Return to Transcripts main page


Rosenstein and Wray Hearings. Tense Hearing in Congress. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired June 28, 2018 - 13:00   ET


[13:00:00] REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE (R), TEXAS: That he said that neither Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on his team asked him about the text or his expressed hatred of Donald Trump. He said special counsel never asked him what he meant when he sent those texts. He said that Special Counsel Mueller never asked him if he acted the bias and the hatred reflected in those texts.

I asked Agent Strzok at least a half a dozen times, did Special Counsel Mueller or anyone on his team ever ask you about these troubling text messages and whether any of your actions taken, whether any of your decisions made and when -- whether any of the evidence you collected may have been corrupted or tainted or in any way influenced by the hatred, bias, or prejudice expressed in these texts? He repeatedly and unequivocally said no.

Yes, we know that Special Counsel Mueller removed him from the case, but what did Special Counsel Mueller do to determine whether or how the actions taken, the decisions made and the evidence gathered by a Donald Trump-hating lead investigator -- how that may have prejudiced Donald Trump as a subject -- evidence, by the way, that Agent Strzok unequivocally stated in the presence of FBI counsel that became part of the -- Special Counsel Mueller's foundational evidence and that was used by the special counsel team.

If Special Counsel Mueller was here, I know what I would ask him, but he's not. But his supervisor is. So, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, what, if anything, has Special Counsel Mueller done to determine whether the actions taken, the decisions made and the evidence collected by Special Agent Peter Strzok was impacted by his very clear hatred and bias of President Trump?

ROSENSTEIN: Congressman, as I know you're aware, Director Mueller has vast experience both as a prosecutor and as a supervisor of (ph) the FBI. So I can assure you that he understands the importance of considering any credibility issues in determining whether or not to rely upon a -- a person. With regard to the...

RATCLIFFE: Well -- so let me stop you. So what actions has he taken as his supervisor?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, I -- we're not going to talk publicly about the substance of the investigation, so.

RATCLIFFE: I don't want you to do that. Can you tell me whether you know he has... ROSENSTEIN: Yes.

RATCLIFFE: ... taken steps to determine?

ROSENSTEIN: Yes. Director Mueller has taken appropriate steps. And keep in mind, Congressman...

RATCLIFFE: Well -- so let me stop you there. I'm -- I'm thrilled to hear that he's taken steps. You and I are both former prosecutors. How does a prosecutor go about eliminating bias, prejudice and expressed hatred from foundational evidence?

Because you know, of course, that, if your root evidence is fairly called into question, everything that comes from that evidence is fairly called into question, right?

ROSENSTEIN: Yes. I realize I -- I'm just about out of time. But, to give a somewhat comprehensive response, as you know, when we conduct an investigation, the purpose is to determine whether or not there's sufficient evidence to prove -- the purpose is to determine whether or not there's sufficient evidence to prove a case in court.

And, if you go into court and you're taking a piece of evidence, you're relying upon a witness, you need to consider any issues that go to the credibility of the witness or the credibility of the evidence.

And so you used the term "foundational evidence." I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind. But if, for example, Director Mueller were to rely upon a document that Mr. Strzok produced or a statement that he took or were to call him as a witness, obviously, he'd need to consider that evidence that would be evidence that would tend to impeach his credibility. And Director Mueller well knows that.

I just wanted to quickly respond, if I could -- I recognize we're out of time, but Director Mueller and I learned about this issue at the same time. And we learned about it from the Inspector General, who (ph) brought it to our attention soon after he discovered it -- I believe it was last July.

And so it was our understanding that the inspector general was conducting an investigation on Mr. Strzok. So the fact that Director Mueller didn't spend a lot of time questioning him -- I think that was probably appropriate, because that was the inspector general's job.

But I would also point out that I don't think it took Director Mueller very long after seeing those text messages to decide what was the right thing to do.

RATCLIFFE: Thank you. I -- I yield back.

GOODLATTE: The chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for an opening...

NADLER: Thank you.

GOODLATTE: ... for -- for his questions. NADLER: This month, I wrote to both of you regarding the apparent outing in the media of a confidential human source involved in the early stages of the Russia investigation. I understand that, while I was on the floor just now, one of my Republican colleagues had the gall to quiz you about his identity again today.

In my letter, I asked that you, quote, "investigate this case for potential violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, as well as other statutes and department guidelines designed to protect the lives of covert operatives and confidential human sources," close quote.

Director Wray, last month, you testified before the Senate that the day that we can't protect human sources is the day the American people start becoming less safe. Can you further and briefly explain what you mean by that statement?

WRAY: Congressman Nadler, in investigation after investigation in the counterintelligence front, the counterterrorism front, organized crime front, human trafficking front and really virtually every area of enforcement that the FBI is responsible for, we rely heavily on human sources to come forward and share information with us, often at great peril to themselves and to their families.

And that is one of the single most valuable and important tools that we have to keep the American people safe. And it's something that we've relied on for, now, coming up on almost 110 years of the FBI. And, if we start losing that tool because people don't trust us to protect their identities appropriately, the American people will be less safe.

NADLER: Well, thank you. First of all, happy 110th birthday.

It seems that Chairman Nunes has now asked the FBI for the identities of all, quote, "undercover agents and/or confidential human sources," close quote, who may have interacted with the Trump campaign. Have you received this request, Director?

WRAY: I am aware that we received a letter very recently from Chairman Nunes. I haven't looked at it closely yet. I've been...


NADLER: Would it be dangerous for this information to be made public -- the identities of all undercover agents and or confidential human sources who may have interacted with the Trump campaign?

WRAY: Well, as I said, we're going to do everything we can, appropriately, to protect sources and methods. We are also going to do everything we can to be responsive to legitimate congressional oversight.

And my experience has been that, when both sides -- both the Congress and the executive branch -- come into it with the recognition that both are important -- Congress needs its questions answered and sources need to be protected. And we're going to do our best... NADLER: The revelation of those names...

WRAY: ... to make sure we do both.

NADLER: ... would be dangerous. A public revelation of those names might be dangerous.

WRAY: A public revelation of source identity or anything that could lead to source identity would be dangerous.

NADLER: Thank you.

Mr. Rosenstein, in a January 2000 letter to Representative John Linder, the department outlined the rationale for its longstanding policy to decline to provide congressional committees with access to open law enforcement files. The letter acknowledges that Congress has clear, legitimate interest in determining how the department enforces statutes.

But it also notes that "Disclosure of documents from our open files could also provide a roadmap of the department's ongoing investigations that could fall into the hands of targets of the investigation through inadvertence or a deliberate act on the path of someone -- on the part of someone having access to them," close quote.

Mr. Deputy Attorney General, does the Linder letter still guide the department's response to congressional requests for information?

ROSENSTEIN: Yes, Congressman.

I've tried to explain this issue to some of your colleagues. And (ph), yesterday, I wrote a lengthy letter to Chairman Grassley, with a copy to Chairman Goodlatte, that goes into some detail about the background and explains why it is, sir, that this committee would not want us to turn over every document of FBI files.

This committee would want us to exercise the appropriate responsibility to make sure we're not damaging any case, risking the life or safety of any informant or causing harm to national security. And that's what we're doing.

NADLER: OK. Thank you.

Finally, Mr. Rosenstein, I'm sure you hear complaints that the special counsel's investigation is taking too long. I don't know what Mr. Mueller knows, other than what -- other than what he has put into his charging documents and plea agreements.

Everything else we hear about the investigation has either been leaked or made up entirely by President Trump and his lawyers, and then repeated by Republicans hoping to undermine the special counsel. I don't know that Mr. Mueller knows, and most of my colleagues are similarly situated.

But you know the case better than anyone else, so I have three brief questions. Is the special counsel's investigation taking too long? Has he deliberately slowed his pace? And, when his work is done, will the American people look back and view it as a waste of time?

ROSENSTEIN: Sir, I can assure you that Director Mueller is moving as expeditiously as possible, consistent with his responsibility to do it right.

NADLER: He has not deliberately slowed his pace?

ROSENSTEIN: Of course not.

NADLER: And, when his work is done, the American people will look back and not view it as waste of time?

ROSENSTEIN: People can draw their own conclusions, sir.

NADLER: And, finally -- and, finally, my last question before the bell rings, is it atypical or typical for an investigation of this magnitude to take as long as this has done?

ROSENSTEIN: No, sir, I don't think it's atypical at all. I believe that it's being done as expeditiously as possible. That was one of my goals in appointing somebody I knew who would be focused on the task, would not be distracted by other matters and would get it done right and as quickly as possible.

NADLER: So it's typical, not atypical.

ROSENSTEIN: Well, every investigation is unique, but I think, for investigations of this type, I believe it's not atypical, and it's certainly not unduly long, given the nature of the investigation.

NADLER: Thank you very much. I yield back.

GOODLATTE: The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for five minutes.

CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rosenstein, I had a telephone town hall meeting last night with people back home. That's where people get ask us questions. We try to respond to them to the best of our ability. And quite a few people participated.

And here's what one lady asked me: "Congressman Chabot, what's your reaction to the inspector general's report, and how do you feel about the bias to exonerate Hillary Clinton by the DOJ? And where do you stand on holding Rosenstein in contempt for withholding documents?" You're getting pretty famous.

What I see out there and I hear out there among a significant portion of the American public, including that lady who asked me that question last night, is a great deal of skepticism, of mistrust of their own government, particularly mistrust of high-level people within the Justice Department.

I think there's a -- I really think that's a shame. But I guess it shouldn't be surprising -- not when you consider what they've seen from their own government in recent years.

Now, I happen to represent the city of Cincinnati and some other areas surrounding that area, and we have an IRS facility there. And, in that facility, likely at the direction of higher-ups in this city, Washington, they were targeting conservative groups for special harassment and ignoring liberal groups.

And the president of the United States, Barack Obama, who was supposed to ensure that investigations of such matters were handled fairly and without bias, instead went on TV and gave his opinion -- and probably gave a signal to all the investigators under him -- that there was "not even a smidgen of corruption."

That was a quote from the president at the time -- "not even a smidgen of corruption." And the person who headed up that improper targeting, Lois Lerner, not only took the Fifth and refused to testify, but she was found in contempt by this body -- by the United States House of Representatives -- with no consequences. No wonder many Americans are skeptical.

They've seen an investigation of one presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, that was supposed to be unbiased, but the proverbial thumb was on the scale to her benefit. She sets up in an illegal e-mail server and swears she never sent classified e-mails, but she did and gets a pass.

FBI Director Comey, who's supposed to be unbiased, drafts a statement exonerating her before he's even interviewed her. Hillary's staff gets immunity deals that smell to high heavens. Hillary's operatives use hammers and BleachBit to destroy sought-after cell phones and e-mails -- again, with no consequences -- and on and on.

But the other presidential candidate, the one who actually won, but wasn't supposed to -- well, he's treated very differently. A team of supposedly unbiased investigators turns out to be anything but. Nine out of the 16 have made political contributions, almost all to Democrats, including to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama; none gave to Trump.

And two of them, as we've heard over and over again today, were communicating back and forth about how they were going to stop candidate Trump from being elected, and even had a so-called insurance policy -- a pretty sinister-sounding thing -- to make damn sure he wasn't elected.

So my question to you, Mr. Rosenstein, is this: Do you see why that lady last night might believe there's bias in the Justice Department and how these investigations, when you compare one to the other, have been carried out?

ROSENSTEIN: Yes sir, and I share your concern. As you know, I wasn't one running the investigation in 2017. I absolutely share your concern. I understand that.

And I think one of the challenges that we face -- and Director Wray and I are very familiar with this challenge -- is that the culture of the Justice Department in which we operate -- now, there are exceptions, obviously, but the culture in which we operate is one in which we make a conscious effort not to consider partisan issues.

In fact (ph), the way I've run my offices -- I've been a manager in the Justice Department in a number of different capacities, at this point, for about 16 years or so, and my -- I've been very attuned (ph) to this issue...

CHABOT: Let me stop you there.

ROSENSTEIN: ... and I make every effort, Congressman...

CHABOT: I'm running out of time. My time's very short at this point. I appreciate that you weren't there; you are now, so we appreciate your cooperation, appreciate your hard work. So let me just conclude with this.

The American people, like that lady last night who asked that question on my telephone town hall meeting -- and, of course, she felt that there was bias by the DOJ investigation, clearly, by the way she asked it -- I think the American people deserve a whole lot better than what they've been getting from their Justice Department of late.

They have a right to unbiased, fair investigations. They have a right to expect equal treatment and equal justice, whether a person that they're investigating is a Democrat or Republican, whether they're conservative or liberal, whether they were expected to win an election or not, whether their name happen to be Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. And I'm afraid that's not what happened here.

And I yield back.

ROSENSTEIN: Congressman, as I was saying, I do share your concern. One of the challenges we face, sir, is that we operate in an environment where, in our interactions in the office, we make every effort to avoid any references to politics and where we focus on the facts and the law and we consider all the evidence before we reach conclusions.

American people are getting their information from other sources, and they don't always hear both sides. And I think it's important, sir -- this give me and Director Wray an opportunity to explain the way that we're running our organizations. There are going to be mistakes, but I think the assurance to the American people comes in our commitment to follow the rules.

ROSENSTEIN: There were violations of the rules. I recognize that. We're making every effort to make sure that doesn't happen on our watch. With 115,000 employees, we're going to have issues, as well, but I can assure you that we're going to deal with them appropriately.

And, with regard to my commitment, Congressman, the attorney general has been very clear about his desire to ensure that the department follows regular order.

We follow these traditional rules and practices. And if we adhere to these rules, there will sometimes be skeptical questions because we're not able to respond publicly to criticism.


But at the end of the day, Congressman, I can assure you that cases that are brought on our watch are going to be in compliance with the rules. And so I hope that over time, seeing us follow the rules, the American people will retain whatever confidence they've lost, because as Director Wray said, these folks we work with day in and day out, they are almost all there to do the right thing. And to the extent that they're not, we'll hold them accountable.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. I yield back.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The chair recognizes the --

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, we're going to get back to that hearing momentarily. But joining me right now is Democratic Congressman Adam Schiff. He's the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

And, congressman, they are really the Republicans, the members of this committee, and we've been watching it very closely, the House Judiciary Committee, they're really going after Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, even threatening that he might be held in contempt, even impeachment, because the Justice Department, they say, is failing to turn over to them documents involving the Hillary Clinton investigation.

Your reaction?

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D), CALIFORNIA: Well, Wolf, this is a show being put on for the president's benefit. This is collaboration with executive masquerading as oversight. If you're going to call this oversight at all, it's the most obsequious kind of oversight that says, we will do anything we can in the service of the president.

They brought these witnesses in just to badger them, just to potentially give the president an excuse for firing one of them, Rod Rosenstein, so that they can alter the course of the Mueller investigation. But make no mistake, they will continue to ask for documents in a pending investigation involving the president of the United States, something the president has no right to, so that they can be fed, either directly or indirectly, to the president's legal defense team.

This is what Rudy Giuliani has made so clear. It is his expectation. But more than that, they're interested in a fight with the Justice Department to give this president a pretext to take action against Rod Rosenstein.

BLITZER: And you saw this this morning, the president on his Twitter feed. He was really going after the entire Russia investigation.

Let me read to you a couple of these tweets and get your reaction. When is Bob Mueller -- he's the special counsel leading the Russia investigation -- he says, when is Bob Mueller going to list his conflicts of interest? Why has it taken so long? Will they be listed at the top of his $22 million report? And what about the 13 angry Democrats? Will they list their conflicts with crooked h -- Hillary Clinton? How many people will be sent to jail and persecuted on old and totally unrelated charges. There was no collusion and there was no obstruction of no collusion. And what is going on in the FBI and Department of Justice with crooked Hillary, the Democratic National Committee and all of the lies? A disgraceful situation.

He has been doing this now for weeks and weeks trying to undermine the credibility of the entire Russian probe. And it does seem to be having an impact, if you look at polls, with a certain element of the American public.

SCHIFF: Well, it has an impact. And as I think Senator Corker pointed out, he has developed a certain cult-like following among some of the members of Congress. And this is his goal. It's to discredit the Mueller investigation.

We cannot, I think, be oblivious to how, over the course of time, he has numbed us to these violations of policy, of norms of office, norms of behavior. I mean, Wolf, this is an investigation implicating the president of the United States. Even in completely unrelated investigations, the president of the United States is not supposed to be dictating to the Justice Department how they should conduct an investigation or who they should investigate or how. So even doing that would violate policy.

But to do it in a case involving your own liability, your own exposure is just an outrageous assault on the rule of law. This is a president that says, I am above the law, not like any other American. For other Americans, who may be under investigation, they had no right to see materials on the investigative files until they're indicted. And neither does this president. But, sadly, here, we have all too many members of Congress willing to prostrate themselves before the executive and give him anything he wants.

[13:20:20] BLITZER: You want to name names, which members of Congress are in this cult-like group that you -- that you're suggesting?

SCHIFF: Well, you know, the four horsemen of this apocalypse have been Devin Nunes and Trey Gowdy, Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan. They have been leading the charge basically to require the Justice Department to give them materials that can be leaked or fed or misrepresented, like the infamous Nunes memorandum, in the service of the president. And in the meantime, they do enormous damage to these institutions. Ultimately, they'll be held accountable. I think when this chapter of history is written, it will condemn the president in the strongest terms, but it will also condemn this Congress and these architects for undermine our system of checks and balances.

BLITZER: The president also tweeted once again suggesting he has doubts that Russia actually did interfere in the U.S. presidential election in 2016. He tweeted this. Russia continues to say they had nothing to do with meddling in our election.

He's made these suggestions several times over the past year, even though Obama administration officials, leaders of the intelligence community, they concluded that Russia did interfere with an intention to trying to help Trump against Hillary Clinton in the election. But even the president's own intelligence chiefs, the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, the former CIA director, Mike Pompeo, now the secretary of state, and so many others, they have all said Russia not only interfered in the presidential election in 2016, but continues to interfere and will interfere in the midterm elections coming up in November.

SCHIFF: Well, this is -- this is exactly right. And it takes your breath away to consider that the president of the United States is basically disputing the conclusions, the bipartisan conclusions of his own intelligence professionals, of the members of Congress, and suggesting that we don't know whether the Russians did it or that we should credit the word of this former KGB operative, Vladimir Putin.

It's preposterous, but it's also dangerous, because here he is about to go into some summit with Vladimir Putin. And what is he doing again on the eve of that? He's undermining his own country. He's undermining his own intelligence agencies and saying, I'm more apt to believe Vladimir Putin than my own people.

Here he is saying Russia should be brought back into the G-8 without asking for anything, without asking for Russia to get out of Ukraine. No, this president is ready to make any concessions --


SCHIFF: Well, either he is the worst negotiator in history, or there is some ulterior motive. There is some leverage the Russia holds over the president of the United States that --

BLITZER: What do you believe?

SCHIFF: I don't know. I don't know. It certainly may be in part due to this bizarre admiration or fascination he has with authoritarian figures. But there's a particular affinity for Vladimir Putin. And one of the things that I think needs to be investigated by the special counsel, by the Congress, is whether the Russians were laundering money through the Trump organization. And this is leverage they're applying to the president of the United States. That would be far more compromising in my view than any salacious (INAUDIBLE).

BLITZER: Have you seen any evidence of that?

SCHIFF: We've certainly heard testimony about the indicia of money laundering, enough to raise credible allegations that need to be investigated. And, indeed, where we had credible allegations before of secret Trump associate meetings with the Russians. When we did look into them, they proved to be all too true. This allegation we were not allowed to investigate by the Republicans. I hope Mueller is doing it. If not, it needs to be done. I think it's negligent for us not to know the answer.

BLITZER: All right, Congressman Schiff, lots to talk about. We're going to continue our special coverage of this hearing right now, but thank you so much for coming.

SCHIFF: Thank you.

BLITZER: Adam Schiff of California, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.

Let's go back. Rod Rosenstein and the FBI director, Christopher Wray, answering questions from the House Judiciary Committee.

[13:24:15] ROSENSTEIN: -- time the inspector general collected those documents.

GOODLATTE: No one, to our knowledge, has been indicted or held criminally liable for the spillage of over 100 classified e-mails over unsecured and unclassified servers and accounts.

Those of us who hold security clearances wonder whether the executive branch still takes seriously oversight of handling of classified information. So does DOJ ever plan on holding anyone accountable for the significant spillage of classified information during the Clinton reign as secretary of state?

ROSENSTEIN: Sir, in the event that the evidence is sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and it meets our principles of federal prosecution, yes, we would prosecute it.

GOODLATTE: How much of your job involves access to classified information?

ROSENSTEIN: Sir, it varies, really, from day to day or week to week, but certainly a significant component.

GOODLATTE: But you would -- how would you characterize setting up a private server to conduct your business that would inevitably lead to classified information passing across that server?

ROSENSTEIN: Sir, I don't want to comment on the case. I can tell you, from my personal perspective, having been a government employee for 30 years, I do not expect government employees to be conducting government business on their personal accounts.

Now, occasionally, there may be exceptions, but, as a general matter, the purpose of the government e-mail system is to capture all the official correspondence.

GOODLATTE: Is that gross negligence or extreme carelessness?

ROSENSTEIN: I don't want to put a legal standard on it, sir. It just isn't something we...

GOODLATTE: There is a legal standard. It's in the statute.

ROSENSTEIN: Right, your question is -- anybody's conduct, you need to evaluate the facts and circumstances of the case. But I -- I trust that our employees know that official business should be done on Department of Justice servers. GOODLATTE: What would happen to me as Judiciary Committee chairman if I set up a private server and conducted all my government business, and classified information passed through that server?

ROSENSTEIN: Well, as you know, Congress has speech and debate privilege, so they're not governed by exactly the same rules, sir. But I would hope that you would not do that.

GOODLATTE: Mr. Wray, we have repeatedly asked FBI personnel whether the fact that an agent has an extramarital affair is a problem. I'm not asking because I want to be the morality police.

I'm asking because it seems clear that an affair that is unknown to a spouse could be a significant vulnerability for an FBI agent, especially a counterintelligence agent. Do you agree with that sentiment?

WRAY: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a specific offense code, and I don't want to comment on any of the ongoing personnel matters that are going through the disciplinary process right now, which I think answering your question at this particular time might cause me to do.

GOODLATTE: And, finally, Mr. Rosenstein, in light of the decision by Inspector General Horowitz to look at the potential abuse of the FISA process, are you currently signing FISA applications?

ROSENSTEIN: The normal process is that there are three people authorized to sign them, and the low man on the totem pole gets the responsibility. So, generally speaking, it'd (ph) be the assistant attorney general for the national security division.

If he were absent or unavailable, or occasionally, if there is a matter in which he might have a conflict, then it would come to me. But I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, there's no reason that I should refrain from my responsibility to sign FISA applications when they meet the standards required by the statute.

In fact, it'd be a dereliction of duty for me to fail to approve a FISA that was justified by the facts of the law.

GOODLATTE: Thank you.

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for five minutes.

DEUTCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, earlier in his questioning -- in his statement, Mr. Gowdy had some interesting things to say. He -- he said that he acknowledged that Russia attacked this country and that they should be the target.

Then he went on to say, "But Russia isn't being hurt by this investigation; we are. The country is being hurt by this investigation into Russia's meddling in our election." I would ask General Rosenstein, Director Wray, what is the purpose of this investigation? ROSENSTEIN: Congressman, I think that there are actually two different issues. The first is this investigation, which is an historical investigation of interference with the 2016 election. The second question, which I think is of tremendous importance, is what's happening now and what's going to happen in the future.

And I think it's important for the American people to understand that this is not a one-shot deal. There are foreign countries that, on a regular basis, are attempting to infiltrate the American computer systems and interfere in our democracy.

And the FBI has a task force that is focused on this problem. It's working with officials in the Department of Justice, and we're going to continue to do everything that we can to protect the American people against this sort of abuse.

DEUTCH: Director Wray, when -- when Mr. Gowdy says -- and, again, I quote my friend -- "Whatever you've got, finish it the hell up," can you tell me the way the FBI conducts investigations? And does it operate on the timeline that permits it to gather the -- the evidence, all of it, in full? Or does it operate on the timeline established by members of the United States House?

WRAY: Congressman, we are not going to do our investigation subject to any political influence by either side. We are going to do our investigations as expeditiously, but responsibly as we possibly can.

As I've said repeatedly, we're going to play it straight and by the book, and that would extend to every investigation that we have responsibility for.


DEUTCH: General Rosenstein, you submitted a letter to Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate -- also, a letter to Speaker Ryan -- about the resolution.