you're referring to, but--
Mr. Johnson. Well, assuming what I say is true--
Mr. Wray. --the FBI is made up of 38,000 dedicated career
law enforcement professionals. It has no political appointees
of any kind unless you count me as a nominee of the former
President.
Mr. Johnson. You don't want that to change either, do you?
Mr. Wray. I don't think that should change. I think that
is--
Mr. Johnson. You don't want a bunch of MAGA loyalist being
the employees of the FBI?
Mr. Wray. That is part of how we do our work. Right.
We're coming up 116 years of the FBI and that's the way it
has been for 116 years.
Mr. Johnson. It would be crazy to take 38,000 MAGA
loyalists and put them at the FBI. That is frightening. That is
what Project 2025 proposes. I am glad to know that you are not
with that program. With that I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Gaetz. Was the shooter on the FBI's radar in any way
prior to the assassination attempt?
Mr. Wray. We did not have any information about the
shooter. He was not in our holdings before the shooting.
Mr. Gaetz. No communication in any chat rooms? No CIs or
confidential human sources have had any interaction with--
Mr. Wray. No. We've run a thorough search for the subject
through all our holdings and he was not in them anywhere.
Mr. Gaetz. Were there any FBI agents or informants present
at the Trump rally in Butler?
Mr. Wray. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Jordan was talking to you about Iran. Were
law enforcement resources diverted from the protection of
President Trump to John Bolton, as a consequence of concern
that Mr. Bolton might have been the target of Iranian malign
efforts?
Mr. Wray. That's really a Secret Service decision. I don't
know the answer to that. That's really something they would
know better.
What I can tell you is that there are a number of
individuals--you mentioned one--who we have brought a case, a
specific criminal case, for the Iranians targeting for
assassination, but how the Secret Service allocates--
Mr. Gaetz. Are you going to get that answer to us, whether
or not resources were diverted from Trump to Bolton? Is that
just going to be part of your review?
Mr. Wray. I think that's going to be part of the reviews by
the Inspector, the Inspector General, and the after--
Mr. Gaetz. The Inspector General for DHS, right?
Mr. Wray. The DHS and the outside panel after action--
Mr. Gaetz. Right. Got it. That's an important point because
the Inspector General for DHS has really fallen out of favor
with the Administration because he's been pointing out all the
problems on the border with Mayorkas and Biden. We're always
worried that they're about to fire him, which would be a really
bad idea now that this role that you've identified is so
critical. It would be a bad idea to fire the IG for DHS during
the pendency of this, right, Mr. Director?
Mr. Wray. I don't think that would be a good idea.
Mr. Gaetz. I'm with you on that.
So, I want to zoom out a little bit. How often do you brief
President Biden?
Mr. Wray. You mean on this specific case?
Mr. Gaetz. No, just generally. No, in your role as FBI
Director.
Mr. Wray. I don't know that I could give you a number.
Mr. Gaetz. Is it weekly, monthly, or daily?
Mr. Wray. It's not at a regular cadence. There have been
times when there have been months at a time when I haven't, and
then, there have been times when several days apart I have.
It's always with other people.
Mr. Gaetz. The Vice President, is she typically there?
Mr. Wray. Often has been.
Mr. Gaetz. OK. So, when did you notice his decline?
Mr. Wray. In my interactions in my role, all my
interactions with the current President have been completely
professional.
Mr. Gaetz. Right, but his cognitive decline. I'm not saying
he treated you unprofessionally, just maybe not picking things
up as quickly as he used to.
Mr. Wray. Again, I don't meet with him very often, but what
you're describing is not something that I've observed during my
interactions with him.
Mr. Gaetz. We've had it observed so often that the Ranking
Member and Mr. Schiff on this Committee have said that he could
no longer continue as a candidate. So, since you're the FBI
Director, I was just sort of wondering who's running the
country?
Mr. Wray. My--
Mr. Gaetz. If something bad happened, you'd have to go
brief President Biden about it right now, God forbid.
Mr. Wray. On any number of occasions, I have briefed the
President, and as I said, those briefings have all been
uneventful and unremarkable.
Mr. Gaetz. Oh, I can imagine them being uneventful.
In the work where the Vice President is also present, like
you say there's more than half the time there's these briefings
she's there, too?
Mr. Wray. I don't know if I said more than half the time.
Certainly, there have been times where she's been present;
there have been other times where she hasn't.
Mr. Gaetz. I take you at your word when you say this is the
most complicated threat environment you've ever observed over a
long career in law enforcement. I'm just kind of wondering,
with this assassination attempt, with the invasion at our
border, with all the Hamas that have been let in, that you've
talked about and briefed about, is Biden up to it?
If he's not up to it, and you're a guy who's been regularly
briefing him, who's been in on this conspiracy to hide the real
Joe Biden from all of us for years? It never occurred to you
that this guy wasn't up to it in all these briefings you did?
Mr. Wray. As I said, my briefings with the President have
all been completely fine. I briefed.
Mr. Gaetz. Were they between 10 a.m.-4 p.m.?
Mr. Wray. He's asked questions. There hasn't been anything
of note in the area that you're talking about.
Mr. Gaetz. Yes. Did you ever have to brief him before 10
a.m. or after 4 p.m.? We hear those are his good hours.
Mr. Wray. Certainly, the times that I have briefed have
included outside those hours.
Mr. Gaetz. All right. OK. I just think the American people
want to know how we got to this point with someone who's so
diminished, his own party has, basically, put him out to
pasture. Since you had close proximity and the Vice President
had close proximity, I'm just wondering if you are being
straight with all us about how things were going with him. I
guess we'll have to figure that out.
Mr. Wray. You can count on me to be straight with you, sir.
Mr. Gaetz. We'll see.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
First, I'd like to recognize the unfortunate fact that our
colleague and my colleague side-by-side with me for many, many
years
in this Committee, Sheila Jackson Lee is no longer with us. She
was a great Member and a force for America, and her loss is
felt greatly.
Second, I'd like to say to the FBI Director that there were
some remarks made when you were introduced, peremptory remarks,
saying that people don't have great faith in the FBI now, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I have great faith in the FBI,
and I think most of us on this side of the aisle do. We
appreciate your work and appreciate your being here.
Some on the other side of the aisle have cast aspersions on
the FBI and on law enforcement. If they don't want to support
law enforcement, that's their business, but I support law
enforcement, and the FBI is the top rank of law enforcement in
our country. So, I thank you and all your people that work with
you.
Third, there's been some questions about the FBI maybe
being weaponized. Did President Biden ever ask you to get
involved in the case in Orlando, Florida, where Kevin McCarthy
says that Mr. Gaetz was investigated for some sexual
involvement with a 17-year-old girl? Did the President or
anybody in the Democratic Party, as Mr. McCarthy has suggested,
weaponize you and tried to get you involved in that case?
Mr. Wray. No, sir.
Mr. Cohen. Good. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure of
that.
In Butler, Pennsylvania, I read something about a ladder,
that he used a ladder to get up on that roof, and that the
ladder was found somewhere a distance away. Is that true?
Mr. Wray. So, we do know that he purchased a ladder. I
think, if I recall correctly, it was about a five-foot-tall
type of ladder. Importantly, we did not find the ladder at the
scene. So, it's not clear that he used the ladder to get on top
of the roof.
Mr. Cohen. So, you don't think the ladder--
Mr. Wray. We're still digging into all that, things related
to the ladder and his access to the roof. He did buy a ladder,
but the ladder was not found at the scene.
Mr. Cohen. The ladder didn't have any feet on it?
Mr. Wray. Any feet?
Mr. Cohen. It didn't walk off?
Mr. Wray. Oh, yes, right.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
There have been a lot of threats against public officials.
We've seen Mr. Scalise terribly shot and we saw Gabby Giffords
shot and other Congress people. Many of us have had death
threats, and the FBI is made aware of those to help protect us,
and I appreciate that greatly.
We've also had election officials and poll workers
threatened. What is the FBI doing in consultation with other
law enforcement to ensure every eligible voter can safely and
confidently cast a ballot this year?
Mr. Wray. So, when it comes to threats to election workers,
in particular, we participate in the Election Threats Task
Force that DOJ set up. There have been a number, quite a number
already of arrests in convictions under that Task Force.
We have got a number of investigations underway that
involve all kinds of threats to election workers, ranging from
online threats to--there were even some mailings that included
fentanyl. So, there's been a number of types of threats to
election workers. These are, after all, people who are putting
in their own time for the good of the country to try to help us
have a functioning democracy. So, the idea that they would be
targeted with violence is just outrageous.
We are sharing information with election officials about
things to be on the lookout for. We have election crime
coordinators in all 50--
Mr. Cohen. You'll be prepared for Election Day with
additional--the FBI will be looking out for the election--
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. Thank you.
Jeffrey Epstein has been in the news a lot lately about
involvement with certain people high in politics involved. Did
the FBI conduct a raid on his townhouse in New York when he was
incarcerated in New York? There was a raid on his East side
townhouse.
Mr. Wray. Well, I don't know about a raid. I know we
executed a number of searches in the course of our fairly
extensive investigation related to Mr. Epstein.
Mr. Cohen. Can you tell me if during that search if you
came across and have within your possession of the FBI tapes of
him with other individuals that he might have taken in, people
and compromising people--
Mr. Wray. I don't know that there's anything I can share
related to that. I can see if there's information we could
provide and maybe get back to you with it.
Mr. Cohen. If there were tapes of people in prominent
positions, friends of his he posed for pictures with, possibly
in compromising positions, it would be--the public I think has
a right to see those.
Mr. Wray. Well, how we handle evidence recovered in a
criminal investigation has all kinds of rules that apply to it.
I recognize the intense public interest in the subject, but
we'd have to follow our rules. I'm happy, like I said, I'm
happy to followup with my team on it.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
I appreciate your service and thank you for being here
today.
Chair Jordan. Will the gentleman yield the last five?
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Director Wray, for being here.
How many shots did the shooter fire?
Mr. Wray. Well, we know that he fired at least eight,
because we recovered eight cartridges on the roof.
Mr. Biggs. OK. Are all the cartridges and the unspent
bullets, have they been--do you know how many there are? You've
accounted for all those? I assume--yes?
Mr. Wray. We believe we have. We believe we have. Again,
there is lots of work still ongoing, but, yes, we believe we
have accounted.
Mr. Biggs. Did the recovered shells, the cartridges, match
the shooter's rifle?
Mr. Wray. My recollection is yes.
Mr. Biggs. You conducted analysis that confirms that?
Mr. Wray. Well, we work with ATF, but, yes. So, some of the
work has been divided up, but--
Mr. Biggs. How many shells, casings were recovered from the
location of the counter-snipers?
Mr. Wray. I'm sorry? I couldn't hear the last part.
Mr. Biggs. From the counter-snipers' location?
Mr. Wray. That, I don't have the answer, at least here at
my fingertips.
Mr. Biggs. OK. Did the blood and tissue pattern of the
shooter, did it match the stories with the witness testimony
that you've heard so far?
Mr. Wray. Can you--well, I'm not sure I'm following the
question.
Mr. Biggs. Well, I assume you've interviewed the counter-
snipers, or you have that evidence, and other witnesses
describing the kill of the shooter. I'm wondering if the blood,
tissue, and brain matter is consistent with the testimony that
you're receiving. In other words, does the physical--
Mr. Wray. In terms of the manner of death--
Mr. Biggs. Exactly. Is the physical evidence consistent
with where the shot from the counter-snipers took place--
Mr. Wray. Yes. So, the autopsy is being handled by, as is
not unusual, the State authorities. My understanding is, thus
far, I don't think it's fully complete, which is, again, not
totally unusual. So far, nothing remarkable on that front.
Mr. Biggs. That's from the body itself, but from actually
the scene where the shooter was found, is everything consistent
with the testimony? The physical evidence at the scene, is that
consistent with the testimony you've seen, that you've heard so
far?
Mr. Wray. So, far, yes. Again, ongoing investigation.
Mr. Biggs. Were you able to determine whether the shooter
took the gun up with him when he climbed up to the top of the
roof? Was it already placed there somewhere?
Mr. Wray. So, that is something that we're drilling into
right now that we don't know the answer to yet. I can tell you,
which may be relevant, though, to your question, and I don't
think this has been reported yet, that the weapon had a
collapsible stock, which could explain why it might have been
less easy for people to observe, you know.
Because one of the things that we're finding is people have
observed him--the first people to observe him with the weapon
were when he was already on the roof. We haven't yet found
anybody with firsthand observation of him with the weapon
walking around beforehand. So, that doesn't mean he wasn't,
obviously, but the collapsible stock is potentially a very
significant feature that might be relevant to that.
Mr. Biggs. Did he have a scope?
Mr. Wray. I believe so, but I just, as I sit here right
now, I don't remember.
Mr. Biggs. OK. You mentioned about two hours before the
incident that he had a drone, and he was using a drone. Instead
of me putting words in your mouth, just tell me what, how you
discovered the drone; how you discovered the time, and how you
discovered--if you can describe what he would have been
observing with a drone and how you determined that?
Mr. Wray. So, this is something that is very much ongoing
right now. We're going back and forth with our lab as they
continue to do work on it.
What I would say is, the drone was in his car. As I said,
we've been able to, by exploiting the drone, determine its use
and flight paths. There were no pictures or videos on the drone
of the day of the rally, for example.
We have been able to reverse-engineer the flight path of
the drone from the day of the rally, and that's how we know
that, for about 11 minutes from--I think it's around 3:50-4:00
p.m., somewhere in that range, he was flying the drone, and we
have the flight path. It's about 200 yards away from where
former President Trump would ultimately be speaking.
So, that would have primarily given him a vantage point.
I'm trying to think of how to describe this. If the former
President's podium is that way the drone would be over here--
Mr. Biggs. Yes.
Mr. Wray. --looking say 200 yards again off this way,
looking back. So, it would have shown the shooter, we think--
again, we're still doing more work on this. I really want to
qualify what I'm saying, but I'm trying to be transparent and
lean in here.
Mr. Biggs. Right.
We think it would have shown him kind of what would have
been behind him--
Mr. Biggs. When you say, ``behind him''--
Mr. Wray. Behind the shooter.
Mr. Biggs. Oh, behind the shooter?
Mr. Wray. Correct. Like, in other words, almost like giving
him a rearview mirror of the scene behind him, except, again,
he wasn't flying it overhead while he was later back for the
assassination--
Mr. Biggs. Sure. He would have had, with the drone, he
would have been able to also assess kind of what--because the
stage, I assume, was already set. He would have been able to
assess that angle with the rooftop as well, forward and
backward, I assume?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly, going toward the podium.
Mr. Biggs. Right. Again, we're still trying to figure out
exactly what he saw. Because we're having to, in effect,
because there's no recording of what he saw during those 11
minutes our hypothesis at this point, the experts think he
would have been livestream-ing it.
So, we're trying to, in effect, say, OK, well, if this was
the flight pattern, given these capabilities of the drone, what
would you have seen, what could you have seen for those 11
minutes? Again, it wasn't over the stage or the kind of hub of
the rally. It was about 200 yards away, but it looks like it
would have been looking at, let's say the length of a football
field or so, more kind of toward the podium.
Mr. Biggs. Right. Great. Thank you, Mr.--
Chair Jordan. How many separate times was the shooter on
the premises?
Mr. Wray. So, again, with the caveat that we're continuing
to work on it, we believe that the first time he traveled to
the grounds was a week before. He spent roughly, 20 minutes
there.
Then, he went to the grounds again on the morning of the
event, it appears, for about 70 minutes but, again, I qualify
that. I'd have to go back and look to be sure of that part.
Then, he came back in the afternoon. So, that would be, I
guess, a third time, for good. That included things like this
drone activity we just talked about.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Director, thank you for appearing. Thank you for the
extraordinary job that you're doing. Please convey our thanks
to the men and women at the Bureau for their incredible work. I
worked with them since I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney more
than 30 years ago.
Let me start with a threshold question that I'm curious
about. When I applied to be an Assistant U.S. Attorney, I had
to go through a background check. Do candidates for the FBI
have to go through background checks?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Schiff. Would someone with dozens of felony convictions
survive a background check for the Bureau?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Schiff. So, they would never be hired by the Bureau?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Schiff. Well, clearly, the Bureau has--you don't have
to comment on this; I know you won't but, clearly, the Bureau
has higher standards for their hiring than one of America's
great political parties.
Let me turn to the events of the, the tragic shooting. Have
you been able to gain access to the shooter's electronic
communications, social media? With the caveats that you
mentioned that the investigation is still early, have you been
able to make any deductions or are there any indications of the
shooter's motivation from those electronic holdings?
Mr. Wray. So, in terms of our ability to access it, we have
been able to get into and exploit a number of electronic
devices, digital devices, but not all them yet. Then, within
his various accounts, we've been able to get access to some of
them, but some of them we're still waiting on.
Some of them, we may never get access to because of the
encryption issue, that presents an increasingly vexing barrier
for law enforcement, not just the FBI, but for law enforcement
all over the country.
We're still drilling into that. We have some information.
Some places we've been able to look. Some places we will be
able to look. Some places we may never be able to see, no
matter how good our legal process is. That's what we're looking
at right now.
In terms of what we've been able to find so far, a lot of
the usual repositories of information have not yielded anything
notable in terms of motive or ideology. Having said that, it
does appear fairly clear that he was interested in public
figures kind of more broadly and this is important--that,
starting somewhere around July 6th or so, he became very
focused on former President Trump and this rally.
So, one of the things that I can share here today that has
not been shared yet is that we've just, in the last couple of
days, found that from our review--to your point about devices--
analysis of a laptop that the investigation ties to the shooter
reveals that, on July 6th, he did a Google search for, quote,
``How far away was Oswald from Kennedy?'' So, that search,
obviously, is significant in terms of his state of mind.
That is the same day that it appears that he registered for
the Butler rally.
Mr. Schiff. When you say that his electronic holdings
indicated an interest in different public figures, without
revealing anything you're not comfortable revealing about those
public figures, can you tell us anything, generally, about
them, either the offices they hold, their political party, or
was it simply people of a high profile?
Mr. Wray. Well, a couple of things. First, the images that
we've recovered so far--I can't remember which of his various
devices--appeared to be what we call cached images from
searches of news articles. So, if you do a news article search,
of course, images, if there are photos on it, those photos get
stored automatically in your cache, as opposed to me searching
or him searching for a specific person and getting up images of
that person.
As far as the pictures that are like that, it doesn't seem
to be a whole lot of rhyme or reason to it so far, other than
these are, you know, all prominent public people. They cover
both parties. They cover both U.S. people and even some foreign
public officials.
So, that part doesn't appear to--that one repository of
information doesn't appear to be overly indicative of motive,
other than interest in public figures. That could be just
because he was reading news stories.
So, we're still trying to drill into that. That's why all
these outstanding legal process returns that we're waiting on
for various accounts, platforms, et cetera, any one of them
could be one that would have very indicative, very important
information.
Mr. Schiff. If I could be permitted one very short
additional question, Chair?
From that, any indication of any other particular target?
That is, someone who was not just sort of generically the
subject of the searches you described, but for which there was
more of an interest than others?
Mr. Wray. The information I just described at the moment
does not appear particularly indicative of targeting in its own
right. Again, that dot, once we get other information, could
connect in a way that might be more meaningful.
I really--I'm sharing that piece of information with this
Committee and with the American public, but I think it's
important that we put down a qualification. This does not
appear to be some kind of target list, or something like that.
This is cached images from running searches of news stories.
Again, there's nothing at the moment that--there's no pattern
from that particular piece of information that is overly
remarkable so far.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Director, you previously told us that
you consider the situation on the Southern border to be a
massive security threat to our country. Is that still your
assessment?
Mr. Wray. I stand by my prior testimony. In fact, just in
the last month or so, we've conducted a significant series of
arrests--I say, ``we,'' our Joint Terrorism Task Forcing is
working with ICE--of a number of individuals with suspected
international terrorism ties.
I have also been very vocal about the fact that, since--and
this is really since the last time I appeared before you--that
we are increasingly concerned about the possibility, not just
of a foreign terrorist-inspired attack, which is very much,
very much a concern, but even the potential for a coordinated
foreign terrorist attack, perhaps like what we've seen against
the concert hall in Russia, for example, but just here in the
United States.
Mr. McClintock. Well, the 19 suicide bombers who overstayed
visas were responsible for 3,000 American deaths on 9/11. What
is your best estimate of the number of foreign terrorists who
are now in our country?
Mr. Wray. I don't know if I could give you that number.
What I can tell you is we have lots of foreign terrorism-
related investigations. That doesn't mean that all of them came
in illegally or anything like that.
Mr. McClintock. It seems to me that the simplest act of
terrorism would be for dozens of guerillas to attack low
security, high density venues, for example, Friday night high
school football games all across the country at the same hour
with bombs and automatic weapons. That would produce thousands
of casualties from coast to coast in a matter of minutes.
How likely is such a scenario?
Mr. Wray. Well, what you are describing would require of
course a lot of coordination. What I will tell you, and I think
you are onto a particularly important point from my
perspective, which is that unlike the 9/11 attacks, which,
again, I was in FBI headquarters on the day of 9/11, and so I
remember it vividly, and I spent plenty of time in the period
after that in my prior positions engaged with the families and
the victims.
What we are seeing more and more with the foreign terrorist
threat, and frankly, also the domestic terrorism threat, is a
focus on what you are talking about, what I would call soft
targets. Which is really, for the American people's benefit,
just intelligence community speak for where everyday people
live their everyday lives.
Mr. McClintock. What terrorist groups have now infiltrated
our country that you are tracking?
Mr. Wray. Well, I don't know that I would say infiltrated.
We have investigations, as we speak, that relate to ISIS and
its affiliates. We have investigations, as we speak, that
relate to Al Qaeda. We have investigations, as we speak, that
relate to Al Shabaab. We have investigations as we speak that
relate to the Iranian proxies, Hezbollah, and frankly even the
IRGC Quds Force itself.
Mr. McClintock. What foreign criminal gangs are now in our
country that you are most concerned with?
Mr. Wray. Well, foreign criminal gangs, we obviously have
investigations, a lot of investigations into gangs like MS-13,
for example, and some of its counterparts. Although, I think if
you were to talk to most chiefs and sheriffs like I am doing
every week, we shouldn't underestimate how prevalent
neighborhood gangs are really. It is a lot of the gang violence
that--
Mr. McClintock. Well, I am concerned about those that we
have allowed in through the Southern border and what threat
they are now posing. Do you believe that the vetting performed
at the Southwest border is adequate to ensure that aliens with
terrorist or criminal gang ties are not being released into the
United States?
Mr. Wray. Well, it is not really for me to speak to the
vetting. What I would tell you is that--
Mr. McClintock. You have to deal with it once they are
released into the United States.
Mr. Wray. One of the concerns that I have, which I touched
on briefly in my opening, is there has been a lot of focus on
the number of known or suspected terrorists encountered at the
border. That number has increased over the last five or six
years, and that should be of concern.
Frankly, to me, the bigger concern is individuals who
either weren't on the watch list at the time they came in
because there wasn't information known yet that ties them to
terrorism, and it is only after they get in that some new piece
of information develops somewhere overseas and now we know.
That is a bigger concern.
Mr. McClintock. We have been warned that they basically vet
against a blank sheet of paper. If they don't have a record in
this country, Border Patrol probably doesn't have any record.
They are released into the country, and you find out later
about the dangers.
Mr. Wray. If they use fake documents and there aren't
biometrics to connect them. I think sometimes there are people
who come in who, because of the nature of the threat
information that puts somebody on the watch list, there weren't
fingerprints from the person at the time. Because not every
piece of intelligence comes with fingerprints.
So, then the guy comes in using a fake ID--
Mr. McClintock. Of course--
Mr. Wray. There is no reason to connect them.
Mr. McClintock. Of course, the two million got-aways you
know absolutely nothing about.
Mr. Wray. Exactly. Well, I don't know about absolutely
nothing, because we may come across them in other things. One
of the key parts of our collective defense here is that we work
with 800,000 sworn law enforcement across the country, and we
train them on the right questions to ask and things like that
so that we can build in additional eyes and ears.
If they do a traffic stop or whatever it happens to be, we
run a greater chance of leveraging all that to pick up people
who may have slipped through the cracks.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
California is recognized.
Mr. Swalwell. Director, we are about 100 days until the
election. Russia has attacked our democracy in past elections.
Are they seeking to do it in this one?
Mr. Wray. We assess that the Russian Government continues
to want to influence and in various ways interfere with our
democracy, with our electoral process.
In fact, just in the last few weeks, we announced a
significant disruption of a generative AI-enhanced social media
bot farm essentially of the Russians that was designed to be an
influence operation and some of the fake, fictitious profiles
of those bots purported to be U.S. persons.
So, they are still at it. We have seen that in election
cycle after election cycle.
Mr. Swalwell. Do the Russians have a preferred candidate?
Mr. Wray. I am not sure that I could speak to that here.
Certainly, what I would tell you is it is not just the
Russians. I think that is important for people to know too.
There is a lot of attention to the Russians, as there
should be. We also know, you may recall, that in 2020, Director
Ratcliffe and I announced an effort by the Iranians to try to
interfere.
More recently, we have had indictments related to China.
Thirty-four Chinese MPS officers creating fictitious personas,
posting false information online, full of narratives designed
to sow device and discord, undermine us. I am talking about
narratives that they were pushing.
Again, purporting to be Americans but actually Chinese MPS
officers. For example, trashing any suggestion that COVID came
from a lab leak or trashing U.S. law enforcement on the
occasion of the anniversary of George Floyd's death.
Mr. Swalwell. Shifting to the attempted assassination on
the former President, I want to make it clear, in America,
violence has never been the answer. Not on a certain in January
or a recent day in July.
I just want to go through the shooting just briefly with
you. How many armed officers were within the perimeter, just
ballpark figure?
Mr. Wray. That really goes to the security posture, which
is the subject of the DHS Inspector General's review and the
outside panel, independent panel that is--
Mr. Swalwell. Would you say probably more than 100, though?
Mr. Wray. I have to believe that number, but I don't,
again, I don't have that number at my fingertips. Our focus is
on the shooter and his attack.
Mr. Swalwell. The shooter was able to get eight shots off
before he was killed.
Mr. Wray. That is what it would appear, yes.
Mr. Swalwell. Type of weapon used by the shooter was an
assault rifle?
Mr. Wray. Was an AR-style rifle.
Mr. Swalwell. So, that means one trigger pull, one round,
is that right?
Mr. Wray. Essentially.
Mr. Swalwell. Do you like to shoot?
Mr. Wray. Do I?
Mr. Swalwell. Yes.
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Swalwell. Do you know the difference between an AR and
bolt action rifle?
Mr. Wray. I am not going to try to sit here and engage on
firearms expertise, but I have fired a variety of weapons.
Mr. Swalwell. Had the shooter used a bolt-action rifle,
would that have been one trigger pull, one round?
Mr. Wray. That is my understanding.
Mr. Swalwell. Would there have been more--well, on an
assault rifle, trigger pull, round, trigger pull, and round.
Bolt action, nonassault rifle, what is the difference? Is it
faster, slower?
Mr. Wray. He was able to get more rounds off more quickly
than he would have with other kinds of weapons.
Mr. Swalwell. That is my point, is that we can add
additional resources to protect both candidates, and we should.
The people who went to that rally deserved to be protected from
gun violence, just like the students at Parkland deserved to be
protected from gun violence. Just the like the babies at Sandy
Hook deserved to be protected from gun violence.
So, we will devote more resources. We have added a
Presidential Candidate who is also now protected. If we are
being honest with ourselves, we have armed this country to the
teeth. We have allowed the most dangerous people to have access
to the most dangerous weapons.
I say that as a parent of a seven-, five-, and a two-year-
old, the two oldest who have done multiple mass shooter drills
in their classrooms. I say that as a brother to two police
officers who walk a very violent beat. I say that as an elected
official who believes that my colleagues deserve to be as safe
as I deserve to be when we are at political rallies.
So, we really need to step back and think if we allow these
weapons to be in our country, can we truly protect our elected
officials? Can we truly protect, most importantly, our children
and the next generation?
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. It is good to have
Mr. Massie back with us today. Some of us had a chance to go to
Kentucky over the last few weeks and visit Thomas and his
family and hear all kinds of wonderful stories about Rhonda.
Amazing, amazing lady, a gentle spirit. We are glad to have Mr.
Massie back with us.
The next five minutes belong to you, Congressman.
Mr. Massie. Thank you, Chair.
Director Wray, how many counter-snipers were present at the
rally that day, and which of the counter-snipers took the shot
that took out the would-be assassin?
Mr. Wray. I don't have the number of counter-snipers. I
know it was a Secret Service counter-sniper who took the shot
that eliminated the shooter. We have conducted a number of
interviews, including with him.
Mr. Massie. So, was it one of the two that we see in the
videos on top of the roof, or was it a different location that
was faster?
Mr. Wray. I am afraid I don't have that at my fingertips
here.
Mr. Massie. OK. You mentioned that the would-be assassin
bought a five-foot ladder. You have a credit card evidence of
that. It looks like on the scene there was a larger ladder that
he might have used.
Do you know which ladder he used to get to the roof, and do
you have possession of that five-foot ladder and the other
ladder? Do you know how the taller ladder got to the scene?
Mr. Wray. So, this whole business about the ladder is
something we are drilling into more. We do have possession of
the five-foot ladder that he purchased close in time to his
attempted assassination, that we traced the purchase of that
ladder from a receipt, a bloodied receipt that he had on him at
the time that his body was recovered on the roof.
We do not yet know for sure how exactly he got up on the
roof. We are looking at various forensic pieces to try to kind
of piece that together. So, more to come on that.
Mr. Massie. Do you know where the five-foot ladder was
found or retrieved? Was it near the roof or was it still in his
vehicle?
Mr. Wray. Neither. I don't have it in front of me, but I
know that it was not on scene, and I know that it was not in
his vehicle. We can circle back to you and give you that.
Mr. Massie. OK. Is there any evidence at all that he may
have been in contact with somebody else before this occurred
that may have had any prior knowledge or may have helped him
plan this event?
Mr. Wray. Well, needless to say that is the question that
we are intensely focused on, because that would obviously be
incredibly meaningful. So far, underlined, so far, we have not
found any evidence of any accomplices or co-conspirators,
foreign or domestic.
Mr. Massie. You are using geolocation data to see if his
cellphone was near another cellphone, I presume?
Mr. Wray. Right. We are doing lots of different kinds of
cellular analysis, geolocation stuff, looking at his accounts.
He, from everything we have seen, which is consistent with what
we have learned in interviews, a lot of people describe him as
a loner.
That does fit with what we are seeing in his devices. His
list of contacts, for example, is very short compared to what
you would normally see for most people. So, it doesn't appear
to be a whole lot of interaction between him face to face or
digital, with a lot of people.
Mr. Massie. OK, thank you.
Mr. Wray. That doesn't mean there is not any, and that is
why we are drilling into--we are trying to talk to anybody who
has had any engagement with him whatsoever, digital, in-person,
classmates, coworkers, etc.
Mr. Massie. Right, appreciate that. Now, I want to talk
about another possible assassination attempt. I will start by
sharing a video of President Biden, and this is from recently.
This is in the last month. So, if we can play that.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Massie. OK, and he is referring to January 6th. Were
there gallows erected to hang Mike Pence, as the President says
here?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any physical gallows. I can't
remember whether from a demonstration perspective there may not
have been some kind of replica or--
Mr. Massie. Yes.
Mr. Wray. Symbol of something like that.
Mr. Massie. That is my impression.
Can you raise that up so he can see it?
It looks like there was some kind of prop that was built.
The construction doesn't look like it lends itself to actually
hanging somebody. It is more of a prop, as you suggested, that
was erected on January 6th.
If the President were correct that these gallows were
erected to hang Mike Pence, that would be a very serious
allegation, wouldn't it?
Mr. Wray. I would take it very seriously, yes.
Mr. Massie. Has anybody been arrested, or do you have any
leads in conjunction with the erection of these gallows? We had
a picture here on the screen, if you can show it again. It was
just up there, there is an individual here who is seen on, near
these gallows. Has he been arrested? Have you identified this
person?
Mr. Wray. I don't know that I can speak to this specific
person or the gallows that are pictured on the image. We have
had I think 850 people who have pled guilty to Federal crimes
related to January 6th, and another 180 I think is convicted at
trials. So, I just can't be sure.
Mr. Massie. Some of them merely for going into the capitol.
Here, the President suggests that individual intended to hang
Vice President Pence, which seems like kind of a wild claim,
myself, given the construction of those gallows.
If we are to take him seriously, or even if we aren't, let
me just finish by saying this: If you have no leads or you are
not sure if anybody who erected those gallows was arrested or
is being investigated, were there any confidential human
sources involved from the FBI or any other agency in the
erection of that prop, those gallows?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of anything like that.
Mr. Massie. All right. Thank you, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
from Washington is recognized.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Director Wray.
Political violence of any kind is dangerous, unlawful, and
totally unacceptable. Just as we all watched and then
unequivocally condemned the attempted assassination attempt on
our former President, I wish that we could all come together to
unequivocally condemn the act of political violence on January
6th, instead of defending props that were used that were
harmful, dangerous props of gallows attempting to show what
people wanted to do to Vice President Pence.
Extremists attempted to subvert our democracy in the worst
assault on the U.S. Capitol since the War of 1812. Many of us
were trapped in the gallery that day. We feared we would not
make it out. Insurrectionists were chasing down former Speaker
Nancy Pelosi and then-Vice President Mike Pence.
I, myself, have been the direct target of political
violence when an armed man with a gun showed up at my door,
threatened me and my family. We actually ended up having to
move our home.
So, I understand the increased tenor of political violence
that is wracking our country. It has been on the rise, fomented
by violent and dehumanizing rhetoric from top public officials,
including the former President and Members of Congress, sadly.
Bolstered by the proliferation of easily accessible guns,
including assault-style weapons.
All this violence is unacceptable, and I wholeheartedly
condemn it. I just hope we condemn all the violence, not just
one or two incidents.
Mr. Wray, today I want to focus on the role of the FBI and
the need for the Bureau to remain politically neutral and
independent. The FBI cannot and should not be subject to the
whims of any President. The majority apparently doesn't think
that the FBI needs to be politically neutral and independent.
They want an FBI subordinate to the President, not
accountable to the American people. That is one part of a
larger plan to undermine our democracy, to remove the checks
and balances that have protected us, and ultimately to subvert
our freedoms.
That agenda, promulgated by the former President, his
loyalists, and their MAGA allies, is called Project 2025. It is
publicly available online. I encourage everyone who is watching
this to Google it. It includes plans to undermine every part of
our government, including the FBI.
Trump's Project 2025 agenda says that the Director of the
FBI must not be independent of politics, but instead must do
whatever the President orders. Under Trump's Project 2025,
Trump loyalists would undermine the nonpolitical and
independent structure of the FBI.
Project 2025 openly calls on the next conservative
administration to support, ``a vast expansion of the number of
political appointees in every office across the DOJ, especially
the FBI.''
So, Mr. Wray, given your extensive experience as a law
enforcement professional at DOJ across multiple Republican and
Democratic Administrations, why do you think it is important
that the FBI maintain political independence from the
President?
Mr. Wray. I think the FBI is and needs to stay independent.
That means protecting the American people without fear or
favor, upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. It means
following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it.
I add that last part because the essence of independence
and objectivity is not that an investigation is going to always
yield the result you want. Our independence and objectivity
can't only be respected when you like the outcome. That is the
very essence of objectivity. Sometimes you are going to like
the result, sometimes you are not going to like the result.
That applies to everyone, including us. A number of times,
we are disappointed and frustrated by the results of our
investigations. The alternative is an erosion of the rule of
law, where the only thing that distinguishes one investigation
from another is power.
That is what you see in some authoritarian countries around
the world. So, I am not familiar with this particular--
Ms. Jayapal. No, I didn't ask you to comment on that.
Mr. Wray. Project 2025 thing--
Ms. Jayapal. No, I just wanted to know--
Mr. Wray. I don't know anything about it. What I can tell
you is, from my perspective, the FBI needs to be functioning as
independent.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you.
Mr. Wray. It doesn't mean it is not part of the executive
branch, it doesn't mean the FBI Director doesn't serve at the
pleasure of the President. It does mean that the way we do our
work--
Ms. Jayapal. Has to be objective.
Mr. Wray. Has to be independent.
Ms. Jayapal. Yes, thank you. I have another question about
the role of attorneys at the FBI Office of General Counsel. How
do we protect that work?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry, could you repeat the question?
Ms. Jayapal. The role, what role do the attorneys at the
FBI Office of General Counsel play in ensuring that the Bureau
respects the Constitutional rights of American citizens? How do
we protect that work?
Mr. Wray. So, in my experience, the lawyers in the Office
of the General Counsel play an incredibly important role in
ensuring that our agents have their questions about how to
comply with the law and conducting their work answered and
ensuring that we conduct our work in the right way, which means
scrupulously adhering to the laws and the rules that apply to
us.
Ms. Jayapal. I just wanted to say, before I yield, Mr.
Chair, that the Project 2025 also eliminates the FBI's Office
of General Counsel in-house lawyers, who are responsible for
that role. I appreciate your indulgence, and I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it was when you were here in December of last year,
Mr. Wray, that you said blinking lights were going off in
regard to the Southern border and what is happening down there.
Has the border situation improved in terms of your assessment
with the security of Americans since you were last here in
December?
Mr. Wray. Well, I guess a couple things. I appreciate the
question. So, first, the blinking lights comment that I made
refers more broadly to the threat environment that I am seeing
as FBI Director across a wide range of threats. Contributing to
that in a variety of ways are the threats that emanate from the
border.
So, it is not a comment just on the border issues, it is
the threat environment that we face more broadly and my
experience in law enforcement.
I am increasingly concerned that foreign terrorists could
seek to exploit vulnerabilities at our Southwest border or at
other ports of entry, or in other aspects of our immigration
system, to facilitate an attack here in the United States. I
think that is something we have to be concerned about.
There has been a lot of focus on numbers, numbers of this,
numbers of that. I understand that. As I think was referenced
in an earlier question, it doesn't take very many foreign
terrorists to be a real problem.
We had 19 highjackers responsible for the 9/11 attacks. We
just not that long ago had a case, as some of the Members of
the Committee will remember, where we charged an individual for
trying to smuggle individuals in to assassinate former
President Bush.
Mr. Tiffany. Are you concerned that the Border Patrol
Chief, former Border Control Chief Rodney Scott said that
concerned about very, very minuscule data that they are
receiving.
So, there is all this--we are told that illegal aliens are
vetted against databases. Oftentimes, they are doing biometrics
as they come into this country but not looking behind it in
their home countries. Does that concern you when there is not a
review done in the home country?
Mr. Wray. Well, we certainly need as much help as we can
get from the countries of origin. These people, when I say
origin, not just where they come from originally, but countries
they have come through. The biometric enrollment piece is of
course an important one. We have situations where even if--
Mr. Tiffany. Are we doing a thorough enough job of
reviewing them, their actions and their lives in their home
countries before they came here?
Mr. Wray. Well, we need more help from our foreign
partners. There is no question about that. I think that is an
important part--
Mr. Tiffany. How about our domestic partners like the CIA
and others that are supposed to protect us?
Mr. Wray. So, there has been a lot of discussion, of
course, over the last several years about the pivot to what is
called the hard targets, right, the understandable focus, which
I support, of focusing on the threat posed by China, Russia,
and Iran.
With that comes, if you look at, for example, the
withdrawal from Afghanistan, we start to lose sources of
information about foreign terrorist threats from overseas. That
is a concern to me.
Mr. Tiffany. My time is running out. Has Vice-President
Harris met with you in regard to the border?
Mr. Wray. Well, I have been in meetings with, that have
included the Vice President that in different ways touched on
border issues.
Mr. Tiffany. Has she specifically asked you for a meeting
in regard to the threat that is at the border?
Mr. Wray. I am not going to get into sort of specific
meetings, but I can tell you that I have been in meetings that
have included, among other people, the Vice President, that
touch on border security issues.
Mr. Tiffany. Did she ask questions about what you thought
needed to be done in regard to reducing this threat to the
American people?
Mr. Wray. I really can't get into specific conversations.
Mr. Tiffany. Is support for President Trump a security
concern within the FBI?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry, I couldn't hear.
Mr. Tiffany. Is support for President Trump a security
concern among your employees?
Mr. Wray. No.
Mr. Tiffany. Is objection to the COVID-19 vaccine a
security threat?
Mr. Wray. Not from my perspective.
Mr. Tiffany. Who approved what is termed the ``Trump
questionnaire'' within the FBI that done by SIIS? Dena Perkins
and Jeffrey Veltri were behind it. Who was responsible for
that, and did you know that there was a Trump questionnaire out
there?
Mr. Wray. So, the document you are asking about is an
interview outline that we only recently learned about, and in
my view is completely inappropriate. I asked my team to get to
the bottom of what happened and to ensure that it doesn't
happen again.
I have learned that it is not an FBI form. That its use was
isolated. That it was created not by an FBI employee, but by an
outside contractor, and that individual is no longer affiliated
with the FBI. We are sending what we have found to the Office
of Inspector General to, and we will cooperate, of course, with
anything they--
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chair, I will just close with this: We
keep hearing about these isolated examples, whether it is
Richmond Catholics, this instance. When isn't it a pattern? I
yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Correa.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Director Wray, welcome again to this Committee, and I want
to thank you and your agents for the good job you are doing to
protect Americans.
Earlier this week, I was part of the group that went out to
visit Butler, Pennsylvania, Homeland Security members. I agree
with my colleagues that have said violence has no part in our
democracy. I trust you will investigate the events surrounding
July 13th thoroughly.
I am going to ask you a question, I hope you will keep it
in mind as your investigation proceeds, which is who is in
charge? Who is in charge of a campaign rally, setting it up?
Secret Service or a campaign?
I ask this question because when I was there, I had a
couple of law enforcement individuals alluding to that question
as well. They gave me an example.
They said if a Secret Service says you need to set up a
line of dump trucks behind the stage to serve to protect the
candidate, and the campaign says that is bad optics, who ends
up winning the debate? So, my question is who is in charge?
As you investigate this crime scene, I hope you ask the
locally elected officials. I spoke to a county supervisor,
local police and sheriff. They all had information they wanted
us to know, to relay. We just didn't have the opportunity to
sit down and talk to them.
There was a lot of concern that they weren't given enough
time to prepare for this rally. They thought there were things
that could have been done better. Ultimately, what I keep
thinking, what I keep coming back to is the question who is in
charge at these rallies.
I think it is an important one because we have an election
right around the corner. Pennsylvania, Butler, these areas,
battleground States around the country will continue to be
areas where our candidates, both sides, will show up, and the
threats will continue to be there.
So, I hope, Director Wray, that you will keep that
statement in mind as you continue to investigate this crime
scene.
Mr. Wray. Well, I appreciate the question. I will tell you
that we have conducted well over 400 interviews, but we have
many more still to conduct. As is not unusual in an
investigation, I am sure there will be situations where we have
to go back to people we have already interviewed with followup
questions, and our interviews cover a wide range of people.
I do think it is important to make sure that the Committee
and the American people understand the scope of our
investigation versus the scope of others. Our investigation is
focused on the shooter and his attack.
There is, of course, and I understand completely why there
are two separate reviews, one by the DHS Inspector General, and
the other by this outside independent panel that has been
announced that are focused on the security posture, the
adequacy of the security posture at the rally, Secret Service
decisionmaking and actions, and things like that.
So, I certainly understand why there are all those
questions. Those are in scope of those two other reviews and of
course whatever Congress chooses to do. Our investigation,
though, because of our interviews with people who were on the
scene, will relate to that in some ways. We are going to share
whatever we learn that is relevant with those other reviews.
Mr. Correa. Director Wray, in my last minute that I have I
am going to flip quickly to your good job resources. Earlier
this year in the Appropriations Committee, you testified that
you were, for 2024, your budget was 500 million below what you
needed to sustain your 2023 efforts.
A few minutes ago, you talked about foreign terrorists. The
last few weeks I know information has emerged. That information
came from FISA information that was able to be collected
overseas on these possible terrorist threats.
What we have here, today, is a domestic terrorist. What
looks to be a lone wolf. Your statements, there is nothing
really there that would have tipped anybody off to this
individual. Is that what I am hearing from you?
Mr. Wray. Well, I don't know that I would go quite that far
because we are still investigating a lot related to the
shooter. It does appear so far that we are seeing less in his--
Mr. Correa. In my six seconds I would just say, I would ask
that you let us know what resources you need to protect the
American public and our candidates and our democratic system.
Mr. Wray. I appreciate the question. I would just say this:
We are in, as I have said consistently today and for quite some
time now, we are in an elevated threat environment covering a
wide range of threats. The FBI is central to protecting the
American people from those threats.
State and local law enforcement, who depend on us everyday,
rely on us for all sorts of services, databases, forensic
support, and training. I could go on and on and on. A lot of
those departments, unlike the FBI, have had a hard time
recruiting.
So, this is not a time to pull back on our funding, because
we are going to leave our brothers and sisters in State and
local law enforcement twisting in the wind, and then by
extension, the American people we are all collectively sworn to
protect.
Mr. Correa. Thank you, and Mr. Chair, I yield.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Texas is recognized.
Mr. Roy. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Director Wray, for being here. When did you last
speak with President Biden?
Mr. Wray. I don't have the exact date, but it has been
certainly since the shooting.
Mr. Roy. So, you have spoken to the President since the
assassination attempt on President Trump's life?
Mr. Wray. Yes, sir.
Mr. Roy. What was the mental State of the President?
Mr. Wray. We had a perfectly professional conversation.
Mr. Roy. Are you--do you have any scheduled briefings with
the President upcoming?
Mr. Wray. Not at the moment specifically scheduled, no.
Mr. Roy. In 2016 and 2015, top FBI officials infamously
texted about ``their insurance policy to make sure Trump was
never elected or inaugurated as President.'' Have any FBI
agents texted, emailed, or expressed disappointment that Trump
survived the assassination attempt or otherwise editorialized
about the assassination attempt?
Mr. Wray. I don't know about any agents. There have been at
least two instances I think, or one instance, of an individual
who posted something that I consider outrageous, totally
inappropriate, and unacceptable.
That individual has been referred to our Inspection
Division, which is the arm, our sort of Internal Affairs
investigatory arm that does the disciplinary process.
Mr. Roy. OK. Will you report back to this Committee any
other incidents?
Mr. Wray. I will do my best to share information with the
Committee.
Mr. Roy. You testified earlier that the FBI maintains high
standards irrespective of so-called diversity efforts. Is it
true that in December 2016, former Director Comey lowered the
passing standards for Phase 1, allowing an influx of previously
unqualified applicants to continue in the hiring process who
normally would have been stopped back in December 2016?
Mr. Wray. Yes, I can't speak to Director Comey's--
Mr. Roy. What were the standards?
Mr. Wray. I can tell you that at least since I have been
Director, changes that we have made to--
Mr. Roy. Specific question, were standards changed, Phase
1, this specific part of the process, were they changed in
2016?
Mr. Wray. Well, I don't recall if they were changed in
2016. Obviously, I started, as your question presupposes, after
that. What I can tell you is since that time, we have made
changes to various phases of the process, but none of them,
this is important, none of them lowered the standards. In fact,
if anything, they actually increased--
Mr. Roy. Are you familiar with the reporting that we have,
and we have asked questions to you about this, I am not sure
the result of the questions, that to more ``easily accommodate
a large pool of available applicants the FBI's special agent
hiring standards have been relaxed and requirements measurably
lowered,'' this according to a group of former agents who have
testified about this and written a report and submitted it to
Congress.
In addition, specifically, minority, people with 20-year
careers, one in particular, a minority who served for more than
20 years, wrote in this report and submitted it to Congress,
saying these standards were, in fact, lowered. That, in fact,
if you were hiring, you were moved off of hiring if you put
quality above these kinds of DEI requirements.
Do you reject this report, and do you have comments on this
report?
Mr. Wray. I haven't read--
Mr. Roy. You are aware of the report.
Mr. Wray. I am aware of the report. I don't know that I
have read every detail of it, but I can tell you that the claim
that we have lowered our standards to be less selective and
less competitive is not accurate.
Mr. Roy. So, do you believe these former agents are lying
to Congress when they submit a report to Congress stipulating
and suggesting otherwise? Are you saying that they are lying?
Mr. Wray. I am saying they are mistaken.
Mr. Roy. OK, but they are affirmatively on the record, they
are telling us and submitting a report to Congress saying that
those facts are directly contradicting what you are testifying
here today. So, I just want to be clear, so we know. We are
saying that they are submitting evidence to our record to the
contrary that you say is untruthful.
Mr. Wray. I encounter all the time when I travel around the
country and have conversations with our agents, and one of the
things I try to do is have meetings with some of the longer
serving agents, without executive--
Mr. Roy. That is OK, my only question is--
Mr. Wray. My point, here is--
Mr. Roy. The implication is it is untruthful. So, I mean we
have only got one minute left. Are you familiar with the case
of Paulette Harlow? She is a 75-year-old elderly woman from
Massachusetts with a debilitating medical condition.
She was prosecuted for violating the FACE Act and sentenced
to two years in prison. She has to go to Texas in two weeks.
She was praying at an abortion clinic in Washington, DC. The
FBI interrogated and investigated her.
Do you think it is appropriate for a 75-year-old woman who
was praying at a clinic in D.C., to be put in prison for two
years for that activity? Just a simple question, do you think
that is appropriate?
Mr. Wray. I am not familiar with the specific case.
Mr. Roy. You are not familiar with that case? It has been
significantly in the headlines. So, you don't know how to
comment on that case. It is appropriate for a 75-year-old woman
to be put in prison for two years for praying at a clinic.
Mr. Wray. Again, I am not--since I am not familiar with the
case, I don't want to start weighing in, because I don't know
all the facts.
What I can tell you is that when it comes to FACE Act
enforcement and abortion-related violent extremism, I think one
of the things that gets lost, and I appreciate the opportunity
to clarify it, is that really since the Dobbs decision,
actually more of our abortion-related violent extremism
investigations have focused on violence against pro-life
facilities as opposed to the other way around.
We have had a number of investigations. We are using FACE
Act resources and our JTTFs--
Mr. Roy. We are still waiting for responses on letters that
we have sent indicating the data to the contrary, that there
has been significant amount of efforts and targeting of people
who are pro-lifers who go to clinics and that they have been
prosecuted. Like this case, a 75-year-old woman who is now
going to jail in Texas for two years because she was praying at
a clinic in Washington, DC.
We have submitted questions on that, and I would appreciate
a response on it. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Director Wray, for being here and for the work
that your team does, as well as for sharing the information
that you have been able to today.
You just got a couple questions about, that seemed to imply
that there was some problem with the FBI's diversity efforts.
Certainly, the 1950's version of the FBI was singularly
Caucasian male agents, etc. Is the FBI a better force for
having a diverse range of employees and agents?
Mr. Wray. I think diversity makes us better, but like
everything else, it has to be done the right way. I think we
can have a more diverse workforce and do it without lowering
our standards. That is, in my view, what we have done.
Ms. Scanlon. You haven't lowered standards at the FBI.
Mr. Wray. We have not. I repeatedly come across people who
are confused about different parts of that, and I appreciate
the opportunity to set that straight.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Yes, I think we are all concerned
here as we have seen the rollout of this Project 2025 that
purports to try to eliminate any reference to diversity efforts
across the entire Federal Government. So, it is sort of a top-
of-mind concern as it is threatening to become reality.
So, what I did want to talk about today is something some
of my colleagues have mentioned, which is the normalization of
threats and violence against public servants at all levels,
whether it is election workers or school officials, elected
officials and their families, judges, Federal law enforcement
agents, others.
To be clear, I think it is very clear that the majority of
Americans wholeheartedly condemn any sort of political violence
and understand that it is not legitimate discourse and that it
has no place in our civic life.
Words do matter, and they have consequences, particularly
when uttered by people in positions of leadership. So, that is
why I remain very concerned by the willingness of some Members
of Congress to repeat disinformation and conspiracy theories
that undermine trust in our public institutions, which serve
all Americans.
When elected officials embrace overheated or fact-free
rhetoric, it becomes dangerous. I have been heartened as many
national leaders have unequivocally condemned calls to
violence, and I would urge all Members of this body to do so
and continue to do so, regardless of the party affiliation of
the perpetrators or the targets of such threats.
You and our other national security officials have
repeatedly warned us that foreign actors are actively working
to spread disin-
formation to influence our elections and discredit our public
institutions, and we shouldn't be aiding and abetting them.
So, to live in a country that we aspire to where our most
valued democratic processes, like free and fair elections, can
be carried out unimpeded and people can run for office, serve
their communities, and exercise their right to vote without
fear of violence, we have had some concern about violence
around our elections.
In 2020, the endorsement and promulgation of falsehoods
about the election results by the former President and his
campaign led to threats and attacks against election officials
and poll workers in Pennsylvania. Those falsehoods also wasted
millions of taxpayer dollars on frivolous lawsuits and
extraordinary security costs.
So, as we are again approaching November, we want to ensure
that those who implement and defend our elections, our
neighbors and our nonpartisan civil servants, can do that
important work free from conspiracy theories and threats.
So, we know our local law enforcement across Pennsylvania
are preparing for some disruptions and threats. Because while
Pennsylvania may be a battleground State in the upcoming
election, that battle should obviously be a war of words over
policy and the vision we are charting for our country's future,
not an actual civil war.
So, how is the FBI working with State and local law
enforcement to prevent and respond to election-related
violence, particularly against election workers?
Mr. Wray. So, in a variety of ways we are partnering with
State and local law enforcement. Obviously, physical security
in the first instance, in most of the respects you are talking
about is in the ordinary course the responsibility of State and
local law enforcement. We play an important role in a number of
ways.
So, we share threat bulletins, information like that about
things to be on the lookout for, things we are seeing. If we
ever have specific threat information, then we work to get it
to the right people.
We have election crime coordinators, which we have had for
decades, in all 56 field offices who have existing
relationships with not just State and local law enforcement,
but election officials, especially focused on security and
threat-related issues.
Then of course we are participating in the election threats
task force that DOJ set up, which is focused on threats of
violence or actual violence against election workers
specifically. We have had a number of arrests and even some
convictions already on that.
Ms. Scanlon. Thank you for your input.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
Director, it is my intention to go approximately another
half an hour, then we will break for the Prime Minister of
Israel's address to the Congress on the floor, give you a
chance for lunch, then resume after that. We will keep pushing
through for the next half hour if we can.
The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized.
Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Director Wray. Think you have a little bit
better tone in conversation, so I appreciate it in answer some
questions. So, I appreciate it.
Hopefully you will answer also two letters that I sent you
over a year ago, one related to Durham Report and the other one
related to Russian-infiltrated SBU that collaborated with FBI.
So, hopefully we will get these answers and hopefully we'll do
an authorization.
Don't you think doing an authorization would help us to get
better answers? Congress should probably work on authorizing
your agency, don't you agree with that?
Mr. Wray. We work very hard to try to get information to
this Committee and to other Committees.
Ms. Spartz. To authorize and spend probably would be a good
thing for us to do, don't you agree?
Mr. Wray. Oh, I'm sorry, authorized and what?
Ms. Spartz. Oh, spending, not just doing appropriating, but
actually doing authorization of spendings for this Committee.
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Ms. Spartz. OK, thank you, we might start doing that. We
can talk about, and a lot of my colleagues on the other side,
AR-15 gets a lot of bad rap. Like bring it up this issue.
Really there are a lot of hunting rifles that probably may
be even more accurate than a lot of ARs. Don't you--we have
like millions, right. Don't you agree, we have millions of
rifles owned by law-abiding Americans.
So, do you think we should be taking them, millions of
rifles from law-abiding Americans? What do you think about
that? Would that be something feasible and really, we should be
doing that?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I am not going to be addressing
anybody's specific legislative proposal. From our perspective,
from the FBI's perspective, the concern is any dangerous weapon
in the hands--in the wrong hands.
Ms. Spartz. All weapons are--
Mr. Wray. In the hands of the wrong person.
Ms. Spartz. All weapons are dangerous, right?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry?
Ms. Spartz. All weapons are dangerous.
Mr. Wray. Sure.
Ms. Spartz. Knives are dangerous and explosives are
dangerous.
Mr. Wray. Weapons are by their very definition dangerous.
Ms. Spartz. Yes, but are we going to be confiscating
hunting rifles and rifles for millions of Americans? Do you
think it is even feasible to do something like that for law-
abiding citizens?
Mr. Wray. It is not something I am advocating.
Ms. Spartz. OK, well, thank you, I appreciate that. So, we
have to go back. That was a catastrophic failure of security
that happened recently with attempted assassination, don't you
agree with that?
Mr. Wray. Well, I think former Director Cheatle has already
publicly acknowledged that it was, I think her words were ``a
significant operational failure.''
Ms. Spartz. Yes. Then we had similar situation and
different talking about bad optics, Speaker Pelosi at the time
didn't want to have bad optics on January 6th. We didn't have
proper security here on January 6th. That was a catastrophic
failure too.
Are we looking at that, any one conclusion was made from
that? Have we--making any adjustments? Because not a lot of
people got hurt, now, just being here it was a lot of cases
brought up with Department of Justice. There were, a lot of
them were really just law-abiding Americans that really just
upset with the government and they have a reason to do it.
So, I think we need to think about it before we prosecute
instead of actually looking at how we can deal with real
criminals and how we can have a proper security when we have
events with so many people there.
So, did you have confidential human sources? I think you
never answered that question on January 6th in the Capitol. Did
you have some?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry, what's the question?
Ms. Spartz. Confidential human sources, did you have them
on January 6th in the Capitol?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I am never going to be getting into
when and where we have or have not used confidential human
sources, but--
Ms. Spartz. Are you willing to say on the record that you
had no confidential human sources that went into Capitol on
January 6th?
Mr. Wray. As I have said consistently, I am not going to
get into where we have or have not used confidential human
sources. I can tell you that if you are asking if the violence
at the Capitol on January 6th was part of some operation
orchestrated by FBI sources or agents, the answer is no.
Ms. Spartz. I didn't ask you that--
Mr. Wray. It is a disservice to our people.
Ms. Spartz. I ask did you investigate if any confidential
human sources, did you do any investigation in looking at that?
You are not answering if you had any or not. So, if you had
potentially--did you do anything you needed to make sure to
investigate that none of your sources did anything wrong, if
they were prosecuted the same way as you are trying to
prosecute a lot of people that really, even Supreme Court ruled
recently that some unconstitutional charges?
Mr. Wray. Let me just add that there have now been 180
individuals who have gone to trial, in addition to the 850 who
pled guilty--
Ms. Spartz. Right, but I think the problem is you put these
charges--
Mr. Wray. Let me--may I--
Ms. Spartz. A lot of people would plead guilty. Let me say
just quickly because I only have 10 seconds really, so I hope
you will take seriously what you are doing.
Related to the border security is also a crisis. Have the
Vice President was leading on that. Has she, actually--she
initiated meetings with you to lead, like weekly or monthly
meeting where she actually get briefings from you as a leading
border czar that had that function? Have you had that, has she
initiated any meetings on a regular basis with you?
Mr. Wray. Again--
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady's time has expired. The
gentleman can respond.
Mr. Wray. Right. On this issue of confidential human
sources, first, I will say there is a DOJ OIG review that is
underway that addresses some of these kinds of topics, I
believe, but I won't speak for the Inspector General.
Second, as to this suggestion, which I have heard all too
many times, that somehow January was orchestrated by FBI agents
or sources, I will note that, in addition, to my prior
comments, that there have now been 850-ish individuals who have
pled guilty, another 180 who have gone to trial.
They have all had access to defense counsel, discovery, all
the things the Constitution and the rules provide them. It has
been in front of something like 15 different judges, I think
dozens of juries. Not one has given credence to this notion. In
fact, I don't think any of them have even really seriously to
raise it.
So, it is not just my word for it, look what has happened
in the cases. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Neguse. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Director Wray, for being here, for your
testimony today, for the work that you do each and every day
and that your front-line agents across the country do each and
every day to protect Americans. They keep our country safe.
I am also grateful for the work that you are doing in
investigating the horrific events of July 13th, and the
attempted assassination of former President Trump, which
everyone must and has condemned.
I would first just ask; do you believe that the FBI has the
adequate resources to ultimately ensure that your agency gets
to the bottom of it and fully investigates this terrible crime?
Mr. Wray. Well, we are devoting massive amounts of
resources to this specific investigation. We have easily
several hundred FBI agents, analysts, and professional staff
working on it. It is, involves over half of the FBI's 56 field
offices, almost every headquarters division.
We even have some of our overseas offices working on it.
You might say, well, why is that. Well, because some of the
companies that involve accounts or purchases or communications
or what have you that the shooter used are foreign companies.
So, we have to get evidence from overseas from those companies.
I talked about our lab a little bit earlier today. We have
got our Office of Technology Division working on the digital
devices. We have our Behavioral Analysis Unit, our BAU, working
on helping us build out a profile of the shooter. I could go on
and on and on. So, it is all hands-on deck on this case, as I
think is appropriate.
Now, when you ask about our resources, I have been public
about the fact that the Fiscal Year 2024 budget put us $500
million below where we needed to be to sustain current
operations.
On Fiscal Year 2025, current House mark would put us
significantly further back behind that and would result in
significant risks across every program and our support to State
and local law enforcement.
We arrested something like 50 violent criminals per day,
every day, last year. The current mark would mean more violent
criminals on the street, more neighborhoods at risk. We have
about a 1,300 percent increase in our investigations related to
China and its targeting of us. I can assure you China is not
cutting its budget. This would mean more threats from China.
We have something like 300-400 investigations just into
cartel leadership. About hardly a week goes by when some FBI
field office isn't seizing enough fentanyl to wipe out an
entire State. That mark, those cuts mean more fentanyl on the
street, more people dying.
So, the people who suffer the most are State and local law
enforcement and the American people we are sworn to protect.
Mr. Neguse. Let me just--
Mr. Wray. So, look forward to working with Congress, but we
really need to be smart about what we are doing. I think that
would be a step in the wrong direction, given the threat of the
environment that we face.
Mr. Neguse. I couldn't agree with you more, Director Wray.
Of course, we have talked about this in a very previous
hearings at which you have testified.
To be clear, I think the budget that House Republicans have
proposed, which is about a $325 million cut to the FBI, would
precisely what you have described and have deleterious impacts
for public safety across our country. The House Democrats are
certainly working to prevent those cuts from taking place.
You have talked at great length about the events of July
13th. There is justifiably a lot of public interest in the
investigation, which we understand is ongoing. Wonder if there
is anything that you would like to disclose or provide to the
Committee or to the public that perhaps has not yet been
gleaned during the course of this hearing and just give you an
opportunity. Because there are a lot of folks--related to the
investigation.
Mr. Wray. One thing I can give an update on, which if
pretty fresh here, we had some conversations with some of the
Members about the access to the roof and the ladder and so
forth.
Our evidence response teams and their forensic collection,
we now believe that the subject climbed onto the roof using
some mechanical equipment on the ground and vertical piping on
the side of the AGR building. In other words, we do not believe
he used a ladder to get up there.
Mr. Neguse. One question, if the Chair might indulge me
with just a few extra seconds, there is an article recently
regarding several former Trump Administration national security
officials who had received a duty-to-warn briefing from the FBI
regarding the potential threat from Iran.
I think there is this article made clear deep concern these
individuals have, justifiably so, about the threat level, and
particularly given the events of the last several months and
the need for there to be an increased security posture and
security personnel for former officials who may very well still
be at risk.
I don't know if you are familiar with that article. I am
trying not to use names here, but I think would perhaps
followup with your agency and with the Department of Justice
more broadly to ensure that any individuals who are potentially
facing a threat from Iran or another hostile actor, foreign
nation, have the resources they need to have the security
available to them.
Mr. Wray. So, again, without reference to any specific
individual, I want to be very clear about this, because I have
tried to be vocal on this, but it sometimes doesn't get noticed
as much, which is that in my view, the Iranian Government has
been extremely aggressive and brazen.
We have seen in the last few years an attempt, I am
speaking just from public information now, an attempt to
assassinate a former U.S. National Security Advisor on U.S.
soil. We have seen an attempt first to kidnap, and then to try
to murder, an American dissident/journalist who is a critic of
the Iranian regime, right smack in the middle of New York City.
We have a cyber-attack against a children's hospital in New
England that ties back Iran. We have seen, as I have testified
before, as Director Ratcliffe and I announced, an effort by the
Iranians to target the 2020 Presidential Election.
That is all before you even get to the fact that the
Iranian Government is the leading State sponsor of terrorism.
So, if that is not enough to convince people that Iran is a
threat, I don't know what is.
Chair Jordan. Director, was there a distinction between
what the gentleman from Colorado raised and what you just said,
these general concerns and these specific incidents you talk
about, and a direct, specific threat on President Trump that is
distinct from what you have been describing as this general
concern with Iran?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I can't get into specific pieces of
classified--
Chair Jordan. If so, when, if it was a distinct threat on
President Trump when did that take place?
Mr. Wray. Yes, all I can tell you, certainly in this kind
of setting, is targeting of U.S. officials for the Soleimani
strike is something that is a reality that the Iranian
Government has at times called for very publicly.
Whenever there is reporting--let me try to answer your
question this way: Whenever there is reporting about any of
those protectees, we share the information in a variety of
ways, working with the intelligence community, working with
whoever is the protective service with responsibility for that
individual. We do it in a timely way using the duty-to-warn
process that was just referred to.
To my knowledge, everything along those lines that is
relevant was shared in a timely way with the relevant people.
Chair Jordan. Thank you. The gentleman from Wisconsin is
recognized.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Director Wray, thanks for being here. Where
were you when you heard that President Trump was shot, and then
what were your immediate actions/response to that as Director?
Mr. Wray. I was about to have dinner with my family. I was
horrified and angry.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I am just thinking--the reason I asked the
question is because I am thinking. I am still trying to figure
out the lanes, what the FBI would respond to and what the
Secret Service has the responsibility to respond to. Can you
just kind of cover that again?
Mr. Wray. Sure. So, the FBI is not responsible for--it's
never really been part of our mandate or mission for the
physical security of venues, of specific protectees or anything
like that. That's if it's somebody within Secret Service's
scope, that's their mandate and mission.
We are a law enforcement and intelligence agency. So, if
you think about it this way, we're the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. We're not the Federal Bureau of Security. You
might say, ``Well, what's the difference?'' Well, there is a
difference.
We investigate crimes. We investigate threats to national
security, but we don't--questions about security posture, the
adequacy of resources and assets that were deployed to protect
a specific individual, whether there's enough security and
certainly the staffing of that security, is not something the
FBI--again, we're 116 years old--has historically done.
Mr. Fitzgerald. So, at this point, have you been able to go
through the shooter's home and document what you found as far
as evidence goes?
Mr. Wray. So, we were able to search the shooter's home.
So, again, just sort of tying your first question to your
second question now, our role is to conduct an investigation of
the shooter and the attack. So, we're going to conduct a
painstaking, intense investigation of that.
We have, among other scenes that we've processed using
evidence response teams--in addition to the rally scene itself,
of course, we have been through the individual's, the shooter's
home, his bedroom, other parts of the house, et cetera.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Have you been able to establish that he did
go to a range and either zero that weapon in or at least target
shoot that weapon prior to the assassination attempt?
Mr. Wray. So, we do assess that he went to a shooting range
the day--not the only time he went to a shooting range; he was
a fairly--avid might be a little strong, but a fairly avid
shooting hobbyist. So, he went to--belonged to different sort
of clubs and went to certain ranges and that kind of thing.
We do believe based on what we've seen so far that he went
to a shooting range the day before and that he shot an AR-style
rifle at that range the day before. I'm not sure we know for
sure that it's the weapon that he used, but I think we assessed
that it probably is.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Have you been able to interview his
parents?
Mr. Wray. Yes, we have.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Was there anything that was gained from
that interview that would lead you to believe that they
certainly were aware of what was going on?
Mr. Wray. I guess I want to be careful talking about
specific people's interviews, but I would say that his parents
were cooperative with us. As I've said before--and hopefully
this gets to your question--we have not identified any
accomplices, co-conspirators, or anything along those lines.
Mr. Fitzgerald. So, is it the FBI's position right now that
he still acted independently?
Mr. Wray. Again, we're still--I know it seems like a
lifetime since--
Mr. Fitzgerald. Right. Right.
Mr. Wray. --July 13th, but we're still early stages. We
have not seen anything so far that would suggest to us that he
acted with others.
Mr. Fitzgerald. How does the FBI view not just a Trump
rally but political rallies versus other types of events from a
security perspective compared to a college football game or any
mass large crowd-type gathering? Because I can't--I think one
of the things that is most difficult to really swallow at this
point is that the idea that these Trump rallies have been
happening for years and that there could be such a lax approach
to the physical security of those fairgrounds that day.
I am wondering, where does this fall? Then, on top of that
there were other Presidential Candidates out there that didn't
have full Secret Service protection. RFK, Jr., has been the
most vocal about it. I was wondering if you could comment on
the facilities as well as providing security for Presidential
Candidates.
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I want to be a little bit careful to
stay in my lane because, again, security posture and the
adequacy of the security posture is really the core expertise
and responsibility of agencies like the Secret Service.
Certainly, it is fair to say that outdoor events, whether
they're political rallies or, as you say a college football
game in an open stadium, a concert, these are places that are
often particularly challenging to secure adequately because the
range of threats that can face them are higher.
In addition to that, as has been discussed a little bit
here already in today's hearing, just threats to public
officials, including politicians, is an increasingly pervasive
part of today's landscape. So, that adds to the challenge. So,
you're talking about the combination of individuals who are
increasingly targeted for violence combined with venues that
are softer and harder-to-secure targets, I guess, is the way I
would answer.
Again, those kinds of questions--the adequacy of the
security posture, all the resources that were or were not
devoted--all that stuff, it is my understanding, would be very
much in scope for the DHS Inspector General investigation and
this outside independent panel that's been appointed.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
Director, I think we are going to be able to get two more
Members time to question; then we have to get to the floor for
the Prime Minister.
The gentlelady from Georgia is recognized.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Chair Johnson.
Thank you so much, Director Wray, for your transparency and
your testimony today.
First, I want to say my friend, my mentor, Congresswoman
Sheila Jackson Lee, was known by many as the voice of reason
here in Congress. She was my friend before I even came to
Congress. In my freshman year, she kind of took me under her
wing, and she showed me the ropes. She was a force to be
reckoned with. I can say that she will never, ever be replaced.
She was a trailblazer, and I know that she will sorely be
missed here in Congress.
Director Wray, I only have one question for you today.
Before we get to that point; I would just like to reiterate
today that political violence is never acceptable. Regardless
of how different our political values and views are, attempted
assassinations are a stain to the very democratic ideals of
this Nation.
We have endured riots on Capitol Hill on January 6th, where
a literal noose was erected on Capitol grounds, intended for
then Vice President Pence and Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi;
political violence against election workers--that has been
expressed today; an attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's
husband; threats against the FBI agents, as you have expressed,
and prosecutors; and threats to the staff who serve the public
every single day. Congressman Connolly's staff was targeted and
attacked last year.
Now, we have the attempted assassination of a former
President of the United States--all this within just the last
three years. This violence simply needs to end. The
assassination attempt on Donald Trump was, by the grace of God,
a failure.
The weapon the 20-year-old man was able to obtain, an AR-
15, generally has a shooting range up to 600 yards and shot Mr.
Trump from almost 150 yards away. This weapon has the ability
to kill multiple people in seconds. Sadly, Corey Comperatore
lost his life because of this man and because of this gun. Mr.
Comperatore's family will never be the same. Trust me. I
understand that more than anyone else in this room.
Is the near loss of a former President enough for this
Congress to finally take action? Because there are 206 of us
that are already standing in the wings ready to take immediate
action to ban assault weapons today. We need only 12 more of
our colleagues to join us in courage and move the legislation
to save the lives of so many of the people that we are elected
to serve by removing assault weapons from the hands of people
who simply should not have them in their possession.
We are crippling our democracy, and we are ripping apart
our fellow Americans until we do. I ask today because, clearly
it wasn't enough to take action when the lethality of assault
weapons--we lost 26 seven-year-olds and six teachers in 2012,
when I also lost my son to gun violence, or 14 teenagers and
three more teachers in 2018. It wasn't enough when we lost 19
more children and two more teachers in 2022.
Well, is it enough now, now that a former President, the
very President that many of you in this room are hoping will be
reelected, almost lost his life because this Congress has
failed to reinState an assault weapons ban, a ban that, by the
way, Republicans joined with Democrats to pass 30 years ago?
Well, fine. You all don't like assault weapons ban; we can
bring another bill that I have introduced to a vote, the GOSAFE
Act. This bill focuses on the components of semiautomatic
firearms and regulates their infrastructure, sale, and
transfer. This, again, is not the time for thoughts and
prayers. This is a time for action.
Director Wray, just one question I have for you. Would you
rather have your officers protected or protect someone against
an assault weapon being shot from 147 yards away or a standard
pistol with no accessories attached?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I'm going to refrain from appearing
to comment on specific legislative proposals. I can tell you
that we are certainly concerned about the danger to law
enforcement from any kind of high-powered weapon in the wrong
hands. It hits close to home for us because just not that long
ago, two great agents, Laura Schwartzenberger and Dan Alfin,
down in Miami executing a search in a crimes-against-children
case, were shot and killed by a subject with an automatic
weapon.
So, again, dangerous weapons in the wrong hands are
something that of course, from a law enforcement perspective,
concerns us. I'm not going to wade into the legislative
process.
Ms. McBath. Well, thank you for that answer. I would rather
give our agents a fighting chance.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Director Wray, for being here today. So, we
spend $3 billion a year on the Secret Service. Three billion.
It would seem that we could and should have had a better job
done a few weeks ago on the 13th than what we saw. Will you
have anything to say about correcting what are the obvious
deficiencies in what the Secret Service did?
Mr. Wray. Well, for the most part, the deficiencies or
adequacy or inadequacy of the Secret Service's performance,
decisionmaking, resources--all that stuff is in the purview of
those two other investigations. That is the DHS Inspector
General and the outside independent panel that's been
announced.
Having said that, our investigation, which, as I've
testified now, involves several hundred FBI employees and every
asset we can bring to bear of the shooter--again, our
investigation is of the shooter and his attack--of course
involving interviewing law enforcement, including lots and lots
and lots of Secret Service people. So, we'll share all that
with those reviews so that they can answer those questions.
Mr. Bentz. The reason I am asking this is because this
isn't the first time the Secret Service has been before
Congress. There was a 435-page report issued in 2015 by
Congress saying, ``Fix yourself.'' They didn't. In fact, there
was a followup in 2019 where they had only done a few of the--I
think it was 18 or 19 different specific things they were
supposed to do. They had done some, but certainly not all.
There was another followup in 2022. Again, the Secret
Service had not done what Congress had asked. I guess my
question to you, Mr. Director, is what should Congress do? You
have a 435-page report nine years ago, and still, the Secret
Service didn't do what it was told to do then.
Can you help, Director Wray? Because this type of
performance is not acceptable.
Mr. Wray. Well, as I think even former Director Cheatle has
acknowledged, this was a significant operational failure. If
there are ways for the FBI to be helpful beyond what we're
already doing in terms of our investigation, we stand ready to
try to be helpful.
I do want to say, as somebody who's been in law enforcement
for most of my career, I've worked with some phenomenal Secret
Service agents going all the way back to my time as a line
prosecutor. They have an incredibly hard job, and I have a lot
of affection and respect for the men and women in the Secret
Service.
Mr. Bentz. I am sure you do, and I am sure you are right.
The trouble is, when Congress says, ``You need to do these 19
things,'' and you don't, something needs to change. Now, the
Director has resigned. You are going to be in a position,
because your Agency is doing such a careful review, to say a
lot about what should have been done.
I guess the real issue is much more of what the higher-ups
in that Agency are or are not doing. Perhaps that is on us.
Mr. Bentz. We will share. We will share, with those
reviews, anything that we come across that could be helpful or
relevant to them for those questions.
Mr. Bentz. Yes. Let me quickly go to some details about the
actual events. It appeared to a lot of us, as the Secret
Service was taking former President Trump from the stage, that
he was clearly still in view of everybody. Had there been
another shooter, I didn't see him being protected. Are you
going to raise that issue?
Mr. Wray. I think that's really more in scope of these two
other reviews, probably both of them.
Mr. Bentz. Let me go to--OK. That's fine. Let me go to the
shooter. As he was on top of the roof, apparently, another
officer from another police division saw him and quickly ducked
down because the shooter aimed a gun at him. Then the shooter
apparently--was he prone at the time he took the shot toward
the President?
Mr. Wray. So, my understanding is that the local officer
who they were talking about, with the assistance of another
local officer, was able to kind of get up and see onto the
roof, where he observed the shooter, I believe in a prone
shooting position. The shooter then turned and faced him, the
local officer, with the weapon.
Mr. Bentz. From the prone position?
Mr. Wray. That's my understanding.
Mr. Bentz. Then he went back to the prone position.
Mr. Wray. This was all seconds before the shooter took
his--
Mr. Bentz. That entire time, the shooter was in the scope
sight of the counter-sniper, correct?
Mr. Wray. That one I'd have to double-check on. I know
we've interviewed the counter-sniper, but I'm not sure I know
the answer--
Mr. Bentz. The counter-sniper didn't take a shot until
after the assassin attempted to shoot the former President and
others. He got off eight shots before the counter-sniper shot
the shooter. What is with that protocol? Can you get that
fixed?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I really want to be careful not to
be giving the scope of our investigation, somehow second-
guessing the very difficult act and decision it takes for a
counter-sniper to kill another human being in that situation.
It's all happening in seconds, so--
Mr. Bentz. Eight shots.
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Bentz. That was after he'd been seen for 20 minutes.
I yield back. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. Director, that is an important question,
though, because you have talked to the counter-sniper. That--I
mentioned this in our opening statement. That critical five
minutes from 6:09-6:14 p.m. and what takes place there is
critical. I think that is what the gentleman was getting at. We
are hopeful that you could tell us something about your
interview with the counter-sniper.
Mr. Wray. Yes. I guess I want to distinguish a couple
things. There is some individual, not law enforcement, I
believe, who spotted the shooter on the roof a few minutes
before. I think law enforcement spotted him with the weapon on
the roof is seconds before the shot.
Chair Jordan. OK. That is important because--
Mr. Wray. Yes. There are two different things going on.
Chair Jordan. If what you're saying is it wasn't--maybe
that is--if the bad guy shoots at 6:11 p.m., then you are
saying this encounter with local law enforcement that Mr. Bentz
was just getting into happened just seconds before that and
maybe not two minutes before that?
Mr. Wray. That's my understanding, in other words, that
there's different things here. There's individual--at least one
individual I can think of, not law enforcement, a member of the
public, who observed him on the roof. Not clear whether or not
the individual saw a weapon or not but saw him in a way that
was concerning.
That is some number of--not many, but like just a handful
of minutes. I think separate from that, as far as law
enforcement goes in terms of a weapon, this local officer that
we just talked about observed the individual, again, literally
just seconds before the individual, the shooter, took his
shots.
Separate and apart from all that roughly, maybe a little
less--or around an hour before the shooting, there were local
law enforcement officers who observed the shooter, not up on
the roof, not with a weapon, but with, I believe, a range
finder like you would use if you were playing golf or
something, in a way that was odd and suspicious.
So, that started happening with local law enforcement
beforehand. In terms of shooter, meaning with the weapon, law
enforcement--my understanding is that the first time that
happened was this local officer climbing up on the roof seconds
before the shooter--
Chair Jordan. Again, we want that timeline. I think the
Committee wants that timeline and communications that were
taking place in that short period of time.
Mr. Wray. Again, as I've said with everything else, I
really want to be careful. I'm leaning in--trying to share as
much as I can here. Facts are evolving. Things may change. We
are working on a timeline, among other things.
Chair Jordan. The Committee will stand in recess until
after the Prime Minister's remarks conclude.
[Recess.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will come to order. The
gentlelady from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much Director
Wray for being with us yet again.
As you know, we've seen a disturbing rise in domestic
terrorism and far right extremism across the United States.
We've heard from you several times about this.
White supremacists and far-right extremist groups continue
to outpace all types of terrorism and domestic violent
extremism according to the National Institute of Justice report
from this past January.
Part of this dramatic rise in extremist violence and
threats stems from a line of foreign actors who are actively
working to sow division in American democracy. They're
desperately trying to inflame extremists and deepen divides all
to support far right agendas and candidates that will erode our
democracy.
The DHS threat assessment has warned, we expect the 2024
election cycle will be a key event for possible violence and
foreign influence, targeting our election infrastructure,
processes, and personnel. Microsoft has warned that the 2024
election may be the first Presidential election during which
multiple authoritarian actors simultaneously attempt to
interfere with and influence election outcomes.
National security officials and experts have warned that
foreign governments, mainly Russia, China, and Iran, seek to
destabilize the United States via its elections, by sowing
further division in the American electorate. This is happening
and happening in the current context of increased political
violence in our country against a former President, election
workers, judges, Members of Congress and their families, and
other public servants.
I cannot emphasize enough that this is a national security
threat. Director Wray, reports have found that these propaganda
campaigns will sometimes target racial groups.
Why would countries like Russia, China, Iran, seek to
inflame racial tensions via social media?
Mr. Wray. Well, of course, it may vary from adversary to
adversary. The playbook for authoritarian regimes in today's
world is to try to sow divisiveness and discord to turn us
against each other, to capitalize on existing social tensions
that they perceive.
To try to, in effect, pour gasoline on the fire and
intensify those conflicts that may already exist in our
domestic political scene.
So, rather than if you're a foreign adversary that means us
no good, rather than try to come up with some completely brand
new issue or theory or narrative to turn us against each other,
you look for things where we're already, at the very least,
quarreling with each other, if not fighting with each other.
Then, they try to capitalize on that and amp it up. Of
course, that can then sometimes, as we've seen all too
tragically, boil over or bubble over into outright violence.
Ms. Ross. So, how has the FBI worked to combat this
propaganda and infiltration on our social media network?
Mr. Wray. So, our focus is on the foreign actor, China,
Russia, Iran, and on their efforts. So, we work with the
intelligence community. We work with our foreign partners, our
friendly foreign partners to try to uncover what those
countries, Russia, China, and Iran, are up to.
We try to share information about the hidden hand of the
foreign actor where it's appropriate. We also engage in efforts
to disrupt those foreign actors.
The most recent example with the Russians for example, is a
Russian government-linked generative AI social media bot farm,
where they were posing as, among others, U.S. persons, and not,
in fact, U.S. persons, and trying too again, sow various
narratives.
That case very heavily focused on the issue they picked
there was the war in Ukraine. Again, trying to kind of get
everybody turned against each other.
We've also seen that through from China and Iran. I
mentioned China before, we've had a case where we charged, it
was 34 Chinese Ministry of Public Security, MPS Officers for
much the same kind of behavior, creating false personas,
pretending to be Americans, and then trying to kind of sow
narratives.
In that case, in the Chinese case, their narratives were
trying to, for example, undermine any suggestion that Covid was
the product of a lab leak or attacking U.S. law enforcement at
the anniversary of George Floyd's death, for example.
Then, Iran, in 2020, we saw them undertake similar kinds of
efforts that were disrupted in October 2020.
Ms. Ross. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
from Virginia is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Cline. Director Wray, thank you for being here. Thank
you for the information that you've provided today. I greatly
appreciate it.
This event that occurred, the attempted assassination of
President Trump on July 13th in Butler, Pennsylvania, was a
level five alarm alert to this country that our elected
officials, our leaders, the President, and the former
President, are not safe.
We need to reevaluate from the ground up, exactly how we
are to go about providing that protection. The information
you've provided, dealing with eight cartridges from the roof,
the drone, the fact that two explosive devices were found in
the car, one at home that was a remote detonation device that
he had on him, the fact that his phone was using encrypted
platforms, he only had one phone, correct?
Mr. Wray. I'm sorry. Yes, he had one phone. Although we've
identified other phones that he may have used that may not have
been his phone.
So, for example, we think, in certain instances he might
have used his dad's phone. Again, not necessarily related to
the attack.
We're trying to, we are trying to make sure that we process
and exploit every device he could have used. We keep, which is
part of why I keep making this point, which I know you all are
probably tired of me making, about this being an ongoing
investigation. Because we keep identifying new pieces of
equipment, new accounts, what have you.
Mr. Cline. The fact that you are, in real time, informing
us about what you're finding as you're performing this
investigation, is very helpful.
Clarifying the fact that he went to the range the day
before and shot an AR. Now, my understanding is that the AR he
used on the 13th, was his father's. Is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, yes and no. It was originally; his father
bought it legally.
Mr. Cline. OK.
Mr. Wray. Then, our understanding so far is that his father
then conveyed it to him, sold it, in fact, to his son. So,
originally his father's, at the time of the shooting, the
shooter's.
Mr. Cline. OK. So, that's new information. Was that
provided to you by the father?
Mr. Wray. I think it was partly from that. I think we also
saw some documentation to support it.
Mr. Cline. OK. Investigators also have said that the
shooter posted, quote, ``July 13th will be my premier, watch as
it unfolds,'' on an online gaming platform sometime before he
tried to assassinate President Trump.
Can you confirm that? How much time elapsed between this
posting and the attempt on July 13th?
Mr. Wray. So, I'm really glad you asked about that. Because
that is a situation where, again, in our effort to give real
time information, since we've provided that information, we
have since learned that this July 13th premier profile page on
the gaming platform, it turns out it was not the shooter.
Mr. Cline. OK.
Mr. Wray. That it was some other individual as part of some
sick joke, who, after the shooting, created a profile page
pretending to be the shooter.
Mr. Cline. Wow.
Mr. Wray. So, of course, we've now, that person has now
admitted to it. Even my point being, among the other challenges
that we as investigators have, you have people who create
accounts, in today's world create accounts pretending to be
somebody that they're, and it's not the actual person.
Mr. Cline. The shooter--
Mr. Wray. That's troubling, obviously. It makes our jobs
even harder as investigators.
Mr. Cline. Thank you for clarifying that. Did he have an
online gaming account?
Mr. Wray. We do believe he was a gamer and that he had
different kinds of gaming accounts. So, that's part of why we,
yes.
Mr. Cline. Any the information gleaned from those?
Mr. Wray. Not yet. Again, some of those are some of those
legal process returns I'm still waiting on.
Mr. Cline. Now, during the attempted assassination, Crooks
was wearing a tee shirt from a popular YouTube Channel. Have
you been able to access his selection of YouTube videos that
he's watched?
Mr. Wray. I believe we have seen some of his search
history. We've got a ways to go on that.
I know there's some manual work that we're doing on that.
The most notable thing that we've found recently, which I don't
think has been shared until today, is that on a laptop that the
investigation ties to him, that on July 6th, it revealed a
Google search.
His search, if it was him, again, it's a laptop tied to
him.
Mr. Cline. Right.
Mr. Wray. We obviously believe it's him. We'll continue to
investigate it. His Google search was, ``how far away was
Oswald from Kennedy?''
Mr. Cline. Right. Horrifying.
Mr. Wray. Yes. Absolutely.
Mr. Cline. Can you clarify that you have in your possession
all the video that was taken on that day at the scene?
Mr. Wray. We've collected mountains of video. Part of the
reason that I--
Mr. Cline. Can you commit to providing us with that video?
Mr. Wray. Well, we're going to work with the Committee and
share information as best we can. Part of the reason I hedged
on whether we have it all, is as you can appreciate in today's
world, everybody with a phone--
Mr. Cline. Sure.
Mr. Wray. Has the ability to take footage. So, we're
finding things kind of left and right.
Mr. Cline. You have all the law enforcement videos?
Mr. Wray. I believe we have all the law enforcement video.
We're still collecting evidence.
Mr. Cline. OK. I hope you would provide that to us and to
the American people. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Director, just to
be clear, the photo and the message on the online gaming
account, your testimony was to Mr. Cline that that was somebody
else posing as the shooter. Is that right?
Mr. Wray. Correct. Somebody after--
Chair Jordan. After the shooting.
Mr. Wray. July 13th--
Chair Jordan. OK. That's all.
Mr. Wray. Created this profile, pretending to be the
shooter, and sent us down the rabbit trail, which we've now
tied off.
Chair Jordan. That's important information. The gentlelady
from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Director Wray,
for being here. I want to add my voice to the chorus of folks
who are just devastated by the illness and passing of Sheila
Jackson Lee.
What a champion. What a role model. I always called her the
hardest working Member of Congress. She was everywhere on every
issue. She'll be greatly missed.
Director Wray, I thank you for what you said earlier, which
is leaning in. This is such an extraordinary set of events, the
attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
The stealing of the life of a father, a firefighter,
somebody who protected lives, Corey Comperatore, serious
injuries to two others. So, I thank you, because you are trying
to give us what you can without jeopardizing the investigation.
I think that's very helpful.
Did the shooter also investigate other high-profile folks?
We had heard some reporting around that early on.
Mr. Wray. Well, you say investigate other folks. This is a
place where we still have a lot more work to do. Part of what
we did find was a bunch of cached images of a variety of public
figures.
Again, cached images are those images that you get when you
pull up a news story from any number of news sites, if there
are photographs in the article, those images are automatically
put into your cache on your computer. So, it doesn't
necessarily mean that you were searching for that person's
image.
We do have the fact that starting around, at least around
the period of early July, so this search that I just mentioned
related to Oswald and Kennedy, that's about July 6th, which is
the same day, we believe, that he registered for the rally. The
day before, we traveled to the grounds for the first time.
So, I think there is a certain amount of searches related
to former President Trump that during that period we're seeing,
consistent with some kind of planning or reconnaissance, if you
want to call it that, in advance of the rally.
That's sort of confined to that, or concentrated maybe is a
better word, in that July period after the announcement of the
rally and before the shooting.
Ms. Dean. Can you speak to the conveyance of the gun? This
is a 20-year-old young man. The father owned the gun
originally. An AR-15, am I correct?
Mr. Wray. An AR-styled. Yes, an AR-styled.
Ms. Dean. AR-styled. A 20-year-old man. When did the father
sell the gun to him? What documents do you have? How much money
transpired and what date was it?
Mr. Wray. Yes. I do know that, I like to say we believe,
based on what we've seen, that his father, after purchasing the
gun legally, sold the gun to his son.
I don't have the date of that transfer or the amount of the
transfer. Although, we may be able to get that to you so far, I
just don't have it in front of me.
Ms. Dean. Do you know when the father bought it?
Mr. Wray. We know. I don't, as I'm sitting here testifying
in front of you, I don't have that in front of me.
Ms. Dean. OK.
Mr. Wray. So, I don't have it in my period reports.
Ms. Dean. I'm just wondering if it's proximate to this
event.
Mr. Wray. I do not believe that the gun was purchased, that
is the gun that was used, I do not believe it was purchased
particularly close in time to the shooting. How far in advance,
it may have been a year before, give or take.
Again, we'll go back and double check that on you. I do
know that on the day of the shooting, at about 1:30 p.m., he
bought 50 rounds of ammunition.
So, if you think about the day of, or if you back up a
little bit, so the day before, he goes to the shooting range.
The day of, he goes to the grounds the morning of the event for
around an hour.
He buys the ammunition at around 1:30 p.m.. At around 3:50
p.m. is when he's back on the grounds of the rally. That's when
he used the drone that I've talked about already today.
Then, of course, fast forward, until just after 6:00 p.m.,
when the worst happened.
Ms. Dean. We had thought, maybe over the weekend, there was
a conversation around a classified briefing for Members. I hope
that will happen as soon as it's feasible for you and for the
other agencies involved.
He got off eight shots. The reporting is that this was
under six seconds, he got off eight shots, fatal to one.
My question that I'll leave you with--and I know I'm over
time, Mr. Chair--is, we all decry political violence. We decry
any violence. We decry the rise in political violence.
What can you tell us that we could do better? What do you
need for you to be able to help this country reduce the
political violence tendencies?
Mr. Wray. This is a moment wherein the most stark way
possible, all of us as Americans can see how out of control
political violence is in this country. It's an opportunity for
everybody to come together and to try to show that this is not
the kind of thing we're going to tolerate in this country.
The FBI's role is to focus on violence and threats of
violence. There is a role for others in the public square to
address how people communicate in this country.
Every day in our jobs, we see in social media in terms of
threats that people are, we get thousands and thousands and
thousands and thousands and thousands of tips reported to us.
The language that's out there is just mind-bogglingly
hateful and violent sounding. People, sometimes as figures of
speech, use expressions that are very violent expressions.
So, that is a part of it. We could all do better in being a
little more thoughtful and measured in our language.
Again, the FBI, we've got to stay in our lane. Our lane is
the violence and the threat to violence. There's a role for
everybody as Americans to try to see if we can take the
temperature down.
Ms. Dean. Agree. Thank you. Thank you for the extra time.
Mr. Wray. OK.
Ms. Dean. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman from North Dakota is
recognized.
Mr. Armstrong. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate
you correcting the gaming thing and about ``this is my coming
out party,'' because we're asking you to do something and we've
had acrimonious, you and I have actually had acrimonious
issues.
We're not here for a gotcha moment. We're just not. Not on
this. We're asking you to give us information before the
investigation is complete.
My only recommendation or suggestion would be when that
happens, don't necessarily wait until you ask, because don't
wait for us to ask. Because there's a--and I'll go through why
in a second.
I appreciate you coming in and I appreciate you telling us
things. I appreciate you guys going against essentially your
normal policy of waiting until an investigation is done,
because the American people need to know it.
Here's why. A guy with a range finder walking around that
everybody noticed and then couldn't find. You know he scaled to
the top of a roof within 150 yards, line of sight to the
President or a Republican former Presidential Candidate, by
climbing a drainpipe and then, you said, some equipment.
He was being pointed out by rally goers everywhere they
could. Nobody could figure it out. There's maybe supposed to be
local law enforcement in the building, either upstairs or
downstairs. All of this is going on.
I was talking to a colleague of mine yesterday on the floor
and it's, I hate the conspiracy theories that come out. This is
not the FBI's purview. This is the Secret Service's purview.
This is so comically like, inept to the average, to have
the average North Dakota citizen is just hey, look at this.
They're like, how could this possibly happen?
So, by you giving us information in a really meaningful
way, even though we know the investigation is ongoing and
things can change, that at least helps us to deal with that and
figure out where we're at.
So, you're doing all this. This guy had no combat training.
No counter-surveillance training that you're aware of, right?
Mr. Wray. I'm sorry. I couldn't quite hear that.
Mr. Armstrong. He had no combat training.
Mr. Wray. Oh, no, I don't think any, and certainly no, what
we would call, what you and I would call combat training.
Obviously, he was a fairly active recreational shooter.
So, he did plenty of shooting.
Mr. Armstrong. Yes. A lot of guys in Western North Dakota,
right?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Armstrong. All of those different things. Somehow we
came within under an inch of a Presidential Candidate being
shot and killed within 100 days out from an election.
When you look at it, so just, I just want to be really
clear, because there is a lot of this. There is no evidence of
another shooter, right?
Mr. Wray. Another shooter,--
Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
Mr. Wray. There's the counter-sniper who took out the
shooter. Right, right. You're talking about, like, another?
Mr. Armstrong. Anybody else. You're looking at his online
and seeing all that. There's no evidence he had any other
accomplices on the scene that day, correct?
Mr. Wray. Correct. Not that we've seen yet, certainly.
Mr. Armstrong. You said, and Oversight has had a hearing,
DHS had a hearing, and we're having a hearing now. The
Inspector General is going to investigate. We're probably
announcing a bipartisan outside panel.
There's another investigation, too, right? Because somebody
has to clear this shooter. Like, even though it is a Secret
Service officer deploying his, when an FBI agent kills somebody
in the line of duty, what's the process?
Mr. Wray. So, we have what we call an agent involved
shooting, is what you're getting at.
Mr. Armstrong. Maybe I'm have--
Mr. Wray. We have a whole process. Our inspection--
Mr. Armstrong. They get put on leave, paid leave. Get a
lawyer, depending on how it is, right?
Mr. Wray. Well, those, some of those things depend. We
have--our inspection division does a shoot review of each time
there's one of these situations.
They sometimes have to coordinate with local prosecutors
who are also doing some kind of review. So yes, Secret Service
would have a similar kind of process for the counter-shooter.
Mr. Armstrong. Because you have to actually establish one
of the defenses to homicide. Just like you don't do it in a
court system the same way everybody else does.
You have to justify that this shooting was justified. So,
when the FBI does that, do they conduct that all internally?
Mr. Wray. Most of the time, yes. Every once in a while,
there's a situation where the Inspector General gets involved.
Mr. Armstrong. Do you know how the Secret Service does it?
Mr. Wray. I don't.
Mr. Armstrong. OK. I just think that's important, because
when we're talking about how this works, and I don't think
anybody's arguing it wasn't, anybody who's seen it and knows
what happened. It's just, knowing it and making sure that the
process is handled correctly.
I just wanted to shift gears with my last 30 seconds really
quickly, because we had a hearing on the Northern border in
Grand Forks. You were talking about specific threats from Iran,
but also generally.
We have diverted an exceptional amount of resources to the
Southern border. Our interactions, 114 percent increase in
apprehension.
The one specific thing, with all due respect to my friends
and my neighbors from Canada, it's a lot easier to get into
Canada from some of these countries where we have these real
issues with terrorist threats then it is to the United States,
particularly Iran.
Are you guys monitoring that and making sure whatever
coordination you have with Canada, that we're paying attention
to that as well?
Mr. Wray. We have an excellent relationship, we the FBI,
with our Canadian counterparts, both RCMP the Mounties as some
people with euphemistically call them, and CSIS, they're my
intelligence service counterparts.
We have great relations with them. Terrorism is, I find,
probably the No. 1 thing we talk about.
Mr. Armstrong. Yes. They're understaffed and overworked on
the Northern border. They can use all the help you get.
With that, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director, thank you for
today. I greatly appreciate your candor. I know it's highly
unusual to go into this level of detail during an active
investigation.
It's a special and unique circumstance given the nature of
what happened that day. I'll ask my colleagues that we are not
try and take advantage of this and other circumstances.
We need to be careful about pressuring our investigators to
disclose information in the middle of an investigation in a
casual or a routine way. Thank you for what you've done here
today.
I do want to mention this too, like Congressman Correa, I
went up to Butler with Homeland Security Committee and had a
chance to meet with a number of the people there, including
people who were there at the rally.
Several of them were elected officials. In fact, one of
them that spoke with me a lot, was sitting directly behind Mr.
Trump when he was shot. She had videos that she had taken, and
she would love to share it with you all.
She mentioned a couple of things too, that I hope you all
will have a chance to have conversations about. I know some of
it is going to be in the Secret Service lane and some is going
to be in the FBI lane.
One of the things she talked about was the fact that the
day before the shooting, she and other officials in the town,
and people who just wanted to prepare the stage, showed up and
started working on putting the bunting up and decorating it.
The point she noted was that none of them had been vetted.
There was nobody there to keep an eye on them and make sure
that everything that was being done was appropriate.
She actually thought this in the context of hearing that a
gun was found, or a gun was perhaps hidden at the site before
the shooter was able to get it and use it. I don't know those
details.
Those were some of the things that came up that day. She
also mentioned that there was sort of the outer parameter.
So, you had a parameter around the stage that the Secret
Service had set up. Beyond that, you had a field. Then, you had
the building where the company was, and the shooter got on the
roof.
Apparently, there was sort of a second level of a parameter
there that wasn't particularly restricted from an access
standpoint, as with the street, it was just beyond that.
So, she raised, and another elected official raised as
well, issues about security that may actually kind of get into
what you're talking about. Where the ladder was there. How the
guy got on the roof. There were all sorts of issues with
respect to that.
There were a lot of people, as you said, that had video
tapes. I talked to three that were showing me videos while I
was standing out there in the grounds.
I have a couple of questions to ask of you briefly.
Apparently, there was no Secret Service recordation of
communications during that day. There's no radio runs, we call
them. There's no tapes.
Do you know if there are any recorded conversations among
law enforcement from that day?
Mr. Wray. I don't know the details of that. I believe,
there may be some. I don't have it in front of me exactly what
we've seen or heard.
Mr. Ivey. OK. Then, with respect to email communications.
There were a lot of issues about--because my personal, if you
have not gone to the site, was that they shouldn't, they just
shouldn't have had the rally there. It should not have been
permitted.
I thought there were, there's too many roofs. He picked
one, but there was like a half dozen others that he could have
picked on the other side of the field.
As Eli Crane, a Congressman who was a sniper for the U.S.
military, said, ``there was a water tower that actually would
have been a better site.'' Probably that Secret Service should
have used but could have been used as well.
The lead up to that decision, and Congressman Correa raised
this, ``who made this decision about how to pick the site?''
Apparently, there was some back and forth between local law
enforcement, Secret Service, and the campaign. I was kind of
curious as to whether that's something that your investigation
is going into or not?
Mr. Wray. So, that primarily falls within the scope of the
other, the two other reviews. That is the inspectors, the DHS
Inspector General review, and the outside panel, independent
panel that's been announced.
Certainly, we are interviewing law enforcement personnel.
The security preparations, the adequacy of the security
preparations--
Mr. Ivey. That's the other lane.
Mr. Wray. That's the other lane.
Mr. Ivey. All right. I've only got 15 seconds left. Quick
question for you with probably not a quick answer. This
scenario is kind of the worst-case scenario from a couple of
standpoints.
You've got a lone wolf shooter with no red flags that we've
heard of so far. Nobody should have known that this was coming.
He didn't have a criminal record or that sort of thing. Easy
access to an assault weapon.
I had a discussion like this with Congressman Roy and
Congressman Bishop several months ago. What is it we can do to
try and preempt those kinds of scenarios?
We've got gun violence all over the country, including in
my district. This is one example, but this scenario is the
worst possible that I can think of from the standpoint of no
intervention prevention efforts that can be put in place to try
and address it.
I'm kind of curious if you have any thoughts to the
contrary on that?
Mr. Wray. I don't know if I have any magic solution to the
problem. I certainly don't want to be proposing legislative
ideas. That's not really my role.
Certainly, dangerous weapons, especially high-powered
weapons in the hands of the wrong person, represent a real
concern for law enforcement. Including to law enforcement
sometimes as the victims, as we saw very tragically down near
Miami, with two of our agents killed.
That's probably all I can say about that. I do, while we're
on the subject of firearms, Mr. Chair, I have an answer to
Congresswoman Dean's question.
Chair Jordan. Go ahead.
Mr. Wray. I might as well do it now.
Chair Jordan. Go right ahead.
Mr. Wray. Which is probably the purchase of the firearm.
I'm told that the father purchased the firearm in 2013. So,
quite a while ago. Then, he sold it to his son in October 2023.
Thank you.
Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Thank you,
Mr. Director, for your great work.
Chair Jordan. I'd ask unanimous consent that we enter into
the record, a statement from Representative Kelly and some
questions for the Bureau.
Representative Kelly represents Butler, actually, that's
his hometown. Without objection, those will be entered into the
record and we'll make sure you get those Director.
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, and
this is not directly with you, actually. I just wanted to
straighten something out.
I know my colleagues, the gentlemen and the gentleladies
from Georgia, Washington, California, and Pennsylvania, you all
mentioned Project 2025. Well, I don't know how they expect you
to know about that, No. 1. I'm pretty damn involved. I don't
really know a whole lot about it.
President Trump has made it clear, and we're going to say
it again, we'll say it over and over again, that there are some
of the things he disagreed with, some of the things he agreed
with that he wasn't that familiar with. It was from The
Heritage Foundation.
That was just raw politics to be honest with you. It was
just because 2025 has some things in it, that they believe,
that are really going to offend American people, and it very
well may. So, they want to pin it on the Presidential
Candidate.
He didn't author it. He didn't condone it. He didn't put
his seal of approval on it. It's getting old. It really is. We
do this sort of thing.
Just like in this Committee, when everything goes wrong,
anything, somehow Donald Trump's name has to be brought into
it. It gets tiring. It's politics over reality.
The second thing about picking the site, I was intimately
involved in the Wildwood rally, the biggest rally President
Trump's ever had. The biggest political rally in the State of
New Jersey.
I had spoken to the President about it. He wanted to do it
on the beach, because we had over 100 thousand people. Let me
tell you, we had everybody out there, because they were
concerned, the Secret Service, the local police, the country
police, and just about every entity could be.
So, they had behind it was that iconic setting. They had
the ferris wheel on the pier, and all the stuff. They had
agents up in there.
They had agents in the ocean, in the water, and in boats.
They had people coordinating, working with each other and
talking with each other, because they knew it was a risk.
So, we chose a site that was difficult. The President did,
and I thought it was a great site. Nevertheless, the law
enforcement responded properly.
Something went wrong here. You can't blame this on Donald
Trump as well. The site was chosen. It's the responsibility of
those who serve in law enforcement to make sure that he was
safe, period. I'm sure you'll find out why.
On another tangent here, I've got to wonder how many
qualified people were passed for Director Cheatle to get her 30
percent quota. That's a lousy way to run an agency, especially
when it's dealing with law enforcement, to say, we've got to
have 30 percent of anything.
I worry about these practices, because it's policy over
protection. Director Wray, I know that some things were left to
you. I understand that. One of your early acts on the Biden
Presidency was hiring the FBI's very first Chief Diversity
Officer.
Since that time and even before your time, but--and you're
going to disagree with me. Respectfully, I'm going to disagree
with you. Recruitment standards under your lead have resulted
in deterioration in many areas including physical fitness,
illicit drug use, financial irregularities, mental health
issues, full time work experience, and integrity.
I know you dismissed them, but, in October 2023, they are a
prestigious group of retired FBI Special Agents and Analysts,
both, expressed concern regarding the FBI's willingness to
recruit agents that quote, I'm not saying this, they said it,
not me,
Can't even pass the new relaxed standards for fitness, who are
illiterate in some cases, and need lessons, educational
lessons, don't want to work weekends or after hours . . .
Their words,
. . . and have serious disabilities or mental health issues,
which is not the place for them.
Most of your agents are great people. I love them. I love them
for what they do. I'm not criticizing most. These new
standards, don't you think this is a hindrance and reduces the
morale of the vast majority of good people that you have in the
FBI?
I ask you for a quick answer because I have a few other
things.
Mr. Wray. So, I respect our retired agents. Many of them
come to our graduations now. I can tell you emphatically that
they are mistake--those who think that we have lowered our
standards, whether it's on physical fitness or anything else,
are mistaken.
Mr. Van Drew. You can prove that?
Mr. Wray. The facts back me up on that.
Mr. Van Drew. That the standards are the same today as they
were a decade ago?
Mr. Wray. Again--
Mr. Van Drew. They've changed in some ways that are
appropriate.
Mr. Wray. Well, in fact, the physical fitness standards, it
depends on how far back you go, but the physical fitness
standards that our current graduates have to have to graduate
from Quantico, actually exceed some of the physical fitness
standards that were in place, if you go back far enough, with
some of our retirees.
What I would tell you, part of the reason there's
confusion, and again, I accept that these folks are raising
their concerns in good faith, but we have actually access to
the facts.
Part of the reason there's confusion, just take the
physical fitness thing as an example, is that before, you had
to pass the physical fitness test before you showed up to
Quantico.
Now, you have to pass it to get a badge at Quantico. The
standard hasn't changed. You still have to pass the same test,
the same 12-point standard, et cetera, all that stuff applies.
The only difference is you can pass it while you're at
Quantico. If you don't pass that same test that's been in place
for a long time now, you don't get a badge.
We will dismiss people from Quantico, and we do, who don't
pass that test.
Mr. Van Drew. Director, I have to wrap this up and I
appreciate that. If you could get us information that
substantiates what you say, that should be easy enough to do,
for the whole Committee, I would appreciate it.
Feelings in this Administration are more important than
functionality. It's resulted in a border crisis. We don't have
time to talk about that. You've spoken out about it. I
appreciate that you've spoken out about it.
It's also resulted in shortages in our Nation's law
enforcement and our military. It makes us less safe.
So, I look forward to seeing those statistics and that
proof, because I have people talking in my ear that tell me
otherwise. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Alabama is recognized.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Wray, I
appreciate you being here today. I certainly appreciate your
forthcomingness and giving us information that the American
people want.
To me it's--you have a very difficult job right now. In the
past, and under Comey, certainly, the Russian collusion
narrative got out pretty heavily.
That came out of the FBI with the FISA warrants and that
sort of stuff, spying on General Flynn. Then, the laptop issue,
the Hunter Biden laptop issue, which the FBI actually had in
their possession.
So, I have 800 thousand people thereabouts that I
represent. Our job is to restore trust. So, in a lot of the
hearings we've had this week they've said, well, the FBI is
investigating that.
Every answer was, the FBI is investigating this. So, in
some ways it kind of landed in your lap. I appreciate you being
here.
It's just, for me, the question of how does a 20 year old,
acting alone, get a long gun, a range finder, we know he bought
a ladder. I guess he reconned the area and realized he didn't
need the ladder to get on top of the building, so he left it at
the house, get on a roof within 150 yards of one of the most
famous people in the world, I guess, now, and a former
President, how does that happen?
How do we restore trust in the American people if the FBI
and the DHS, who is under Mayorkas' directorate now, how do we
verify and get trust back to the American people that these
agencies are really working to protect the President?
I'm not trying to place blame specifically. I never thought
that we'd raid his house. I never dreamed that they'd raid a
former President's house.
I certainly never imagined that they would actually indict
him. I felt, well, they'll never find him guilty. Now, he's had
a threat on his life.
So, how do we restore trust in the government of this
country and the agencies that are here, that we pay and provide
$3 billion a year to the Secret Service to protect some of the
leading political candidates in America?
That's a lot. I'm sorry. That's a lot of questions. I'm
going to give you a little room to talk.
Mr. Wray. Right. No, no, listen, obviously you included a
lot, as you said, in your question. As you might imagine, I
disagree fairly strongly with a number of parts of it.
Sensitive to the time, I guess what I would say this, I can
speak to my approach to running the FBI. Again, the FBI was not
involved in the physical security of the rally. We come in as
the investigators afterwards. As I've said before, our
investigation is an investigation of the shooter and his
attack.
There are separate investigations, the Inspector General at
DHS, and this outside independent panel that's been announced,
they will be looking at the Secret Services' performance. Those
will be important to trust and confidence, if you will, in
Secret Service.
From the FBI perspective, we can't promise that everybody
is going to like the results of what we do. Right? What we can
promise is that we're going to do our best to do the work in
the right way. That's all we can do.
So, I keep telling our folks every day, on this and on
everything else, our focus has to be, we've got to do the work
in the right way. We've got to make sure we do the work in the
right way.
Then, no matter who likes it, because everything we do,
somebody doesn't like it.
Mr. Moore. It's a credibility issue at this point. Do the
American people trust what the FBI and the DOJ is going to tell
them?
That's the thing with this, when I was early on, and I've
only been here about 3\1/2\-4 years now, but the American
people fear the weaponization of government. So, now, we have
this issue.
Tucker Carlson asked the President, he said, ``Are you
afraid they'll kill you?'' I remember that interview and I
thought, wow, I can't believe he went there, but here we are.
So, as we work through this process, I think, it's so
important. The Chair hit on this, is the audio of the shooter,
you've interviewed the sniper, the Secret Service sniper that
took out the target. Was he waiting for a green light? What was
going on? Why did Mr. Crooks have a chance to get off eight
rounds? We knew he was on the rooftop, I don't know for how
long.
We know he was a marked target. So, was he trying to get
the green light? Was somebody not giving it to him?
Mr. Wray. So, again, the performance, the adequacy of the
performance of Secret Service will be the subject of the
Inspector General investigation and this outside independent
panel.
What I can tell you, and I'm glad you asked the question,
because this goes to something that was part of an earlier
exchange, the first time that anybody from law enforcement saw
the subject on the roof, was a few minutes before the shooting.
Not with a gun. They didn't, at that point they didn't
know--
Mr. Moore. Right. Right.
Mr. Wray. Local law enforcement, a few minutes before, saw
him on the roof and started radioing it in.
Mr. Moore. Did he have a backpack going up the roof? Did
they--
Mr. Wray. Nobody has, we haven't found anybody yet who saw
him climbing up the roof.
Mr. Moore. OK.
Mr. Wray. The reason we, the reason why I've talked about
how we think he got on the roof, is that's based on forensic,
our evidence response to and forensic analysis that we're
without getting into all the details, footprints and things
like that we can fingerprints, et cetera, that we can see how
he got on.
We don't have an eyewitness at the moment who saw him
climbing up. So, a few minutes before the shooting, local law
enforcement saw him on the roof. Again, no weapon identified at
that point.
A few seconds before the shooting, is when the law
enforcement officer that I've talked about already, is the one
that was assisted by another officer, who saw on the roof, saw
the shooter in a prone shooting position with the gun turn--
Mr. Moore. How long did that happen before?
Mr. Wray. That sighting is the first time to my knowledge,
the first time anybody from law enforcement saw him with a
weapon, that is seconds before he shot at President Trump.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. So, did the counter-sniper not see the bad
guy, the shooter until after he fired a shot?
Mr. Wray. Until after the subject fired a shot?
Chair Jordan. Until after the shooter.
Mr. Wray. Yes, I don't know the answer to that. It's
possible we've already determined that. I just, as I sit here
right now, I don't have that. I can, yes.
Chair Jordan. That's the logical next question with where
the gentleman from Alabama's question was going.
The gentleman from California is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Kiley. Director Wray, to the best of your
understanding, how close did the assassin's bullet come to
killing President Trump?
Mr. Wray. My understanding is that either it or some
shrapnel is what grazed his ear. So, I don't know that I have
the actual distance.
Mr. Kiley. Very, very close though?
Mr. Wray. What's that?
Mr. Kiley. Very, very close you would agree?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Kiley. Is this the biggest security failure that you've
seen in your career?
Mr. Wray. Well, certainly, Director, former Director
Cheatle has already acknowledged that this was a significant,
at the very least a significant operational failure. I forgot
her exact words.
I will defer on that. It speaks for itself.
Mr. Kiley. Well, we really haven't seen anything like this
in at least decades in this country, right?
Mr. Wray. The attempted assassination of a President,
current or former, is an historic event.
Mr. Kiley. Was this a sophisticated plot that Thomas Crooks
carried out?
Mr. Wray. Well, it probably depends on your definition of
sophisticated, right? So, on the one hand he's a 20-year-old,
it seems, from what we've seen so far, a loner without a lot of
elaborate criminal--without any criminal history or anything
like that.
On the other hand, he did clearly do some level of planning
and recon.
Mr. Kiley. When did the planning start to the best of your
knowledge?
Mr. Wray. What's that?
Mr. Kiley. When did the planning start?
Mr. Wray. Well, we're still drilling into that. We know, we
assess that on July 6th--
Mr. Kiley. So, a week in advance.
Mr. Wray. For example, it seems to be that, he seems to
become very focused on it. Because that's when, as I've
testified here today, that's when it, as the laptop that we've
tied to him has the Google search, ``how far away was Oswald
from Kennedy?''
Mr. Kiley. That seems like an indication of a total
amateur, right? Someone who's searching for that and he's doing
it a week in advance?
Mr. Wray. Again, I don't want to characterize him. I,
frankly, don't want to give him the credit of characterizing
him as amateur or a professional.
What I will say is that there are some things he did that
involve a certain amount of planning and preparation. On the
other hand, if you're telling me, do I think this is the most
sophisticated ever, of course not.
We deal with much more sophisticated adversaries all the
time.
Mr. Kiley. You probably prepare for much more sophisticated
plans to target high-level officials.
Mr. Wray. I'm sorry, could you repeat?
Mr. Kiley. You probably prepare for more sophisticated
plans to target high-level officials, correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, we don't do physical security, but, yes.
Obviously, we're investigating much more sophisticated attacks
all the time.
Mr. Kiley. How about the encrypted applications on his
phone? Were those there for a while?
Did he download them in the days or weeks leading up to the
assassination attempt?
Mr. Wray. I don't have the answer to that sitting here
right now. It may vary from platform to platform, because he
had a number of encrypted messaging apps on it.
Again, as I've said, we're trying to get access to that
content. That's important. It's important for everybody on this
Committee to understand that this is a real problem for law
enforcement.
That these companies, let's be clear here, these companies
are designing their platforms in a way to, no matter how
heinous the crime, no matter how rock solid the legal process
to have access--
Mr. Kiley. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm running out of time,
but I want to get--
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Mr. Kiley. To the next question. At this moment, are you
confident that high-level protectees, Presidents, former
Presidents, are well protected?
Mr. Wray. That's not really for me to say. I have a lot of
respect for the men and women of the Secret Service who provide
protection, just as I do for their counterparts at other
agencies.
Mr. Kiley. You can't say one way or the other, your
assessment as Director of the FBI, whether the President is
safe?
Mr. Wray. I'm not an expert on protective details and
physical security. What I would tell you is that we have a very
robust system for sharing threat information with those
agencies. In my experience, the men and women of the Secret
Service are professionals who are hard-working, who are
literally willing to take a bullet for their protectee.
Mr. Kiley. You mentioned a thwarted assassination attempt
against former President Bush. Are there any other thwarted
assassination attempts against current or former Presidents
that you could discuss?
Mr. Wray. Not that immediately comes to mind. I'd have to
go back and think about that. Obviously, we've been around for
a while. Current and former Presidents are high-profile targets
who are attractive to all kinds of bad guys.
Mr. Kiley. There's also been reports that the shooter's
parents called local law enforcement to say he was missing on
the day of the shooting. Is that correct?
If so, is that something that you would see as sort of a
natural thing for them to do? It seems like a 20-year-old who's
been missing for three hours, maybe his parents don't, first
thing they do, call the police.
What was going on with that situation?
Mr. Wray. So, my recollection, I don't have this in front
of me. My recollection is that they did call, concerned that he
was missing.
My recollection though, is that they didn't call until,
this was after the event.
Mr. Kiley. I see.
Mr. Wray. I'm not certain of that. So, I want to hedge on
that slightly, because I have to get back to you to confirm
that.
I believe that part of the issue was that when he last saw
his father, he indicated to his father that he was going to
shoot at the range. Then, of course, he didn't go to the range.
He didn't come back from that. So, that may have added to the
level of concern.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady
from Wyoming is recognized.
Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Wray, I am
going to go a little bit different route with my questioning.
In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in
December of last year, you stated that the FBI is ``especially
concerned about the possibility of Hamas supporters engaging in
violence on the group's behalf'' and that the threat from a
``terrorist organization who may exploit the attacks on Israel
as a tool to mobilize their followers around the world.''
We have seen a lot of conduct today that I think is
concerning to many people in terms of Hamas terrorists and
their sympathizers. Reports have surfaced alleging that many of
the groups intimidating and violating the civil rights of
Jewish American students, like the Students for Justice for
Palestine, received guidance and financial support from
American Muslims for Palestine and that AMP's directors
allegedly have links to groups which fund-raised for Hamas.
Director Wray, is the Bureau aware of or investigating
whether these groups violating the civil liberties of Jewish
Americans are connected to or affiliated with Hamas or other
terrorist organizations?
Mr. Wray. So, we are investigating a lot of attacks and
threats against the Jewish community. I have been very vocal on
how big of a concern that is. Certainly, that was already
heightened even before October 7th. Since October 7th, it went
to a whole other level. We are actively engaged with the Jewish
community both locally and nationally.
When it comes to foreign terrorist organizations and their
role or foreign adversaries and their role, we are looking hard
to see if we can find linkage, for example, funding or things
like that. Nothing that I can report at this time. It is
something that--
Ms. Hageman. You are investigating it?
Mr. Wray. --it is the kind of thing that we are looking
for, absolutely, because we know that there is an interest in
their part to foment--
Ms. Hageman. We are watching it in real time today.
Mr. Wray. Right, yes.
Ms. Hageman. There are other reports that Mayor Bitar,
National Security Council Coordinator for Intelligence and
Defense Policy and Deputy Assistant to the President, was an
active member in Students for Justice in Palestine at
Georgetown University, which is one of the groups alleged to
have ties to Hamas.
Is the Bureau investigating whether the Biden-Harris
Administration is compromised by pro-Hamas groups and
organizations?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, we are having quite a number of
Hamas-related investigations. I can't--
Ms. Hageman. I am asking specifically--
Mr. Wray. Yes, I can't--
Ms. Hageman. --about whether you are investigating whether
the Biden-Harris Administration has been compromised by pro-
Hamas groups.
Mr. Wray. There is nothing along those lines that I can
think of to report.
Ms. Hageman. I also want to talk to you a bit about the
FBI's investigation and involvement with the Russia collusion
hoax. The FBI was involved with that because of its potential
relationship to election interference. Is that correct? The
FBI's involvement in investigating the Russia collusion hoax
that was because there was concern about election interference,
is that correct?
Mr. Wray. Well, the FBI was involved and staffed as
investigators in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation into
efforts by the Russian Government to influence and interfere.
Ms. Hageman. With the election, correct?
Mr. Wray. Yes.
Ms. Hageman. All right. So, is the FBI investigating what
just happened with Joe Biden being forced out of the race after
winning the Democrat primary as election interference? Is the
FBI investigating that right now?
Mr. Wray. I am not aware of any investigation along those
lines.
Ms. Hageman. It has happened just in the last couple of
weeks.
OK. Director Wray, it was reported in March that the FBI's
Foreign Influence Task Force resumed communication with social
media companies. An FBI spokesman has stated that,
In coordination with the Department of Justice, the FBI
recently implemented procedures to facilitate sharing
information about foreign malign influences with social media
companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are
free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on
the information.
Director Wray, what specifically is the FBI doing to
reinforce that such decisions are in fact for the private
companies to make and not the Administration?
Mr. Wray. So, I think the best way to summarize it is that
the guidance takes all kinds of additional steps to underscore
that the FBI has no interest in participating in any way
whatsoever in the companies' decisionmaking and that companies
are completely free to take any actions on their own.
That we are simply passing information on to them for them
to do whatever it is they want to do independently, consistent
with, I should say, I very much appreciate the Supreme Court's
finding that no evidence that the FBI coerced platforms to take
content down.
Ms. Hageman. Well, I don't believe that is what the Supreme
Court found. What the Supreme Court found was that the parties
involved didn't have standing. I think there is a whole body of
evidence and legal analysis demonstrating that in fact this
Administration was violating the First Amendment rights of
folks through social media companies.
I am just going to ask one final very quick question. If
the FBI was involved in the removal or restriction of speech of
Americans, do you agree that this would be a violation of the
First Amendment?
Mr. Wray. Well, again, I am not going to engage in hypo-
theticals. My understanding and my strong view from everything
I have seen is that we did not violate the First Amendment.
Ms. Hageman. OK.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back. The gentleman
from Texas is recognized.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you, Director. I have just got two easy
questions for you. In February, Donald Trump, Jr., received a
letter containing a white suspicious powder that read, ``Lee
Harvey Oswald's grandson must complete his contract.''
The United States Secret Service and the FBI said they
would investigate the matter, and five months later no more
information has been released. I have also visited with Mr.
Trump, and he has not received any information either. Why is
that?
Mr. Wray. So, as I sit here right now, I am not familiar
with the specific investigation, but I do know that we have had
unfortunately quite a few investigations of threatening
mailings and white powder letters and things like that.
So, I am happy to drill into it and have us circle back to
you and see if there is more information we can share about it.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you. Would you maybe circle back to Mr.
Trump and Donald, Jr. I think they would like an update as
well.
Mr. Wray. All right. Sure. Let me--again, like I said, I am
not familiar with the specifics, but I am happy to have us look
into it and get back to whoever we need to get back to.
Mr. Gooden. Thank you. The next question, the Pittsburgh
Field Office is now handling the assassination attempt
investigation, is that right?
Mr. Wray. Well, there are several--the Pittsburgh Field
Office is the lead office. We obviously have lots of--I think
it is about half, maybe over half, of the FBI's field offices
are working on this, including almost every headquarters
division. So, we have lots and lots and lots, several hundreds
of employees working on it, but yes.
Mr. Gooden. All right. Pittsburgh is the lead. OK. This is
the same office that botched the Hunter Biden laptop case.
They, in my view, my constituents, and many Americans displayed
a clear reluctance, quote, ``reluctance to really do any
tasking'' and ``effectively failing to investigate,'' according
to the U.S. Attorney on the case.
My question is how can we trust this office and why does it
keep reappearing in critical election related investigations or
is that just dumb luck?
Mr. Wray. So, I want to be a little bit careful in what I
can say here because some of what you are talking about relates
to an ongoing investigation being led by the Special Counsel,
Mr. Weiss, but what I can tell you is that the Pittsburgh Field
Office's involvement in the matter you are talking about was
the choice by the
Attorney General, Attorney General Barr, to have the U.S.
Attorney and the FBI Field Office in Pittsburgh handle that
particular matter.
As to your summary or characterization of what U.S.
Attorney, now former U.S. Attorney Brady actually said, I would
have to see the whole context. I am not quite sure that's what
he said. As to your overall question about confidence, what I
would tell is we have--that is the point I am trying to make
about the sheer breadth of our investigation.
Yes, the Pittsburgh Field Office is the office on the
ground. That is where the attempted assassination happened. We
are using the full might of the FBI, criminal and national
security. That is why I am pointing out that multiple field
offices, over half of our field offices, almost every
headquarters division, several hundreds of employees. These are
people who are working around the clock to deal with this
historic attack.
I have the utmost confidence in those hundreds of
employees, agents, analysts, professional staff, and the
American people should, too.
Mr. Gooden. I yield to Mr. Jordan.
Chair Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Director, I guess I am not clear exactly where you said there
were eight-shell casings on the roof so eight bullets were
fired. We obviously know that Mr. Comperatore lost his life,
two other rally goers were injured, seriously injured, and then
the one that hit President Trump.
Does that account for--were some of these individuals hit
multiple times? Where did all eight bullets go, I guess, is my
question?
Mr. Wray. I don't have that in front of me. I am happy to
circle back and get that to you. That is assuming we have that
information. As I said, I think with respect to former
President Trump, there is some question about whether or not it
is a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear. So, it is
conceivable.
As I sit here right now, I don't know whether that bullet,
in addition to causing the grazing, could have also landed
somewhere else. I believe we have accounted for all of the
shots and the cartridges. So, let us get--
Chair Jordan. It is my understanding that the very first
one was the one that hit the President. Is that the very first
shot or is that not accurate?
Mr. Wray. As I sit here right now, I don't know the answer
to that. I believe we know the answer to that. I just don't
have it in front of me.
Chair Jordan. OK. Is there any chance this--it seems to me
that this bad guy, this shooter, was focused on President
Trump. You indicated that he purchased 50 rounds of ammunition,
I believe, earlier that day.
Do you have any indication thus far in your investigation
that in addition to going after and trying to assassinate the
former President, he was also looking to do a lot more damage
to other individuals?
Mr. Wray. That's a hard question to answer. What I would
say is I agree with you that his preparatory activity, what we
have seen so far, the limited information that has been
relevant and interesting about his preparatory activity, does
seem to be that he had settled on former President Trump as a
target, and this rally as his moment to try to take a shot.
In addition to the 50 rounds, of course, you have the issue
of these explosive devices.
Chair Jordan. Right.
Mr. Wray. So, what else he may have had in mind is
something that I think is very much of an open question.
On the one hand, you have these explosive devices,
including the one still back at his home that wasn't in quite
the same stage as the one in the vehicle--the ones in the
vehicle. He clearly had those explosive devices for some
reason. So, we are trying to figure that out.
As I have said before, sometimes in these kinds of
situations you find like a manifesto or something like that.
Chair Jordan. Right.
Mr. Wray. It is frustrating to us, and I am sure
frustrating to you and the American people, that we haven't
found anything quite like that.
We would love to have a road map that tells us exactly what
he was thinking. We haven't found that yet. It doesn't mean we
won't. We are looking all over the place. We are going to leave
no stone unturned.
Chair Jordan. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas is
recognized.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Director, for
being here today. I know it has been a very long day, a busy
day on Capitol Hill. Also, I want to apologize in advance if
there is any repetitive questions from me.
I have to ask, given that our sitting President resigned
from the campaign on Sunday and the Secret Service Director
resigned yesterday, you don't plan on resigning any time soon,
do you, sir?
Mr. Wray. No, sir.
Mr. Hunt. Good. Good to go. Earlier today, you told this
Committee that you recovered eight bullet cartridges from the
roof next to the shooter.
Given that testimony, I have two questions for you. How
many shots were fired at President Trump, and how many shots
were fired in total of the entire day? I know I keep hearing
eight, but were there anymore that were unaccounted for?
Mr. Wray. The best information I have right now is eight
shots. As to the sequence, I am not sure I have that sitting
here right now. As I said to the Chair, I am going to go back
to my team and see if we have got that nailed down yet. If we
have, I am happy to share it with you and the rest of the
Committee.
Mr. Hunt. Please do, sir. Thank you very much for that.
You also mentioned that the shooter used encrypted messages
to communicate. Specifically, do you know what apps that he was
using to communicate? Can you confirm if he was communicating
with any foreign nationals through the encrypted messages?
Mr. Wray. So, as to the names of the apps, I don't have
that right here in front of me. As far as communicating with
any foreign actors, I will say two things:
(1) We haven't, as I have testified before, we have not,
at the moment at least, identified any accomplices or co-
conspirators, foreign or domestic.
(2) As to foreign contacts, of course, that is part of why
we want to get access to the encrypted messages, because that
might tell us whether he had been in contact with somebody.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you. Let's talk about motive. I know the
FBI has taken a lead role in investigating the assassination of
President Trump. Your team has searched the shooter's phone,
conducted countless interviews, done extensive research into
his motives. As of today, July 24, 2024, do you and your team
know the motive of the shooter or have any idea what could have
driven it?
Mr. Wray. Well, ``know'' and ''have any idea'' are two very
different things.
Mr. Hunt. OK.
Mr. Wray. We do not know the motive. That is obviously one
of the central questions in our investigation. It has been very
frustrating to us that a lot of the usual kind of low-hanging
fruit places that we would find that have not yielded
significant clues about his motive.
Having said that, we have seen indications that he was
interested in public figures. In the period around July 6th
leading up to July 13th, he does seem to become very focused on
this particular rally and former President Trump. Exactly what
his thought process was in doing that is something still very
much under investigation.
Mr. Hunt. I want to make something clear to the American
people to try to help out with motive. Could they--again, it is
not my job to steer it, but here are some of my thoughts.
I am not sure about motives either specifically. I can tell
you that after the assassination attempt, people on both sides,
both parties, need to tone down the rhetoric.
Recently, just on Monday in fact, President Biden called
into the Harris campaign event and said that President Trump
was a threat to democracy.
Just take a look behind me at these photos. This is a
magazine cover of The New Republic from June 2024, published
just one month before the assassination attempt on President
Trump. In a Tweet explaining the cover, The New Republic said
this:
Today, we, at The New Republic think we can spend this election
year in one of two ways: We could spend it debating whether
Trump meets the 9 or 17 points that define fascism. Or we could
spend it saying he is damn close enough, and we better fight.
We unreservedly choose the latter course.
Now, sir, I know you said that the FBI doesn't have a clear
motive yet, and you have explained that. In your professional
experience as an investigator, do you think that language like
this could radicalize someone to engage in political violence?
Mr. Wray. I certainly understand the point of the question.
What I would tell you is that respectfully, I don't think it is
appropriate for me, as the FBI Director, to be characterizing
or engaging in public commentary on specific people's rhetoric.
That's because it is not that I don't understand why you
are raising the question, but I am saying that in my role, I
have to be very careful to make sure that we speak through our
work and we speak through our cases and our intelligence
products, not the FBI Director chiming in on the public square
on different people's public political commentary.
Mr. Hunt. I understand. For the record, there was an
assassination attempt on an American President. I will be
asking these same questions even if it were President Biden.
My message to the American people is that we need to do
better. I yield back the rest of my time. I thank you for being
here, sir. I know it has been a very long day.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
South Carolina is recognized.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Director, for
being here. Actually, it is refreshing. I was in the Oversight
hearing earlier this week, and although we don't have an idea
on everything, your ability to come in here and actually give
way more than Director Cheatle ever did is somewhat refreshing.
You saw some pretty bipartisan frustrations exhibited in that
particular hearing. I am sure you have seen part of it.
I want to followup on a couple lines of questions that I
had with Director Cheatle that she actually answered, which was
remarkable.
One she had indicated that Secret Service at the Trump
rally did not have any radio recordings. In your investigation,
is that accurate?
Mr. Wray. I am not sure I know the answer to that. I
believe we have--there may be some recordings on the local law
enforcement side. As to whether or not we have recordings on
the Secret Service side, I would have to drill back into that.
The reason I am--you might say, well, how the heck can you
not know, well, we certainly have interviewed lots of Secret
Service employees.
Mr. Fry. Correct.
Mr. Wray. So, what we know from the interviews versus some
other source, as I sit here right now, I don't know.
Mr. Fry. So, on this particular case, but in your
experience, and again, it is a different agency, but she had
indicated, Director Cheatle had indicated, that recordings
sometimes are done from radio recordings, I guess, what happens
at a Trump rally or any other thing that they are engaged in.
Is that your experience as well that sometimes there are
audio recordings of communications between law enforcement
officials?
Mr. Wray. Just speaking very broadly--
Mr. Fry. Broadly.
Mr. Wray. --certainly, there are times when there are
recordings. It would be hard for me to be more precise than
that.
Mr. Fry. I know you can't answer whether they were here in
this instance or not, but what would cause recordings to not
exist for the Trump rally if, as a hypothetical, what would be
the reason that this would happen?
Mr. Wray. I am afraid I don't know the answer to that. If
they didn't record, there may be situations where they just
don't record in the first place. Why that would be though, I am
not sure I can answer that.
Mr. Fry. Thank you. Let me ask you this, and this is
another line of questioning. Director Cheatle had indicated
that seconds before the would-be assassin fired the shot, is
roughly seconds, is when he became a person of suspicion to an
actual threat. Would you agree with that assessment from
Director Cheatle?
Mr. Wray. Well, let me try it this way. I think there are
sort of three--in my mind, there are sort of three, let's say
three significant moments on this continuum that you are kind
of getting at.
There is roughly an hour before the shooting when local law
enforcement observes the individual, the shooter, at that point
as somebody that was a person of concern. I forgot the exact
phrasing. That was based on seeing him with this range finder.
No observation of a weapon, but there was something odd and off
about him that caught local law enforcement's attention. So,
that is the first moment.
Then, there is a second moment which is just minutes before
the shooting where local law enforcement observed him on the
roof, but didn't see a weapon is my understanding at that
point. At that point, their level of concern, obviously, was
even higher.
The third moment, which is that moment when local law
enforcement saw him, the officer who climbed up with the
assistance of his colleague, and saw the shooter in the prone
position with the weapon. That is seconds before the event.
So, the terminology I'm not sure.
Mr. Fry. Right.
Mr. Wray. It seems to me there is an evolution of concern
over that time period.
Mr. Fry. Correct, an escalating concern. At what point--and
this again, I just don't know so I'm curious. At what point is
say the sniper who killed Mr. Crooks, at what point is he able
to fire a shot and does he have to have authorization in which
to do that?
Mr. Wray. I don't know that I know Secret Service's rules
of engagement in that situation. It is possible that our
interview of the counter-sniper has uncovered that.
Again, our focus has been--I certainly understand why you
are asking the question. Our focus has been on the shooter
himself and his actions in the attack. These two other reviews,
the DHS Inspector General and the outside independent panel are
both looking at the performance of the Secret Service, which
would, I am confident, include the question that you are
talking about.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Director. I actually think from a
legislative purpose and what this body will probably ultimately
do, it's of great importance that we break down barriers of
communication and that we allow officers to do their job
without so this doesn't happen again.
I appreciate you being here. Thank you, Director.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from
Ohio is recognized.
Mr. Rulli. Well once again, as Congressman Fry said, we
want to thank you for your time and a lot more information
today than Monday. So, thank you for that.
I just have a handful of questions. I would love to have
just a simple yes or no so we can get done with this.
So, on day one, President Biden issued an Executive Order
mandating DEI programs in the Executive Branch.
You responded by hiring FBI's first ever Chief Diversity
Officer. You are even on the Bureau's website quoting, saying,
That diversity and inclusion of the workforce is something I
care deeply about because the success of our efforts impacts
our operations, our culture, and our future.
So, Director, just a simple yes or no. Do you still find
DEI hiring practices to be central to the FBI's operations,
cultures, and future?
Mr. Wray. I believe that diversity is an important part--is
a core value of a high-performing organization.
Mr. Rulli. Do you have any concerns that our homeland
security efforts will be hampered if the FBI continues to use
DEI as a primary hiring measure?
Mr. Wray. I don't believe that we use DEI as a primary
hiring metric. I would say that we have not lowered our
standards.
Mr. Rulli. Yes or no, please.
Mr. Wray. Let me--if I could finish. It is not a yes or no
question. We have not lowered our standards, and the facts back
that up.
Mr. Rulli. Are you aware of a 112-page report compiled by
senior agents and analysts which stated,
If the current trajectory of the FBI special agent recruitment
and selection continues using DEI as the primary and sole
measure, our homeland security efforts will be significant
hampered.
Do you know about that 112-page report?
Mr. Wray. I am aware of a report from a number of anonymous
former employees.
Mr. Rulli. Thank you. Do you agree that protecting the
former President falls under the umbrella of Homeland Security?
Mr. Wray. Well, protecting the former President, the
physical security, the protective detail on the former
President, is the province of the Secret Service, which is part
of the Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. Rulli. It is my understanding that historically the FBI
had 100,000 applications for special agents on file at any
given time of the year.
So, talking about supplementing recruitment, are you aware
that in February 2024, a letter from the FBI's Assistant
Director for Training Division, which reported that FBI only
received an estimated 48,000 applications over a two-year
period?
Mr. Wray. I don't know if we are comparing apples to
apples. What I can tell you is that in the time that I have
been FBI Director, the number of Americans applying to be
special agents has gone up dramatically to the tune of in some
cases double or triple the pace of--
Mr. Rulli. So, the 48,000 is wrong?
Mr. Wray. --if I could finish, sir, if I could finish,
please--to a rate that is higher--you would have to go back
about a decade or so to find the number of Americans applying
to be special agents that are currently applying.
Mr. Rulli. OK. So, for the record, that 48,000 is probably
wrong then in your eyes?
Mr. Wray. I don't know. I don't have the letter in front of
me. What I am not sure of is that we are comparing apple to
apple in terms of time periods and everything else.
Mr. Rulli. In advance of the Trump shooting, United States
Secret Service Special Agent in Charge Tim Burke reportedly
told law enforcement partners that the NATO Summit in
Washington, DC, limited his resources available to the Trump
rally.
The Service has similar DEI hiring aims and failed their
zero-fail mission to protect President Trump. Director Cheatle
has since stepped down. Could the hyper fixation on hitting
Biden Administration's imposed DEI rules be causing the FBI and
the Federal law enforcement agencies to not only miss their
candidates, but also potential threats?
Mr. Wray. Well, I can't speak to Secret Service's hiring
practice. What I can tell you is that in my view, diversity,
like everything else, is something that has to be done in the
right way. Just like everything, there is a right way and a
wrong way to achieve it.
I think we can and have achieved improvements in diversity
and at the same time not lowering our standards. I think part
of the reason we have been able to do that is because of the
encouraging increase in the number of Americans applying to be
special agents.
Mr. Rulli. Thank you. The investigation into the planting
of pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters has been going on
for over 3\1/2\ years and will soon have lasted longer than the
Biden Presidency.
I look forward to you proving yourselves because we haven't
received any update, right now, on the Trump shooting since
July 15th and the people really need that.
Can the public expect a more transparent and timely
investigation into the attempted assassination of former
President Trump?
Mr. Wray. I have been testifying here all day about the
investigation into the attempted assassination of former
President Trump. We have done multiple briefings, and I have
answered multiple questions.
Mr. Rulli. We appreciate that because like I said--
Mr. Wray. OK. If that's what you were asking.
Mr. Rulli. --well, it just seems like there hasn't been a
press conference to the people to go through all the different
details that were already presented today.
I will just leave you with one final question. The
government is not doing their job. Do you feel as the Director
that perhaps not only the FBI, but the Secret Service needs to
have a complete reconstruction? Do you think it is still put
together the way that it could be do its job?
Mr. Wray. The FBI that I see every single day, having
visited all 56 of our field offices at least twice, many of
them three times, the FBI that I see engaging with State and
local law enforcement from all 50 States that I hear about from
prosecutors, judges, business leaders, community leaders, and
foreign partners, is an FBI that is respected, trusted,
appreciated, and it is there for people when they need them the
most. That is the FBI that I see. I am very proud to be a part
of them.
Mr. Rulli. Any comment on the other agencies?
Mr. Wray. I am not going to comment on another agencies.
Mr. Rulli. I appreciate your time, sir. I yield back to the
Chair.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back. Director, I have
just a couple quick questions, but I want to give the Ranking
Member a chance to say some remarks or questions, and then we
will be done.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would like to say
as somebody when I grew up watching the Untouchables. I think
Eliot Ness would be proud of you. I don't know about J. Edgar
Hoover, but Eliot Ness for sure.
Let me ask you this. In Memphis, you put Memphis and
Nashville's FBI together, and consolidated in one office. We
have--I know you have worked with our U.S. Attorney and others
to work on the crime situation there, and it has gotten better.
Is this change in the FBI relationship there, we are not going
to have an office necessarily. Tell me how that is going to
affect Memphis.
Mr. Wray. So, I want to be very clear. We are not leaving.
We are not leaving Memphis. What we are doing is--
Mr. Cohen. Nobody should leave Memphis.
Mr. Wray. Right.
Mr. Cohen. Most of the songs are about people going to
Memphis. They leave Nashville. They go to Memphis.
Mr. Wray. We are recognizing population growth and the
threat to the environment. We have instead taken, if you look
across the State, instead of having two field offices in
Knoxville and Memphis, we are creating a Tennessee division
headquartered in the middle in Nashville. We are keeping the
offices in Knoxville and Memphis.
In fact, when it comes to Memphis specifically, not only
will it not result in any decrease in the number of agents
there to work, actually, strange as it might sound, it is going
to allow us to increase the number of agents who will be
assigned to the Memphis office, including to tackle things like
violent crime, which I know is of huge concern.
The reason for that is really, the effect of this
reorganization is, to be able to reduce administrative roles
that will be more consolidated in the middle of Nashville. It
will allow us to increase the operational roles, the agent
roles, the number of them in Memphis.
So, not only are we not leaving Memphis, we are actually
increasing our investigative presence in Memphis as part of
this. We are going to be able to continue to collaborate
closely with our great partners there without skipping a beat.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. That is reassuring. One of the
questions that was asked over here was about previous
assassination attempts on the Presidents. Obviously, I know you
are a lot younger than me, did you ever watch the Untouchables?
Mr. Wray. I have watched them, yes.
Mr. Cohen. One of the programs was on Mayor Cermak. Do you
know Mayor Cermak?
Mr. Wray. I am sorry. I couldn't hear you.
Mr. Cohen. Mayor Cermak, do you know who he was?
Mr. Wray. I do not.
Mr. Cohen. He was the mayor of Chicago. In February 1933,
there was an assassination attempt on Franklin Roosevelt in
Miami, Florida. Mayor Cermak, C-E-R-M-A-K, was killed and said,
``I am glad it was me and not you.'' Allegedly, he said that.
Anyway, that was an attempt and it failed. The Untouchables
brought it into my consciousness.
Thank you for your work. I appreciate it very much. I
appreciate you are not looking into changing our Democratic
nominee. That is something we normally do. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. Director, I am still not clear in my mind.
When did the counter-snipers, the good guys, when did they
first get eyes on the bad guy, the would-be assassin, on the
roof of the AGR building?
Mr. Wray. I am not certain, but I will make my best effort
here.
Chair Jordan. I guess, I am sorry to interrupt.
Mr. Wray. Yes?
Chair Jordan. Did they have eyes on him before the local
enforcement was looking up on the roof and engaged with the bad
guy shooter?
Mr. Wray. I don't know the answer to that. I will look into
that and get to you. I believe we have the answer. I just don't
know that I have it. I want to make sure I answer accurately.
Chair Jordan. Because we thought from the briefings that
Mr. Abbate gave us.
Mr. Wray. Abbate.
Chair Jordan. Excuse me, Abbate gave us, and the briefings
you gave to Congress that they did. It wasn't clear from your
testimony. So, if you can get that answer to us that would be
helpful.
I want to circle back just a third time, if I could, to the
Iranian threat to President Trump and some others, former
members of our government. The reason I want to go back there
because we now know that the Secret Service and Homeland
Security denied resources to President Trump's detail that they
had asked for.
It seems to me if that all happened after you guys knew
about the Iran threat and had briefed the Secret Service on
that real threat that is an even bigger problem. That is why I
was trying to get that timeline down, when you knew about it
and when you briefed the Secret Service on the Iranian's threat
to kill President Trump.
Mr. Wray. So, again, I really want to be careful to both be
accurate, but also not to kind of stray into any kind of
classified information or confirm the existence of classified
information. So, let me see if there is a way for us to get
back to you on that question.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Mr. Wray. I understand why you are asking. It may be easier
to answer than I think. At the moment in an open hearing, I am
not sure if I can see the right way to do that.
Chair Jordan. Fair enough. We will expect answers to both
those questions. If you can get back to us, that would be
great.
Finally, is there anything else you want to tell us that we
didn't ask? You came today and you told us some things that
weren't even prompted by questions. I just want to make sure if
there is anything else you want to tell us regarding July 13th,
and what you discovered, now is the time.
Mr. Wray. Well, again, we are going to continue to engage
with the Congress. I think we have covered a lot of the points
that I really wanted to make sure that I got across--and just
as I am looking at my list--in one way or another through the
course of today's questioning. I think we have gotten through
most of it.
Chair Jordan. That concludes today's hearing. We thank our
witness for appearing before the Committee today.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witness or
additional materials for the record. Without objection, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:53 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=117545.
[all]