11.19.19. Sharingtextmessagesstrzokandpage

tlnitnt ~tatrs ~rnatr
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
December 21, 2017
The Honorable Stephen E. Boyd

Acting Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Legislative Affairs
950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Acting Assistant Attorney General Boyd:
Thank you for your November 17 and December 1 responses to our July 11, September 26, and
October 17, 2017 inquiries regarding the Department of Justice's (DOJ or "the Department")
involvement with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ("the
Commission"). We also appreciate your provision, under separate cover, of DOJ's 2000 letter to
Rep. John Linder ("Linder Letter") setting forth the Department's position regarding responses
to Congressional inquiries into issues relating to "open matters." 1 It is our understanding that the
Linder Letter reflects " the Department' s longstanding policy not to disclose information or
documents related to active litigation, beyond what is publicly available." We note, however,
that the Supreme Court has held that the pendency of litigation does not prevent Congress from
investigating facts that have a bearing on that litigation. See Hutcheson v. United States, 369
U.S. 599, 613 (1962) (" [T]he authority of [Congress], directly or through its committees, to
require pertinent disclosures in aid of its own constitutional power is not abridged because the
information sought to be elicited may also be of use in [pending] suits.") (quoting Sinclair v.
United States, 279 U.S. 263 , 295 (1929)). We are concerned, moreover, that the Department is
relying on this policy selectively to justify withholding information not reasonably related to any
pending or open litigation matter.
To the Department' s credit, your responses provide substantive answers to a number of our
requests for information. For example, we were relieved by the representations in your
December 1 letter that " [t]he Department did not coordinate the sending of its June 28th letter
[requesting state voter data] with the Commission," and that " [t]o the best of our knowledge, the
sending of the Division's letter and the Commission' s letter on the same day was sheer
coincidence." Still, in light of the Attorney General ' s recent acknowledgment that the
Department has "been asked for assistance [by the Commission] on several issues," serious
unanswered questions remain about the Department' s involvement with the Commission.
Given the Department's willingness to confirm that it did not coordinate with the Commission
about the June 28 state voter data requests - which directly concerns issues "related to active
litigation" involving the Commission' s requests for such data - we are perplexed by your refusal
to answer a host of questions that have little, if any, relation to ongoing litigation. The
1
Letter from Robe11 Rabe n to Rep. John Linder re: "Cooperation Comity, and Confrontation: Congressional
Oversight of the Executive Branch," Jan. 27, 2000.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059131

Department's position is particularly striking in light of its decision last week to disclose to the
media and Congress hundreds of private text messages between two FBI Agents who worked on
Special Counsel Mueller's ongoing - and extremely sensitive - law enforcement investigation
into Russian election interference. If your concerns about disclosure of information related to
open matters - which the Linder Letter describes as "especially significant with respect to
ongoing law enforcement investigations" - do not apply to the Special Counsel's investigation, it
is difficult to see how they apply here. Simply put, the Department cannot have it both ways.
February 2017 Emails Among Hans von Spakovsky, an Unidentified Intermediary, and the
Attorney General
On page 3 of our September 26 letter, we raised questions about the Attorney General' s receipt
of a February 2017 email from the Heritage Foundation' s Hans von Spakovsky decrying the
potential inclusion of Democrats and "mainstream Republican officials and/or academics" on the
Commission. As we explained, an unidentified intermediary - whose identity was redacted in
the Department's production - forwarded the email to the Attorney General' s assistant with
instructions to "please give this to JBS." Mr. von Spakovsky was himself named to the
Commission months later.
As you note, "[t]he Commission is a part of the Executive Office of the President, rather than the
Department," and the Department is "not affiliated with the Commission's official activities." It
is the maintenance of exactly that separation which concerns us. If partisan forces successfully
exerted their influence with the Attorney General to shape the composition of the President's
Commission, the American people deserve to know about that breach of the Department' s
political independence.
To that end, our September 26 letter asked what communications Department officials had had
with Mr. von Spakovsky and a number of his known associates; what role Department officials
played in selecting the members of the Comm ission; what role Department officials played in
recommending Mr. von Spakovksy's eventual appointment to the Commission, and other
questions. None of these questions - which concern events predating the existence of the
Commission - is at all related to the various pending cases against the Commission, which
concern the Commission' s compliance with federal transparency and privacy laws. The Linder
Letter therefore provides no plausible basis for the Department's unwillingness to answer these
questions. Likewise, neither the Linder Letter nor FOIA Exemption 6 supports the Department's
continued withholding of the unredacted February 2017 email thread. Respectfully, we ask that
you please promptly produce this unredacted document and respond to Questions # 1-9 of our
September 26 letter.
Further with respect to this email thread, we thank you for and are reassured by your
representation that the emails sent to the Attorney General 's private email account were
appropriately captured in the Department's recordkeeping systems, consistent with Department
policy and federal law. Your response, however, did not address one of our questions: "If
Attorney General Sessions did in fact use a private email address to correspond regarding
relevant government business, in responding to [the Campaign Legal Center's] FOIA request,
did the Department search for and collect emails from that private email address?" Your
2
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059132

December I response appears to acknowledge that Attorney General Sessions did, in fact, use a
private email address to correspond about the planned Commission. We therefore repeat the
question: did the Department search for and collect emails from that private email address in
responding to CLC's FOIA request?
Nine Documents Listed in the Department's Vaughn Index
In our October 17 letter we requested the production of nine documents, identified on a Vaughn
Index in litigation brought against the Commission by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law (LCCR), which appear to show direct coordination between the Commission and the
Department around "voting issue[s]," "collecting data from non-state entities," and other issues.
While some of these documents may concern the Department's ongoing representation of the
Commission in litigation, on the face of their descriptions in the Department's Vaughn Index,
others plainly do not.
Nevertheless, citing the same "open matters" policy articulated in the Linder Letter, and noting
that these documents are subject to a pending motion to compel in the LCCR case, the
Department declined to produce the requested documents. Without access to these documents,
however, it is difficult to reconcile our view of the available facts with the Department' s
assurance that it is "not aware of Department resources currently being used to support the
Commission."
Here too, we have doubts about whether the concerns underlying the "open matters" policy
pertain, or how disclosure of these documents "pose[s] an inherent threat to the integrity of the
Department's law enforcement and litigation functions." In light of the pending motion to
compel in the LCCR case, however, and in the spirit of the Linder Letter's recognition of the
"obligations of Congress and the Executive Branch to seek to accommodate the legitimate needs
of the other," we hope we can reach a mutually agreeable solution. To that end, please let us
know if the Department will agree to make a representative available to review any non
privileged documents in camera with our staff.
Finally - and notwithstanding our disagreement over the scope of the Department's disclosure
obligations discussed herein - we extend our appreciation for the Department's good faith efforts
to address the concerns about responsiveness to Congressional inquiries outlined in our recent
correspondence. We acknowledge the considerable volume of requests your office is handling,
and thank you and your staff for your efforts in timely responding to our concerns.
Sincerely,
~
~c "1111....._ _ ___
United States Senator United States Senator
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059133

~~ Patrick Leahy
United States Senator
~\~ ~~-
Richard J. Durbin
Al Franken
(!L~
Christopher A. Coons
~~Richard Blumenthal
~ - k~ J
~ Hirono
( ~2 Z.:,Zf
ory A. Booker
-
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059134

Lasseter, David F. (OLA)
From: Lasseter, David F. {OLA}

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201 7 2:01 PM
To: Patel, Kash; Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA)
Cc: Nelson, Damon; Glabe, Scott; Stewart, Mark
Subject: RE: remaining text messages
Kash - good afternoon. In response to your questions below:

1. The Congressional Committees with jurisdiction of this matter received hand-delivered copies of the text
messages last night. These messages were delivered prior to the Deputy Attorney General's testimony
today before House Judiciary.
2. OLA cannot speak to OPA' s briefing with the press. The messages reviewed by the press were the same
messages delivered to the committees of jurisdiction.
3. DOJ acknowledges thatthere are many more text messages and, as stated previously, the Department
will plan to deliver these to the committees of jurisdiction on a rolling basis to ensure the committees have
these in as timely a manner as possible.
4. The text messages delivered last night are the ones most relevant to the committee' s inquiries.
Thanks,
David
From: Patel, Kash (b) (6) Cong1essional Email

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201711:56 AM
To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <[email protected]>; Boyd, Stephen E. (9LA) (b) ( 6)
Cc: Nelson, Damon ; Glabe, Scott (b) (6) Congressional Email ; Stewart,
Mark (b) (6) Congressional Email
Stephen and David,
Per the DAG's testimony before House Judiciary this morning, the DAG acknowledged that t he press was
invited to the DOJ yesterday evening to review all text messages in private, before they were given to
Congressional Committees. The DAG has confirmed this happened, we now demand an answer as to how
many text messages the press was able to review on the evening of December 13, 2017 at OOJ. If they were
given access to more than those turned over to our Committee, then DOJ has until close of business today to
produce all such messages to this Committee. We also require an explanation as to why t he press was given
access to text messages, and the justification for doing so prior to their production to this Committee, also
do by COB today. Thanks very much.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P. Patel
Senior Counsel for Counterterrorism
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Desk:
Cell:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.44889 20180326-0072136

I
From: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesda_y, December 13, 2017 9:59 AM
To: Patel, Kash (b) (6) Congressional Email
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) ; Nelson, Damon
(b) (6) Congressional Email ; Glabe, Scott (b) (6) Congressional Email ; Stewart, Mark
(b) (6) Congressional Email
Subj ect: Re: remaining text messages
Kash - good morning. We continue to work on the additional requests. As we mentioned last week we
wanted to get y'all these as soon as possible. The remainder will follow upon further review.
Confirming that y'all are on for tomorrow's review? What time will the Chairman and you/Scott arrive?
Thanks,
David
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 13, 2017, at08:S0, Patel, Kash (b) (6) Congressional Email wrote:
Stephen,
Thank you for your production last night of 375 text messages. At this time, we renew our
request for the Committee to obtain the remaining approximately 9,500 messages and all other
communications by the date outlined in our letter to DOJ last night {attached herein for quick
reference). Thanks very much.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P. Patel
Desk (b) (6)

Cell: (b) (6)
NSTS:lt§l@N
<CHM ltr to DAG re Strzok & Page Communications - 12 Dec 17 .pdf>
Document ID: 0.7.16060.44889 20180326-0072137

From: Lasseter, David F. {OLA)

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 11:21 AM
To: Foster, Jason {Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: Davis, Patrick {Judiciary- Rep); Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche
{OLA); Parker, Daniel (Judiciary-Rep); Davis, Kalan (Judiciary-Rep)
Subject: RE: DOJ document review
Documents are on their way to you. They should be there in the next 30 minutes.
Thanks,
David
From: Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep} (b) ( 6)

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <[email protected] .gov>
Cc: Davis, Patrick (Judiciary-Rep) ; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)
(b) ( 6) ; Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA) <[email protected] .gov>; Parker, Daniel
{Judiciary-Rep} (b) (6) ; Davis, Kalan (Judiciary-Rep)
(b) ( 6)
I just t ried your number. No answer. We still don't have the production that you have apparently provided
to everyone else. The Chairman deserves an explanation for the delay, and we need to see what you've
provided everyone else ASAP. From press reports, it appears to be just a few hundred text messages. There
should be no technical reason not to follow our normal protocol of electronic delivery. Why didn't you? If
you are going to deviate from the normal electronic delivery protocol, OLA should be communicating that
and the reason for doing so to the Chairman's designated O&J staff. Please call to discuss further. Thanks.
Cordially,
Jason Fost er
Chief Investiga t iv e Cou-nsel
Commi'ttee on the Judiciary
United States.Senate
224 Oirks,en Sen at e Office Building
W ashington, DC 20510
Direct:~
From: Foster, Jason {Judiciary-Rep)

Sent: Tuesday, December U , 2017 9:04 PM
To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <[email protected]>
Cc: Davis, Patrick (Judiciary-Rep} ; Stephen E. Boyd (OLA)
(b) ( 6) ; [email protected]; Parker, Daniel {Judiciary-Rep}
(b) ( 6)
Subject: Re: OOJ document review
Ok. Our front office got a call from a Ms. Hildebrand at 202-305-7851 trying to arrange for doc delivery
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072185

wmgncr
We have press inquiries asking us to confirm the Strzok texts are being delivered to us tonight. That's the
f irst I've heard of that potential timing. Unless delivery is via email, we cannot receive docs tonight. And
we always request electronic delivery to our correspondence email address: [email protected]
whenever technically possible.
Please make sure Dan, Patrick, and I are CC'd and contacted directly about document delivery
arrangements. And please talk to the Committee directly first rather than previewing doc productions to the
press, if that has happened for some reason. Thanks.
Cordially,
Jason
On Dec 12, 2017, at 6:47 PM, Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]> wrote:
We can chat t omorrow. I just w ant to work out the details to get your Boss and yourselves a view of the docs
next week.
From: Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6)

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 6:19 PM
To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Davis, Patrick (Judiciary-Rep} (b) ( 6 )
Subject: Re: DOJ document review
Sorry I missed your call. We can touch base in the morning if you are free then or tonight via my cell if it is
urgent.
On Dec 12, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Just tried you...call when you are able.
David F. Lasseter
202-514-1260
From: Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6)

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 201712:24 PM
To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <dlasseter@ jmd.usdoj.gov>; Flynn-Brown, Josh (Judiciary-Rep)tlDIIIIIIIIII
; Davis, Patrick {Judiciary-Rep) (b) (6)
Parker, Daniel (Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6) ; Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
(b) (6) ; Breitenbach, Ryan (b) (6) Congressional Email
Parmiter, Robert (b) (6) Congressional Email ; Hiller, Aaron (b) (6 ) Congressional Email ; Davis,
Kolan (Judiciary-Rep) (b) (6)
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) ; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: DOJ document revie w
Thanks. Wed would likely work better for SJC Majority staff.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072186

When will you make them available on the Hill for the Chairm an and Ranking Memberto personally review?
That was the procedure followed with previous documents such as the Corney memos and a subset of this
set .
Cordially,
Jason Fost er
Ch ieflnve stigat ive Counsel
Committece on the Judiciary
Uniteif StatesSenate
224 Dirksen Se nate Office Building
W a shington, DC 20510
Direct:tllllallllll
From: Lasseter, Davi d F. (OLA) [mailto:[email protected]]

To: Flynn-Brown, Josh (Judici ary-Rep) (b) (6) ; Foster, Jason
(Judici ary-Rep} (b) ( 6) Davis, Patrick (Judici ary-Rep)
(b) (6) Parker, Dan iel {Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6)
; Sawyer, Heat her {Judici ary-Dem) (b) (6)
Breit enbach, Ryan (b) (6) Congressional Email ; Parmiter, Robert
(b) (6) Congressional Email ; Hiller, Aaron (b) ( 6) Congressional Email
Cc: Boyd, St ephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) ; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA)
<[email protected]>
All-good afternoon. To ensure clarity, this document review will occur at Main Justice during the below
time slots. Please let m e know who will attend.
Thanks,
David
From : Lasset er, David F. {OLA)

Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 5:49 PM
To: 'Flynn-Brown, Josh (Judici ary-Rep)' (b) (6) ; Fost er, Jason
{Judici ary-Rep} (b) ( 6) Davis, Patri ck (Judici ary-Rep)
(b) (6) ; Parker, Daniel {Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6)
; Sawyer, Heat her (Judi ci ary-Dem) (b) (6)
; 'Breitenbach, Ry an' (b) ( 6) Congress10nal Email 'Parmiter, Robert'
(b) (6) Congressional Email ; Hiller, Aaron (b) ( 6) Congress10nal Email
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (Ot.A) (b) (6)
Subj ect: DOJ document review
All- good afternoon. The Department has agreed to accommodate a document review for the Chairman and
Ranking Member, with two staffers each, of both SJC and HJC. These documents are related to previously
received production requests and inquiries related t o Mr. St eele. The times offered are listed below.
Please let me know which times woul d work.
Monday 18 Dec 2-Spm

Wednesday 20 Dec 2-5pm
Thanks,
David
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072187

David F. Lasseter
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
(202) 514-1260
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072188


To: Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: (b) (6) Senate Staffer Email
Subject : Re: DOJ document review
Jason-good morning. (b) ( 6)

We will fix this.
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 13, 2017, at 09:19, Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep) (b) (6)

wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.62075 20180326-0072202

Lasseter, Dav id F. (OLA)

To: Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA)
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA)
Subject : Re: DOJ document review
Gotcha. (b) (5)
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 13, 2017, at 09:54, Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA} <mha [email protected] j.gov> wrote:
They refused to make a staffer available. (b) (5)

• , We were specifically directed to contact Dan who said they would not be available to
receive delivery. Rich called us around 9:30 and also said that he was not available to
receive the documents. (b) (5)
On De-c 13, 2017, at 9:47 AM, Lasseter, David F. {OLA} <[email protected]> wrote:
(b) (5)
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 13, 2017, at 09:28, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6)

w rote:
(b) (5)
Sent from my iPhone
Be-gin forwarded message:
From: "Foster, Jason {Judiciary-Rep)"

(b) (6)
Date: December 13, 2017 at 9:19:44 AM EST
To: "Lasseter, David F. (OLA)"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Davis, Patrick (Judicia ry-Rep)"
(b)(6) , "Stephen
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5206 20180326-0072206

(b) (6) " "Mary.Blanche.Hankey
[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "Parker, Daniel
(Judiciary-Re p)" (b) (6)
, "Davis, Kolan (Judiciary-Rep)"
(b) ( 6)
Subject : RE: OOJ document rev iew
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5206 20180326-0072207

From : Lasseter, David F. {OLA)

Cc: Davis, Patrick (Judiciary-Rep); Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche
{OLA); Parker, Daniel (Judiciary-Rep)
Jason-good morning. I will give you a ring a bit later this morning.
Thanks,
David
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 12, 2017, at 21:04, Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep} (b) (6)

wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5194 20180326-0072228

Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)
From : Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)

Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 11:46 AM
To: Darren Samuelsohn
Cc: Josh Gerstein
Subject: RE: Sharing a POLITICO link: "DOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller probe"
I meant to cc Josh since he knows that we warted 1mtil all congressional members had been provided their
copies. Please check i,vith your o-..vn reporters before writing something so false and easily disprovable in your
own newsroom_
Suah Isgui- Flom

Director of Public Affa1n
202.305.5808
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)

Sent: Thursday, December 14, 201711:42 AM
To: 'Darren Samuelsohn' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Sharing a POLITICO link: "DOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller probe''
I have said this repeatedly and your reporter who was here knows this. No reporter got anything fr.om DOJ
before congress. Every committee chrunnand and ranking member of 5+ committees had the texts in advance
of any reporter seeing it. Except the outlets that I understand already had the tweets weeks ago from another
source.
PLEASE CORRECT .IMMEDIATELY

Rosenstein also faced several questions from Democrats seeking an explanation about why reporters
had gotten access to Strzok's text messages before the lawmakers.
Suah Isgui- Flore~

Dicector of Public Affain
202.305.5808
From: Darren Samuelsohn [mailto:[email protected])

To: Darren Samuelsohn <[email protected]>
Subject: Sharing a POLITICO link: " DOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller probe"
Good morning,
Sharing my latest story published this AM in POLITICO: ''DOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller
probe"
https://1.vww.politico.com/story/2017/12/14/justice-department-mueller-investigation-295483
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93256 20180326-0063931

Please share on social media and with friends and collagues. You can tag me @dsamuelsohn on
Twitter.
Be in touch,
Darren Samuelsohn
Senior reporte r, POLITICO
Desk: 703-842-1769
Cell: (b) (6)
Dsamue [email protected]
@dsamue lsohn
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93256 20180326-0063932


Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 6:03 PM
To: New Byron York
Subject: RE: strzok texts
Here's my on the record response:

The Department ensures that its release of information from the Department to members of Congress
or to the media is consistent with law, including the Privacy Act. As the Department's letter to
Congress last night makes clear, this information was provided in response to re-quests from several
Congressional committees for access to this information that was not subject to withholding
exceptions. Notice and delivery of this information was made to the lawyers for the parties and the
relevant congressional committees in advance of public release. Further, prior to release, career
officials determined that the text messages could be released under both ethical and legal standards.
On background as a source familiar:

Around 375 texts were sent to the Hill last night. After those were delivered, some beat reporters over
here were shown the packet that Congress received to ensure the reporting was accurate.
I'm confident the number is higher than that but I don' t know the exact number.
I know this was only the first tranche. (Off the record: But my understanding is that members have not
wanted all of the texts necessarily. And we would have redact texts that were of a purely personal
nature -for example discussing children etc) I wouldn't know the context for these tweets. Strock
would have to speak to that during his hill testimony.
Sarah Isgur Flores

Director of Public Affairs
202.305.5808
- -Original Message--
From: New Byron York I
Sent; Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:48 PM
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>
Subject: strzok texts
sarah...
on any basis you like ...
how many of the strzok-page texts were shown to reporters last night?
and is the total number of strzok-page texts still thought to be 10,000?
is the department going to make *all* the texts available to the intelligence and judiciary committees
of both house and senate? will there be some sort of arrangement for some of the texts, like staff can
r~~ ..J 4-l...~ m :~ ~ r-~~l~I r ~~m ~r r ~m~4-I...:-~ Ill.~ 4-l..,~4-', h , ,4- ,.,:II 4-1...~ I...~, ,r~ ~-..J r~-~•~ LC.~ ~1...1~ • ~ r~~ 4-h~m
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92836 20180326-0071914

1,::c1u l11,::111 Ill cl ::.1-1,::1..fdl 1uu111, U( ::,u111 ,::lll lf ll:; 11 11.,:: ll ld l! UUl WIii u1 ,:: 11 uu::,,:: d [ IU ::,,::11c1l,:: u,:: c1u1,:: lU :,,::,:: lll 0:::111
all?
and: what is the context for the 'insurance policy' tweet?
as always, thanks
byron
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92836 20180326-0071915

Press
From : Press
To: Prior, Ian (OPA)
Cc: Pettit, Mark T. {OPA)
Subject : FW: Harper's Magazine inquiry
Thank you - KS
From : Claire Bryan (mailto:[email protected])

Sent; Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:25 PM
To: Press <[email protected]>
Subj ect: Harper's Magazine inquiry
Hi Kristen.
Thanks for speaking just now. I'm looking to gain access to text messages that were exchanged between FB I
officials (Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) in ~arch 2016 that the Department of Justice reviewed.
Can you connect me to someone ,,,ho could provide these documents for me? You can reach me at 212-420-
5741. My deadline is Friday.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Best,
Claire Bryan
Claire Bryan
Editorial Assistant
west(@harpers.org
212.420.5741
Harper's Magazine
666 Broadway, 11th Floor
New York, 1'.TY 10012
https://harpers.org
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58506 20180326-0072012

Prior, Ia n (OPA)
From : Prior, Ian (OPA)

Sent : Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4:09 PM
To: Daniel Friedman
Subject: RE: Statement on release of Strzok texts?
Develin -another beat reporter, as is Paula Reid and Del Wilbur
https:ljtwitter.com/Devl inBarrett/status/941026249396375552
Ian D. Prior
Principal Deputy Director of Public Affairs
Department of Justice
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground roles for interviews, please dick
here.
From : Dan iel Friedman [ mailto:DFri edman@motherj ones.com]

To: Prior, Ian (OPA} <IPri [email protected]>
Subj ect: Re: Statement on release of Strzok texts?
Thanks.
From: Pri or, Ian (OPA) <l [email protected]>

Sent : Wednesday, December 13, 2017 3:43:29 PM
To: Daniel Friedman
'The Department ensures that its release ofinformation from the Department to members of Congress or to the
media is consistent with law, including the Privacy Act. As the Department's letter to Congress last night makes
dear, this information was provided in response to requests from several Congressional committees for access
to this information that -..vas not subject to withholding exceptions. Notice and delivery of this information was
made to the lawyers for the parties and the relevant congressional committees in advance ofpublic release.
Further, prior to release, career officials determined that the te.xi messages could be released under both ethical
and legal standards."
Ian 0. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground roles for interviews, please dick
here.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58908 20180326-0072025

From: Daniel Friedman [ mailto:DFriedman@mother jones.com]
To: Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPri or@ jmd.usdoj.gov>
Subject: Re: Statement on rel ease of Strzok texts?
Thanks. If you get more in his I'd like to know, even if the record. That does seem to me like the part where
this.is perhaps miusual.
Thanks,
Dan
From: Pri or, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201711:27:07 AM
To: Daniel Friedman
Off the record, I honestly don't know t he process. Will have to check
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for interviews, please click
here.
From: Dani el Fri edman [ mailto:[email protected]]

To: Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPri [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Statement on release of Strzok texts?
Just recalled one question I shoul d have asked: These texts were given/ obtained by the IG and turned
over to Congress as the result of members' request, I believe. Do they pass through the comms office
as part of the process through which the leg. affairs people turn them over to the Hill?
From: Pri or, Ian (OPA) <lan.Prior@usdo j.gov>

Sent Wednesday, December 13, 201711:14AM
To: Daniel Friedman
Just called you
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58908 20180326-0072026

For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for interviews, please dick
here.
From: Daniel Friedman [mailt:o:[email protected]]

To: Prior, Ian {OPA) <[email protected]>
Do you have handy prior examples of instances in which DOJ provided information to the press that
was also sent to Hill, to avoid confusion? I personally have never received something like that.
From: Prior, Ian (OPA) <lan.Prior@usdo j.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201710:59:30 AM
To: Daniel Friedman
Subj ect: RE: Statement on release of Strzok texts.?
yes
Ian 0. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
here.
From: Daniel Friedman [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, De"Cember 13, 201710:58 AM
To: Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>
Thanks. Are the texts shared the same as the ones the Hill got? I 11vas under i mpression Fox saw more
texts than w ere turned over to the Hill.
From: Prior, Ian {OPA) <l an.Pri [email protected]>

Sent Wednesday, December 13, 201710:56:04 AM
To: Daniel Fri edman
Subj ect: RE: Statement on release of Strzok texts?
From DOJ official:

We often provide information we give to Congressional committees to avoid any confusion.
Ian D. Prior
Principal Deputy Director of Public Affai rs
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
here.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58908 20180326-0072027

Sent Wednesday, December 13, 201710:55 AM
To: Prior, Ian (OPA} <IPrior@ jmd.usdo j.gov>
Subject: Statement on release of Strzok texts?
Ian,
Do you have a statement you can share on DOJ allowing some reporters to view Strzok/
Page texts? Saw reference to that on twitter.
Can I see them too?
Thanks,
Dan Friedman
202.290.5424
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58908 20180326-0072028


Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4 :02 PM
To: Emma Loop
Su bject: RE: texts
Yes_ Sonrcing rule stays the same as yall agreed to_
Suah Isgur Flom

202.305.5808
From: Emma Loop [mailto:[email protected])

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <.sif [email protected]>
Subject: texts
Hi Sarah,
I was just at the DOJ copying the text messages between Strzok and Page_Matt told me we aren't to attribute
the texts to yon but multiple lawmakers spoke about the DOJ allowing r eporters to view the text s at the House
Judiciary Committee hearing today, and DAG Rosenstein said he believed it was true_D o we still need to avoid
attnbuting to DOJ?
Thanks,
Emma
Emma Loop I BuuFee d News I Capitol Hill Reporter, Washington I c: - (on Signal) I d: 202-602-1706
I PGP: http://biUy/2pCPtjT I Twitter: @LoopEmma I buzzfeed_comfemmaloop
Got a confi dential tip? Here's how to send it to us.- tios.buzzfeed.com
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93262 20180326-0072030

Prior, Ian (OPA)
From: Prior, Ian (OPA)

Sent: We-dnesday, December 13, 2017 3:17 PM
To: Michael lsikoff
Cc: Pettit, Mark T. (OPA)
Subject : RE: fbi text messages
We haven't sent them to anyone and have been letting people come to view and report on in camera. Ccing
Mark as you are welcome to do so as well
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For informotion on office hours, occess to medio events, and standard ground rules for interviews, p{eose dick
here.
From: Michael lsikoff [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: fbi text messages
Hi Ian-- can you forward me a complete copy ofthe text messages you released last nite?
Mike Isik:off
Yahoo News
C (b) (6)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.59055 20180326-0072042

Prior, Ian (OPA)

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA}; [email protected]
Subject : RE: A couple of Strzok questions
There is someone from Reuters that came in to view
Ian 0. Prior
Principal Deputy Director of Public Affairs Department of Justice Office: 202.616.0911 Cell:
(b)(6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for interviews,
please click here.
--Original Message---
To: [email protected]
Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: A couple of Strzok questions
Yes, these are the pertinent texts as determined by the IG as our letter to congress addresses this. Ian
can send you a copy.
We sent you a statement that career officials approved the release on legal and ethical grounds that
included the release to both congress and the media.
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 2:53 PM, "[email protected]" <Mark.Hosenball@thomsonr

euters.com> wrote:
>
> Colleagues tell me There are clearly SMSs omitted from the message chains in these documents.
Who made the decision to omit them, the IG or OOJ? Secondly as I understand it career officials
authorized release of messages to Congress but not to Media. Who explicitly authorized media
release ? Tks mh
>
> Sent from my iPhone
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57636 20180326-0072043

Prior, Ian (OPA)
From : Prior, Ian {OPA)

To: Jurecic, Quinta
Subject : RE: Comment on Strzok/Page texts
On the record statement below. Off the record, in response to these criticisms that something
unprece dented happened last night - ➔ https://twittercom/DevlinBarrett/status/941026249396375552
"The Department ensures that its release of information from the Department to members of Congress or to
the media is consistent with law, including the Privacy Act. As the Department's letter to Congress last night
makes clear, this information was provided in response to requests from several Congressional committees
for access to this information that was not subject to withholding exceptions. Notice and delivery of this
information was made to the lawyers for the parties and the relevant congressional committees in advance
of public release. Further, prior to release, career officials determined that the text messages could be
released under both ethical and legal standards."
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
here.
From: Jurecic, Quinta [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: Comment on Strzok/Page texts
Hi Ian,
I've seen numerous commenters express concern over the Justice Department's decision to provide the
press and Congress with text messages between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok. How would the Justice
Department address criticisms of the decision as unusual or potentially politicizing of an ongoing
investigation? Can I ask how the Office of Legislative Affairs came to obtain the text messages? Were the
documents provided to the office by the Office of the Inspector General?
Also, during this morning's hearing, DAG Rosenstein stated that the Inspector General had planned to
release a report in November but had been delayed. Do you know if the November report would have
concerned the entire IG investigation into the handling of the Clinton email probe, or was it only concerning
Strzok and Page's relationship?
Thanks,
Quinta
Document ID: 0.7.16060.581 49 20180326-0072058

Quinta Jurecic
The Washington Post
Office: 202 334 7330
ocument ID: 0.7.16060.58149


Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA)
Subject: Re: Strzok emails
As the dag just testified, the IG approved the release.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:38 PM, "[email protected]"

<[email protected]> wrote:
what kind of career officials approved release ? Did IG approve ? and if it is so non
controversia l why did you release material in what I hear was a somewhat sneaky way?
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:20, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
The Department ensures that its release of information from the Department
to members of Congress or to the media is consistent with la w, including the
Privacy Act. As the Department's letter to Congress last night makes clear,
this information was provided in response to requests from several
Congressional committees for access to this information that was not subject
to withholding exceptions. Notice and delivery of this information was made
to the lawyers for the parties and the relevant congressional committees in
advance of public release. Further, priorto release, career officials
determined that the text messages could be released under both ethical and
legal standards.
On Dec 13, 201 7, at 12:16 PM, "[email protected]"

cool tks
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) [ mailto:Sarah.Isgur.Flores@usdo).gov]

Sent: W ednesday, December 13, 2017 12: 12 PM
To: Hosenball, Mark J. (Reuters}
Subject: Re : Strzok emails
Statement coming
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:05

PM, "[email protected]"
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58477 20180326-0072142

I gather DAG just told Congress the Strzok e mails were
somehow approved for public release. By whom ? under
what legal authority? Did IG sign off on that ? Please
advise. tks mh
From: Hosenball, Mark J. (Reut ers)

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 20 17 11:28 AM
To: 'Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)'; Prior, Ian (OPA)
Subject: Strzok emails
http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-page-
texts-mueller-russia-t rum p-2017-12
So this story says that DoJ invited reporters to your

offices yesterday night to give them access to private
text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page. The story says that this material was originally
obtained by OoJ as part of an investigation by Justice
Department IG into how the FBI handled its inquiry into
Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she
was Secretary of State. Isn't it quite unorthodox, if not
unethical or even illegal, for DoJ to deliberately make
public or leak e vidence collected in an IG investigation ?
Who is it who ultimately authorized or instructed DoJ to
allow journalists to see this evidence ? Was AG Sessions
involved ? Was the White House involved or was anyone
in the White House consulted ? We might be writing a
story about this today so your quick response most
welcome. Many thanks indeed. mh
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58477 20180326-0072143

Prior, Ian (OPA)
From: Prior, Ian {OPA)

To: (b) (6) Eh Lake Email
Subject: FW: This is Eli Lake from Bloomberg View. Deadline query on text messages
Yes. Off the record, I would note that we invited Chris Strohm who declined.
On the record statement:

The Department ensmes that its release of information from the Department to members of Congress or to the
media is consistent with law, including the Privacy Act. As the Department's letter to Congress last night makes
clear, this information was provided in res-ponse to requests from several Congressional committees for access
to this information that was not subject to withholding exceptions_ Notice and delivery of this information was
made to the la1,vyers for the parties and the relevant congressional committees in advance ofpublic
release_ Further, prior to release, career officials determined that the t~'t messages could be released under
both ethical and legal standards.
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
here.
From: Press
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201712:51 PM
CC: Pettit, Mark T. {OPA) <[email protected]>
Thanks-tu
From: Eli Lake (b) (6)

To: Press <Press@ jmd.usdoj.gov>
Subject: This is Eli Lake from Bloomberg View. Deadline query on text messages
Business Insider is reporting that DoJ invited reporters Tuesday evening to view text messages the department
was going to send to Congress between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Is this accurate? If so, why v\ras this done? What about the due process rights
of Pa~e and Strzok? On deadline. Mv number is Q17 2 1~ 0804
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57990 20180326-0072146

From : Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA)

To: Zoe Tillman
Subject: Re: Strzok texts
Yes.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:26 PM, Zoe Tillman <[email protected]> wrote:
Can DOJ confirm that the texts were provided to Congress on Tuesday?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Zoe Tillman <zoe.tillman@buzzfeed .com> wrote:
Roger that, thanks.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)
<5arah [email protected]> wrote:
To the hill. Not to reporters. You' ll notice when sourcing other outlets have said
they "obtained" them. If that doesn't work for y'all, let me know.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Zoe Tillman <zoe.t [email protected]> wrote:
Thanks, can you explain what you mean in saying we couldn't source
them to DOJ? Several reports said the texts were "released" by DOJ.
On Dec 13, 2017 9:56 AM, "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)"

We have a hard copy you can review at the office. You can't take them
with you, take pictures, or source them (to doj or otherwise).
Mark will be the one to work with on that.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zoe Tillman <[email protected]>

wrote:
Good morning - are you providing the Strzok texts, or do I

need to ask someone e lse?
Thanks,
Zoe
Zoe Tillman I BuuFeed News I Reporter

0 : 202-602-17051 M: - 1@,zoetillman
1630 Connecticut Avenue NW. 7th Floor. W ashington. DC 20009
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93285 20180326-0072156

Zoe Tillman I Buufeed News I Reporter
0 : 202-602-17051 M: - 1@zoetillman
1630 Connecticut Avenue NW, 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20009
Zoe Tillman I BunFeed News I Reporter

0 : 202~602-17051 M:- 1@zoetillman
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93285 20180326-0072157


Subject: Re: Strzok emails
Statement coming
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:05 PM, " [email protected]"

I gather DAG just told Congress the Strzok emails were somehow approved for public release.
By whom ? under what legal authority ? Did IG sign off on that? Please advise. tks mh
From: Hosenball, Mark J. {Reuters)

To: 'Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)'; Prior, Ian (OPA)
Subject Strzok emails
http://www.businessinsi der.com/peter-strzok-page-texts-mueller-russia -trump-2017- 12
So this story says that DoJ invited reporters to your offices yesterday night to give them access
to private text m essages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The story says that
this material was origi nally obtained by DoJ as part of an investigation by Justice Department IG
into how the FBI handled its inquiry into Hillary Clinton' s use of a private email server while
she was Secretary of State. Isn't it quite unorthodox, if not unethical or even illegal, for DoJ to
deliberately make public or leak evidence collected in an IG investigati on ? Who is it who
ultimately authorized or instructed DoJ to allow journalists to see this evidence ? Was AG
Sessions involved ? Was the White I-louse involve-d or was anyone in the White I-louse
consulted ? We might be writing a story about this today so your quick response most welcome.
Many thanks indeed. mh
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58090 20180326-0072166


To: Marisa Schultz
Subject : Re: text messages between Page/ Strzok
If it's an electronic release then we will.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:04 PM, Marisa Schultz <[email protected]> wrote:
Any chance you can include me in potential future releases?
Marisa Schultz
New York Post
Washington Bureau
[email protected]
(b) (6) cell
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)
<Sarah.lsgur.Flores @usdoj.gov> wrote:
The invite went to outlets that have DOj badges.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Marisa Schultz <marisa [email protected]> wrote:
Hey Sarah,
Wanted to reach out to you regarding the text messages released last night
to certain reporters. Our readers at the New York Post are very much
interested in this story - as you can probably tell by our past covers.
Any idea why we were excluded from an invite to see the messages?:
'Best,
Marisa
Marisa Schultz
New York Post
Washington Bureau
[email protected]
(b) (6) cell
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93362 20180326-0072170

Prior, Ian (OPA)

To: Daniel Friedman
yes
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground ru{es for interviews, please cfi-ck
here.

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201710:SBAM
Subject: Re: Statement on release of Strzok texts?
Thanks. Are the texts shared the same as the ones the Hill got? I was under impression Fox saw more
texts than were turned over to the Hill.
From: Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201710:56:04AM
To: Daniel Friedman
From DOJ official:

Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for interviews, please cfick
here.
From: Daniel Friedman [ mailto:[email protected]]

To: Prior, Ian (OPA} <[email protected]>
Subject: Statement on release of Strzok texts?
Ian,
L - - - - • _ _.._ - -- - ._
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57829 20180326-0072193

uo you nave a statement you can snare on uuJ a11owmg some reporrers to view ~trZOK/
Page texts? Saw reference to that on twitter.
Can I see them too?
Thanks,
Dan Friedman
202.290.5424
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57829 20180326-0072194

Prior, Ian (OPA)

To: Natasha Bertrand
Subject : RE: FW: DOJ invited reporters over to DOJ to vie w Strzok/Page texts
St atement stands
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for fntervfews, please click
here.
From : Natasha Bertrand [mailto:[email protected])

Subject: Re: FW: DOJ invited reporters over to DOJ to view Strzok/ Page texts
Even amid an ongoing OIG investigation?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 1035 A.."\1, Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
From DOJ official:
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules f or interviews, please
click here.
From: Press
To: Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPrio r@im d.usdoj.gov>
Cc: Pettit, Mark T. (OPA) <mtpettit@ jmd.usdoj.gov>
Subject: FW: DOJ invited reporters over to DOJ to view Strzok/ Page texts
Thank you-KJ
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58000 20180326-0072196

.- , \TIU. 1 '10\.Cl .:u I D DC::l U O t I U l ll 1011\.U . J IUCI U a , IU~UY:>tt IC:>.:tll 1:uuc:::J .\..Ult I J

To: Pr ess <[email protected]>
Subject: DOJ invited reporters over to DOJ to view Strzok/Page texts
Hi there,
I'm wondering what the DOJ's rationale was for inviting reporters over to view Strzok/Page texts on
Tuesday amid the ongoing OIG investigaton.
Thank you,
Natasha
'Natasha Bernand
Poht:tcal Correspondent Business Insider
63 lJ 17.8..1-09
~NatashaBertrand
Xatasha Beruand
Political Correspondent Bus:mess Insider
63131~ S-109
0}.NatashaB ertrand
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58000 20180326-0072197


To: Zoe Tillman
Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA); Pettit, Mark T. (OPA)
Subject : Re: Strzok texts
To the hill. Not to reporters. You'll notice when sourcing other outlets have said they "obtained" them.
If that doesn't work fo r y' all, let me know.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 10:03 AM, Zoe Tillman <[email protected]> wrote:
Thanks, can you explain what you mean in saying we couldn't source them to OOJ? Several
reports said the texts were "released" by DOJ.
On Dec 13, 2017 9:56 AM, "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)" <[email protected]>
wrote:
We have a hard copy you can review at the office. You can't take them with you, take
pictures, or source them (to doj or otherwise).
Mark will be the one to work with on that.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:53 AM, Zoe Tillman <[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning - are you providing the Strzok texts, or do I need to ask
someone else?
Thanks,
Zoe
Zoe Tillman I Buz.zFeed News I Reporter

0 : 202-602-1705 I M: - . 1@zoetillman
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57779 20180326-0072200

Prior, Ian (OPA)
From: Prior, Ian {OPA)

To: Zoe Tillman; Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA}
Subject: RE: Strzok texts
You can come here to review
Ian 0. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for fntervlews, please click
here.
From: Zoe Tillman [mailto:[email protected])

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected]>; Prior, Ian (OPA} <[email protected]>
Subje ct: St rzok texts
Good morning - are yon providing the Strzok texts, or do I need to ask someone else?
Thanks,
Zoe
Zoe Tillman I BuzzFeed News I Reporter

0 : 202-602-17051 M: - l@zoetillman
1630 Connecticut Avenue NW , 7th Floor, Washington. DC 20009
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5811 8 20180326-0072219


To: Chuck ,Ross
We provided to 5 committees on the hill. I don't have an electronic copy.
> On Dec 12, 2017, at 9:59 PM, Chuck Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Sarah,
>
> I'm trying to track down the Strzok text messages. I guess we were about the only outlet not to
receive the release. I'm seeing it was through Rosenstein's office but wasn't sure if this was a public
release or a mass leak of some sort.
>
> Do you have a ny guidance?
>
> Thank you,
> Chuck Ross
> The Daily Caller
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92988 20180326-0072465

Office of Legislative A/fairs
Uffice ofthe Assfa·tant Allomey General WaYhinglon, D.C. 20530
The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman JAN D 5 2018
Committee on Homeland Security
And Governmental Affairs
United St.ates Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This further imponds to your letter lo the Deputy Attorney General dated December 6,
2017, pertaining to the public report-; of text message.~ exchanged between Federal Bureau of
Investigation employees Peter Strr.ok and Lisa Page. On December 12, 2017, the Department
delivered to the Committee text messages IB/,'J'Oilllive lo your requesL In the h:arumit!al letter,
the Department confirmed I.hat review of the text messages is ongoing Ellld committed to
providing additional relevant text messages in the future.
The Office efthe Inspector General (OIG) informed the Office of the Deputy Atlomey
General (ODAG) and the Special Counsel of the existence of the previously provided text
messages on or about July 27, 2017. Mr. Mueller immediately concluded that Mr. Sh,..ok oould
no longer participate in the investigation, and he was n:movcd from the team. The Department
continues to review the text messages and will evaluate whether Mr. Strzok sent or received
similar text messages pertaining to any other investigation during the relevant time period. The
Department's OIG and Office of Professional Responsibility investigate non-frivolow;
allegations ofmisoonducl, and neither of them hrui brought lo the attention of the Department's
leadermip any allegations regarding s.imilar conduct.
As the Inspector General noted to you in his le!ter of December 13, 2017, he has not
made a referral lo the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). In January 2017, the OIG initialed a
"review of allegatioDJl regarding certain actions by lhc Department of Justice (Department) and
the Federal Bureau of lnve;1igation (FBI) in advance of the 2016 election." 1 As he noted in his
letter lo you, he will make a determination whether to refer the matter to OSC upon completion
of that review. The Department will consider lhe OIG's findings in making its own
determination about a possible referral to OSC. Consistent with statutory requirementll, the
1
001 OIG AunollllCCs Initiation of Review, January 12, 20 17, avoilablc al: https://oigjustice.gov/press/2017/20 J7-
01-12.pdf
Page Two
Department would certainly cooperate with any independent review undertaken by OSC with
respect to this IIllltler.
We hope !bis information is helpful. Please do not hesimte to contact !bis office ifwe
may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter.
The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Memher
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530

Chairman
DEC 1·2 2017
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
Dear Chairman Johnson,
This responds to the Committee's request that the Department of Justice (Department)
provide the Committee with copies oftext message communications between Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. We are sending letters and identical
enclosures to a number of Congressional Committees that have made similar requests.
As you may know, on January 12, 2016, the Department of Justice's Office oflnspector
General (OIG) publicly announced that the OIG would review "allegations that Depm.iment or
FBI policies or procedures were not followed in connection with, or in actions leading up to or
related to, the FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016,1 and the Director' s letters to
Congress on October 28 and November 6, 2016, and that certain underlying investigative
decisions were based on improper considerations. 2 " As pm.t of that review, the OIG obtained,
among other things, text messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page.
The Depm.tment expected the documents provided herein to be provided as part of a

completed OIG report. However, public reporting about the existence of the text messages
prompted Congressional Committee requests for the text messages. Please find enclosed an
initial disclosure of approximately 37 5 text message communications, dated August 16, 2015 to
December 1, 2016, that have been identified as pertinent to the OIG review referenced above.
The enclosed documents contain minimal redactions that protect the privacy interests of third
paities and sensitive law enforcement information, and remove irrelevant information. The
Department continues to review documents and will provide pertinent documents as they become
available.
1
On that date, then-FBI Director James B. Corney announced that the FBI was recommending to the Department of
_Justice that no charges should be filed relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a plivate email
server.
2
DOJ OIG A1111ounces Initiation ofReview, January 12, 2017, available at: https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/20 I 7-
01-12.pdf
Page Two
As has been publicly reported, Mr. Strzok previously served on the investigative team led
by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The OIG informed the Special Counsel of the existence of
the enclosed text messages on or about July 27, 2017. Mr. Mueller immediately concluded that
Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation, and he was removed from the team..
This extraordinary accommodation of providing the enclosed documents is unique to the
facts and circumstances of this particular matter. The Department appreciates the work of the
OIG on this matter, looks forward to the findings and recommendations arising from that review,
and will talce appropriate action as warranted.
y General
cc: The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member
Enclosures
RON JOHNSON, WISCONSIN, CHAIRMAN
JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA CLAIRE McCASKILL. MISSOURI

ROB PORTMAN, OHIO THOMAS A. CARPER, DELAWARE
RAND PAUL. KENTUCKY JON lcSTER, MONTANA
JAMES LANKFORD, OKLAHOMA HEIDI HEITKAMP, NORTH DAKOTA
MICHAEL B. ENZI, WYOMING
JOHN HOEVEN, NORTH DAKOTA
STEVE DAINES, MONTANA
GARY C. PETERS, MICHIGAN
MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, NEW HAMPSHIRE
KAMALA 0 . HARRIS, CALIFORNIA CJanitcd ~tetcs ~cnatc
COMMITTEE ON
CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON, STAFF DIRECTOR
MARGARETE. DAUM, MINORITY STAFF D1RECTOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6250
December 6, 2017
The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein

Acting Attorney General
950 Pennsylvania A venue, NW
Dear Acting Attorney General Rosenstein:
I understand the Department of Justice (DOJ) is reviewing thousands of electronic text

messages sent and received by Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees Peter Strzok
1
and Lisa Page for production to Congress. These text messages exchanged between Strzok and
2
Page reportedly "expressed anti-Trump political views." I write to seek more information about
your awareness of these text messages and what actions, if any, you took in response.
Strzok reportedly " helped lead" the FBI's investigation into former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information through her use of a private email server. 3
During the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton, Strzok participated in interviews of Clinton,
4
Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, and Jake Sullivan. In addition, Strzok
reportedly edited then-FBI Director James Corney's statement about Secretary Clinton, changing
5
the description of her actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. "
After you tapped Robert Mueller as special counsel to examine potential Russian
6
interference in the 2016 election, Strzok reportedly began "play[ing] a major role" in the
7
investigation. Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation after becoming aware of the text
8
message allegations.
To understand your awareness of these text messages and the Department's actions in
response, I respectfully request the following information:
1
See, e.g., Jake Gibson, 'Over I 0, 000 texts' between ex-Mueller officials found, after discovery ofanti-Trump
messages, Fox News, Dec. 6, 2017.
2
Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo & Adam Goldman, Mueller removed top agent in Russia inquiry over possible
anti-Trump texts, N.Y. Times, Dec. 2, 2017.
3 Id.
4
Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 302s of Clinton Investigation (2015-16)(on file with Comm.).
5 Laura Ja1Tett & Evan Perez, FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Corney's description ofClinton to
'extremely careless,' CNN, Dec. 4, 2017.

6
Devlin Barrett, Sari Horowitz, & Matt Zapotosky, Deputy attorney general appoints special counsel to oversee
probe ofRussian inte,ference in election, Wash. Post, May 18, 2017.
7
Schmidt, Apuzzo & Goldman, supra note 2.
8
Id..
December 6, 2017
Page 2
1. When and how did you become aware of the text messages allegedly exchanged
between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?
2. When and how did the Special Counsel Robert Mueller notify you of the allegations
and the decision to remove Peter Strzok?
3. Did you or the Special Counsel Robert Mueller refer these allegations to the U.S.
Office of Special Counsel to pursue a potential Hatch Act inquiry? If not, why not?
4. Is the Department aware of any similar text messages sent or received by Peter Strzok
during any other investigation?
5. Is the Department aware of any similar allegations involving other government

officials?
6. Please produce all documents and communications sent or received by Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page referring or relating to candidates for the 2016 presidential election or
indicative of political bias.
Please respond as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 13, 2017, so that the
Committee may begin to receive responsive information.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized by Rule

XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate to investigate "the efficiency, economy, and
effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the Government."9 Additionally, S. Res. 62
(115th Congress) authori zes the Committee to examine "the efficiency and economy of all
branches and functions of Government with particular references to the operations and
management of Federal regulatory policies and programs." 10
If you have any questions about this request, please contact Brian Downey of the
Committee staff at (b) (6) Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Ranking Member
Enclosure
9
S. Rule XXV(k); see also S. Res. 445, I 08th Cong. (2004).
10
S. Res. 62 § 12, I I 5th Cong. (2017).
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
The Honorable Robert W. Goodlatte

Chairman DEC 1 2 2017
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. House of Representatives
Dear Chairman Goodlatte,
This responds to your December 5, 2017 request to the Deprn:tment of Justice

(Department) requesting that the Department provide the Committee with copies of text message
communications between Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) employees Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page. We are sending letters and identical enclosures to a number of Congressional Committees
that have made similar requests.
As you may know, on January 12, 2016, the Department of Justice's Office oflnspector
General (OIG) publicly announced that the OIG would review "allegations that Department or
related to, the FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016, 1 and the Director's letters to
decisions were based on improper considerations.2" As part ofthat review, the OIG obtained,
The Department expected the documents provided herein to be provided as part of a

initial disclosme of approximately 375 text message communications, dated August 16, 2015 to
parties and sensitive law enforcement inf01mation, and remove irrelevant information. The
Depmiment continues to review documents and will provide pertinent documents as they become
available.
1
Justice that no charges should be filed relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email
server.
2
DOJ OIG Announces Initiation ofReview, January 12, 2017, available at: https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-
01-12.pdf
The Honorable Robert Goodlatte
Page Two
As has been publicly rep01ied, Mr. Strzok previously served on the investigative team led
by Special Counsel Robeti Mueller. The OIG informed the Special Counsel ofthe existence of
Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation, and he was removed from the team.

and will take appropriate action as warranted.
Assistant Attorney General
cc: The Honorable Je1Told Nadler

Ranking Member
Enclosures
808 GOOOlATTE, Vlrglnle JOHN CONYERS, JA., Mh;:hlg1tn
CHAIRMAN RANKING MEMBER
F JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR, Wi!.consin JERROLD NADLER, Now York

LAMAR S SMITH, Toices ZOE LOFGREN, Callforn!o
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Tell'U
OARAELL E ISSA, Celllornia ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS STEVE COHEN, Ttmneuoo
STEVE KING1 lowtt HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON, JA , Goorgio
JUDY CHU, Calllornia
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
LOUIE GOl-!MERT, Teicas
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
TED POE, Teicas
JASON CHAFFETZ, Uloh
<:t:ongress of the 11:lnitrd ~tatn; TED DEUTCH. Florido
LUIS V GUTIERREZ, llllnol11
l{AREN BASS, Collfornla
CEDRIC L RICHMOND, Louisiono
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania
TREY GOWDY, South Corolina
RAUL A. LABRADOR, Idaho
iijousc of 'Rcprcsrntatiocs HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, Now York
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhodo l1hmd
ERIC SWALWELL, Collfornlo
BLAKE FARENTHOLO, Texas TED LIEU, Collfornlo
DOUG COLLINS, Georgie
COMM ITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JAMIE RASK1N, Marylend
AON DESANTIS, Florido PAAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEN BUCK, Colorado 2138 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
JOHN RATCLIFFE, Teu!I
MIKE BISHOP, Michioan
MARTHA ROBY, Alabemn WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
MATT GAETZ, Florlda
MIKE JOHNSON, louh:lann (202) 225-3961
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
http://www.house.gov/judiciary
December 12, 2017
The Honorable Jeff Sessions

United States Department of Justice
Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:
Over the past several weeks, there has been widespread media reporting about former
FBI counterintelligence supervisor Peter Strzok, and his leadership role in both the Clinton email
investigation and the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
It has also been reported recently that Mr. Mueller removed Mr. Strzok from his team
after learning that Mr. Strzok had exchanged text messages critical of then-candidate Donald
Trump with Lisa Page, a FBI attorney who had similarly served on the Special Counsel team.
As you know, the Judiciary Committee, which is the principal Committee ofjurisdiction
over the FBI and DOJ, is currently conducting a joint investigation with the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform into the FBI and DOJ' s activities during the 2016 election. It
is therefore imperative that this Committee be provided with these text messages, which relate
directly to that investigation. Please do so at your earliest convenience.
cc: The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Ranking Minority Member
Office ofthe Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
The Honorable Charles Grassley

Chairman DEC 1·2 2017
· United States Senate
Dear Chairman Grassley:

This responds to your letter to Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI) Director Christopher
Wray dated December 5, 2017, requesting that the Department of Justice (Department) provide
the Committee with copies oftext message communications between FBI employees Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page. We are sending letters and identical enclosures to a number of
Congressional Committees that have made similar requests.
As you may know, on January 12, 2016, the Department ofJustice's Office oflnspector
~elated to, the FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016, 1 and the Director's letters to
decisions were based on improper considerations. 2" As part ofthat review, the OIG obtained,
The Department expected the documents provided herein to be provided as pmt of a
completed OIG report. However, public reporting about the existence ofthe text messages
initial disclosure of approximately 375 text message communications, dated August 16, 2015 to
The enclosed documents contain minimal redactions that protect the privacy interests ofthird
parties and sensitive law enforcement information, and remove irrelevant information. The
available.
1 On that date, then-FBI Director James B. Corney announced that the FBI was recommending to the Department of
Justice that no charges should be filed relating to f01mer Secreta1y of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email
server.
2
DOJ OIG Announces Initiation ofReview, January 12, 2017, available at: https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-
01-12.pdf
Page Two
by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The OIG informed the Special Counsel ofthe existence of
This extraordinary accommodation ofproviding the enclosed documents is unique to the
facts and circumstances ofthis particular matter. The Department appreciates the work of the
cc: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member
Enclosures
Office ofthe Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman
DEC 1 1 2017
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Department of Justice (Department) is in receipt of your letter to FBI Director

Christopher Wray, dated December 2017, concerning the reassignment of Peter Strzok and
requesting a significant number of communications concerning Mr. Strzok
The Department fully appreciates the Committee's desire for information and takes
seriously your request for documents. The Department is undertaking a review of its records to
determine whether responsive documents exist. As always, the Department will respond in a
manner consistent with our law enforcement, litigation, and national security responsibilities.
We look forward to working with the Committee on this request.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if we may provide additional assistance
regarding this or any other matter.
llnitcd StJtCS ScnJtr
December 5, 201 7
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
The Honorable Christopher Wray

Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Dear Director Wray:
Over the summer, media outlets reported that Peter Strzok was removed from his position
in the FBI's counterintelligence division and from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team and
had been reassigned to work in the FBI's human resources department. According to recent
media reports, Mr. Mueller removed Mr. Strzok from the team after discovering that he and FBI
lawyer Lisa Page, his alleged mistress, "had exchanged politically charged texts disparaging
President Trump and supporting Hillary Clinton." 1 It appears the Special Counsel may have
learned this information from the Office of Inspector General's ongoing review of the handling
of controversial pre-election activities of the Justice Department and FBI related to the
campaign. 2
Reportedly, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page exchanged these text messages while working on
the Clinton investigation. Mr. Strzok has been described as "a key player in the investigation
into [Hillary] Clinton's use of a private email server to do government work as secretary of
state." 3 Ms. Page reportedly "was a regular participant when Corney would hold 'skinny group'
meetings on the case-a small collection of advisers who gathered to address sensitive cases." 4
Additionally, Mr. Strzok reportedly was one of two FBI agents who interviewed former National
1
Karoun Demi1jian & Devlin Barrett, Top FBI Qfficial Assigned to Mueller's Russia Probe Said To Have Been
Removed After Sending Anti-Trump Texts, THE WASHINGTON POST (Dec. 2, 2017),
https:/ /www. ,va shin }.!;tonpost.com/worl<l. nationa 1-sccurit y1 t wo-scnior- lb i-o flicials-on-c Ii nton-trump-pro bcs-
cxchangc<l-pol itical ly-charnc<l-tcxts-<lisparaginQ-trurnp;20 I 7; l 2.'02/9846-t2 l c-<l 707-1 I c 7-a986-
d0a9770d9a3e storv.html'!utm term=.5628b-t 762afl.
2
Press Release, Office oflnspector General, Department of Justice (Dec. 2, 201 7), available at
https://oi2:.justicc.gov/prcss;'1 0I712017-12-02.p<lL
3
Dmirjian & Barrett, Top FBI Official Assigned to Mueller's Russia Probe Said To Have Been Removed.
4
Id.
December 5, 2017
Page 2 of3
Security Advisor Michael Flynn. 5 The communications between members of the Clinton email
investigation team raise questions about the integrity of that investigation, and about the
objectivity of Mr. Strzok's work for the Special Counsel and in the FBI's investigation of Mr.
Flynn.
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss
his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities
during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Corney from his
position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Hillary Clinton, the
DOJ's and FBI's activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ's and
FBI's activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has
received no letter in reply to that request. In advance of Mr. Strzok's interview, please provide
the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no
later than December 11, 2017:
1. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then-
Director Corney's draft or final statement closing the Clinton investigation, including
all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing
Secretary Clinton's and her associates' conduct regarding classified information from
"grossly negligent" to "extremely careless"; 6
2. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the
decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges;
3. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the
investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian
government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or
authorized by Mr. Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
4. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI's
interactions with Christopher Steele relating to the investigation into potential
collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any
communications regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr.
Steele;
5. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any
instance of the FBI relying on, or referring to, information in Mr. Steele's memoranda
in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search wanants, or any other
judicial process;
5
Nicole Darrah, FBI Agent Fired From Russia Probe Oversaw Flynn Interviews, Softened Corney Language on
Clinton Email Actions, Fox NEWS (Dec. 4, 2017), http://www.frlx.nc\\'s.com/politics/20 I 7/ 12104/tbi-agcnt-fircd-
from-russi a-probe-o\·ersa\\"- tlyn n-i nterv iews-changed-comey-memos-on-c Ii nton-char,._i:es. html.
6
Laura Jarrett & Evan Perez, FBI Agent Dismissed from Mueller Probe Changed Corney's Description of Clinton to
'Extremely Careless', CNN (Dec. 4, 2017, 4:57 PM), http://www.cnn.com/20 l 7/12 04/politics/pctcr-strzok-jamcs-
eorncy/indcx..html.
December 5, 2017
Page 3 of3
6. All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as
well as all related IA documents (including any contemporaneous handwritten notes);
and
7. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing
unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or favorable statements about Hillary
Clinton.
If you have questions, please contact Patrick Davis of my committee staff at -

~ Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
cc: The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz

Inspector General
U.S. Depa11ment of Justice

Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Depa11ment of Justice
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530
DEC 1 2 2017
The Honorable Devin Nunes
Chairman
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Dear Chairman Nunes,
provide the Committee with copies of text message communications between Federal Bmeau of
Investigation (FBI) employees Peter Strzok: and Lisa Page. We are sending letters and identical
enclosmes to a number of Congressional Committees that have made similar requests.
As you may know, on January 12, 2016, the Depruiment of Justice's Office oflnspector
FBI policies or procedmes were not followed in connection with, or in actions leading up to or
related to, the FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016, 1 ru1d the Director's letters to
decisions were based on improper considerations.2 " As part ofthat review, the OIG obtained,

completed OIG report. However, public reporting about the existence ofthe text messages
initial disclosure of approximately 3 75 text message communications, dated August 16, 2015 to
parties and sensitive law enforcement information, and remove irrelevant information. The
available.
1
On that date, then-FBI Director James B. Corney announced that the FBI was recommending to the Depmtment of
Justice that no charges should be filed relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email
server.
2
DOJ OIG Announces Initiation ofReview, January 12, 2017, available at: https ://oig.j ustice.gov/press/2017/2017-
01-12.pdf
The Honorable Devin Nunes
Page Two
by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. The OIG infonned the Special Counsel of the existence of
and will take appropriate action as warranted.
cc: The Honorable Adam Schiff

Ranking Member
Enclosures
Davin Nunes, Colifornio. CIIAlllt,11\N
K. M ichael Conawa y, T exas

Peter T. King, Now York
Fronk A. LoBiondo, New Jorsoy
Thomt1s J. Rooni~y. Florida HVC-304, THE CAPITOL
lhmna Aos-Loh ti nrm, Florida
M ichaol A. Tu m or, Ohio
Brad A. Wcnstrun, Ohio
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES WASHINGTON, D C 20515
(202) 225- 412 1
Chris Stcw on. Ulah
Riclc Crnwford, Arkans.JS PERMAN ENT SELECT C OMMITTEE D AMON N llLSON
Troy Gowdy, Sou1h Carolina
El h;c M . S1uhmik, Nuw York O N INTELLIGENCE S TMF 011\ECTOR
W Iii Hurd, Toxns T1MOTIIY 5. 8 1:RGREEN

M INOJUl Y S rArF D IIIECTOn
Adam 0 . Schlrt, California,
R,\NKINCi M EMBER
James A. Hirncs1 Connccllcul

Te rri A. Sowoll, Alohonrn
A nd r6 Carson, Indiana
Jockio Speier, Californi11
M iku Quln lnv. llllno ls
Eric 5..,,,.,1wall, Cnllrornlo
Jonquln Castro, T oxas
Donny Heck, Washi ng10 11
Paul 0 . Rv.:,n,SPEAKER OF TI1E HOlJSE

N a ncy Polosi, 0 EM0CHA11C: LEAOEJt December 12, 2017
The Honorable Rod Rosenstein

Dear Mr. Rosenstein:
This letter shall serve as the Committee' s formal request to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
the Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI) for copies of all communications (to include text messages,
emails, and any other captured communications) between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI Attorney Lisa
Page. SSA Strzok and Ms. Page have been identified in media repotting as two senior-level FBI
employees who both pa1ticipated in the FBI's counterintelligence investigations concerning the Hi llary
Clinton e-mails and the 2016 presidential election.
SSA Strzok was the Deputy Director ofthe FBI's Counterintelligence Division which oversaw
both investigations. Ms. Page is a FBI Office of General Counsel attorney, who at the time, was assigned
to Deputy Director Andrew McCabe' s office and provided legal suppo1t to both investigations. Both
SSA Strozk and Ms. Page also worked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller earlier this year before being
quietly dismissed upon the discovery of their extramarital affair and the exchange of numerous politically
charged messages during the course of both investigations that were allegedly anti-Trump and pro-
Clinton.
The Committee previously made a written request for these communications on December 2,
2017, and again on December 6, 2017. I also made a request for the communications during my meeting
with you on December 6, 2017. The Committee expects to receive un-redacted cqpies of all requested
communications, and will result to compulsory process if all such documents are not delivered to the
Committee before 9:00 AM, December 15, 2017.

Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 1:29 PM
To: Pustay, Mela nie- A (OIP); McGowan, Ashley L {OPA)
Subject : RE: Watchdog sues DOJ over decision to show FBItexts to reporters I The-Hill
Thanks- will be- two more stories on this at least. Reuters and Business Inside r.
Sarah Isgur Flores

202.305.5808
-Original Message--
From: Pustay, Melanie A (OIP)
Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 1 :24 PM
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>; McGowan, Ashley l. (OPA)
<a [email protected]>
Subject: FW: Watchdog sues DOJ over decision to show FBI texts to re-porters I The-Hill
FYI
http://theh i11.com/ policy/ cyberse-curity/ 367228-watchdog-sue-s-doj-over-de cision-to~show-fbi-texts-to~

reporters
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92005 20180326-0058378

Fro m: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA}

Sent : Monday, December 18, 2017 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Question about Rosenstein Answer on IG consultation on Strzok texts
(b) (5)
On Dec 18, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
(b) (5)
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For inf ormation on office hours, access to media events, ond standard ground rules f or
interviews, please click here.
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA)

Subject: Re: Question about Rosenstein Answer on IG consultation on Strzok texts
(b) (5)
On Dec 18, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPrior@ jmdusdoj.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)
-
Ian 0. Prior
Document ID: 0.7.16060.59053 20180326-0060960

Ottice: 202.616.0911
Cell:U . . . . .
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rufes
for interviews, please click here.
From: Daniel Friedman [ mailto:[email protected])

To: Prior, Ian {OPA) <IPrior@jmd .usdoj.gov>
Subject: Question about Rosenstein Answer on IG consultation on Strzok texts
Ian,
I read the !G's letter, Flores statements and Rosenstein's answers on IG consultation..
It seems like Rosenstein's statement to Ras~ in particular, white not dearly
contradicted by Horowitz's letter, could have left the impression that he consulted
with the IG ab-out releasing the texts to the media.
Raslcin's line of questioning was about release of texts to the media_ Then he asked
about IG rule that prohibits release ofinfo that is part of an investigation_
Rosenstein: "When this inquiry came in from Congress, we did consult with the
Inspector General and he determined that he had no objection to release ofthe
material If he had, I can assure you I would not have authorized the release. 11
So Rosenstein didn't say IG okayed release of messages to media, but it didn't

exclude that
r assume you guys will say Rosenstein didn't mean to imply IG approved release of
texts to press. But is he considering sending any kind of clarification to the comn:uttee
on that?
I don't know how significant this is, but I don't want to read any other stuff yon guys
out in Business Insider again.
I am coming armmd to the view that your guys kne,Y Congress was gonna leak these
anyway, so releasing them in whole could be as your first statement said, an
attempt to avoid confusion/more selective l eaking.
Thanks,
Dan
202.290.S424
Document ID: 0.7.16060.59053 20180326-0060961

-
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:10 AM
To:
Subject : Re: Redaction question
I a ctually don't know. Let me ask- I think we took the IG re dactions and that's based on more or less
foia rules. So I' ll figure out what their policy was.
> On Dec 18, 2017, at 8:04 AM, (b) (6) wrote:

>
> Sarah,
> Re garding the FBI t e xts, can you help m e unde rstand why my name was included in the texts when
others (including my wife' s) w ere redacted? I don't mind the commentary - I've been called worse
>-
than schlubby - but I didnt understand the rationale given the others who w e-re not included.
> Thanks,
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92577 20180326-0061306

Prior, Ian (OPA)

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:32 PM
To: Flores, Saran Isgur (OPA)
Subject : Tweet by (((Rep. Nadler))} on Twitter
(((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler)

12/15/17, 9:24 PM
.@TheJusticeDept Inspector General sent a letter to @HouseJudDems saying DOJ did NOT consult
the before releasing @FBI text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to the press. Here is
our joint response, w/ @RepJeffries @RepRaskin : pic.twitter.com/mBTjGedUsi
Download the Twitter app
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b)(6)
For information on office hours, access to media eventsJ and standard ground rules for interviewsJ
pf ease click here.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58092 20180326-0062398


To: Alexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal)
Su bject: FW: OIG response to House
Att achments: Nadler Raskin Response letter.pdf
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93287 20180326-0062399

From : Flores, Sarah Isgur (0PA)

Subject: RE: Hi
I can fonvard
Sarah Isgur Flore~

Director of Public Affai!'s
202.305.5808
From: Alexander, Matthe w {NBCUniversal) [mailto:[email protected]]

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (0PA) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Hi
Is the IG's letter to be found anywhere except on Natasha Bertrand's twitter feed??
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA) [ mailto:[email protected]]

Sent; Friday, Decemb-er 15, 2017 8:27 PM
To: Alexander, Matthew ( NBCUniversal)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Hi
I'll forward it to you when they put it out. Call or text anytime: 202.305.5808 But the short version is that he' s
saying that the IG never objects when the records are p£eexisting like they are here and then he just leaves out
the part where he should have said ,..,and so, as with the pre-exsting records here, we did not object to the
release of these texts to congress after DOJ told us they had requests from Congress." And then the next part is
saying ' but that the IG isn't the one who signs off on legal or ethical concerns-DOI officials do that.' Which
then I was saying if you look at my earlier statement- that's exactly \Vhat our career folks did
httpsJ/twitter.com/SarahFloresDOJ?lang=en
Does that make sense?
,ooc
Sarah Is.gor Flores

Du:ector of Public Affairs
202.305.5808
From : Alexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal) [mailto:[email protected]}

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (0PA} <s1flores@ jmd.usdo j.gov>
Subject: RE: Hi
a} I have passed on your thanks. And she means it.

b) Yeah I would love an explainer. Also a headsup of where I can find the IG statement when it comes.
Where do I call??
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93281 20180326-0062403

From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) (mailto:Sarah.Isgur.Ffores@usdoj .gov]
Hey. . . really appreciate that tweet from Rachel. Truly. She didn' t need to do that and its especially kind when it
\vould have been so easier/popular for her to pile on. M y integrity has been questioned a lot this week on an
issue I tried to handle as fairly as I could to all parties involved W1derstand:ing the stakes and those are the times
things like this really stand out.
Back to business: Call me if you want me to explain- the IG letter is super confusing, but he is actually agreeing
with me. Talked to IG earlier and expect statement from them shortly that will be in line ,,rith
mine:
The letter released by the IG tonight is entirely consistent w my earlier tweets & DAG's testimony. IG had no
objection to release to Congress. We then consulted senior career legal/ethics experts to determine there
w ere no issues w releasing texts to either Congress or press.
https://twitter.com/SarahFloresOOJ/status/941833219871096832
XX)(
Sarah Isgur Flot'es

Directot' o f Public Affain
202.305.3808
From: AJexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal) [mailto:[email protected]}

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected]>
Subje ct: RE: Hi
The five cmtes were the 2 intels, the 2 judiciaries and ...oversight?
For the rest-thank you !
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) [ mailto:[email protected]]

Subject [EXTERNAL] Re: Hi
Below! (Sorry I totally missed them the first time)
On Dec 15, 2017, at 1:52 PM, Alexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal) <Matthew.Al [email protected]> w rote:
Popular, in a good, cool, high-school kind of way, right? ©
As for Q' s first 3 - I' m looking for ON the record for #1- 3, OFF the record, guidance only on #5- 6,
M more of a venting....
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) [mailto:Sarah.Isgur.Flores@usdoj .gov]

Document ID: 0.7.16060.93281 20180326-0062404

Lot! So true©
,ocx
Sarah I sgw: Flores

Duector of Public Affau:~
202.305.5808
From: Alexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal) (mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Friday, December 15, 20171:34 PM
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <sifl ores@ jmd.usdoj.gov>
Subject: Hi
You're very popular today!

466 followers in one day? Not bad!
Ok- Sorry to be a bore here, but help me re: Strzok / Page
1) When you say they were released to the congressional committees - is that just
Sen & House judiciary? Or also the intel cmtes? S committees total
2) The committees were provided copies of 375 texts, right? 375 texts that the IG
approved for release out of 10,000 that the IG examined? Appx 375. We've never
provided full number.
3) Were the anti-Hillary, anti-Obama admin, anti-Bernie texts among the 375
approved for release? I'm not aware of any news reports of texts that were not
among the appx 375 we provided to congress.
4) If they're floating around all over the place, why can't we just have a link where we
can see them? Congress was only provided hard copies. That being said, they can
scan them or upload them if they choose.
5) CTR/guidance - Which news outlet (or outlets) reported that reporters got access
to texts before the committees? Was that Biz Insider? Yes. It never happened.
6) CTR/guidance - when you say the reporters who got them "outside this process" -
That's referring just to NYT and their first story? Or to Fox News? Decline comment
be of nature of how I learned (ie I protect yalls confidence/rules same as you
protect mine.)
It's Friday!
Matthew
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93281 20180326-0062405


Subject: FW: OIG response to House
Attachment s: Nadler Raskin Response letter.pdf
>QQ<
Suah Isgur Flotea

Di:i:ectm of Public Affair;
202.305.5808
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92463 20180326-00624 11


To: Chuck Ross
Subject: RE: DOJ IG letter on Strzok texts
https://twitter.com/SarahFloresOOJ/status/941833219871096832
off the record: I understand IG is putting out a statement soon too. But call me if you need me to walk yuou
thought thisl
Sarah Isgw: Flo.ce;

Di.cectoi: of Pobhc Affair,
202305.5808
From: Chuck Ross [mailto:[email protected])

Subject: DOJ IG letter on Strzok texts
Sarah,
Do you guys have a response to the DOJ IG's letter saying they weren't consulted ahead ofthe release ofthe
Strzok texts?
Seeing some journos assert that your tweets from earlier were wrong, and rm trying to figme out what's what.
Thanks for any help,
Chuck Ross
The Daily Caller
316-616-7326
Document ID: 0.7.16060.91993 20180326-0062415


To: Max Greenwood
Subject: RE: DOJ OIG wasn't consulted before texts were released?
https://twitter.com/SarahFloresDOJ/status/ 941833219871096832
Suah Isgur Flore~

Director of Public Aff:ai!'s
202.305.5808
From: Max Greenwood [mailto:[email protected])

Subject: DOJ OIG wasn't consulted before texts were released?
Hi Sarah -- Do you have any comment on the DOJ !G's letter to Reps. Nadler, Raskin and Jeffiies saying that
OIG wasn't consulted before releasing Peter Strzok's text messages to members of Congress and the media?
Thanks in advance,
Max Greem.vood
Reporter I The Hill
mgreenwood11tthebil1. com
(321) 698- 1135
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93028 20180326-0062416

Press
From: Press
Subject : FW: Harper' s Magazine inquiry
Harpers following up.
Thanks - Kristen
From: Claire Bryan [mailto:[email protected])

Sent: Friday, December 15, 201710:56 AM
Su bject: Re: Harper1 s Magazine inquiry
Hi Kristen,
I'm following up on this request. Has there been any progress?
Thank you!
Claire
Claire Bryan
Editorial Assistant
west@,harpers.org
212.420.5741
Harper's Magazine
New York, NY 10012
https://harpers.org
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Claire Bryan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Kristen,
Thanks for speaking just now. I'm looking to gain access to text messages that w ere exchanged between
FBI officials (Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) in March 2016 that the Department of Justice reviewed.
Can you connect me to someone who could provide these docwnents for me? You can reach me at 212-
420-5741. My deadline is Friday.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57627 201 80326-0062437

Best,
Claire Bryan
Claire Bryan
Editorial Assistant
[email protected]
212.420.5741
Harper's Magazine
New York, NY 10012
https:ltharpers.org
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57627 20180326-0062438

Prior, Ian (OPA)

Subject : RE: Flores statement
(b) (5)
Ian 0. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules f or interviews, please dick
here.

Subject: Re: Flores stat ement
(b) (5)
■
On Dec 15. 2017, at 1:50 PM, Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]> ,vrote:
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for
interviews, please cfick here.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57987 20180326-0062617

To: Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected] .gov>
Subject: Re: Flores statement
-
(b) (5)
-
On Dec 15, 2017, at 12:51 PM, Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPrior(t4jmd.usdoj.gov> wrote:
lan D . Prior
Principal Deputy Director ofPublic Affairs
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground
rules for interviews, p lease click here.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Natasha Bertrand <nbertrandllZ,bnsiness:insider.com>

Date: December 15, 2017 at 12:47:58 PM EST
To: "Prior, Ian (OPA)" <Ian.Prior(@usdoj.gov>
IR circling back on these questions. Thanks.
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 8:43 A.vl. Natasha Bertrand

<nbertrand@,businesslnsider.com> wrote:
F ollowmg up on that, Rep. Matt Gaetz told CNN this morning that
the DOJ was forced to release the StrzoklPage texts because Devin
Nunes "was about to subpoena them."
Is that accurate?
Thanks,
Natasha
On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:53 PM, Natasha Bertrand

<nbertrand.@,businessinsider.com> wrote:
Hi Ian.
This statement from Sarah seems to :indicate that there were

wauthorized disclosures ofthe Strzok texts to reporters.
"As we understand now, some members of the media had already
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57987 20180326-0062618

received copies ofthe texts before that - but those disclosures
were not authorized by the department"
https://ww,v.politico.com/storv/2017/ 12/ 14.lfbi-agents-text-
message- iustice-department- congress-democrats-2 9 77 3 7
Does DOJ know who disclosed them / does it plan to find out?
Thanks,
Natasha
Natasha Bertrand
Pol111cal Correspondent Busmess Insider
631.317.Si09
(21,.NatashaBe-rlrand
~atasha Bmrand
Polilic~ Cotrespot1dent Business insider
631.317.8409
@~atashaBertrand
Natasha Bertrand
Polillcal Correspondent Rusmess Ins1det
63 L31., _8-;.09
1:tNatashaB ertrand
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57987 20180326-0062619


Subject: RE: Hi
Loll So true©
Suah Isgur Flore~

Director of Public Aff:ai!'s
202.305.5808
From: Alexander, Matthew {NBCUniversal) [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: Hi
You're very popular today!

466 followers in one day? Not bad !
Ok- Sorry to be a bore here, but help me re : Strzok / Page
1) When you say they were released to the congressional committees - is that just Sen & House
judiciary? Or also the intel cmtes?
2) The committees were provided copies of 375 texts, right? 375 texts that the IG approved for
release out of 10,000 that the IG examined?
3) Were the anti-Hillary, anti-Obama admin, anti-Bernie texts among the 375 approved for
release?
4) If they're floating around all over the place, why can' t we just have a link where we can see
them?
5) OTR/ guidance - Which news outlet (or outlets) reported that reporters got access to texts
before the committees? Was that Biz Insider?
6) OTR/guidance - when you say the reporters who got them "outside this process" - That's
referring just to NYT and their first story? Or to Fox News?
It's Friday!
Matthew
Document ID: 0.7.16060.91945 20180326-0062647

Press
From : Press
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA)
Su bject: FW: Letter from Reps. Nadler, Jeffries, and Raskin
Att achments: 1664_001.pdf
FYI
From: McElvein, Elizabeth (b) (6)

To: Doj.correspondences@usdoj .gov; Press <[email protected]>
Cc: Hiller, Aaron <[email protected]>
Subject: letter from Reps. Nadler, Jeffries, and Raskin
Attached, please find a letter from Reps. Nadler, Jeffri es, and Raskin to Director Flores and Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein.
Regards,
Elizabeth H. McElvein
Professional Staff
-
House of Representatives
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92953 20180326-0062648

<ieongress of tbt ltntteb $tates
mta~bington, ll<t 20515
December 15, 2017
Sarah Isgur Flores

Director
Office of Public Affairs
Washington DC 20530
Dear Director Flores,
We wrote to you yesterday regarding the Department's decision to invite a group of

reporters to view text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page-in private, at
1
Department headquarters, and before delivery to congressional offices was complete.
Shortly after we transmitted our letter to the Department, you released a statement to the
press:
When the initial inquiries came from the committees and members of Congress,
the deputy attorney general consulted with the inspector general, and the inspector
general determined that he had no objection to the Department's providing the
material to the Congressional committees . . . . After that consultation, senior
career ethics advisers determined that there were no legal or ethical concerns,
including under the Privacy Act, that prohibited the release of the information to
the public either by members of Congress or by the Department.2
But later in the evening, your story appears to have changed. In an additional statement, you
said: "As we understand now, some members of the media had already received copies ofthe
3
texts before that-but those disclosures were not authorized by the department. "
We require clarification on this point. In addition to the questions we asked in yesterday's

letter to you, please tell us:
1 NatashaBertrand, In 'highly unusual' move, DOJ secretly invited reporters to view texts sent by ousted FBI agents,
BUSINESS INSIDER, Dec. 13, 2017.
2 David Shortell, DOJ says no wrongdoing in release ofFBI agent's texts, CNN, Dec. 14, 2017.
3Darren Samuelsohn, Democrats want to know why Justice Department released FBI texts, POLITICO, Dec. 14,
2017.
PRINTEOON RECYCl.EO PAPER
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92953-000001 20180326-0062649

• Did the media have access to these text messages prior to their delivery to Congress?
• Did the Department authorize this disclosure? If so, who in the Department authorized
this disclosure? If not, who in the Department made or facilitated this disclosure?
• If indeed it happened, why did you omit this unauthorized disclosure from your initial
statement to the press?
• You say that you relied on the advice of"career ethics advisers" who "determined there
were no legal or ethical concerns" with your release of this material to the press. Please
provide all documents and communications that form the basis of this advice.
We ask for your response to both our initial letter and these questions no later than December 19,
2017. We also ask that you communicate directly with our offices, rather than through the press,
when providing your response.
Sincerely,
rroJd Nadler Hakeem Jeffries

Ranking Member Member of Congress
House Committee on the Judiciary
Vice Ranking Member

cc: Chairman Bob Goodlatte, House Committee on the Judiciary

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Department of Justice
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92953-000001 201 80326-0062650

Prior, Ian (OPA)

Subject : Re: Flores statement
Ian 0 . Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for interviews,
please click here.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58960 20180326-0062651

Prior, Ian (OPA)

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:46 AM
Subject: RE: Flores statement
(b) (5)
Ian 0. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
here.

Sent: Friday, December 15, 20179:34AM
(b) (5)
On Dec 15, 2017, at 9:33 AM, Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPrior(@,.pnd.usdoj.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
From: Flores, Sarah lsgur(OPA)

To: Prior, Ian (OPA} <[email protected]>
(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57993 20180326-0062677

On Dec 15, 20 17, at 9:07 AlvI, Prior, Ian (OPA) <1Prior'{4jmd.usdoj.gov> wrote:
(b) (5) F or some reason it was in my

deleted box.
Ian D. Prior
Principal Deputy Director ofPublic Affairs
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground
rules for interviews, please click here.
On Dec 15, 2017, at 8:50 AM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)

(b) (5)
On Dec 15, 2017, at 8:47 Al\lI, Prior, Ian (OPA)

<[email protected]> ,vrote:
(b) (5)
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
For information on office hours, access to media

events, and standard ground rules for interviews,
please click here.
Begin forwarded mess.age:
From: Natasha B ertrand

<nbertrandta:businessinsider.com>
Date: December 15, 2017 at 8:43:24 IL"\1
EST
To: ''Prior, Ian (OPA)"
<[email protected]>
DuplicatiYe
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57993 20180326-0062678

Prior, Ian (OPA)

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)
Subject: RE: Flores statement
(b) (5)
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.61 6.0911
Cell: (b) ( 6)
here.

Sent: Friday, December 15, 20179:34AM
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58469 20180326-0062680


To: John. [email protected]
Cc: Sarah. [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject : Re: DOJ says early release of FBI agents' texts was ' not authorized'
And here's a more full statement. I didn't reach out be mark said he had learned about the past admins
practice during F&f and was no longer pursuing.
The Chairman and Ranking Members of each of the congressional committees were
provided the opportunity to have copies of the texts delivered to their offices. This was
completed before any member of the media was given access to view the same copy of
the texts by the Department's Office of Public Affairs.
As the Deputy Attorney General said in this testimony on Wednesday, when the initial
inquiries came from committees and members of Congress, the Deputy Attorney General
consulted with the Inspector General, and the Inspector General determined that he had
no objection to the Department's providing the materia l to the Congressional committees
that had requested it. After that consultation, senior career ethics advisors determined
that there were no legal or ethical concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that
prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of congress or
by the Department.
On Dec 15, 2017, at 7:11 AM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Bl has never reached out to me for comment or to discuss this story and her tweets have
been discredited repeatedly during this process.
I learned that another news organization may have had the texts before I showed them to
media at doj. Which means we didn't give it to them. Could mean congress did after we
gave it to them. Confused why that reflects poorly on doj?
On Dec 15, 2017, at 12:59 AM, "[email protected]"

Sarah,
1. Is this story accurate? Once more, was the early release to selected news
organizations of email exchanges that are part of an ongoing IG investigation
authorized?
2. If it was, by whom? If it was not Mr. Rosenstein, was it the Attorney
General? If it was, did t he President or any member of the Executive Office of
the President direct him to do it?
3. If it was not authorized, w ho chose on his or her own to give the material
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92025 20180326-0063339

to selected reporters; is that person or persons a political appointee; and are
they now subject to disciplinary action or dismissal?
4. If the story is accurate, did you inform Sarah Lynch or me this evening. If
you did, I didn't receive your email or call, when you have my home number,
as well as this email address.
5. If not, why not?
Given our discussion today, the climate in this town is only made worse by
favors or favoritism, IF either is the case here.
Again, per our earlier discussion, now yesterday, please note that I did not
call you at this hour, baffled though I am by this development- again, if the
story is accurate.
Also as we discussed, if true, this development is bad for your department,
reflects poorly on the Trump administration, further poisons relations between
the administration and the legitimate news media, serves our democracy
badly, or, worse, aids and abets the ongoing efforts to discredit it.
Thanks,
John
http://www.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts
was-not-authorized-2017-12
John Walcott
Editor-in-Charge, National Security and Foreign Affairs
Reuters News
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92025 20180326-0063340


To: Katmer, Elvan
Cc: Gibson, Jake; 531-DCDeskOps; Press
Subject : Re: Statement on
I want to clarify something about my statement:
I learned that another news organization may have had the texts before I showed them to media at
doj. Which means we didn't give it to them. Could mean congress did after we gave it to them for
example. As I said in my statement, there was no limitation on congressional release to the public
either legally or ethically.
On Dec 14, 2017, at 11:44 PM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
The Chairman and Ranking Members of each of the congressiona l committees

were provided the opportunity to have copies of the texts delivered to their
offices. This was completed before any member of the media was given
access to view the same copy of the texts by the Department's Office of
Public Affairs. As we understand now, some members of the media had
a lready received copies of the texts before that-but those disclosures were
not authorized by the Department.
As the Deputy Attorney General said in this testimony on Wednesday, when

the initial inquiries came from committees and members of Congress, the
Deputy Attorney General consulted with the Inspector General, and the
Inspector General determined that he had no objection to the Department's
providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested
it. After that consultation, senior career ethics advisors determined that there
were no legal or ethical concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that
prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of
congress or by the Department.
On Dec 14, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Katmer, Elvan <[email protected]> wrote:
Good evening Ms. Flores,
I am a journalist with Fo.x News.

Iam reading a Business Insider report that refers to a POLITICO article citing you
saying a Justice Department "statement" acknowledges "copies of private text
messages exchanged between two former special counsel investigators were
disclosed to certain members of the media before they were given to Congress,
even though those disclosures 'were not authorized." '
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93567 20180326-006334 1

Can you confirm if there is a OoJ statement on this, or was this in response to a
question you have provided to POLITICO. Could you please confirm if the release
of these texts were not authorized.
Sincerely,
Elvan Katmer
Fox News Channel
Assignment Desk
{202) 824 - 6369
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or

confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of
the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or
its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this
message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any
content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the
official business of Fox News or Fox Business must not be taken to have been
sent or endorsed by either of them. No representation is made that this email
or its attachments are without defect.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93567 20180326-0063342


Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 9:38 PM
To: Laura Jarrett
Subject: Fwd: Letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
The Chairman and Ranking Members of each of the congressional committees w ere
provided the opportunity to hav e copies of the texts deliv ered to their offices . This w as
completed before any member of the media was given access to view the same copy of
the texts by the Department's Office of Public Affairs. As we understand now, some
members of the media had already received copies of the texts before that- but those
disclosures were not authorized by the Department.
As the Deputy Attorney General said in this testimony on Wednesday, when the initial
inquiries came from committees and members of Congress, the Deputy Attorney General
consulted wi th the Inspector General, and the Inspector General determined that he
had no objection to the Department's providing the material to the Congressional
committees that had requested it. After that consultation, senior career ethics
advisors determined that there w ere no legal or ethical concerns, including under the
Prrvacy Act, that prohibited the release of the information to the public either by
members of congress or by the Departmen t.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93228 20180326-0063347


To: (b) (6) Sarah Flores Personal Emat!
Subject: FW: Letter to Director Flores•••

Attachments: 12.14.17 Letter to Director Flores.pdf
""""'
Sacah Isgw: Flores
Du:ectm of Public Affair;
202.305.5808
From: Press
Subject: FW: letter to Director Flores***
Thank you - Kristen
From: McElvein, Elizabeth (b) ( 6)

To: Do [email protected]; Press <Press@ jmd.usdoj.gov>
Subject: Letter to Director Flores
Attached, please find a letter from Reps. Nadler, Jeffries, and Raskin to Director Flores and Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein.
Regards,
Elizabeth H. McElvein
Professional Staff
House of Represent atives
DIIIIIIIIIIII
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92929 20180326-0063489

(!Congress of tbe 'mlniteb ~tates
•asbington, 1D<t .20515
December 14, 2017
Sarah Isgur Flores

Director
Washington DC 20530
Dear Director Flores,
On the evening of December 12, 2017, the Department of Justice delivered to us a set of
private text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. It has been reported that
the Department also invited a group of reporters to view these text messages-in private, at
1
Department headquarters, and before delivery to congressional offices was complete.
On December 13, 2017, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appeared as a witness
before the House Judiciary Committee. When Representatives Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and
Jamie Raskin (D-MD) questioned him about the Department's sharing these sensitive text
messages with the press, Mr. Rosenstein responded:
[A]s you know, I am not the public affairs officer, so I wouldn't know what the
precedent was, but generally speaking our goal is to be as forthcoming with the
media as we can, when it is lawful and appropriate to do so. So I would not
approve anybody disclosing something that was not appropriate to disclose.2
When pressed further about the relevance of the text messages to an ongoing investigation by the
Office ofthe Inspector General, Mr. Rosenstein said:
1 NatashaBertrand, In 'highly unusual' move, DOJ secretly invited reporters to view texts sent by ousted FBI agents,
BUSINESS INSIDER, Dec. 13, 2017.
2
Oversight Hearing with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, Dec. 13,
20 17 (statement ofDeputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein).
PRINTED ON RECYCl EO PAPER
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92929-000001 20180326-0063490

Letter to Director Flores, Page 2
When this inquiry came in from the Congress, we did consult with the Inspector
General to determine that he had no objection to the release of the material. If he
had, I can assure you we would not have authorized the release.3
Mrs. Flores, you are the Department's public affairs officer, and we write to you for
further clarification about this unusual move:
• A spokeswoman for the Department suggested that "career Justice officials evaluated the
4
messages ... to be sure they could be released 'under both ethical and legal standards."'
Who at the Department made this evaluation?
• Who at the Department of Justice approved your decision to invite the press to view these
text messages? Please provide all documents and communications regarding the decision
to invite the press the view these text messages.
• Did you consult with any official at the Office ofthe Inspector General about sharing
these text messages with the press prior to the Department's doing so?
• Who attended this media briefing? Please provide us with the names of the attendees,
their media outlets, and copies of any documents or materials you m ay have provided or
shown to the press at that time.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We ask for your response no later than
December 19, 2017.
Sincerely,
Hakeem Jeffries
Ranking Member Member of Congress
3
Id.
4
Darren Samuelsohn, DOJfuels doubt about integrity ofMueller probe, POLITICO, Dec. 14, 2017.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92929-000001 20180326-0063491

Letter to Director Flores, Page 3
~~-u1L
Jamie Raskin
Vice Ranking Member
cc: Chainnan Bob Goodlatte, House Committee on the Judiciary

Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. Department of Justice
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92929-000001 20180326-0063492


Subject : RE: Letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
The Chairman and Ranking Members of each of the congressional committees were provided the
opportunity t o have copies of the texts delivered to their offices. This was completed before any
member of the media was given access to view the same copy of the texts by the Department's
Office of Public Affairs. As we understand now, some members of the media had already received
copies of the texts before that-but those disclosures were not authorized by the Department.
As the Deputy Attorney General said in this testimony on Wednesday, when the initial inquiries
came from committees and members of Congress, the Deputy Attorney General consulted with the
Inspector General, and the Inspector General determined that he had no objection to the
Department's providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested it. After
that consultation, senior career ethics advisors determined that there were no legal or ethical
concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that prohibited the release of the information to the
public either by members of congress or by the Department.
Sacah Isgw: Flo1:e~

D i.cecto-i: of Public Affairs
202.305.5808

Subject: FW: Letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
Hey Sarah,
Guessing you've seen the attached letters from House Dems to you and the IG asking about the media
briefing. I'm going to w rite a short story on this. Do you want to comment or respond? Posting something
short in about 30 or so minutes.
Thank you,
Darren Samuelsohn
Senior reporter, POLITTCO
Desk: 703-842-1769
Cell: (b) (6)
Dsamuelsohnlflp olitico.com
@ dsamuelsohn
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92009 20180326-0063494


To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche- (OlA)
Su bject: FW: Letter to Director Flores***
Att achments: 12.14.17 Letter to Director Flores.pdf
Welp- - -that happened_
""""'
Sacah Isgw: Flores
Du:ectm of Public Affair;
202.305.5808
From: Press
Subject: FW: letter to Director Flores***
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5756 20180326-0063497


Subject : RE: Letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
Yes-----coming momentarily
Suah Isgur Flom

202.305.5808
From : Darren Samuel sohn [ma ilto:[email protected])

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <siflores@j md.usdoj.gov>
Subj ect: FW: letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92008 20180326-0063502


To: Tierney Sneed; Prior, Ian (OPA)
Su bject: RE: Strzok/Page texts
We have not released any texts. 5 committees of congress have them though.
Suah Isgur Flom

202.305.5808
From: Tierney Sneed [mailto:[email protected])

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <sif [email protected]>; Prior, Ian {OPA) <[email protected]>
Subj ect: Strzok/ Page texts
Hi Sarah and Ian,

Has the DOJ released the ~ 3 7 5 StrzoklPage te.xts that it reportedly previewed for reporters earlier this week?
If so, can you make them available to me?
Thanks,
Tierney
Tiroi~y Sneed
Talk.i.tlg Points .1iemo
202-75S-.304B■-
@tiec..-iie:s: mega."l
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57812 20180326-0063601


To: Darren Samuelsohn; Josh Gerstein
Subje ct: RE: closing the loop
rm ok \vith that being included_ You've got it from me directly and not from Josh©
Sarah Isgur Flom

Du:ectoi: of Public A ffairs
202.305.5808

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>; Josh Gerstein <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: closing the loop
That is what the Dems were complaining about and what the sentence was previously talking about.
I can also add a line to say DOJ gave the messages to lawmakers before they were shared with the media. But
I want to be sure I'm playing fair with respect to reporting something I've since learned through our OTR
channels and not via Josh.
Are you 01< with me saying some version of this at the end of the clarification?
OOJ also delivered the text messages to lawmakers before they were released to the press.
Thank you,
Darren Samuekobn
Senior reporter, POLITICO
Desk: 703 -842- 1769
Cell: (b) (6)
Dsamuelsohn"apolitico.com
@ dsamuelsohn
From: "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)" <[email protected]>

Date: Thursday, December 14, 2017 at 2:19 PM
To: Darren Samuelsohn <[email protected]>, Josh Gerstein <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: closing the loop
I still think its important for your readers to know that members of congress received them first-I guess im not
sure why the bearing is a relevant time marker. le-there just as easily could have been no bearing the next day
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92340 20180326-0063759

but members ot congress stl.1.1 had. them.
Sacah fagw: F1oce-s

.Ditectoi: of Public Affairs
202.305..5808

Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2.017 2:16 PM
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected]>; Josh Gerstein <[email protected]>
Subject: closing the loop
Hi Sarah,
We' re going to change the last word in the sentence you flagged from 'lawmakers' to 'hearing.' This
sentence is paraphrasing the complaint that the Democrats were making during the hearing, and that was
what I was trying to capture.
The sentence is being changed to say: Rosenstein also faced several questions from Democrats seeking an
explanation about why reporters had gotten access to Strzok's text messages before the hearing.
We also added a line at the end of the story to say the following:
Cfarification: This story has been updated to clarify Democrats were questioning Deputy Attorney Generaf Rod
Rosenstein about why reporters had gotten access to FBI a_ g ent Peter Strzok's text messages before
Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing.
I am sorry for the confusion. As Josh noted before, I was reporting on my own about the discussion on the
Hill yesterday and knew it would be inappropriate to approach Gerstein since he was bound by your
OTR/ embargo ground rules.
Thank you,
Darren Samuelsohn
Senior reporter, POLffiCO
Desk: 703-842-1769
Celt (b) (6)
Dsamuelsohn~,politico.com
@ dsamuelsohn
From: "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)" <Sarah.lsgur.Flores@usdoj .gov>

To: Jo.sh Gerstein <[email protected]>, Darren Samuelsohn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Sharing a POLITICO link: "OOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller probe"
Thanks, Josh. All reasonable points_ Hopefully Darren can take my word for it that no documents were shown
to any member ofthe press before Congress_ Although I understand the texts were in distnbution to reporters
from another source before I showed them to anyone and I don' t know how that happened.
Sacah Isgw: Flore-s

'T""'." r-rt. & ,. ._ rr- •
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92340 20180326-0063760

.LJu:e-cto r o r Yobhc .tu t =
202.305.5808
From: Josh Gerstein [ma ilto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, December 14, 20171:21 PM
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected]>; Darren Samuelsohn <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Sharing a POLITICO link: "DOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller probe"
Hi Sarah:
So in order to respect the terms of the embargo and the sourcing from Tuesday night, I did my best to steer
clear of this story entirely. Just seemed awkward for me to try to wade into the specifics of stuff that was
supposed to be for guidance or unattributed and the timing of everything.
Now that some of that is, for better or worse, in the public domain maybe you can work out with Darren the
timeline he can report. I think he was operating primarily off of what lawmakers were saying yesterday at
the hearing and elsewhere on the Hill.
If there's something specific you need me to verify about what went down, I'm happy to do that, but I did
not want to breach any confidences.
--Josh
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA) [mailt o:Sarah [email protected]]

To: Josh Gerstein <[email protected]>; Darren Samuelsohn <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Sharing a POLITICO link: "DOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller probe"
I haven't seen a response to this. Need correction asap.
From: Darren Samuelsohn <dsamuelsohn@polit ico.com>

Subject: Sharing a POLITICO link: "DOJ fuels doubts about integrity of Mueller probe"
Good morning,
Sharing my latest story published this AM in POLITICO: "DOJ fuels doubts about integrity
of Mueller probe"
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/1 4/justice-department-mueller-investigation-
295483
Please share on social media and with friends and collagues. You can tag me
@dsamuelsohn on Twitter.
Be in touch,
Darren Samuelsohn
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92340 20180326-0063761

Senior reporter, POLITICO
Desk: 703-842-1769
Cell:
[email protected]
@dsamuelsohn
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92340 20180326-0063762

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur IOPA} <[email protected]>; Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>
Thank you again, Sarah, and for last night's back-and-forth. While I'm still not clear about who authorized
the release of texts that are part of an ongoing IG investigation (perhaps I'm dense, but former IGs I know
have said they don't know of any precedent), but I can assure on two points:
1. We don't call people at 3 a.m. except in extremis (terrorist attacks, etc.) My mother's rule was never to
call anyone after 9, and that still seems reasonable, although you should feel free to call me anytime
- H)
2. We always base our stories on our reporting from multiple credible sources, preferably supported by
verifiable documents, and not on any preconceived notions, twisted facts, or fake news. Again, if you
-
feel otherwise, just call or email me.
3. (b) (6)
All the best,

J ohn
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA) [ mailto,:Sarah.Isgur.Flores@usdoj .gov]

Sent: Thursday, Decemb-er 14, 201711 :23 AM
To: Hosenball, Mark J. (Reut ers); Prior, Ian (OPA)
Cc: Walcott, John (Reuters)
1) Please please look into these things before sending me questions like this based on a single tweet you
found from over a day ago. It was answered by the DAG in the hearing when Jeffries asked about it
and Shannon sent out this tweet just moments later clarifying that their producer saw the same thing that
Congress saw and every other outlet:
https://twitter.com/ShannonBream/status/940990591915130880
2) On your point about historical p ractice, I don' t know who you are talking to but I sent you the names
of 3 national reporters yesterday who have all coofinned past practice publidy.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58012 20180326-0063878

3) I have no due why the time of day is relevant-I get calls from my r eporters at Jam not infrequently.
We all work long hours in these jobs over here at DOJ- as is evidenced by the fact that several ofthe
DOJ reporters were stfil here \Vhen I left at 11pm last night
4) I have confirmed that some outlets had the foll set oftweets before we released them to Congress or
showed them to reporters here after, which makes this all seem like a silly non story.
At this poin~ your emails feels like badgering and a waste oftime for me to argue about something you' ve
made your mind up on. No other reporter who actually works here seems to agree with your narrative.
Throughout this conversation you have had the tone of an advocate and not a reporter. So I think we're done.
Sarah Is,gu.c Flores

Director of Public Affa.in
202.3055808

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected]>; Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>
Subject: Strzok texts
I have contacted one or two people with historical know ledge of such issues and they said they had never seen or
heard of a previous case of DoJ late at night calling reporters in to look at private message-type evidence -
EVIDENCE, not internal memoranda - which had been collected by DoJ or IG in what is still an act.ive, open
investigation. Also, assuming its accurate, the tweet below seems to raise a serious question as to how Fox News
obtained a much larger cache of Strzok messages than was provided to Congress. So I am still seriously wondering
who authorized such releases, what the le9al rationale was for doing so, given the fact that the investigat.ion is still
open, and w hether you can produce any valid evidence that similar such material has b-een released in this manner
in the past by DoJ.
Natasha BertrandVerified account @NatashaBertrand

Follow Follow @NatashaBertrand
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries now askin g who authorized the

DOJ to invite reporters to come view private texts
between 2 DOJ employees who were subject of
pending investigation. Also asked how it's possible that
Fox News has 1Ok Strzok-Page texts when DOJ on ly
gave Congress 375 texts.
8:50 AM - 13 Dec 2017
Many thanks ·or your attention to this inquiry. mh
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58012 20180326-0063879

Flores, Sarah Isgur (O PA)

To: Alexander, Matthew (NBCUnivers..al)
Su bject: RE: Sarah - Stupid Q
I don' t have the real texts- so I doubt the me does either©
Sarah Isgw: Flore.,

202.305.5808
From: Alexander, Matthew (NBCUnivers..al) [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: Sarah - Stupid Q
Sarah,
Help - I have a stupfd Q but can you clarify for me -
These screenshots of the Strzok texts that RNC is blasting out (below)... are those the real texts or are they the RNC
marking up what they would like if sent on an iphone?
Don't judge me for being dumb!
From: Michael Ahrens - Communications/ Research [ mailto:[email protected]]

To: Michael Ahrens - Communications/ Research
Subject: [EXTERNAL] texts from last night
For several months we've been told that the special counsel's office is conducting an unbiased,
independent investigation into the 2016 election. But newly-revealed text messages from at least two
members of Robert Mueller's team, Peter Striok and Lisa Page, raise questions about the impartiality of the
investigation.
Here1 s just a sampling of the lovers' typo-ridden anti-Trump texts:
H OOO AT&TLTE 1:55PM
( Back Peter Strzok Contact
· God :-rrffrrfp;ts.loattiso~ ·
tiurrian. . ....
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93255 20180326-0072016

Good for Hillary.
Would he be a worse president

than Cruz?
I'm not sure.
0mg he's an Idiot._
•141¥/M•.
Send
During the Republican National Convention...
H OOO AT&TLTE 2:11 PM -f 80% - . )
I
Tue, Jul 19 2016, 11:09 Pt1
Oooh, TURN IT ON, TURN IT

ONIII THE oo• CHEBAGS ARE
ABOUT TO COME OUT. You can
t-ell by the excitable clapplng.
HI. How was Trump, other than

a do*che? Melania? And any
luck with home purchases?
A!:~·t ,·. . .· ....~ ·.-~l!'f&c

.TfUT p}~a r~!Y'.J.SP,2~',!;}l~yJ~tlj~j ~ :'\•
?mr.st.·. -.~~i_
:"we're:golng
1
ing:.:?-Y,·to i.~..J.f ··m· ·:..9. ·'.:0·,.t.-~¥!
t §t.w1n·-soooo .•- ..a·).~,-.'.
big;"' I
'.Th~~,hol!Jh~-~o"-,s:i,~e)ivin9'in·_
·a bad dream·.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93255 20180326-0072017

l!I ::,ena
" ...you' re meant to protect the country from that menace" ...
H OOO AT&T LTE 2: 13 PM "1 60% a'.>
God that's a great article.

Thanl<s for sharing. And F
TRUMP_
Thanks_ It's absolutely true

that we're both very fortunate.
Ancf of course I'll try and
approach It that way. I Just
know It will be tough at tlmes.
I
I can protect our country at
many levels, not sure if that
1-ielps
Send
H OOC AT&T LTE 2:18 PM
( Back Peter Stnok Contact
Sun Oa: io 2011; 10:!,!, FM
lam rlled up. Trump ls a

f""'""ing Idiot, Is unable to
provide a coherent answer.
I CAN'T PULL AWAY, WHAT THE

F-'"'K HAPPE.NED TO OUR
COUNTRY (re<Jacted)??171
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93255 20180326-0072018

- - - --
\ cfl]Jl1_
t·.!(~':V,:,:~ :c~e~II:gc~t_;t,t .'
bllct. W,e re Amei'IOI: We rode•.
Send
Michael Ahrens
Rapid Response Director
Republican National Committee
[email protected]
@michael ahrens
Document ID: 0.7.16060.93255 20180326-0072019


To: [email protected]; Prior, Ian (OPA)
Subject: RE: texts from last night
I didn' t know the RNC had them until you just said so_ As I think I've now made pretty clear- these texts
went to the hi1L After that happene~ a handful ofreporters who have 24/7 hard passes to DOJ here could the
hard copy ofthem in my offices_I have my hard copy stamped and it hasn' t left this hallway_A lot of.other
people had these texts and I don' t know what the dozen plus committees and members who had them 1-ast night
did with them.
Xkx
Sarah hgur Flores

Directo.c of Pobli.c Affairs
202.305.5808
From: Mark.Hosenball@t homsonreuters.com [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: Fwd: texts from last night
So who released these to RNC? And then why the clandestine dealings with reporters?
Sent from my iPhone
From : Michael Ahrens - Communications/Research <[email protected]>

Dat e: December 13, 2017 at 15:24:11 EST
To: Michael Ahrens - Communications/Research <[email protected]>
Subject: texts from la.st night
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58665 20180326-0072031

Prior, Ian (OPA)

Sent: We-dnesday, December 13, 2017 3:43 PM
To: [email protected]; Flore-s, Sarah Isgur (OPA)
Subject: RE: texts from last night
By the looks of it they just took the info from the fox report and created graphics
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rules for fntervfews, please click
here.

Subject: Fwd: texts from last night
Document ID: 0.7.16060.59253 20180326-0072038


Subject: Re: This is Eli lake from Bloomberg View. Deadline query on text messages
Note Strohm was invited and declined
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:52 PM, Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Going to give him approved statement
Ian D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: 202.532.3954
From: Press
To: Prior, Ian (OPA} <[email protected] .gov>
Cc: Pettit, Mark T. {OPA) <[email protected]>
Document ID: 0.7.16060.57775 20180326-0072148


Su bject: Re: This is Eli lake from Bloomberg View. Deadline query on text messages
Ok
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58285 20180326-0072150


Subject: Re: Tweet forwarded by @iprior1177
(b) (5) We often provide information we

give to the hill to avoid any confusion (on background (b) (5)
On Dec 13, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Prior, Ian {OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Just confirmed that the Justice Department invited reporters over to DOJ last night to look at
the Strwk/Page texts - and report them out - in case they did not leak in time fo r
Rosenstein's hearing today. Story TK.
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/940959111864340480
Sent via Tweetoeck
Document ID: 0.7.16060.58500 20180326-0072201

Date Internal Phone Type of t
~ate UT~ fO:t!'..~~ion _Number. Mess~ge_ 'To- -
__L.
IRECIPIENIS_JSON
2015-08-16 I Love this llne in the artkle: "the fb1 and dhs are in ch;:;rge of
20:52:54, ' I tracking the activities of foreign govt agents fnslde the US... "
~Uf:!.______ I iUh,_l_n wbat un;vern_e_;, that dhs's jo_"11____._ _-~rms
T-
2015-08-16
20:53:26,
~Un
2015-08-16
l-- __ Yg_u_ a_i::e_VJ!!.~ly_w_~ong~
20:54:36, Well, l'm sureJeh Johnson sald It is...gotta assume it's some I
Sun ---~wlldJy Uberal ;nterpretat;on of lmm;gratlon responslb;[[_Ues., -rms
7--
i,
2015-08-16 I
21:31:37,
Sun
.~r
2015-08-16
i
120 ~O_UJBOX_ I - ~-I I Finally, and related to nothing, but I just saw my first Bernie
-r·-----···--------···· -------- ------ ---

ISanders bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car, sms
21:37:53, 12 !He's an an idiot like Trump. Figure they cancel each other
Sun jrNsox _: _ ~: I --'~- lout. ____ --··- ___ l_sms __
!
~o·t related, but this is also outrageous. J mean, come on.
i :The woman needed all this outside employment? \n\nAn ,
2015-08-30 i I
iartide to share: How Huma Abedin operated at the c_enterof[
18:18:49, 1+1202- I lthe Clinton universe\nHow Huma Abedin operated at the ':
Sun - -----
···-- ·-- -~_20 __ --~___ __ _~~ter_ of the Clinton_ u~_ivers~t:i:bt1:r:l/wapo.stf_lJAgf\'_k_ _-/srns_
2015-10-14 ' 7
01:11:52, ': !+1202~
:#~~ j_20_2 !rNBOX __ J _ : __ j___ _ __ _J-An~M.a.rtln_Clt"a~_',_a1ouche l,m, I
I
'
2015-10-14
01:14:29, :+1202- I I', I
~~d ~20 . -·-·· _

1
----+---- ______________ \1.'r:!? 11C!.t ~.!sfl_iryg.. . ! §_n_.'._tJ_€:[l y_ou _ho.y_l!_t!!_e_ I_G_<!(~_~i_g_~_tI'_~~ _1_sms
I : ! !
i'= -~1-~ ~-
2015-10-14
01:17:12,
I ! K.md of a foregone conclus'1on but so much more substantive
Wed 20
- ---- """
Ithanthe__~_~e_~~~at~~------ ________ _ "······----- __ s_rr.i_s__
2015-10-14
02:22:05,
Wed _________ __I]□ -l!'J~OX ..~[ ----. -.--l·.-o._oh hi.1.1•.rv..Bernie throw_d_9'!!.n...o.n. 215 ~sms 1 ·
2015-11-01
23:19:31,
I I ·+1202- '!Hey, I assume go,ng fo=a,d that ,t's ok:y to se~:-ent,r:: - I - : ~-
Sun :202 lournox innocuous news articles, riRht? ;srns I
1
2015-11-01
23:21:36, +1202- Anyway, I sent one. And I hope Paul Ryan fails and crashes ln
Sun 20 OUTBOX a.blaze_g,f_g~. sms
2015-11-!)1 Yes:. And, me too. At some point the Rep party needs to pull
23,23,04, +1202~ their head out of their •ss. Shows no sign of occurring any
?un 202 INBOX time soon. sms
[{"modlf!ed":14499706
17159,'1unlqueld" :299,"
-
firstName":'' Peter","lc1s
202- tName 11 :"P. II
.,02 trzok",1'notes:":0,"orga And funny re _,usband, be Kasich has long been
nizations":tl,"numbers" suspected of being gay. lived with his campaign manager for
2015-12-13 ["20 ,"202 a looooong ttme, until maybe lCk-years ago when he
01:36:54, married a supermodel Wife and immediately po}Jped out
~un 20 OUTBOX kids, t\¥lns even, I th.Ink. sms
tName":"P.11
triok'',"notes":U,norga What an utter idiot.\n\nAn article to share: Donald Trump
nizations":[J,"numbers" on Putin: \u2018Nobody has proven that he\u2019s killed
2015-12-21 :f'20 '202 nyone\u2019\noonald Trump on Putin: \u2018Nobody has
01:19:26, proven that he\u2019s killed
!'Jlon ~one\u2019\nhttp://wapo.st/l!J,·cfM=kv.__ _ _ _ _---"'"'"'"---1----------
[{"modified":14506624
29240,"uniqueid":299,"
flrstName'':"Peter","las
tNamen:"P, II
Strzok", "notesn: (j, "orga
nizations":0," numbers"
2015#12-21 ,["2 □2-"20
01:47:08, -•emails"
Mon 20 INBOX o doubt. \U0001f612\n\n0k to gmail ~oe,m'-'e"--";""'-'?-----+"''"""-'---1----------
11
[{"modified :14513271
0
83340,"unlqueid":299,
2015-lZ-28
18:26:22, It's sick, but I really like poUcy issues. And having tight
Moo 202 OUTBOX deadlines. Si h... sms
2
[{"modified" :14513302
92169, "uniqueld'1:299, p
firstName":''Peter", ''las
tName":"P. II
Stnok", "notes":(L"orga
nizations":O,"numbers"
2015-12-28
~"20.
19:18::ll,
Man 20
-"em~i~":1111
ls that what do wantedi' sms
[{"modified":14513303
14011, "uniqueid'!:299,"
firstName":"Peter","las
tNamen:nP. II
Strzok","notes":O,"orga
2015-12-28
19:18:32,
Man 20
You getaJ! our oconus ■ B£.P...!£1Y.~-------r•_m_s___ r____~ _____
INBOX
2015-12-28
19:19:41,
No, it's just implicated a much bigger policy issue. I'll explain
fM~o~•~--+-------f?.q_ 9.!JJBOX ~.ter. Might even be able to use it as re.text for a call... : sms
2016-01-18
03:13:35,
Man
sm,
2016-01-18
03:14:59,
Man
one says.\n\nOkay,
OUTBOX
sms
3
[{"modified'':14534850
36202,"uniqueid":299,"
flrstName 11 : "Peter'\ "las
202111 tName":"P, II Yeah, some eltl:remely offensive video screens set up in front
-2□ Strzok","notes":[J,"orga of dist ct, Thank goodness D can't read and wasn't paying
nizations":l),"numbers" attention. Blood and guts and gore, I trulv hate these
:("20211■■■ "20 eople, No support for the woman who actually has to
2016.01-22 pend the rest of her life re.aringthls child, but we care
'~''~5~084=,~'~';+------4=2~;_ about "life." Assh«:3les. sms
Wmodified":14537674
15196, "uniqueid":299,"
firstName":"Peter", "las
tName":uP. n
Strzok","notes":[J,"orga
nizations":[),"nu
1.016-01-25
00:16:54,
Tue And J•sus Martin O'Malle .,Just pack it in and g,0o~h~o~m~•~!_ __,Fs~m~,--1-----------
({"modified":14558482
46411,"uniqueld":109,"
firstName"':"Peter", "las
tName 1':"P. II
-
Strzok","notes":[),"orga
nizations":[J,"numbersn
,1"202J1•■ •12021
2016-02-19
02:17:26, Fri NOW !:lc;>WTHE FCAN HE_l!_EA RE?UBUCAN7 17!?
•~.•---,-----------
{ zok","notes":O,"orga
attons":(],"numbers"
2 II 202
2016-02-19
02:17:59 Frl l have absolute I no idea, Stlll, he ls. so ve inter.estin . sms
4
[{"modified":14558484
26170,"uniqueid~:109,"
tName":"P. !I
Stn:Qk0,"nQtes":D,1'orga
nizations":[l, "numbers~
11
: "20 (202}
2016-02-19 -nemailsn
02:20:26, Fri 20
Gotta get tha,!_P._~9motion party so yo1,,1_ c.a~!!!.~. •0t~h~l~m~·----F'll1',,_s_ ~ - - - - - - - - - - -
[{"modified":14558484
55252, "uniqueid":109,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok","notes":(], "orga
2016-02-19 And find the right moment to introduce you to Nabout the
02:20:55, Fri 20 INBOX
A)lPle_P.clob Lisa buckets stuff,0.~··------·----l''"'ms,..__+----------
He IS proud, And therefore me, too.

2016-03-02 \uoo0tf636\U0001f636\UOOOlf636\UOOOlf636\UOOOlf636
01;19:48, \U0001f636\n\nVoted for Bernie, of course. As young
Wed 20
ideallstlc kids=•~h=•"~'=d~.-------------+•~m~•~-+----------
2016-03-02
01:20:01,
Wed 20 JNBOX He asked me who l'd vote for, uessed Kasi ch sms
5
[f'modified":14568816
11411,"unlqueid":211,"
firstName":uPeter","[as
ok",~notes":ll,"orga
":□ ,"numbers"
'(202)
2016-03-02
01:20:11,
Wed Yes, the should. sms
2016-03-02
01:20:29,
Wed Serious! ?l Would ou not D1 sms
2016-03-02
01:20:39,
Wed 20 sms
2016-03-02
01:20:46,
Wed 20 lwouldD sms
6
[{"modlfled~:14568816
61132,"uniqueid":211,"
firstN ame 11 : 11 Peter","las
tName":"P. JI
zoku,"notes";I], "orga
ers"
2
2016-03-02
01:21:00,
Wed 20 ,t!e's doesn't think you're an ~,.d.9_e.s~h~•~?--------+~n:,s__+ - - - - - - - - - - -
0
2016-03-02
01:21:04,
Wed 20
.Y..A.'.~_goingto go to heran'ffl.~~------------+'~""=---1-----------
[{umodified":14568816
77261, "uniqueid 0 :211,n
firstName":''Peter","las
tName":"P. II
2016-03-02
01:21:17,
fW=e~d---t----~.2.Q. Hethinkslwouldn'tvoteJorherrig"h~t~n~o~w~-------l"'~m~s~-+-----------
({"modifled":14568816
84732, "uniqueid":211,"
firstName" :"Peter1', "las
tName":"P.11
2016-03-02
01:21:24, 'emalls"-
Wed 20 1NBOX He's knows I'm a conservative Dem sms
7
[{"modified"::J.4568816
97711,"unlqueid":211,.,_
firstN 1;1me11 :"Peter'',"las
tName":"P. II
2016-03"02
01:21:31,
Wed 20 But now I wqn~d~•~'·~--------------f•~m~•~-+-----------
2016-03-02
01:21:45,
rW~•~d~--t-----"·20 OUTBOX sms
201&,.03-04
02:10:50, Fri is a lo,;1;thsome human. sms
87127,"uniqueid'':211,"
flrstName":"Peter'' 1nlas
tName":"P.11
2016-03-04
02:11:26 Fri Yethema win sms
8
11
([ modifiedn:14570574
95877,"uniqueid":211,"
flrstName":"Peter", "las
tName":"P. ti
2016-03-04
Q.~;11:35, Fri
zok","notes":(l,"orga
· ":[],"numbers"
2)
2016-03-04.
02:11:S1, Fri 20 .Q!JTBO}( sms
2016-03-04 -
02;12:46, FriT_ _ _ _f-"20 ___ INBOX
W9uld he be a worse pre~i_d.,•~n,tt~h~•~n~c~,u~z~?_ _ _ _ _ _f , m = ' - - r - - - - - - - - - - - -
2016-03-04
02:13:14 Fri 20
sms
9
({"modifred'':14570576
18013, "uniqueid 11 :211,"
tNamed:"P. 1l
Strzok","notes":D,''orga
nizations":IJJ"numbers"
:r•202 "(2021
2016-03-04
!)2:13:37, Fri
■"emails" I'm not sure sms
({"modified":14570580
04250, "uniqueid":211,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok'',"notes11 :0,"orga
2016-03-04
02:20:04, Fri 0mg 1-ie's an idiot sms___-t-----------
2016-03-04
02:20:33, Fri
[{"modified":14570580
63039, "uniqueid ":21l,"
tName";"P, II
Stnok","notes~:0,"orga
ni:zations":O,"numbers"
:1"20,;lllilll"1202)
2016-03-04
02:21:02 Frl
■"emails1
America will et whatthe vOtin ublic deserves sms
10
[{"modified":14570580
97168,"uniquetd":211,"
tName":"?.11
"" "· "orga
ersn
Z016-03-04
02:21:36, Fri 20 That•~_..yhat t'rn afraid of. sms
[{"modified":14570581
31427,"uniqueid":211,"
firstName":"Peter' 1,"las
tName":"P.11
2016-03-04
02:22:11, tri Oee~rtmentofEnvironmental Protection?!?! sms
2016-03--04
02:22:33, Fri
sms
2016·03-04
02:24:25, Fri 20 God Hilla should win 100 ODO 000- 0. sms
11
[f'modified": 14570583
17156,"uniqueid":211, 11
tName'1:"P. II
zok", "notes":11,"orga
ions":Il,"numbers"
2016-03-04
02:25:16, Fri 20 !know. sms
---,-----------
2016-03-04 lso did you hear him make a comment about the size of his
02:34:56, Fri d*ck earlier? This man can not be resident. ~0m~'~--i-------------
2016-03-04 Yes 1did. In relatlon to the size of his hands.\n\nAnd all the
02:37:06, Fri "Little Marco" blah blah blah sms
[("modified":14570590
88809, "uniqueid":211,"
flrstName":"Peter 11, ~las
tName":"P, II
Strzok","notes":0,"orga -
2016-03-04 And God, Detroit used to be SO beautiful and shining and

02:38:08, Fri ele ant. \U0001f61e Si h. sms
12
f(''modified":14570591
15246,"un!queld":211,"
first:Namen:"Peter'', "las
tName":''P, II
"" ":D, "orga
ers"
2016-03-04
02:3~~,J:~i-+-------+= IB_~w. Detroit is really a beautiful city. Camden W_<!~...!,s••~·'--+'~m~•'---t------------
2016-03-04
02;56:09, F(j 20 Ok I mav. vote for TrumP. _m\n; sms
firstNa ter'',"Jas
tName"
Strzok" ":□ ,"orga
2016-03-04 'emails"-
02:57:0_Q, Fri 20 "Andlook l'M_Q~,0° sms
2016-03-04 What?!\n\nPoor Kasi ch. He's the only senstble man up

02:58:39 Fri 20- OIJTBOX sms
13
({"modtfied":14570603
94053,"unlque!d":211,"
firstName":"Peter", ~ las
tName":"P.11
2016-03-04 He was pretty much calling for death for Snowden. I'm a
.02:59:53, Fri 20 single issue voter. ;)\n\nEs~!_~~~~~h~•n~•~•~•=-----j~,ms=--t----------
23340, "uniqueld":2111"
firstName":"Peter~,"!as
tName":"P.11
Stn;ok'',"no-tes":(],"orga
2016-03-04
\)3:00:23, Fri 20 INBOX Exact! re Kasich. And he ha0 scZcEcR~O~•=~•~•~I- - - - - - , ~ c m ~ ' ~ - + - - - - - - - - - - -
I{"modified":14578163
15583, "uniq ueid":211,"
tName":"P. ll
(2 ok"~"notes":{l,"orga
ers"
2)
What the fis wrong wlth people?\n\nA Texas candidate
2016-03-12 Pushes the Boundary of the Far Right
20:58:35, Sat htt. ://nyti,ms/lQTqBg,L·- - - - - - - - - - - + - ' m ~ ' - - + - - - - - - - - - -
[{"modified":14578167
11329,"unlq ueid":211,"
firstName":" Peter","las
tName":"P.11
2016-03-12 atTe)(8s article is depressing as hell. But answers how we

21:05:11 Sat could end u with President trum sms
14
H"modified":14578168
70461, "uniqueid":211,"
frrstName":"Peter", "las
tName":"P.11
(202}■ Strzok","notes":[],"orga
202 nizations":p,"numbers"
:["20 11 "{202)
2016-03-12
21:07:5.Q,_Sat+---------l-"20e, Wasn't it?SeriotJs!y~ peo,:ile so Incredibly ignorant! sm.""'--f------ _______
I have no idea, but it depresses me. Same people who drive

2016-03-12 more when they get extra daylight from daylight savings, I'm
2,1~:~12=,~•~••~'~•~'f--------+'2~0 =~-- sms
\U0001f621\nTrump Clarifies, and lt\u2019s Worse-

2016-03-12 NYTimes.com\nhttp ://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/12/opi
21:21:03, Sat
nion/trum -clarlfies:,and-its-worse.html] r-=O _sm,""'--f------------
[{"modffied":14579563
88413, ''uniqueid ":211,"
firstName":"Peter","Jas
tName 0 :"P. IJ
(202) ■ Strzok","notes":[l,"orga
202 niiatlons":[],"numbers"
:r•20 "(202)
2016-03-14
11:53:0S, Don't listen to nprthls morning~ Richard Clarke is an
Mon
uninformed douche, \U0001f621\U0001f621\U0001f621 sms
15
-------------------
(f'modifjed'":14579564
23520,"unlqueld":.211.,"
flrstName":"Peteru,,,las.
lName":"P. 11
Strtok","n!)tes":l};torga
.,Jzatlons0 :U,0 nu mbers"
,r·202.31183a","t2021
2016·03~14 324-
11~53:43. 4552-"1"emalls":("Peter
Mon 202 Jt!BOX [email protected]]}J Yeah I real! don't llke him. What did he sa 1 sms
crmodifJed":14579564
80005,''uniqueid":211,"
firstName":"Pe.ter","lai
tName":"P.11
11
0~1 notas~:U,"orp
er.,"
2)
2016-03-14
11:54:39,
Mon • He's awful, SlljS
11
[{"modified :14579567
18953,"unlqueld":211, ~
flrstName":~Peter''/liils
tName":"P.11
l016-()3.14
11!5$:38~ omd we can get
Mon 20 sms
[("modifted"~14S79S74
70357, "uniq ueid":211,'1
flrstNamen:"Peter", "las
tName": 0 P, II
ok'\ "notes•: □, "orga
tions":U,unumbers"
(202) ltis notborJngorweak.lt is life, and I am happy to
2016·03•14 ,\n\nHe i$ a blowhard who doesn't know what he ls
12:11:09, ng about anymore, lfhe ever did. \n\ol will when Ican.
Mon 20 OUTBOX sure wMat his .st::hedule ls nke this am. sms
16
I{"modifled":14581015
11904, 1'uniqueid11:211,"
fir:stName":"Peter''/'las
tNamel):nP. ll
Str:w~•,"notes":D,..orga
OZ nlilattons";[],"numbers"
,["202-"(202)
.2016-03-16
04:11:51, I am not believe Donald Trump is likely to be an actual,
Wed 20 OUTBOX serious <:an.!f1PJ.!e for president. sms
Strzgk","notes":O,"orga
202 ni:l:ations": □, "numbers"
["20 {202) So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about
hillacy because it can't be traced, you were just venting be
2016-04-02 yoofeel bad that you're gone so much b.ut it can't be helped
9ii1~,1~9~:2i,,9,:is~attl___J_e12ollj■■I.J!ioUJ:i;io=oc--1--__ !!ght now. sms
[{"modified"~14595£100
30794,"uniql.leid'':211,"'
flrstName~"Peter","las
tName~:"P. II
2016-04-02 Right. Butdld yous.iy anything other than wark? I did 1 bl,!t
01:20:30. Sat 20 INBOX ru....avJ!.ave only gotten smiles or blushes back sm,
:2U," All thiS from N:\nwww.greenpeace.org/usa/campalgn-

","las updates/hilfa ry-dintons-conneci:io11S-oi!-,gas--
industry\n\nEverythlng.sanders.sald about Clinton is true. If
1
) orga you ready through their fact check they don't state a single
hers" thing of hi& is "false", however they argue that it is

l compfetelyt.ilse because 1,4 million from fossil fuel
byists c1nd 3,3 million dlrectly from large donors
2016·04-0!l nnected to the fossil fuel industry, a tolal of 4.S million
01:18:28 Sat 2 IN80X alone ln 20lti as "not muchn com red to her total raisin a sms
17
-------------------
({"modifie(ll';14601647
16071,"unlqueld":211,"
TirstName._:..Peter","las
tName":"P. JI
This is clear and utter bias by the media speclflcallythe

2016--04-09 IMES, WAPO, and CNN who Ifyou look ataU of them
INBOX ave lar e donor.; fur C:llnton sms
FO=l'='&:=·a,,,s"',Sa=tt- - - - ~
2016-04-09 urce they used Is owned" by anewspaper

91:18:'15, Sat _202 endorsed Clinton sms
O,"unlqueid 11 :211,"
ame11 :"Peter","las
me":"P.11
ok~tnotes":[L "orga
nsu:I],"numbers'1
2016-05-04
00:40:S1, nd holy £hlt Ow:Just dropped out of the race. It's going to
Wed 20 be a Cllnton Trum race. Unbellevable. sms
84639,"uniqueid":211;1
flrstName~:"Peter". "las
tName":"P. ll
-
Strzok",' 1notes":D,"orga
ntzat\onsn;(l,'iiumbets"
:{"202-"(202}
2.016-05-04
00:41:24, -emails":
Wed 202 INBOX What?!n?l sms
18
-------------------
[rmodifiedu:14623224
91ao1, "untq ueld":211/'
firstName~:''Peter•,"la:s
tName":"P.11
(2 k"1"notes":O,"or_g3
~:(},•numbers"
'(202)
2016-05-04
00:41:37,
Wed
trm1;1difiedj':14623224
977S3,~unlquekl.":211,"
firstN~me'':11Pete.r","las-
tName":"P. II
2016-05-04
00:•:·1=,;~1,_i-____~i!l■■L~'!!Q!!___
~~'!_ 20 INBOX
[t'modlfied":14656961
B8957,"untqueid":211/
tNarne":'1fl.1J
201&-06-12
01:49:47, ey fully deserv.e to go, and demonstrate the absolute
Sun 20 ~lg~ted nonsen$e of Trum
t("moo'iffed'':14650961
88893,"unlqueld":211,"
fir~tName";"Peter" ,''Iii$
tName":"P.lt
2016-06-12
01:49:47,
Sun 20 INSOX sms
1!!
-------------------
1('1modlfied";:t4662005
76312,"unlqu~d":211,"
firstName":"Pe-ter",.,la:s
tNamtl'-;1•P. I[
Str:rok", "notes'': □,"orga
nizat!ons":ll-"m,1mbe.rs''
:["202-"(202)
2016-06-17 Now we're talklngabout CUntan, and how a lotofpeop!e are

21:56:15..,. Fri 20 INBOX ~ldinS their breath, hoping. sms
2016-06-22
16:39:25, HI, Just leilVlng my meeling now. How we m"k& law in this
Wed 20 OUTBOX count Is offensive and lms onsible. \U000lf621 sms
17529,'"un!que!d":211,"
flr'stName":"Peter","las
tName'";"P. ll
Strzok","riote:s":l),"otga
2016-06~22
l.6:41:Sfi, Iknow it ls. Its why l LOATHE congress. Can't wait to heat
Wed 20 thesto . sms
ok",•note!!:":O,"orga:
":I],"numbers"
"(202)
2016-07-07
10:36:34, \11\nHillaryCDnton; Ma\ti2019am
Thu OUTBOX 9?00ku sms-
20
-------------------
l{"modiffed":14680179
399B3,•unlqueid":497,"
tirstName":"Peter","las.
tName":""P, 11
Str.zol:"/'ootes•: □, "'orga
nization!f:n "numbers"
:["201 II '(2021
Am.1 meanwhile, we have alack U1,1es Matter protest:ets, right
2016..07-08 now, ch.in_ting "no justice no peaced around DoJ and the
~~5:38,Fri 20 White House...
l{"modifiedd:14680197
'""
;1.4390, "uniq1.1eid":497;'
flrstNam~•:•Petetn,"lat
tName 1':"P. II
Strzok",ltnotes":I),"orga
202 nJzatfons":I], "n~bers"
:[''20 "(202)
2016-07-08 "emall!":-
23:15:13, Frt 20 OIJTBOX ,ms
That'sawfu~.-··------------
[rmodlfled":14681137
45048,"unlqueld"t497,"
firstName":"Peter", •1a.s
tName":"P, 11 ·
Strwk", "notes"; □, "orga
-
nizatlons' 1:0,unumbets11
:["20~·-"(202)
2016-07~10
01:22;2.4, I didn'tgetthecha.noato ask abcut1he 88s. Btitl did sit;and
Sun 20
~are :at the,PJHtl'altofElllot Richardson stating&~·=•'-·--F'"m"'---t----------
Wl.6•07~10
01:22:44, It's next to the portrait of Eric Holder, which. ls wildly
Sun INBOX ,ms
21
------------------
[{"modiried":14684600
34702,"unlquetd•:672,"
flrstName":"Peter1 ', •1as
tName":~P. II
trzok",nnot!:!s":[11>01"ga
2 nllations;":D,"numbets"
:['202-"(202)
2016--07~14 Have you read this? It's really frightening. \n\nFor Whites
01:33:53, Sensing DecliRe, Cooald Trump Unleashes Words of
:rh1.1 20 oun,ox Rl:!slstancehtt ://n~'t!.,,r;..u~Sl~----------l~f!!S.~-t----------
({"twdifiedH:14684601
36245,"unlq ueld•:672,"
fin;tName":"Petsr"',"'las
tName":"P.l!
5trzok", "nctes"iU, "orga.
niz.atiorts": □, "numbers"
,r·20~■■•12021
2016-07-14 I have not. But I think 1t's c:le9,r he.1s taptutingall tile white,
01:35:35, .emails'' poorv01erswho th& malnS,tream Republicans abandoned in
Thu all b1,1t name ln the uestforthealmic&h=~$$S=~S_ _ _ _f',m~s~-t----------
{f'modlfled":14684601
933!10,"unlqueld":67Z.."
firstNameu:11Petet","las.
tName•:•P. II
2016-07-14
01:36:32, eah, It's not socd;\n\nAoyway,
Thu sms
[{"modlfled":14684942
86367,"u niquetd 11:672,"
flrstName":"Peter" /las
tName":"P, II
2016-07-14
11:04:45. Poll Finds Emails Weighing on Hlllary Clinton. Now Tied Wrth
Thu 20 lN80X Donald Trum htt : .nl$ 29RV5 sms
2.
-------------------
H"modlffed":14684943
16437,"uolgueld":572.i•
flrstName 1':JJPeter","las
tName-':"P, Ii
zok~,"notes":l),"crga
ers~
2016-07-14
11:05:15,
,T~h~u~--+--------,20 sms
2016-07-19
00:12:19, And areyQ'-1 klddirig me? Dvck Dynasty now Scott Balo?
Tue 20 INBOX R!dlcolous. sms
Irmodified":14688880
26599/luniqueld~:804,"
flrst.Nameµ:"Peter'', "las
tName":"P.11
·k•,"notes":O,"orga
:0,"number.i;"
(202)
2016-07-19
00:27:05,
Tue 20 OUTBOX Walt. is that who !s speak)ng}lttlie canventlan?J sms
firstName":"Peter","li:!$
tName": P. II
11
2016-07-19
00:27:24,
Tue 20 INBOX
Z3
-------------------
({"modtfted":14688880
48697,''un1queld"1804,"
fir:stName..:"Peter'',"las
ame'1:"P.II
tnok","notes":O,''orga
2 nlzatlon.si1 ;Q,"oumbers"
2016,,{l7-19
,"202!1111iili<2021
00:27:27,
Tue 202 ouraox ?! That's the best th can do?! Lmfao ,m,
2016-07-19
00:27:37,
Tue 20 sms
ZOlo-07-19
Olt.21'59,
,ru_~•---+-----;fP OUJ'.!l.Cle.X-1--- That unbelievable. My god. Thank aod il's not on. sms
201e--07-19
00:28:44,
Tue sm,
24
-------------------
1
[{' modifled11:14688S81
97543,"uniquefd":804,"
firstName":"-Peter'\"las
tName•: 1'P, U
2015-07-19
00:29:56, •ema\ls--
1.T~u=•~--+-- _____ 21!_ INBOX Wh_at did you do? Republlcan snark. \U0001f636 sm_s________________
79695/'unlqueJd":804,"
fit'StName":"Peter'', ":las
tName":!IP. II
Stn:ok'',"notes":U,"orga
ni:z.ations":D,"numbers"
"(202)
2016-07-19
00:36:18,
Tue JNBOX AND COME ON!U! TURN ON THE C:ONVENYION!!!!_ _ _>-'·~""~-+---------
2016-07-19
00:37:52,
Tue llD
[rl't!odlfied''::14688890
36SU, "uniqueid":804,"
firstName--:"Peter", •1sli
1Name•;•p. II
2016--07-19
00:43:55,
Tue 2D RN ITON. PBS. sms
25
-------------------
l{.,modifl@:d":14688890
!30677, "uniq ueld";804,"
firstName•:"Peter", "las
ame":"P.11
II II. lll)l'ga
ors"
2)
2016~(}7-19
00:44;39,
!!l,:,•---!-----l-'2,,,,0 sms
I{11 modlfied":14688891
04289, '"ur:ilqueld":804/
firstName•:•P.rter","las
tName":»P. II
2016-07•19
00:45:03-,
Tue 2D Well Christ. YOU g,_ot~m~e_1h_.,~._~:D
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,..s_ms
_ _.,,.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
zok","no~s":U,"otga
ations" :I],"numbers''
o:J1•■•1202J
2016-07-19
00:45:25, n short!r so we can bust tllroug:h m1,1re
~T_,u"-•------,- _ _ _ _ 20 OUTBOX sms
'
1G2.49,"unlquetd11:804/'
ftm:Name'':' 1Peter'1,'lla:.
tName";11 P. IJ
2016-07-19 Oooh, TURN lT ON, TURN IT ON!II THE DOIJCHE8AGS ARE

00:57:55, BOUT TO COME OUT. \n\nYou can tell by the exci;table
Tue da I sms
26
-------------------
(f'modlfied":14688902
87450, ''uniq ueld":804,"
firstName•:"Petern."las
tNarne'1:1>P. ti
k",l'notes'1:Q,"orga
ers"
2)
2016-07-19
01!04:46, My god,. I'm so- embarrassed fQr them, These are like second-
Tue
{1:1!'.s.t.~rs. Nothing the B-Hstto relate tothe~~!~l_~!hese day"s.."'+.'~""=--+----- _____
2016-07-19
02.:23:29.,
Tue 20 And wow, Donald Trum,~Js. a11-enol'mOu$ d•uche.. ~s
[{"madlfled":1468923:!
ti41BB,"unfqueld'':804,"
flt.St:Name":" Peteru.ur.is
tName 0 : 0 P. ll
2016-07-19 Hi. liow was Tn,1mp,. other than a douche? Melania? And any
10;16:23, luck wlth home purchases?\n\nl hav~this morning,
Tue \UOOOlf~ld ,ms
ame":"Peter"tJas
e~:"P,11
k", •not-es.":[l,"orga
,,.,
2}
2016-07-19 Trump barely spoke, but the flrstthlng out of his mouth was
10;18:31, •we•~ goir1gto win soooo big." The whole thing Is like fiv1ng
Tue OUTl!OX In a bad dream.
'""
27
-------------------
[(,.modified":14689l3S
82708/unlqueld":804,"
firstName":"Peter"',"1.tS
tName'';.. P. II
2.016-07-19
10:19:41,
I.ue"-----1------_j±.'t!' sms
P.11
otes":(L"orga
:I],"number.;;"
(202)
2016-07-19 Melania was perfectly-fine. ex-ceptthe whole polntof the
10:20:06, pous-e talking Is to reveal those peesD11al stories, what a
:rue 20 OUTBOX Ind human the_c;a_ndidE~e is. There was none of thaL sms
2016-07-1.9
10:-2.1:20, hat was her job! What the hell dld she talk about? 'A'lnning
Tue Yl:!!!.t.1.8!17 sms
2016-07-19
10:22:12. don't knaw. Lots of my husband Is great, but no description
Toe OUTBOX to bi!d:: it u . SM$
I
28
-------------------
[{''modified.'':14689271
2.7581,•unfqueld":804, u
fir.stName": 11Peter''1"las
tName. 11 :"P. II
2016-07-19
11:18:46, 0mg. You list.Ming to npr? Apparently Melania's spe.ich had
Tue 20 ~=iges lifted from Michele Obama's....unbelievable ~ms_ _.- r - - - - - - - - -
2016-07-19
11:19:15,
Tue 20 OUTSOX
odifJed":14689272
666, "uniqueld":804/'
stNam!,!11:1'Peter1~"las
ame":"P.11
rzok","note:; 01:0/'ors:iil
zations'1:0,11 numhars"
'02-"{202)
2016-07-19
11!20:0G, ·t■■LJQ!!~~J
fT,_,u,,e'---+-----l~Q~ OUT60X ___ God, it's Just;:i two-bit organliatlon. I do.so hope his
cUsor anlt:;1tlon comes to bite)Rm hard ln Ni:wember.0• _ _ __.•~""~--+-----------
74701,"unfqueit1"~804r''
tName":"P. II
Stl'?.Qk", "notes": □,"orga
nizijtirrn •nrbers"
:["202 '{2021
2016-07-19
11"21:13, uemalls-
Tue lt HAS to rl ht? RI ht?!? Panicked U0001f628 sms
29
--------- -------------- ---- - -- --- - - - - - - - -
[{"modlfled":14689736
44056/'uniqueid":804,"
fir:stName":"Peter","las
tName-":"P. ll
2016-07-20
00:14:02, Hopefully you get home Intlme for cr.a~y ass grain storage.
4
Wed _@mid Ben Carson tonl ht. $ms

[{'modlfled":14689736
51767,"unigueid":804,"
flrstName":nPeter''i "las
tName11 :"P. II
Strzok","notes":U,"or.ga
nizations":O,'lnumbers"
:["20~·-·(202)
2016-07~20
00:14:10, ■"emails":
~W~ed~--L---J~201111■■L_µ1~q;__ Pencebejngjntroduce,,d,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--j,~m,,s'---t----------
U"modified'':14689771
24001,"uniqueld":804,"
ftrstNa:me":"Pe.ter"",~las
tName-1•:11 P. II
" ":I];''orga
rs"
2016-07-20
01:12:0~.
l!W'!_ed~--+----J120Q;2•■■L-~01!UTBO?{,_+--- sm,
2016-07-20
01:14:54,
Wed OUTBOX the crowd looks soooooooo bored.
'""
30
--------- -------------- ---- - -- --- - - - - - - - -
[{"modified":14689773
05381,"uniqueid":804,"
firstName":"Petern, nlas
tName'';''P.11
2016-07-20
01:15:04,
Wed 20 lf\lBOX
[{"modified":14689777
44340, "uniqueid":804,"
mms -
tName":"P.11
Str:zok","notes": I], "orga
2016-07-20
01:22:23,
Wed 20 INBOX -nizations":[l," numbers"
T'20,_","(202)
"emails":("-
'}] Amd Paul R an's a 'er sms ----
-
Strzok","notes1':[J,11orga
----
-202 nizatlons":1],"numbers"
- ; ,["20,_","(202)
2016-07-21 This is really shocldng.\n\nDonatd Trump Sets Conditions for
08:52:19, -"emails":!111111 Defending NATO Allies Against Attack
Thu 20 OUTBOX '.IJL _11ttpy'/nyti.ms/2ai4u3g sms
I("modified ":14690921
99358, '1unlqueid":804,"
-;- -
tName":''P.11
{202). Strzok","notes":[],''orga
-
1111202 nizal:ians":O,"nun'lbers"
,["20,_",''(202)
2016-07-21 This campaign ls like w.itching a train wreck happen over
09,09,S8, - -"],"ema1~",[- and aver and over again,\n\nHaw Donald Trump Picked His
Thu 20 OUTBOX Runnln Mate htt : n i.ms a8a09 ,ms
31
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ----- - - - - - - - - - -
((''modifled":14695772
84264,"uniqueid":804,"
firstName 11 :"Peter","las
tName":"P. ti
I -
(202). 0
Strzok "notes":U,"orga
-
,
nizations 0 : I], "numbers"

:I"20-","(202)
2016-07-26 And hey. Congrats on a woman nominated for President in a
23:54:42,
'fue 20 IN_~Q.X
-"emalls":["- majorparty!\n\nAbout damn time! Many many more
"]}) returns ofthe davl \LJ09_9.lf60a sms
,_
18480,11 unlqueid 0 :804,"
tNamen:"P.11
I.
(202). Strzok", "notes": I], "orga
-202 ni2ations":O/'m.lmbers"
- :("20-","(202)
2016-07-26
23:56:57, "emal"":["-
:rue 20 O~TBOX '])J \U0001f60a That's cute. Thanks. \U0001f636 sms
[{"modified":14695774
72858,"uniqueid":804, 11
firstName":"Peter" ,"las
---
-tName":"P. 11
1202). Strzok","notes":0,"orga
-
-202 nizatlons":[], "numbers"
:("20-",''{202)
2016-07-26
23:57:51,
'fue 20 OUTBOX
-
,_
11111emans":I-
I).] \U0001f60a That's cute. Thanks. WQ.Q91f636 sms
,_
[{"modified'':14695775
01197,"uniqlli:!id":804,"
· firstName":"Peter","las
- -
tName":"P.11
(202). Striok","notes11: O,"orga
-
-202 nizations" :II,"numbers 0
:["20-","[202)
2016-07-26
23:58:20, -"emails":~ I had to hold ■ hand when Berniejustnow moved for her
Tue 20 INBOX ")}] nomination. \U0001f636\U0001f636\U0001f636 sms
32
--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------- -------------- - - - - - - -- ----- - - - - - - - - - -
29824, "uniqueid":8041"
-- -
tName":"?.11
(202)
-
Strzok","notes":Q,"orga
-202 nizations 0 :[L"number.s"
,["20 ,"(202)
2016-07-26
23:58:48, -"emails":[-
Tue 20 OUTBOX 'l_ll I'm notwatcl,mg~What happened? sms
[f'modffied":14695777
29469,"un!gueid":804,"
firstName":"Peter' 1, 1'1as
-----
tName":"P.11
{202).
---
Strzok", nnotes":D, "orga
-202 niz.itions":I],"numbers"
,["20,._","{202) Theywentthru roll call, she got enough votes about an hour
2016-07-27 ago. Verm·ont went last, they cast their votes. Then
00:02:08, "emails":r••r introduced Bernie, who called for some procedural things
Wed 20 INBOX }
--- then moved for HRCto_b~~pme the Democratic Nominee. sms
l("modified":14595777
62238, "unlque]d":804,"
ftrstName":"Peter","las
tName":"P.11
-
Strzok","notes":(],"orga
-
nizations":O,Jlnumbers''
,[''202_,"{202)
2016-07-27
00:02:41, "}, "emails0 : { " - Chills, just because l'm a homer for American democracy
Wed 20 INBOX thatwa . \UOOOlf636\UOOD1f636\U0001f636\U0001f636 sms
[{"modlfled":146957n
87947,"uniqueid":804,"
flrst:Name":"Peter'',"las
tName'1:'1P. II
- -
Stn:ok"',"notes":O,"orga
nlzatlons":0,'1numbers"
:J:u202-","{ZOZ}
2016-07-27
00:03:06, "emailsn:(- Ifthey played patriotic music or did something with the flag
Wed 20 INBOX
' and an honor uard, I rob ab I would have teared u ..... sms
33
[{"modifiedu:14695779
19880,"unlqueid" :804,"
0
flrstName": Peter", "las
tName":"P, ll
-
Strzok","notes":[J,"orga
2016-07-27
00:05:18,
~W~•~d~--f------,~- INBOX -nizations 0 :[1, 11 numbers"
:["20,a■-·"(202)
-"emalls":[°-
L_j_____jl■■■■■l!ll!L_jT!'u'!!r!'_n_2o!'_n1'E'bss!!_____~_________µsc'!m>es_ __j_________----ll--
[{"modified":14695780
35248,"unlqueld":804,"
tName":"P. II
Strzok",'1notes":[J,"orga
-nlzatlons :I], "numbers"
-
0
:["20~","(202)
2016-07-27
00:07:14, --•malls",[. . .
0W=•d~--+-----+20 INBOX ]]__ Oh God, Holder! 'J'urn it off tum It off tum ltoff!!!l sms
({"modffied":14695783
08875,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
(202}. Strzok1'/notes":D,"orga
202 nlzations":[l, "numbers"
1
:[ '20~","(202)
2016-07-27
00:11:47, "emails":["-
~We.•~d'----1------!20 OUTBOX }) Y.~, I saw him esterda and booed atthetv. \U0001f60a sms
({"modified" :14695783
17546,"uniqueid":804,''
firstNaml!!":" Peti!!r"," las
tName'':"P.JI
-
(202). Strzok", "notes": 11, "orga
-202 nizations":l],"numbers"
,1"20:a■■:1202)
2016-07-27
00:11:56,
Wed 20 OUTBOX h. Thank ou. U0001f636 sms
34
0
[{"modified :14695789
00402, "uniq ueid":804,"
flrstName": 0 Peter","las
tName":"P. ll
-
(202)- Strzok","notes":O,.,_orga
-
-202 nizations":[l, "numbers"
- :["20,..","[202) Yeah, it is pretty cool, She Just has to win now. I'm not going
2016-07~27 to lie, I got a flash of nervousness yesterday about trump.
00:21:39, ail,":[- The sandemistas have the potential to make a very big
Y'!~d 20 O~l_~OX ID mistake here•.• ,m,
[{"modified":14695795
30708, "uniqueit!" :804, n
tName":''P.11
Strzok", "notes":[], "orga
-
nizations":[],"numbers"
11
:[ 20~","(202) I'm not worried about them. I'm worried about the anarchist
2016•07•27 Assanges who will take fed information and disclose it to
00:32:09, ,"emails":["-r dlsrupt.
Wed 20 INBOX }] sms
58703,"uniqueid":804,'1
tName":"P.11
Strzok", "notes":(l, "orga
2016-07-27
02:54:17,
Wed INBOX
So sad, the comment about more yesterdays than
"emalls'':I'- tomorrows. \U0001f622\n\nAnd i don't like Chelsea! Her
)J husb<!!!_d even less•..\U0001f612
({"modlfled":14695882
28690,"uniqueid11 :804,"
sm, -
_,
firstName' 1:"Peter11, "las
tName":"P. II
-
(202)- Strzok", ''notes":1],''orga
202 nizationsu:l],11 number,su
-
:["202-","(202)
2016-07-27
02:57:07, "J,"emails":("-
Wed 20 OUTBOX ' I like Chelsea fine. Wh not7 sms
35
19329, nuniqueid":804, '1
tName":"P.11
-
Strzok","notes":[], "orga
---
nizations'':[],"numbers"
:(u20 ,"{202)
2016-07-27
03:00:1,8, ,_.ma1~•,1- Self entitled. Feels she de.serves something she hasn't
Wed 202 INBOX J earned sms
[("modified":14696675
43952, "unique id" :804,"
firstNameu:"Peter","las
tName":"P. ]I
trzok","notes":O,"orga
2016-07-28
00:59:03,
Thu ~~ OUTBOX
izations":O,"numbers"
["Z0,..","{202)
mails":["
[{"modified":14696676
88232,"uniqueid":804,"
")]
flrstName":"-Peter", "las
SttJpid~ss Bernle supporters shouting no more war so that
he couldn't be heard hard[ at al!. I'm sorry, tl'le_y..'.!_ej~_ipts. sms --
--- -
tName'':"P. II
(202). 5trzok'1,''notes":(l,''orga
-
-202 nizations":[],''numbers"
:1"20 "{202)
2016-07·28
01:01:27, -"emails",["-
Thu 20 ·u The reall are. sms
[("modified'':14696686
82102, "uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. II
-
(202). Strzok","notes":O,"orga
tlons":[],"numbers"
,"(202)
2016-07•28
01:18:01,
Thu 20 OUTBOX reall like Joe Biden. sms
36
({"modified":14696690
50983," uniqueid'':804,"
_,
firstName":"Peter'', "las
-- -
tName":''P. JI
(202) ■ Strzok","notes":1],''orga
nizatlons":l],"numbersn
----
-202
,("202-,"(202)
2016-07•28
01:24:09, -"emails":["-
Thu 20 INBOX ].ll_ Was literal[V. grabbJrrg_Ehone to say Joe's doing great! sms
11
modified":14696691
[{
75210, "unlq ueld":804,"

flrstNa me":"Petern, "las
tName":"P.11
- -
Strzok", "notes":1],"orga
-202 nlzatlons11 :I], "numbers"
- ;("20,_",''(202}
2016-07•28
01:26:14, - -"emails";(".,
Thu OUTBOX ) He's ust a reall sincere gu • sms
56281,"uniqueid":804,"
firstName":"Peter'', "las
tName":"P.11
Strzok\"notes":l],"orga
2016-07-28
01:29;15,
Thu 20 H·(~9~ - nizations":[], u numbers"
;("202-","(202)
I{ 0 mcdified'':14696706
75744, "uniqueid":804,"
• said he was absolutely beloved by·Delaware State
Police. And funny story about him and gtwn basketball team
in China a f~~J3rs ago. Too long for here. sms
0
tName": P. fl
2016-07•28
01:51:10,
Thu 20 INBOX
malls":11111111 Opened on Trump? If Hillary did, you know S fleldofflces
" would._ sms
-
37
[{"modifiedu :14696708
61681,"uniqueidn:804,"
flrstName 11:"Peter","las
-- -
tName":"P.11
----
(202) Strzok","notes":TI,"orga
-202 nizatlons'1:a,'1numbers"
,r·20 ,"(202)
2016-07-28 This article highlights the thi~g I mentioned to you earlier,
01:54:20, -"emallsn:[" asking if Bill had noted Jt to 7th floor. I'm going to send ti: to
Thu 20 INBOX }]_ him sms
[{"modified'':1470015S
04253, "uniqueld":804,"
tName 11 : 0 P.11
- -
Str:zok","notes":[],"orga
nizations":11,"numhers"
:l"Z0,_",11 (202)
2016-08-01 I mean seriously. What in the hell ls this guy talking about?
01:38:23, . . . .malls",_ \n\nDonafd Trump-Gives Questionable Explanation of Events
Mon 20 OUTBOX 'I)] in Ukraine htt :/.'.!!Y.!_i.~,U2ar~_yy sms
({"modified":14704942
90616," unlqueld":804,"
--
tName":"P. ti
-
(202). Strzok0 , "notes": 0, "orga
-202 nlzatlons":O,''numbers"
:("20,_","(202)
Jesus. You should read this. And Trump should go f himself.
2016-08-06 ~mails":r \n\nMoment in Convention Glare Shakes Up Khans\u2019
14:38:09, Sat to 'IJ]
-- ,9UTBOX Amerkan life htt J//~ms/2aHuLEO sms
1
[{"modified' :14704952
17938,"uniqueid'':804,"
firstName":"Peter" ,"las
tName":"'P.11
- -
(202)•· Strzok","notes":(], "orga
nilations":O,''numbers"
:r1
202~"1"(202}
God that's a great article,
2016-08-06 ,...emails":(-r \U0001f621\U0001f61e\U0001f61e\u2764\n\nThanksfor
14:53:36 Sat 20 INBOX sharin • \n\nAnd FTrum • sms
38
[{"modified":14704953
01312, "un!queld":804,"
firstName 11 :"Peter", "las
tName":"P. ll
- -
(202) Strzok","notes'':[],"orga
02 nizations'':[], "numbers"
:ru20~"."c202J
And maybe you're meant to stay where you are because
2016-08-06 -"emai1s11: [ - you're meant to protectthe country from that menace. To
14:55:00, ~~! 20 OUTBOX 'l.lL _t_hatend, read this: sms
[{"modified":14704953
20283,"uniquetd":804,"
----
tName":"P.11
(202). StrzClk","notes":[],"orga
1111W2 nizatioos": [1, "numbers"
,["20~","(202)
2015-08-06 ~mails":fl Trump\u2019s Enablers Will Finally Have to Take a Stand

14:55:19, Sat 20 9~-~-ox 'lll h!!!;J://nyti.ms/2aFak!Y sms
[flmodified":14704958
84167, "uniqueid ":804,"
firstt-Same":"Peter","las
tName":"P.11
- -
Strzok","notes":[],"orga
nizatlons":[),"numbers"
,["20~","(202) Thanks. It's absolutely true that we're both very fortunate.
\n\nAnd of course I'll try and approach it that way. I just
2016-0S..06 "emails'':[- know it will be tough at times.\n\nl can protect our country
15:04_;_43, ~at 2 1N80X lll at manyJ~els, not sure if that h e l ~ sms I
J{"modiffed":14704959
52221,"uriiqueld":804,"
firstName":" Peter","las
tN-ame":uP. II
-
(202). Strzok",''notes":D,"orga
202 nizatiOns":D,"numbers"
,["20~","(202)
2016-08-06 emails":r•- I know it will too. Butlt'sjusta)ob. It's not a reflection of

15:05:51 Sat 20 OUTBOX our worth or ualit or smarts. sms
39
nnmodifled 11 :14704973
32107,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. l!
Strzok","notes":[l,"orga
nizations":[J,"numbers" I really like thls:\nHe appears to have no ability to
:["202~", "{202) experience reverence, which is the foundation for any
capacity to admire or serve anything bigger than self, to
2016-08-06 "emails":11111 want to learn about anything beyond·self, to want to know
15:28:50, Sat · 20 INBOX 1J and deeQ!_y honorJ~e people around you. -f'~m~•~-t-----------
ok","notes":[J,"orga
tions":[),"numbers"
,"(202)
2016-08-06 "emails":["- Sigh. That's the paragraph, upon reading, that caused me to
15:30:59, Sat -~ OUTBOX want to send it to OU. \UOOOlf636 sms
87285,"uniqueld",804,11
I zok","notes":[],"orga
-
tions":[],"numbers"
"(202)
2016-08-09
03:26:25, mails":["-
Tue 20 OUTBOX He's not ever going to b~£9.!"~ P.:tesJdent, right? Right?! ,ms
({"modified":14707797
71230i "untqueid":804,"
firstName 11 :nPeter11,~ras
tName": 11 P. II
Strzok11, ' 1notes":I], "orga
-
nizations":[],"numbersg
:("20~","(202)
2.016-08-09
21:56:09, !11..maHs":(-
Tue 20 INBOX OMGdld ou hear what Trum ·ust said? sms
40
[{"modified":14708768
27378,"unlqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
-
Strzok"," notes": □,"orga
2016-08--11
00:53:46,
Thu 20 INBOX -
nizations":(l,"numbers"
:["20 ,"(202)
_,m,Us",[''- Why Latitude? {other than It sounds badass, and you came
[{"modified":14708768
"lll
65859," unlqueid":804,"
~. with it \U0001f636) ,m,
firstName" :"Peter", "las

tName":"P. I!
-
(202). Strz?k","notes":[],"orga
-
202 nizatlons":U, "numbers"
:{"20~","(202)
2016-08-U
00:54:2.4, "emails":{"- Trying to thlnk of something loosely milttary, without being
Thu
- 2_0~- ,OUTBOX l\l obvious. ~.IJIS
[{"modifled":14708770
18143, "uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. ll
---
Strzok", "notes'':[l,"orga
nizations" :fl, "numbers"
:!"20~",'1(202)
2016-08-11
00:56:S6, "emails":~ - VUUUUGE,\n\nThough we may save that for the
Thu 20 INBOX man, lfwe ever o en on him; ~i:ns
[{"modlfled":1470Bno
48774, "uniqueld":804,"
firstName":"f'eteru ,"las
tName":"P. II
-
nizations 0,"numbers"
11
:
,r'20~","12021
2016-08-11
00:57:27, "emai(s":~ OMG ICANNOT BELIEVE WE ARE SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT
Thu 20 lNBOX THESE ALLEGATIONS ANO THE PERVASIVE CONNECTIONS ,m,
41
l{"modlfied":14708770
62689,"\iniq ueid 1':804,"
firstName": 11 Peter", "las
tName":"P. II
- -
Strzok","notes": □, "orga
nize1tions'':{],"numbers"
:["202-,"(202)
2016-08-11
00:57:41, "emaUs":l"-
Thu 20 INBOX 'I)] Whatthe hell has ha - ened to our count !?!?!?? sms
I{"modified'':14711721
24580,"uniqueid":804,"
flrstName":"Peter", las 0
tName":"P. ll
-
(202). Strzok", "notes~: □,"orga
202 nlzatlons": (1, "numbers"
:["20 /{202)
2016-08-14
10:55:22, emails":[" God this makes me so angry.\n\nDonaldTrump Is Making
Sun 20 q!J.rs_ox 'l}J_ America Meaner htt ~tms/2b6gG:S8 sms
[{"modified":14711724
47765,"uniqueid":804,"
firstName":"Peter", ''las
tName":"P. ll
- -
Strzok","notes'':{), "orga
niz.ations":[],"numbers"
:["20~","(202) And I am worried about what Trump is encour.iglngln our
2016-08-14 behavior. The things that made me proud about our
11:00:46, --•mans":[- tolerance for dissent- what makes us different from Sunnis
Sun ~q__ INBOX 'Ill and Shias losing each other up - is disappearing. sms
[fmodified":14711725
15367,"uniqueid":804,"
firstNamen :"Peter", "las
tName":"P. ll
- -
Strzok","n1;1te.sn:O,"orga
nizatlons":O,nnumbers"
:["20~","(202)
2016-08-14
11:01:54, -"emails'':~ I'm worried about what happens if HRC is elected. \n\nAnd
sun 20 JNBOX erfect another excessive heat wamin da. sms
42
[{"modified":14712569
96237,'' unlqueld'':804,"
firstName";"Peter", "las
tName":"P.ll
- -
Strzok","notes":(],"orga
nizations":[], a numbers"
:["202-","(202) Iwant to be[ieve the path you thtew out for consideratlon in
2016-08,.15 Andy's office - that there's no way he gets elected~ but I'm
1
10:29:55, ' },"emalls":~ afraid we can't take that risk. lt's l1ke an Insurance policy in
Mon 20 INBOX ']ll_ the unlikely event ou die ~efore you're 40.•. ~~
H''modified":14714297
17586,"uniqueid":804,"
firstf\J.ame":"Peter", "las
tName 0 :"P. II
Strzok", "notes":(], "orga
nizations'':!],"numbers 11
:["20 ,"(202)
(202).
-20
2)-
-(20
-
2 ) - stName"-","lastNa
.,202 me":'-",''notes":I],
"organizations'':U, "num
2016-08-17 bers",["{202)- An article to share: Trump shakes up campaign, demotes top
10:28:37, ","{202)- adviser\nTrump shakes up campalgn, demotes top
Wed 20 OUTBOX ,"emails": ~]_ adviser\nhttp://wapp..st/.J:..bzAUGD mms
[{"modified":14714297
66248,"unlqueld":804,"
tName":"P.11
-
Striok", "notes":IL "orga
11lzatlons":0,' 1numbers"
,["20-","[202)
~mails":["-
'll,r'
modified":1471429766
534,"uniquefd" :892, "fir
stName''-","lastNa
me":'-","notes":a,
"organizations": □, "num
2016-08-17 bers":("(202)-
10:29:25, ,"{202)-
Wed 20 INBOX 11
"emails": Just readin ;, mms
43
I("modified":14714317
52558,"uniqueid''::804,"
tName":"P. IJ
Strzok", "notes":l],"orga
nizations":U, "numbers"
:["20~",''(202)
2016-08-17
11:02:31, . ."emails":["-
1/'Jed 20 lNBOX ))
1
[{' modlfied'':14722.297
62697,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. II
(202) Strzok", "notes":D, "orga
llii nizations":I), "numb?-rs"
2016-08-26
_1!>:42:40, Fri INBOX
• :{"20~","{202J
-
11
],
11
61303,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. IJ
emails":("- Just went to a southern Vlrglnla Wal mart. I could SME~L the
'U-L Trump support... sms
■
{202}. Strzok","notes":(],"orga
;202 nlzations":{],"numbers"
•
:["202111111","(202)
2016-08-26 malls":r•• Yup. Outto lunch with- We both hate everyone and
_16:54:18, Fri 20 OUTBOX "l}] everything_.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - l " ' m = ' - - + - - - - - - - - - ~ i - - - 1
[{"modified":14722309
73957,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. I[
I want to be there and hate with you., or charm you back to

2016-08-26 happy \n\nlooked for the two trump yard slgns I saw on the
17:02:52 Fri 20 INBOX out to take a icture, but couldn't see them sms
44
({"modified":14722446
73868,"uniqueid":804, q
firstName":"Peter'',"las
tName":nP, ll
(202). Strzok","notes":0,"orga
- 2 0 2 nizations": □, 0 numbersn
=
- :["20~","(202)
~emalls":[-
"lll Just riffiQ,g.2!ll~!..~~-~-J!1-~S~t~h~•~t·~••~o~u~,~,o~u~n~t~ry~·-----+'~==---t------------t--'--1
49866,"uniqueid":804,"
ffrstName":"Peter","las
tName":"P.11
-
Stnok","notes": I),'1orga
nizations": □,''numbers' 1
: r • 2 0 ~11,d{202}
2016-08-26 "L"emails":I"-
20:52::28, Fri 20 INBOX 'J}J Yeah.•..it'ssca real down heJ.,•-----------t~'m=•---t~----------1
l("modified":147Z5502
91743,"uniqueid":804, 11
flrstName": "Peter", "las
tName":"P. If -
Strzok'1,''notes":[],'1orga
-
nlzations":D,"numbers"
:l"202IIIII"',"(202) Here we go:\nHarry Reid Cites Evidence of Russian
2016-08-30 - Tampering in U.S. Vote, and Seeks F.B.I.
09:44:50, -"],"emails":[' lnquiry\n\nhttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/us/politi
,T~u~•~--+-----.20 INllOX cs/ha -reid-russla-tam .~I!~g-elef!:,,io~n~-fb=i-~ht~m~!'----------f'~ms~--t-----------1---'
But Mr. Reid argued that·the connections between some of
Donald J. Trump\t.120195 former and current advisers and
the Russian laadership should, by itself, prompt an
[{"modlfied":14725503 Investigation. He referred indirectly in his letter to a speech
20865,".uniqueid~:804," given In Russia by one Trump adviser, Ciuter Page, a
firstName":"Peter 11 ,'1las consultant and investor in the energy giant Gazprom, who
tName":nP. a criticized AmerJean sanctions policy toward
Strzok","notes":O,"orga Russia.\n\n\u201cTrump and his people keep saying the
nizations":[),"numbers" election is rigged,\u201d Mr. Reid said. \u201cWhy is he
:l"20,11■■1.''{202} saying that? Because people are telling him the election can
2016-08-30 - be messed with.\u201d Mr. Trump\u2019s advisers say they
09:45:20, -
11
emailsn:1'- are concerned that unnamed erites could rig the election for
Tue 20 INSOX his o anent, Hilla Clinton. mms
45
[("modified":14125503
45614/'uniqueld";804/'
flrslName":"Peter", "las
tName":"P. II
ok",1'notes 11 :{1"0rga
tions":O,'~numbers•
11
{202}
2016-08-30
09:45:44, ,"emalls'':I ~ l e dhimand1old him he would
Tue 2.0_;- OUTl!OJ( )) . sms
0 11
[{ modifiG!d :14725503
n291,"uniqueid":B04/"
flrstName":1o1Pe-ter".,"!as
tName":"P.11
Stl'Zok"."notes11 :1J,0orga
ni~ticns":D,"numbers"
:!"20 '{202)
201<;.-08-30 Trying Isn't enough! \n\nor rather., It may i:le, buttm not
09:46::IS, content with tl)'ing. \n\nSeriously, 1'm walking over and
Tue 20 ayJ!!.g for it today. You ne~d to t~IL~~JIJ!me. sms
(rmodlfied":14725503
90383,"unlqueld":804,''
firstName~:"Peter",''l:as
tName"':"P. II
S'trzok", "notes":1],"orga
2016-08-30
09:46:29,
Tue 202 INBOX Bill didn't mention it\U000lftil2 sms
({"rnodifled"':14715507
17103,"unlqueld":a04,"
firstName"~' 1Peter'\''las
tName":"'P, 11
Strzok","notes":U,"crga
2016-08-30
os,s1,ss,
Tue 20 INSOX And hol cow ret me send OU the Reld Jetter! ,m,
[{"modified":14726140
37482,"uniqueid":804,"
tName!t:"P. !I
rzok", "notes":O,"orga
ations":l],"numbers"
0~■■■"(2021 Did you ever look at this? It's incredibly powt!:rful. And really,
2016-08-31 really depressing. \n\nAt least 110 Republican Leaders
03:27:14, Won\u2019t Vote for Donald Trump. Here\u2019s When
Wed 20 OUTBOX loameo-;--.£-•o-zo..:r-.· The Reached Their Breaking Point. htte.:.f/n ·.ms/2bTNAbb :5.1!1'"--<-----------
27118,"uniqueidq:804,"
;202 firstName' 1;'1Peter'', "las
Name":"P.11
2016-08-31 Strzok",''notes":[],''orga
11:37:05, niz.iti-ns": "numbers" Re the case, Jim Baker honks you should have it. But I'm StJre
,w~•~d~--f--------1'20- .... ~_T_B_OX_-,.-_ __ :{~~Ra ~~£;-!- .'~!Jd_y would defer to blll. I won't mentlon. ~~s·--+----------~
95656,''uniqueid":804,"
2016-08-31
11:3._9,_s•~·-L---J~■■■-~""'~-
Y:'..~~- 20 INBOX
[{"modifled":14729129
36384,'1unique1d11 :804,"
fir.stName":"Peter'',"las
tName 11 :"P. II
Strzok" ,"notes": □,"orga
I've been busy distracting myself, waiting on N to get-up, not

2016-09-03 wanting to spin, reading the Federalist Papers lookingforc1
14:28:55, Sat great foreign influence quote. Yeah, I'm a nerd. sms
[{"modified";14736795
14885,"unlquerd":804,"
tNamen:"P.11
2016-09-12
11:2.5:13,
Mon INBOX
47
[{"modified1':14736795
77884,"uniqueid":804, ~
firstName":"Peter1',"las
Name":"?. II
2016-09-12
11:26:16,
Mon 20 o_~!~Q~ t'!.._~~ P.:lace J hoee I never stal in. ,m,
[{"modified":14736797
64099,"unlqueld" :804, 11
firstNamen:"Peter","las
tName":"P.11
Strzokn,"notes": 11"orga
2016-09-12
11:29:23,
Man 20 INBOX Agreed. Hope It fails horriblvAwon~ but still. ,m,
2016-09-27 Did you read this? It's scathing. And I'm scared.\n\nWhy
00:40:23, Donald Trump Should Not Be President
foe h :/In i.ms/2dbQPuR ,m,
{2 ok","notes":0,"orga
· bers"
02)
2016-09-27
00:40:43, Man, I should have started drinking earlier. I'm genuinely
Tue OUTBOX stressed about the debate. ,m,
48
[{"modified11 :14749726
75375, ~uniqueid":804,"
fitstName'':"Peter", "las
tName":"?.11
2016-09-27
10:37:52, .. ],"emails"- Can I ask you a question about yesterday's discussion? Why
!µe"----+-------1-"'20""'--L----f'INc,Bc,Oc,cX,___ ___,_Jl_ !!:l]e out a ·ob at OoJ. Not NSD or OOAG? sms
({"modified":14749726
94689,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. JI
-
Strzok", unotes":[],"orga
nizations":fj; "numbers"
:("202 ',"{202}
2016-09-27
10:38:13,
Tue 20 ] Too political? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,_s_m_s_ _-,-__________
2016-09-27
10:39:43, Noway. I don't see what I get out of that, and I'd have to
Tue J_ ~~lwlth_aJlthe olltical BS. sms
34476,"uniqueid":804,"
firstName'':"Peter","las
tName":"P. lt
Strzok", 11 notes 11 :[],t'orga
nizaf-onsn: "numbers"
:[''20 "{202}
2016--09-27
10:40:32, Political connecttons. Better entree into other jobs? Maybe
Tue not the latter. sms
49
({"modlfied":14751114
30732,"un1q1,1e1d":804,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok", "notes":Il, 11 orga
nl::atlons":0,"numbers"
:["202-,"(202)
■,''emails":
201s-og..29
01:10:28, nd suddenly t'm realizing, they're like Trump demographlc
0T~h~u---f------1'202_ _ rO~U~TB=O~X-t--- p~.Q.1:~.Le.dust democrats. \U0001f612
[{"modified":14751114
30837,"unlqueld":804,n
firstName":"Peterll,"las
tName":"P.11
Strzok", "note.s":O, "orga
nizations":D,"numbers"
:{"202 '(202) Like !!ll!lll!\n\noh sweetjes""s r need to send
2016•Q9w29 ■ you what as been sending. The liberal media is all
01:10:29, - "emails": in the tank for Hillary. Because, you know, Trump Isn't
rT~h~u---+------1?:.Q.L.._ _ _ INBOX __ ~~h•t craz for our count ... sms
[{"modified":14751115
00556, "unlqueld":804,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok0 , ''notes'':[],''orga
nizations'':O,"numbers11
: "202-·''(202}
2016-09-29
01:11:38,
Thu
2016-09-29
01:13:46,
Thu 20 is craz btw SITTS
50
[{"modified":14751116
70034,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. I!
nizations":(],"numbers"
:("202-,"(202)
■•],"emails":
2016-09-29 EVERYTHING about him is a dem. Except maybe strlng
01:14:28,. national defense (e>ecept Hillary is that but she can't be,
Thu
because, OU know..L9:l_,cN~T~O"N~1~------------l·S!!!S._ _+ - - - - - - - - - - - t
68092,"unlqueld":804,"
tName":"P. II
(2 "· "orga
2016-09-29
I know. His political affiliation is truly baffling. He's a HUGE
01:_1,_:•~6~,~~----J:,Qjl!!ll!l!!t_jQ!J:~~-t---
rhu_ 20 OUTBOX D. sms
[{"modlfied":14751118
97651,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. !I
Strzok",''notes":D,"orga
nizcitions": "numbers"
:r20 "202
2016-09-29
01:18:16, -
I~u~--+--------,-~.!L. __ INBOX I knowt sms
10415,"uniqueid" :804,"
flrstName.":"Peter'", "las
tName":"P.11
Strzok", "notes":(], "orga
2016-09--29
01:18:29,
Thu INBOX IWANT YOU TO MEET HIM AND CONVJNCE HIM! sms
51
[{''modified":14751i19
48073,"uniqueid~:804,"
flrstN ame" :"Peter'',"las.
tName":"P. II
Strzok", "notes":(]1"orga
nb:ations'1:U,"numbers11
:["202-',"(202)
■"emails"
2016-09-29 You're very persuasi\lE!, \n\nWe'II have to stay here as my
01;19:06, iPhane is apparently syncing and downloading for the rest of
Thu 20 the night \U0001f612. sms
[{"modifled"':14751140
09697,"unlqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11 "Found it hard to focusQ?\n\n"Found it hard to
Strzok", "notes":IJ,"crga focus"?l?!1?l\n\nAre you f"'cking kidding
r:iizations":0, 11 numbers" me?!??ll\n\nOonald Trump got too much debate advice, so
:1"202 "{202) he took none of
2016-09~29 it. \nhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/the_s1atest/2.016/09/28/d
01:53:27, onald_trump_got_toc_much_debate_advice_so_he_took_n
Thu one of_it.ht;.ml sms
2016-10-06
23:11:14,
Thu ,ms
l{''modified":14757959
27018, "uniq ueid 11:804,"
firstName":"Petern, "las
tName":"P.11
2016-10-06
23:18:44, hat?J?! Why?\n\nlnviteaind Giacalone to you~
Thu 202 ousewarmin ! That'll be fun! - sms
52
0
[(mod!iled'':147S7960
19053,"unlqueld" :804, •
rnen:11P.JI
k",''notes":11"orga
· with their parents' nemcs. How maAV
uld there bein OC? Showed J a picture, he
2016-10-06 has seen a guy who kin~ looks like that,
23:20:l7, ays really schlubby. I said th.I. sol.flds like evary
Thu
r I have ever ~e!I·. · - - -- - - - - - ·➔--'sms=----+----------
~•P.11
"notes":U,"orp
11
:1),"1"JM bers 11
"(202)
20:I.G-10-06
23:21:08,
Thv 20 OUTBOX found what Ithink might b!!.!_h_eiraddress t00. sms
2016-10-06
23:21:37,
Thu 20 INBOX He's TOTALLYschluf?..!!Y.! Dontyou rememb<tr? sms
2016-10-06
23:22:31, Found address looklns for her.
Thu oumox sms
53
[{"modified":147~7962
43928,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok'1,"notes":O,"orga
nizations'':[l,"numbers"
:["202 '(202)
■,"emails":
2016·10-06
23:24:01,
Address? sms
:r~.""---+------
[{"modlfied":14757962
76810,"uniqueid":804,"
tNamen:"P.11
{2 ok","notes":l],"orga
· ":(],"numbers"
'(202)
2016·10-06
23:24:34, , "emails":[. . They met a t - o o d on him, he started writing
T_h~"---1----- 20 OUTBOX _ _l atthe schoo _!per. . sms
Wmodifled":14757962
99437,"uniqueid":804,''
tName":"P.11
Strzok"," notes":[1,"orga
2016~10·06
23:24:58,
Thu think. sms
2016-10--05
23:26:39,
Thu OUTBOX Just have to look u ifitis inbounds for sms
54
l(nmodified":14757964
02938,"unrqueid":804,"
flrstName":"Peter", [as
0
tName":"P.11
2016-10-06
23:26:41, ,"emails'- I wouldn'tsearl;h on or.irworkphone.-.no idea what that
Thu might trig_ger I sho ...!!.:..:...!. sms
2016-10-06
23:27:31, - -.
Thu ___ -·-·----- 2 0 ~.. OUTBOX sms
Yeah and I made the mistake of readlng some stupid NY P-ost

2016-10-07 article about how agents are ready to revolt against D
10:02:33, Fri ~~£<!.USeofMY-.nowl'mreallyangry:_.•_.._ _ _ _ _ _ _+sm_,_ r-__________
7
[{nmodified":14758346
14778,"uniqueid":804, 0
firstName":''PeterU,''las
tName":"P.11
2016-10-07 There are a bunch of really ignorant people out there

10:03:33 Fri INBOX blinded b their olitics sms
55
l{"modlfted":14758346
377031 "unlq ueid":804,"
ftrstName":" Peter", "las
tName":"P.11
ok'',"notes" :IJ, "orga
ers"
2016-10-07 You can't read that sh--t. And honestly, let them. The bu
10:03:56, Fri OUTBOX would be better off without them. sms
2016-10-07
10:04:02, Fri 20 sms
80120," uniqueld":804,"
fkstName'':''Peter","las
tName":"P. II
2016-10-07 Sadly reminds me how deeply politics, like religion, can

10:04:37, Frl 202 INBOX __ .~?me.!:imes bllnd objectlv!!_v: .s~
U"modified":14758346
80207,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. II
Strzok11, "notes":(], "orga
nizations": □,''numbers''
:["202 '(202)
2016-10-07
10:04:38 Fri 20 lNBOX
■"emails' l can't he.I it. It's click bait. I emailed it to OU. sms
56
[{"modified'1:14759301
49130, 11 uniqueid":804,"
firstName-":"Peter","las
tName":"P. fl
2016-10-08 Currently reading about Trump. Wonderlng if he stepped

!~:?~:1z,.,s.,at'l--____.,2,,.o down if Pence could actuall _get e l e ~ d ~ - - - - - - - - t ~ · i n s ~ - - i - - - - - - - - - - -
2016-10-08
12:36:20, Sat 202 OUTBOX That's probably more likely than Trump getting elected.
2016-10-08 I agree, I think it would actually energize the Republican

12:37:10, Sat ~~ vo~e.\n\nAnd no, not really re pathfoJYl!~_i:.d. sms
[{"modified'':14760472
73354,"uniqueid":804, 1'
tName":"P. II
Strzok","notes":(l,"orga
2016-10-09 And funny quote from my cousin-in-law: "No way Trump will
21:07:51, drop out, Hey Republicans: how does it feel to carry
Sun 20 INBOX somethin to term?" sms
57
f{"modified":14760626
37553, "uniqueld":804, '1
tName":"P.11
2016-10-10
01:23:55, rump saying agents at FBI are furious at the MYE ot1tcome
Mon 202 and he's g_l!ttingE.pecial rosecutor. sm='--1-----------
k","notes":D,"orga
ers"
2)
2016-10-12
03:04:57, Hot damn. Big news day.\n\nBuffett calls Trump\t.120195
Wed Bluff a_fl_~~~leases His Tax Data http://nyt,='·=""=/~2=d=S=10=M=S--+s=m=·'~-+-~---------
97719,"uniqueidi1:8Cl4,"
firstNameu :"Peter'', "las
tName": 11 P. II
trzok", "notes":(),"orga
2016-10-12 Wow, more forceful than I have seen him. Wonder what
03:16:35, ould say about it. \n\nDonald Trump\u2019s Sad,
Wed tone! life htteil_nytLms/2dTCZxP_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---<~'m='--t---------
[{"modifted":147-64056
29904,"uniqueid":804,"
flrstNa.rne' 1:"Peter11, 11 Jas
Name":"P.11
k","notes":I],"orga
· ":Q,Un1,1mbers"
2)
Not sure why Ithought this was so neat, Suppose lt's just
2016-10•14 he law nerd in me.\n\nThe Times\u2019s Lawyer Responds
00:40:26 Fri o Donald Truni htt : n i.ms 2e0WNza sms
,.
[("modlfled":14764056
30136,"uniqueid":804,'1
tName'1:"P. II
·strzok","notes":IJ, "orga
202 nizations":(L"mnnbers" God, she's an incredibly impressive woman. The Obamas in
11
:[ 20 ,"{202) general, really. While he has certainly made mistakes, I'm
proud to have had him as my president. \n\nVolce Shaking,
W16-10-14 Michelle Obama Calls Trump Comments on Women
00:40:28, Fri 20 \u20181nto1.erable\u2~;//nytl.ms/2e0Mt Y sms
89208,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P. II
tions":[],"num
02)- · Ugh. More ofthe same.\n\nDonald Trump, Slipping in Polls,
2016-10·14 2) - Warns of\u2018Stolen Election\u2019
00:48.:!l.~.-~ri_+-----+c" OUTBOX ] hnJ]j/nyti.msf2_0ec07~i~m~x--------~
[{"modified":14764062
86385, "uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
"Jon", "lastNa
ffa 11,"notes"~ll,
tions":(],"num
2 Nope. Full of dog whlstlestoo: "We do not want this election
2016-10-14 stolen from us. Everybody knows what t'm talking about,"
00:51:26, Fri The racism is barel even veiled an more. mms
59
({"modifled":14764064
32962,"uniqueid":804,"
firstName" :"Peter","I.is
tl\lame":"P.11
2016-10-14
00:53:52, Fri 20
2).
a","notes":[J,
ons":[],"num
2)
alis",IJJ The Roger Stone comments are sc~ as sh*t. mms
l{"modified" :14764068
60248,"unlq ue!d":804,"
0
tl\lame": P, ll
Strzok", "notes":(], '1orga
nizatlons":D,"numbers"
,[''202-"(202)
Ill.=-
modified" :1476406860
298,"uniqueid":892,"fir
stName":"Jon'', "lastNa
me":"Moffa","notes":D,
"organizatlons":D,"num
bers":[''(202).
2016-10-14 -·1202)
~~!?J,Fri 20 . 'emalls":ij_l] Roger Stone is horrible. mms
({"modified":14764947
84621, "uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok","notes":l],"orga
nizations":(],"numbers"
,["202 '(202) Stone \u2018happy to cooperate\u2019 With FBI on
Wlk!Leaks, Russian hacking probes-
2016-:1,0-15 POLITJCO\nhttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/roger-
01:26:22 Sat 20 tone-fbi-wikileaks-russia-229821 sms
60
[{umodified":14765667
51121,"lmlqueld"!804,"
f'irstName":"Peter'~"las
tName•: 11P. II
Strzok''i "notes•: □,"orga
niz11tions":(],"numbers11
:["20 [202)
2016-10-15
21:25:48, Sat 20 IN.BOX That didn't take long\UOD01f621~-------f''"m~•---r---------
2016,.10-15
21:28:10 Sat 20 OUTBOX At least we made the f-ers work on the weekend,.. sms
Jl"mcdified":14765670
11583,"unlqueid":804,"
firstName":/ 1Pelet","las
tName":"P-. ll
2016-10-15 Uh, and, yeah -like they're doing to us.\n\nl HATE ttils case.
21:30!09, Sat 20 \n\nAnd a LOT ~otell you about m',:' 4;:onvo with JG... sms
H"modlfled":14765690
67917,"uniqueid~:804,Ii
firstN,;1me 11 :" Pe~er''~"las
0
tName :"P, II
k",''notes":O,"orga
·[l,11nurnbers'1
2016-10-1S Very nlceworkon that Initial statement. Maybe we i;an talk

22:04:2.6 Sat 20 OUTBOX tomorrow reJG•. sms
61
(("modiffed":14767487
03061,"unlq1,1eld":804,"
flrstName";"Peter","las
tName":"P, 11
•,"notesn;[],
lons":O,"num
2015-10-17
23:58:22, Z]■
2) I'm .sruic»w:!y thinking one of w: needs to host election night
Mon 20 '-="'l""ls'_,':I,,llc_-t'P.•rt •
l{"modified~14767488
22470,"unlqueid":804,•
flrstName":"Peter''i "las
tName":"P. II
Strzok•,11 notes":D,'10rga
nizatioris":[J,"numbers"
,r20 1zo2i
2016-10-lS
00:00:22,
Tue mms
62
[{"modifie.d'1:l4767489
SS52.4,'1unlquetd":804,"
flrstName":•Peter","(as
tName";np, II
ld":892, "fir
'Jon'-,"lastr-la
1
'/notes";(L
2016·10~16 -~■"·
" um
00:02:35, J I'll probably have towr1te talking points (likely fer CvCI so I
Tue ":[)l] Y'R!.1.1.f!~_!)le to make it. mffl5
{("modlfied":14767491
39291,"uniqueid":504,"
firstName.":nPeter","las
tName":11 P. II
d"~92,''flr
I-
on","lastNa
a","notes":(J,
ons":O,"num
2016-10-18
00:05:39, Vou don't have to write talking points forCyber if they don't
Tue 20 tell ou-a:boutthetaskin ! mms
(rmodifled"":14767505
27678,"unlqueid'1:804~"
flrsttJame":"Peter","las_
tName11:~P. II
Str:z.ok'',"notes":U,"orga
nlzatlons":ll,"number.."
:["202-(2021
2016~10-lS
00:28:47,
ue C O_Eref!PJ!!gforelection d.i onfJovember3Sth..- mms
2016·10-19
09:SS:26, au see Tim Coak made the IJstof potential HRC running
Wed 20 ? ,ms
({"modifiedu:14768710
70223,"uniqlll1!idu:804,"
flrstName":"Peter","las
tName.":"P~ II
2016-10-19
09:57:48, It was a big list. but still, he: was on there. From Podesta
Wed 20 ema11. sms
[{"modifled":14768822
61564, "unlqueld•:1304~n
fifstName":"P,eter'","'leis
tName":~P. II
Striok","notes":(J,"orga
':□ /numbers' 1 Came up with electlon night pl.-n. we should .ill hit HH
) somewher
2016-10.19
13:04:19,
Wed
64
U''modlfiedu114769261
46064,"uniqueid'1;804,"
flrstName11 :"Peter~,01as
tName•:"P, II
2016,10•20
01:15:44, I am riled up. Trump 15 a fucking idiot, Js unable to provide a
Thu 20 o:,h~rent answer. sms
58535,"uniqoeid"::804, n
flrstName":"Pe.teru,"las
tName11:"P.tl
Str?Ok"/ notes'':IJ,"orga
nliati umbers"
(202)
2016-10-20
01;1236, AY. WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO OUR
Thu ??ti'l s:m~•~-,---------
2016-lo-20
01:24:19,
Thu I don't know. But we'll g& lt back. W.0e~''=•~A=m~•~'=' =•~·W =•='='='k=.-f'=""~----j----------
2016~10--20
01:28:22,
Thu 20 Don;1ld ·usts.iid "b.id hombres."'\n\n\U0OOlf512 sms
GS
Irmodlfled":14769270
09539/'uniqueid":804, ''
flrstName":0 Peter","las
1Name":''P.11
2016-10-20
01:a □:oo,
u 20 Chris Wallace is .i turd
[{"modlfled":14769270
09658,"uniqueid~:804, ~
flrstName-": 11 Petef1, •tas
tName11 : 11P. II
2016-10-20
01:30:02, Hillary: Russia and Wiki!.eeks and highest levels of Russian
Thu 10 Government and Putin!ll\n\nDrinkl Ill sms
2016-10--20
01:32:40, Oh hot damn. HI\C 1S throwlng down saying Trump in bed
Thu wlth russia ,ms
2016-10-20 he could do so MUCH BIDER \n\n8utshe's just not

01:50:50, ettlng tractlon. \n\nJesus.
Thu 20 UD00lf621\UOOll1f621\U0OD1f621\U00011621 sms
.,
[{"modified":14769289
65079,"unlq ueld,.:804,"
firstName":"Peter",."las
tName":"P.11
;z-015--10-20
02:02:4!, Maybe. I have to watch thlS. \n\nAnd l'rn ~ rlamn mad
Thu. 20 \n\nAnd d~usted..:.A.~!!._d!S~=•l~nt=ed=•_ _ _ _ _ __,§:Ills_-,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2016-10-20
Ol:12:37, _. . . . .
1,T~h~•---4-----+2..Q:alllllllL INBOX TrumP. Just:sald whatthe fbi c!id Is dlsg!:!Ff'!·cfu~l~------F""='--t--·---------
2016-10-20 HL Watching the past-debate r,;ommentary. Vaguely

09:55:27, satlsfytngto see Megyn Kelley (who had botox and look$
Thu'---t--------l''"'O HO~~!BLE) utterly goirig after.Iru~p•._---------+=sms"----,1-----------
2016-1.0-24
00:00:15,
Men 20 Artlt.:le is out but hidden behind a all so can't read lt, sms
l!"monlfied":14772673
44520, nuniqueid'':804/'
flrstfltame":"Peter"/'las
tNarne":"P. u
2016-10-24
00:02:22, :sf? Boy, that was fa:.t.\n\nNo word from ~oulO I
Mon find• it end tell the team? sms
2016-10-24
00:03;38, No, Ithink not. Maybe he didn't get a cha11ce, or"1ec1ded
M_on nottosay~~ln 1.mtUtomorrow. sms
2016-10-24
00:04:04,
~on
2016-10-24
00:04:32~
Mon sms
,s
[{"modified":14772675
01133/unlqueida:B04,"
flrstName":"Peter", ~fas
2016-10-24 The artic:le ki not behind a payvroll\n\nWe ,get several hours

00:04!59, of warning about every othet email, but not this, ar'guably
_Mq!}''-------1------1-'2"'0 more Im ortantthan me.st.., ~ms
•
Jesu-hen fine. Send lt to everyone. you know. Ori can
201ti-10-24 t tell you about it at all and you can just come across it
00:06.30, n all the time you spend reading the Journal.
Mon OUTBOX 00lf621 sms
2016-10-24
00:06:50, Wti:at difference does It make to send lt to the team Sunday
Mon ni htvsmond1r1 mornin 7 ---------r•~m~•~-+-----------
2016-10-24
00.:07:37,
Mon sms
69
1
"[{' n,0dified":14772676
97679,''unlgueld":804,•
fimN~me":"Peter'\ 1'las
tName":"P, 11
2016-10•24
{JO:O8:15, Or I can get it like I do eveiyotherarticle that hits my Google
Mon news alert. Serlous • sms
2016-10-24
00:09:00,
Mon 20 sms
,ga
ers" Glve me a break. Go look at EVERY Mtide I've sentthe:team.
Countthem.\n\nlhen count every Godd 111 mn heads up l
2016-10-24
fromlllll,!■1!1[1111!1,■.l ■IJ.ut NOTthis
00:10=31~ cne.\n\nThen tell me i should sit on nus one and let them
Mon 20 hearfrcmsomeone else. You're not beln fa1r<1bo1.1tthis. sms
Z016-10-1.4 Uy cannot believe: you're taking this posit!

00:12,17, ' hope your anger abou
Mon ·$ is cloudin thin s.
70
({"modified":14772679
49525,"uniqueid":804,"
flrstName~:•Peter","lai;
tName":"P.11
Strzok'',"notes~l),"'orga
2 nizatiQns":[),"number$11 IAM beiyfair about this. I asked you not to. I don't care
:("20 "(202.} that ucks.1} This ts about trust, and 2) WHAT THE F
2016~10-24 DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO ANYONE ON THE TEAM? Is
0Ck12:28, ... there some investigative step to take? Some miti&atio.n
,._M_0_n_ _-+----+2_0 ouraox _ ··--. _ -·-- m~i!.S~i?_________________fs~m~•--t------------
'orsa
2.016~10-25
00:46:57,
Tue 20 I hate thls case. \UC001f621 sms
,"l;;s
orga
ers'
2016-10-25
00:52:31,
Tue 20 sms
({"modified":1477a568
49-764,•unlqueld":804,"
flrstName":" ?et.er","las
tName";"P. II
ok","notes•:u,•~rga
ers"
2016·10-25
00:54:08,
Tue sms
71
[{"modlfied•:14773569
04370,"unlqueid"::804,."
f1rstName"; 11Petet","las
tName":"P.11
2016-10-25
00:SS:02, Ii3Sked-nd . omeet tomorrow mom1n.g. Please let
T•e 20 OUT80X Jl!~.!!~ meetwith them alone. Please. ~~--,----------
97782,"'uniqueid'':804,"
flrstName":11Peter","las.
tName":•P, II
Strzck","noles": □:orga
nlzatlonsn: (J, "numbers."
:["202--1'[202)
2016-10-25
00:59:55,
T•e 2 INBOX ,ms
Strzok","notes.": □,"orga
202. nlzatlons":IL"numbers"
:[''202-~(202) Christ. Make sure you scroU down and read that guy's
2016-10.25 c-omment aboutthe polls.\n\nDonald Trump Dismisses
10:11:46, • emailsl':1" IJil.test Accuser. \u20180h,. l\u20l9mSureShe\u2019s
T•e Never Beerl Grabbed Before\u201fil:Lttp::{/nyti.ms/2~v2!WL sms
42626,''uniquGld":804,"
flrstName.":"Peter","la!.
tName":"P. II
Strmk"/notes'":fL•orga
2 nizations":I], "numbers1'
:["20 (202)
20l6-10-26 Let's talk aboutthis later.\n\n\uZ018We Need to Clean This
11;39:00, Up\u2019: Clinton Aide\u2019s: Newly Pr.rbhc Email Shows
Wed 202 OUTBOX Concern htt : n i.ms 2dG6zal sm.&
72
ll"modifled";14774866
95907,"unlqueld":804,u
fitstNarne":"Peter","las
tName'":"P. II
k"/notes."!0/'orga
":( ,"numbers"
2016-10-26
12:58:14~
Wod AndyJ§!~_t_d!_Op-offtoday...
sms ····+-----------
11 11
[{ modified :14774S71
99140, "unlqueld":804/1
flmName":''Peter",''la:i:
tName 11:"P. II
Strick","notes":IJ;"-orga
2016-10-26
13:06:37,
Wed 20
11
:"Peter•,"Jas
P.11
":O,"orga
ers'"
2016-10-2.6
13:06:46~
Wed 20
HitpleceonAndyfromVA~9~P'---"in~H~•~m~p~t~o~n~n~•~ws=p•=•~r--F•~m~•--f-----------
2016-10-26
13:13:47,
Wed That sucks. Icen talk btw. ,ms
73
[{'mo<fifie:d'':1477SID
67600,"wilq\leld":804/
li!'StName;:"Peter","las
tName•:"P. o
111 • • rga
.
· - one of too Podest! email!; talks ~boUt him
201&-10-27 i lGr ICadz.lk ;rt his hou~ for dLnne.r In Oct. 2015.
00:06:05, 'If, 2015, sked Poderni for a Job on
Thu 20 --~ sms'------1---- - - - - - - - -
2
804..
,''las
''ofla
trs"
announaid, but1he<,l-all know. Calls actuall!f happei,ed
2016-10-27 ay,\n\nAtld I feel (hcipefully don't. look as cld) like
Olr.29:59, khar11s. llllloinln&vla call?There's nolhlrC
20 ~ -- sms
k•,•'npte.s•:Q,..of&d
Uons":11,"mallbers•
202)
2016-10-27
2U)8:S8, "emails":(
Thu II. srns
2016-lo.27
21,09:-48,
hu sms
74
[{" modified'':14776032
70110, "uniqueid" :804,"
ftrstName"~Peter•;ras
tName": 1'P- n
Strzak",•notes,.:O."qrga
202 nizatl~mbers"
:["20~(202)
2016~10-27
21:21:UB,
Thu sms
2016-10-28
p_;,-9:06, Fri 20 hone Is ON FIR.E.
""'
2016•10-28
lfl~§_B,.cfc,n,.,·f--------1'"' sms
l("modified11:t4n67S7
99869,"unlqueld":804,•
firstName ": 11 Peter", "las
tName":"P, 11
2016-10-28 You may wanna t e l l - e should turn on CNN, the,e's

11:29:58 Fri news oln on• sms
({"modified":14776758
18932, Quniqueid":804,"
firstName":"Peter"i"las
tName":"P.11
rzok","notes":{],"orga
izations'':0,"n-umbers''
"202-,"(202)
2016-10-iS ■],"emails'':l"-
17:30:17, Fri OUTBOX ']}] He knows. He just ot handed a note. sms
[rmodified":14776760
36676,0 Uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P-11
Strzok","notes":0,"orga
nizations":I], ~numbers"
,["202-"(202)
2016-10-28 ■•1"emails":("
~1~7~,3~3~,5~~~F~'~'f---------+'~q~_
[{"modified":14778354
55458, "uniqueld":804," Thls Is all Matt\n\nJustlce officials warned FBI that
firstName":"Peter'', "fas Comey\u2019s decision to update Congress was not
tName";''P.11 consistent with department policy-The Washington
Strzok","notes":(],"orga Post\nhttps://www.wa.!;lhingtonpost.com/world/national•
nizations":(],unumbers" securlty/justlce-officlals-warned-fbHhirt-comeys-decision-to
:["20~\"(202) update-congress-was-not-consistent•with•department-
2016-10-30 324· policy/2016/10/29/cbt 79254-9di:.7-11e6-b3c9-
13,so,s3, - - •"emails":r• f662adaa0048_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-
sun 20 main campaJgnprint-810pm%3Ahome~ag~•%=2~Fst,,,,o'-'--------l-''m=s--l-------------!'
[{"modlfled":14778357
69535,"uniqueid :804,"
0
firstName": 1'Peter1\"las
tName":"P, II
{2 ok", "notes":l], "orga
tions":1], "numbers"
,_,"(202)
2016-10-30
13:56:06, Yeah, I saw it. Makesme.fe.el WAY less bad about throwing
Sun 202 OUTBOX him under the bus in the forthcomin CF article. sms
76
l{"modifled":14778358
47944,"uniqueid":804,"
tName": 1'P. ll
Strzok",''notes":1],"orga
nizatlo~umbers"
:["202-',"(202)
2016-1()..30
13:57:24, Yep the whole tone ls anti Bu. Just a tiny bit from us. And
Sun 20 _serves him right. He_lgonn~~!:_l?~~d.:.'..._______-+s~m~•~--j---------
(2
atians":[J, "numbers"
202-/'{202) An artide to share: FBI agents knew of Clinton-related emails
2016-10.30 weeks before director was briefed\nFBJ agents knew of
17:27:31, '],"emails":1- Clinton-related emails weeks before director was
Sun OUiBOX Ill brie§.d\nh_t_t,p://wapo.st/2f2EhEO sms
[{"modified":14778523
29933,"uniqueid":804,"
2 ok","notes":[],"orga
hers"
(202)
2016-1()..30
18:32:07, ''emails":-
Sun 20 OUTBOX ]}) Okayyaw I'm getting ang_!Y~------------1'',em,es_ __,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.13603, 8 uniqueid":804,"
flrstName":"Peter", ulas
tName":"P.11
Stnok",Qnotes":IJ,"orga
nizations":!I "numbers"
,["202 ","(202)
2016-10-30
19:06:48, '],"emails":~
Sun 2 INBOX What-Ill o enln comments? sms
77
[emodified":14778558
49188,"uniqueid11 :804,"
(2 zok","notes": □,"orga
ations":(J,"numbers"
',"(202)
2016-10-30
19:30:47, Sorry, utterly terrible day. I'm not sure 1can identify one
Sun single redeemingthing~•=b~o~u~t~;'~·- - - - - - - - - - f • ~ m ~ , ~ - + - - - - - - - - - - -1•
k","notes":0,"orga
atlons":(L "numbers"
02-•1202)
2016-11-03 Sorry. Rybicki called. Time line article in the post is super
00:50;57, ],"emails":("- speclflc and not good. Doesn't make sense because! dldn't
Thu 202 !!ave specific information to give. _ _ _ __,s~m~s'----1-----------
[{"modified":14781345
55136,"uniqueld" :804, u
firstName":"Peter 0, ' 1las
tName":"P,11
2016-11-03
oo,ss,so,
Thu
91208,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
i;;..;.;:~!'!~Strzok","notes" :I],"orga
2016-11-03
00:56:28,
Thu 202 OUTBOX .WaPo. sms
78
({"modified ":14781346
30188, "unlqueld":804,"
firstName":"Peter",''las
tName":"P.11
Strzok",~ notes":[],"orga
Goddamn bills o ~que comnents...••._________,s~m~'~-+-----------
2016-11-03
00:57:45,
Thu Can I send to team? sms
rzok","notes":[],"orga
tions":[], "numbers"
',"(202)
2016-11-{13
00:57:54,
Thu sms
2016-11-03
11:29:461 "emails":('- The nyt probability numbers ate dropping every day. I'm
Thu scared for our or anizatlon. sms
79
[{"rnodified";14782295
47468, nuniqueid~:804, i•
tName":"P. II
{2 ok","notes":[],"orga
ers"
2)
Dude. On Inauguration Day, in addition to our kegger we
2016-11-04 should also have a screening of the Weiner documentary!
03:19:04, Fri 20 OUTBOX \U0001f60a sms
37353,"uniqueid":804,"
firstName":"Peter", '1las
tName":"P, 11
StrzOk\"notes":[],"orga
nizations":D,"numbers"
~ "(202)
2016-11-06
20:·33:54, -•],"emails":I'
s~u~n~--+------;?-P_ }] _ Trump about to get off his plane0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-+s~m~'---t------------
[{"modified":14784655
76928,"unigueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok'1,"notes1':[],1'orga
-
202 nizations":O,"numbers"
,["202 112021
2016-11-06
20:52:54, _,"emalls":1"
Sun 20 OUTBOX ~ •''~m~o~n~f~o~•~·T~r~u~m='~•~ta~lk~l~n=•b~•~u~t~h~•~'·~--------;~•m~•--,-----------
[{'1modified11:14784656
2016-11-06
20:53:42, He's talking about cartwright and Petraeus and how they're
Sun 202 OUTBOX not roteeted. She's rotected b a ri eds tem. sms
80
[{"modified 0 :14784829
86168,"uniqueid":804,"
flrstName":"Peter", "!as
tName":"P. ll
ok","notes":O, "orga
ations":[] "numbers"
02iiiilii",'~202)
2016-11·07
01:43:03, Good lord...\n\nlnside Donald Trump\u2019s Last Stand: An
Moe OUTBOX Anxious Nominee Seeks Assurance http:~~'-~ms=/2=•~•=•T~•~3~~•~m~,~-+--------
96912,"unlqueld":804,"
firstName": "Peter", "las
tName":"P. II
Strzok",1'notes":[],"orga
nizatio~mbers''
:r'202-,"(202} OMG THIS IS F'"CKING TERRlFYING:\nA victory by Mr. Trump
2.016-11-08 324- remains poss!ble: Mrs. Clinton\u2019s chance of losing is
01:56:33, about the same as the probability that an N.F.l. kicker
Tue 202 mlsses a 38· rd field g,00=•~'---------------t='~m='--1-----------
55112,"uniq ueid":804,"
firstName":''P-eter",''Jas
tName'':"P, 11
{202)- Strzok","notes":O, "orga
2016-11-08
02:05:51,
Tue OUTBOX sms
2016-11-08
02:42:33,
Tue OUTBOX sms
81
({"modlfied":14785729
63173, "uniqueid11 :804,"
firstName":"Peter"," las
tName":"P. II
tr2:ok1', 11notes":I], "orga
202 nizatio~mbers"
:["202-"(202)
■),''emails":["
2016-11-08
02:42:40,
Tue 202 OUTBOX J~ What Is she sa J ! ! _ g ~ 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f ' ~ m ~ ' - - t - - - - - - - - - - -
[f'mod[fled":14785730
2016-11-08
02:43:40, She does realize you've been in EVERY conversation that has
Tue been had about this case,!:~ ht? sms
96222,"unlgueid":804,"
tName":"P. ll
Strzok'1,'1notes":0,1'orga
nizations":U,"numbers" That we should have gone on the record saying Kallstrom
:["202-',"(202) and others are not credible (whlch may be valid), but then
2016-11-0& saying we could pull his tolls if we wanted to. Bei:auseshe
02:44:54, • "emails":[" knows all about our policy regarding investigations of
Tue JNBOX_____ members of the media. \U000lf621 sms
flrstName":"Peter", "(as
tName":'1P, II
Strzok",''notes":I],"orga
nlzations":D,"numbers"
,r202-."(2021 Yes. But she's an expert who knows everything. \n\nl'm
2016-11-08 telling you, it's wlldly infuriating. She has good points but
02:45:31, hen assumes wildly impossible understanding of things to
Tue make roundless assertions. ,m,
82
Wmodified":14785731
63985,"unlque!d":804, 0
firstName":"Peteru 1"las
tName":"P. ll
2016-11-08
02:45:59, old her twice she was either calling me stupid or a liar.
Tue 202 U0001f621\U0001!~.~1\U005)_1f_6_21_\~U_00_0_1f_6_21_ _ _ _rs_m_S_ __,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
2016-11-08
02:46:06, Uh, what crime are we investigating?\n\nAnd I'm sorry,
Tue 20 OUTBOX that's a terribfe idea. Go to warwtt:h th1~_f_2,rmers_?_ _ _ _,-•_m_,__,-__________
2016-11-08
02:47:14,
Tue 20 Q.l!~O__X _+--- .. _ Jesu!-· l'm sorry. That would make me blind with rag~ sms___ .
,-----------
76586,'1uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
Strzok","notes":(),"orga Leaking information about ongoing Investigations. Which ls
nlzatio~mbers" incorrect information, Sy agents who don't know about
:["202.-, "(202} things talking to him. \n\nSee7 That's the thing. Her1nitial
2016-11-08 point, that we should have gone after thli agents talking
02:47:53, harder and sooner, is not unreasonable. But the subsequent
Tue 20 INBOX discussion falls into uninformed assertions. ,m,
83
[{"modlfied":14786536
09293, "uniqueid":804/'
tName";"P.11
2.016-11-09
01:06:45, emails":["-
Wed 202 )] j.U0001f60a\n\nHs1?£Y. Election geekdcm here. sms
21088,"uniqueid" :804,"
zok''1"11otes":l],''orga
tions":[]," numbers"
202-"(202)
2016-11-09
04:06:58, J,"emails":r'
W•d OUTBOX )] Trump won NC sms
[{"modified":14786652
17060,"unlque1d":l304,"
202 n!zat1ons":(1, 11 numbers"
:{"20 ,"(202)
■l,"emails":I"
2016-11-09
04:20:14,
~~d 202 OUTBOX PBS IS ro ectin Florida as well, sms
[{"modified":14786840
56364,"uniqueid":804,"
202 ni;.:ations":O,"numbers"
:["202-',"(202)
■,"emails":["
2016-11-09
09:34:14,
Wed OUTBOX And there it is. sms
.
01504,"uniqueid":804,''
tName":"P. rl
Strzok","notes": □," orga
202 nizatio~umbers"
; :["202--,"{202)
201frll-09 Analogous to the public editor article Bill handed out.
09:58:18, \n\nNews Media Vet Again Misreads America\u2019s
Wed 20 Com lex Pulse http://nyti.ms/2eCqXVM_ _ _ _ _ _~rsm_s_----,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
[{"modified":14786934
65045,"unlqueid":804,"
firstName":~Peter", "las
tName";"P.11
Strzok",11 notes":(],"orga
2016-11-09
12:11:02,
Wed 20 sms
20024, "uniqueid":804,"
firstNami.'' :"Peter","las
tName'!:11P. n
2016-11-09
J,Q,■■■LI
oo hard to explain here. Election related. Which is also
r1~,,~13~=:37~--L___
~ed 20 ~~£):( .CSJ.C!~-~ul bad. \n\nSure sms
trzok", "notes":(],"orga
02 nizatrons":0,"numbers"
:["202-,"{202)
2016-11-09 Are you even going to give out your calendars? Seems kind
12:43:13, of depressing. Maybe lt should Just be the first meeting of
Wed OUTBOX sms
85
[f'modffied": 14790542
77728,"uniqueid":804,"
ftrstName":"Peter","las
tName":"P. II
2016-11-13
19:11:15, bought all the president's men. Figure I needed to brush up
.s.l'en_ _ _+-------+"'= oursox n Watergate. \U0001f615 sms
tName":"P. II
Strzok", "notes":II, "orga
02 nizations":(l,"numbers"
:["202-,"{202)
■11 emails":('
2016-11-14 od, being here makes me angry. lots of high fallutin'
13:51:27, ational security tafk. Meanwhile, we have OUR task ahead
Mon OUTBOX sms
U"modified":14791541
2016-11-14
20:08:18,
Mon
11
Name :"Peter'', "las
me":"P.11
ok'',"notes":(], "orga
tions":U,"numbers"
2016-11-14 BBC News: Trump and Putin hold telephone talks\nTrump

20:08:40, and Putin hold telephone talks -
Mon 202 OUTBOX htt : www.bbc:.co.uk news world-us-canada-37981770 sms
86
[f'modifled":14791741
84541,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":nP.11
2016-11-15
01:43:02, "CNN: Source says naming a Trump national security team a
Tue 20 'knife fight'" ____ --------,F'm~'--t-----------
ok","notes":[],"orga
s":[], 11 numbecs"
',"(202)
2016-11-lS
01:43:43,
Tue zo OUTBOX Christ. What does that mean?,_l__________fs~m~•~-+-----------
[{"modlfled":14791743
83921,"uniqueid":804,"
tName":"P.11
2016-11-15
01:46:21, I can only guess difference of opinlon between Trump and
1r~u,,e~--t-----.?.q INBOX •-~ep_ublican establishment? sms
2016-11-15
01:41:05,
Tue zo sms
87
[{"madified":14791746
33444,"uniqueld"!804,"
firstName": "Peter", "las
tName":"P. II
ok'',"notes":[],"orga
bers11
2
2016-11-15
01:50:30,
Tue 20 OUTBOX Myg:od, Sf!SsionsfQr Do~D~o~r~A~G~·----------f•~m~,~-+-----------+
2016-11-15
01:51:43,
Tue Which is the f-ed u _ edness ofit sms
[emodifled":14794728
48812,"uniqueid" :804,"
tName":"P. II
2016-11-18
,1~2~,•~o~,•~s~·~'~';+-----'~o~--!.N.eq~-- .. Sessions for AG_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,_s_m_s_ _.,...__________
2016-11-18
12:49:19 Fri 202 OUTBOX Good od. sms
88
j{°modified":14796908
54537, "uniquaid":804,"
firstName":"Peter","la5
tName":"P. IJ
zok","notes":[],"orga
tions":O,"numbers" This is really disgusting. \n\nNYTimes: White Nationalists
2 ' " 202 Celebrate \u2018an Awakentng\u-2019 After Donald
2016-11-21 mp\u2019s Victorv\nWllite Nationalists Celebrate
01:14:10, 018an Awakening\u2019 After Donald Trump\u2019s
Mon OUTBOX ory http;/Jnvtkms/2fc6we sms
firstName":"Peter' 1,"las
tName":"P. 11
Strzok", "notes'':(], "orga
nizations'':O,"numbers''
,["202-,"(202)
2016-11-21
01:19:38,
Mon 20 INBOX m worried racial tension ~sofng ~o getrea(lyj:rad_._••---~•-m_s_ __,__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
7
04831,"uniqueid":804,"
tN-ame":"P. I(
You see Trump chose a Fox News analyst as his Dep Ntnl
ecurl advisor?
23895,"tmiqueid":804,"
tName":"P. n
Strzok", "notes~: □, "orga
nizati mbers"
:["20 ', "(202) And I keep thinking about what the D said, what was it, sick
2016-12-01 to one's stomach? Want to talk with you about it more. And
01:52:01, in would like to talk to Jim and Andy too_ Jim may be too
lhu 20 much a true believer thou h. sms
89
[{" modiflad" :14805571
46601,"uniqueid":804,"
flrstName 11 :"Peter'', "las
tName":"P. II
Strzok",''notes":[],''orga
02 nizatlons":D,"numbers"
["202-."[202)
2016-12-01
01:52:23,
Thu Mild[ nauseous, he said. sms
2016-12-01'
01:52:48, echnlcally not sure you can talk.to andy about lt.
Thu 20 OlJTBOX \U0001f621 sms
90
Qtnngrcss nf tftt lllnitth @,tatcs
Jfnu.se nf ileprestntatiut.6
111as4ingtnn, il(!t 20515
January 3, 2017

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein,
The Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on "Oversight Hearing with Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein" on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 in room 214 l of the
Rayburn House Office Building. Thank you for your testimony.
Questions for the record have been submitted to the Committee within five legislative
days of the hearing. The questions addressed to you are attached. We will appreciate a full and
complete response as they will be included in the official hearing record.
Please submit your written answers to the Committee by Thursday, February 22, 2018 via
email or postal mail to the Committee on the Judiciary, Attention: Alley Adcock, 2138 Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515. If you have any further questions or concerns,
please contact Alley Adcock on my staff at (b) ( 6) or by email:
(b) (6)
Thank you again for your participation in the hearing.
Bob Goodlatte
Chairman
Enclosure
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5323-000001 201 80326-0000002

Questions for the Record
Submitted by Rep. Jamie Raskin
1. As you know, the Constitution in Article, I, Section 8, Clause 9 provides that:

no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under the [United States], shall, without
the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any
kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
During the December 13, 2017 oversight hearing at which you testified, we had a
colloquy about the lawsuit filed last year by over 200 Members of Congress against
President Trump alleging violations of the Emoluments clause, Richard Blumenthal, et al.
v. Donald J. Trump. The DOJ has argued that the Plaintiffs (of whom I am one) cannot
bring an action to stop personal receipt by the President of foreign government payments
without receiving Congressional permission because this is a nonjusticiable "political
question." What then is the proper remedy for a President who is collecting foreign
government Emoluments but refusing to seek Congressional authorization? What must
Congress do to enforce this Constitutional prohibition?
2. During the December 13, 2017 oversight hearing at which you testified, I asked
about the DOJ' s highly unusual distribution of text messages between agents Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page in advance of the hearing. Subsequently, Ranking Member Nadler,
Representative Jeffries, and I sent a letter to the Department of Justice and the Office of
the Inspector General seeking clarification of your answer, to which a timely response
was received. In follow-up to these inquiries, it remains unclear to me who within the
Department of Justice released the texts to a select group of news reporters prior to
Congress having the opportunity to review same. Accordingly, please identify the person
or persons within the Department of Justice who invited reporters to review the subject
text messages on the evening of December 12, 2017 in advance of the hearing before the
Committee on the Judiciary.
14
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5323-000001 20180326-0000015


To: Schools, Scott (ODAG)
Subject: Fwd: Redaction question
(b) (5)
Begin forwarded message-:
From: (b) ( 6)
Date: December 18, 2017 at 8:02:29 AM CST
To: "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Redaction question
Sarah,
Regarding the FBI texts, can you help me understand why my name was included in the
texts when others (including my wife's) were redacted? I don't mind the commentary -
I've been called worse than schlubby - but I didnt understand the rationale given the
others who were not include d.
- Thanks,
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11905 20180326-0061142

Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA)
From : Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA)

Sent: Monday, December 18, 201710:02 AM
To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA); E5calona, Prim F. (OLA}; Tyson, Jill C. {OLA}; Lasseter,
David F. (OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA)
Subject FW: OIG Response to December 14, 2017 Letter from Ranking Member Nadler,
Vice Ranking Member Raskin, and Congressman Jeffries
Attachments: Nadler Raskin Response letter.pdf
OIG letter t o RM Nader and two HJC Minority members concerning the FBI employee text messages.
From: Lee, Rene R. {0IG)

Sent Friday, December 15, 2017 6:01 PM
To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott (0DAG} <[email protected]>;
Sheehan, Matthew (0DAG} <[email protected]>
Cc:~ (OIG) ; Garcia, Yvonne {OIG) <[email protected]>
Subject: 0 IG Response to December 14, 2017 letter from Ranking Member Nadler, Vice Ranking Member
Raskin, and Congressman Jeffries
Attached please find the Inspector General's response to December 14, 2017 letter from Ranking Member
Nadler, Vice Ranking Member Raskin, and Congressman Jeffries. The Deputy Attorney General is copied on
the letter.
Thank you,
Rene
RENE ROCQUE LEE

Senior Counsel to the Inspector General
U.S. Department ofJustice
950 Pennsyh•ania A,enue, :N.W., Suite 4706
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
Office: 202-616-0643
Cell: (b) ( 6)
Rene.r.lee@usdoj. go,·
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5678 20180326-0061143

U.S. Department o f"]uslicc
Ollirc or 1lie InsplTlor Crncral
December 15, 2017
The Honorable Jarrold Nadler

Ranking Member
2109 Rayburn House Office Building
The Honorable Jamie Raskin

Vice Ranking Member
431 Cannon House Office Building
The Honorable Hakeem Jeffries

U.S. House of Representa tives
1607 Longworth House Office Building
Dear Ranking Member Nadler, Vice Ra nking Member Raskin, a nd Congressman

Jeffries:
Thank you for your letter d ated December 14, 2 017, requesting
informa tion regarding whether th e Department of Justice (the Department)
consulted with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) before sharing text m essages
between FBI employees Peter Strzok a nd Lisa Page with Congress and the media.
Our responses to the questions presented in your letter are set forth below.
1. A spokeswoman for the Department suggested that "career Justice

officials evaluated the m essages .. . to be sure that they could be released
'under both ethical and legal standards ."' Did the Department consult
with your office prior to producing these text m essages to Congress?
At a hearing on November 15, 2 01 7, before the House Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform, I testified that the OIG had no
objection to the Departm ent providing to Congress pre-existing
Department records in its cu s tody in respon se to a Congressional
oversight requ est. I noted that the Department would need to
determine whether there were any restrictions, such as those affecting
grand jury informa tion, that limited its a bility to produce certain
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5678-000001 20180326-0061144

records to Congress. I conveyed this position to the Department as
well. The Department did not consult with the OIG in order to
determine whether releasing the text messages met applicable ethical
and legal standards before providing them to Congress.
2. Did the Department consult with your office prior to sharing these text
messages with the press?
The Department did not consult with the OIG before sharing the text
messages with the press.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me

or Greg Sabina, my Advisor for Legislative Affairs, at (202) 514-3435.
Sincerely,
Michael E. Horowitz
Inspector General
cc: The Honorable Robert Goodlatte

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Trey Gowdy

Chairman, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
The Honorable Elijah Cummings

Ranking Member, House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform
The Honorable John Culberson

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Jose Serrano

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies, House Committee on Appropriations

Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5678-000001 20180326-0061145

Chairman, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs
The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
The Honorable Richard Shelby

Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations
The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
Related Agencies, Senate Committee on Appropriations

Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5678-000001 20180326-0061146

Schools, Scott (ODAG)
From: Schools, Scott (ODAG)

To: Hur, Robert (ODAG)
Att achments: Nadler Raskin Response letter.pdf

Sent : Friday, December 15, 2:017 7:41 PM
To: Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG) <[email protected]>; Hur, Robert {OOAG) <[email protected]>;
Bolitho, Zachary (OOAG} <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott (OOAG) <sschools@j md.usdoj.gov>
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 0717 20180326-0062417


To: Schools, Scott (OOAG)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.12604 20180326-0062425

From: Schools, Scott (ODAG}

Sent: Thursday, Oe-cember 14, 2017 8:05 PM
To: Flores, Saran Isgur (OPA}
Subject: RE: Letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
That's fin e.

To: Schools, Scott (ODAG) <sschools@j md.usdoj.gov>
Subject: RE: Letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
The Chairman and Ranking Members of each of the congressional committe~ were prov ided the opportunity to
have copies of the texts deliv ered to their offices. This was completed before any member of the media was giv en
access to view the same copy of the texts by the Department's Office of Public Affairs. As we understand now, some
members of the media had already received copies of the texts before that-but those disclosures were not
authorized by the Department.
As the Deputy Attorney General s.aid in this testimony on Wedn esday, when the init ial inquiri es came
from committees and members of Congress, the Deputy Attorney General consulted with the I nspector Gener al,
and the Inspector General determined that he had no objection to the Department's provi ding the material to the
Congressional committees that had requested it. After that consultation, senior career ethics ad visors determined
that there were no legal or ethical concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that prohibited t he release of the
information to the public either by members of congress or by the Department.
"""'
Sai:ah hgur Floce,
Dicector of Public Affairs
202.305.5808
From : Darren Samuelsohn [ma ilto:dsamuel [email protected]]

Sent : Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:07 PM
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected] j.gov>
Subject: FW: letter to DOJ IG re: FBI Text Messages
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 3830 20180326-0063495


To: Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG); Hur, Robert (ODAG); Schools, Scott (ODAG)
Subject: text release- we're working on it
Several of our beat reporters have been pushing back now- this is ABC:
https://twitter,com/M LevineReports/status/941025818691751936
~Jike LeTineYerilied accoum @:\fi.evineReports 2b2 hours ago
Deputy Atty General says reporters last night were shown anti-Trump text messages between FBI colleagues.
Some are trying to paint this as "extraordinary· or extremely unusual move. Just for record, Obama DOJ did it
too. I know 'cause I was there.
Jfike Le,ineVerified accoum: ~1\fl..evineReports 2hl hours ago
~a-ia OOJ also invited reporters to DOJ to show them documents being sent to Congress..
Natasha Bertrand\~enfied account ~);atashaBeruand lhl hour ago

Were those documents the subject of an ongoing OIG investigation?
~ like Lev ineYerified account ~~evineReports
Re lated to an ongoing OIG investigation? Yep.
Sarah Isgw: Flores

Di.tecto.c of Pub.lie Affairs
202-305.3808
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 2426 20180326-0072029

Hur, Robert (ODAG)
From: Hur, Robert (ODAG}

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA); Schools, Scott (ODAG)
Cc: Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG}; Prior, Ian {OPA)
Subject: RE: Proposed statement on release of texts to congress and media
(b) (5)

To: Schools, Scott (ODAG) <[email protected]>
Cc: Terwilliger, Zachary {ODAG} <[email protected]>; Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>; Hur,
Robert (OOAG) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed statement on release of texts to congress and media
(b) (5)
On Dec 13, 2017, at 12:14 PM, Schools, Scott (ODAG) <sschool [email protected]>wrote:
(b) (5)
From: Terwilliger, Zachary (OOAG)

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <sifl [email protected]>
Cc: Schools, Scott (OOAG) <[email protected]>; Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>;
Hur, Robert (ODAG) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Proposed statement on r elease of texts to congress and media
(b) (5)
On Dec 13, 2017, at 11:57 AM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>wrote:
(b) (5)
On Oec 13, 2017, at 11:49 AM, Schools, Scott (ODAG) <[email protected]>

w rote:
(b) (5)

Sent : Wednesday, December 13, 201711:42 AM
To: Schools, Scott (OOAG) <sschool s@,jmd.usdoj.gov>
Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA} <[email protected] .gov>; Terwilliger, Zachary
(OOAG} <zt erw illiger@ jmd.usdoj.gov>
Sub ject: Proposed statement on release of texts to congress and
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 0906 20180326-0072160

media
(b) (5)
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
Subject: Strzok e mails
http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-page-
texts-mueller-russia-trump-2017-12
So this story says that DoJ invited reporters to your

offices yesterday night to give them access t o private
text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page. The story says that this material was originally
obtained by DoJ as part of an investigation by Justice
Department IG into how the FBI handled its inquiry into
Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she
was Secretary of State. Isn't it quite unorthodox, if not
unethical o r even illegal, for DoJ to deliberately make
public or leak evidence collected in an IG investigation ?
Who is it who ultimately authorized or instructed DoJ to
allow journalists to se e this evidence? Was AG Sessions
involved ? Was the White House involved o r was anyone
in the White House consulted ? We might be writing a
story about this today so your quick response most
welcome. Many thanks indeed. mh
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 0906 20180326-0072161


Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201 7 11 :57 AM
Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA); Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG)
Subject: Re: Proposed statement on release of texts to congress and media
(b) (5)
On Dec 13, 201 7, at 11:49 AM, Schools, Scott {OOAG) <[email protected] j.gov> wrote:
(b) (5)

To: Schools, Scott (ODAG} <[email protected]>
Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPrior@ jmd.usdoj.gov>; Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG)
<zterwilliger@jmd .usdoj.gov>
Subject: Proposed statement on release of texts to congress and media
(b) (5)
From: <Mark.Hosenball @thomsonreuters:.com>

To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
http:ljwww.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-page-t e xts-mueller-russia-trump-
2017-12
So this story says that DoJ invited reporters to your offices yesterday night to give
them access to private text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa
Page. The story says that this material was originally obtained by 0oJ as part of an
investigation by Justice Department IG into how the FBI handled its inquiry into
Hillary Clinton' s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.
Isn't it quite unorthodox, if not unethical or even illegal, fo r DoJ to deliberately
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11810 20180326-0072176

make public or leak evidence collected in an IG investigation ? Who is it who
ultimately authorized or instructed DoJ to allow journalists to see this evidence ?
Was AG Sessions involved? Was the White House involved or was anyone in the
White House consulted ? We might be writing a story about this today so your
quick response most welcome. Many thanks indeed. mh
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11810 20180326-0072177


Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 201 7 11:49 AM
Subject: Rt: Proposed statement on release of texts to congress and media
(b) (5)

Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA) <[email protected]>; Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG} <[email protected]>
(b) (5)
Date: December 13, 2017 at 11:27:46AM EST
Subject: Strzok e mails
http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-str20k-page-texts-mueller-russia-trump- 2017-12
So this story says that DoJ invited reporters to your offices yesterday night to give them access
to private text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The story says that
this material was originally obtained by DoJ as part of an investigation by Justice Department IG
into how the FBI handled its inquiry into Hillary Clinton' s use of a private email server while
she was Secretary of State. Isn't it quite unorthodox, if not unethical or even illegal, for DoJ to
deliberately make public or leak evidence collected in an IG investigation ? Who is it who
ultimately authorized or instructed DoJ to allow journalists to see this evidence ? Was AG
Sessions involved ? Was the White House involved or was anyone in the White House
consulted ? We might be writing a story about this today so your quick response most welcome.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 0807 20180326-0072180


(b) (5)
http:ljwww.businessinsider.com/peter-strzok-page-texts-mueller-russia-trump-2017-12
So this story says that 0oJ invited reporters to your offices yesterday night to give them access
to private text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. The story says that this
material was originally obtained by OoJ as part of an investigation by Justice Department IG into
how the FBI handled its inquiry into Hillary Clinton' s use of a private email server while she was
Secretary of State. Isn't it quite unorthodox, if not unethical or even illegal, for 0oJ to
deliberately make public or leak evidence collected in an IG investigation ? Who is it who
ultimately authorized or instructed OoJ to allow journalists to see this evidence ? Was AG
Sessions involved ? Was the White House involved or was anyone in the White House
consulted? We might be writing a story about this today so your quick response most welcome.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 0329 20180326-0072181

Winn, Peter A. (OPCL)
From: Winn, Peter A. (OPCL)

Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: FBI Text Messages - Memo to File
Att achments: 2017-12-12 - Privacy Act Assessment FINAL.docx
Hi Scott,
Here is t he final for your records.
Peter
Peter A. Winn
Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer
Director, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties
National Place Building, Suite 1000
Washington DC 20530
Office
Cell~
Fax (202) 307-0693
(b) (6)
(b) (6)
https://www.justice.gov/opcl
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the i ndi vi dual or entity to which i t i s
addresse-d. It may contain information that is privilege-cl, confidential, or otherwi se protecte-d by applicabl e l aw. If you
are not the intended recipient (or the reci pi ent's agent), you are hereby noti f ied that unauthori 2ed dissemi nation,
di stributi on, copyi ng, or use of this email or its contents may violate is prohibi ted. If you received this email in error,
p lease notify the sender i mmedi ately and destroy all copi es.
From: Schools, Scott {ODAG}

To: Winn, Peter A. (OPCL) (b) ( 6)
Subj ed:: RE: FBI Text Mess.ages - Draft Memo to File
(b) (5)
From: Winn, Peter A. (OPCL}

To: Schools, Scott (ODAG) <sschool [email protected] j.gov>
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 0131 20180326-0000070

Subj ect: FBI Text Messages- Draft Memo to File
Hi Scott,
Peter
•
Document ID: 0.7.16060.10131 20180326-0000071

Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. (OPCL)
From: Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. (OPCL}

To: (b) (6) (OPCL); Winn, Peter A. (OPCL)
Subject: RE: Final Draft
Att.achments: 2017-12-20- Privacy Act Assessment Draft (b) (5). (b) (6) .docx
(b) (5)
Kathy
From: (b) ( 6) {OPCL}

To: Winn, Peter A. ( OPCL) (b) (6) ; Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. {OPCL} <kmharman-
[email protected] .gov>
Subject: RE: Final Draft
(b) (5)
Fro m: Winn, Peter A. (OPCL}

To: (OPCL) (b) (6) ; Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. ( OPCL) <kmharman-
stokes@jmd .usdoj.gov>
Subject: Final Draft
(b) (5)
Peter A. Winn
Acti ng Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties Officer
Director, Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties
1331 Pennsylvani a Avenue, NW
Washington OC 20530
Office (b) ( 6)
Cell (b) ( 6)
Fax (202) 307-0693
(b) ( 6)
(b) ( 6)
https://www.justice.gov/opcl
NOTICE: This email (i ncludi ng any attachments) is i ntended f or th e use of the i ndividual or entity to which it i s
addressed. It mav contai n i nformation that is pri vileged, confi denti al, or otherwi se protected by applicabl e l aw. If you
are not the i ntended reci pi ent (or the recipi ent's agent), vou are hereby notified that unauthorized di ssemi nati on,
di stri buti on, copyi ng, or use of this email or its contents may vi ol ate i s prohi bited. If you received this email i n error,
pl ease noti fy the .sender i mmediately and destroy all copi es.
Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. (OPCL)
From: Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. (OPCL}

To: W inn, Peter A. (OPCl)
Cc: (b) (6) (OPCL)
Subject: RE: Privacy Act assessment - OIG context
Attachments: 2017-12-19 - Privacy Act Assessment - OIG Records (b) (5). (b) (6)
- .docx
Importance: High
Peter, (b) (5) Happy to discuss f urther tomorrow.

Kathy
from: Harman-Stokes, Katherine M . (OPCL)

Cc: {OPCL} (b) ( 6)
Subject: Privacy Act assessment - OIG context
Importance: High
Peter, (b) (5)

Kathy
___(o_P_cL) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1111
From: (b) (6) (OPCL)

To: Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. ( OPCL}
Subject: RE: PA assessment - text messages
Att.achments: 2017-12-19 - Privacy Act Assessment - OIG Records (b) (5). (b) (6) .docx
Kathy,
(b) (5)
j@fiiN
Fro m: Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. (OPCL)
To: (OPCL) (b) (6)
Subject: PA assessment - text messages
(b) (5)
Kathy
___(o
_P_cL) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
1111
From: (b) (6) (OPCL)

Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 9:25 AM
To: Winn, Peter A. (OPCL}; Harman-Stokes, Katherine M . (OPCL}
Subject: RE: FOUO: Privacy Act Assessment-OIG Records & Public Disclosure (12-15--
2017)
Attachment's: Privacy Act Assessment-OIG Records Public Disclosure FINAL Revi ew
Mftl•ff -focx
Peter & Kathy,
(b) (5)
@I@■
From: Wi nn, Peter A. {OPCL}

To: Harman-Stokes, Katherine M. {OPCL} <kmharman-stokes@j md.usdoj .gov>; (b) (6) (OPCL)
(b) (6)
Subject: RE: FOUO: Privacy ActAssessment--OIG Records & Public Disclosure (12-15-2017)
Kathy and rt§#@W,
(b) (5)
Peter
From: (b) (6) {OPCL}

To: Winn, Peter A. (OPCL) (b)(6)
Subject: RE: FOUO: Privacy Act Assessment--OIG Records.& Public Disclosure (12-15-2017)
Peter,
(b) (5)
iill@M
To: (OPCL) (b) ( 6)
Subject: RE: FOUO: Privacy Act Assessment--OIG Records & Public Disclosure (12-15-2017)
(b) (5)
From: (b) (6) {OPCL}

To: W inn, Peter A. (OPCL) (b) ( 6)
Subject: RE: FOUO: Privacy Act Assessment--OIG Records.& Public Disclosure (12-15-2017)
(b) (5)
From: (b) (6) (OPCL}

UNCLA.SSIFIEDI/FOUO
DELIBER.ATIVE PROCESS // ATIOR.t'\ffiY CLIENT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT
Peter,
(b) ( 5)
---
i@IC§M
(b) (6)
Attorney Advisor
Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCt)
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
(b) (6) (office)
(b) (6) (mobile)
(202) 307-069-3 (fax)
(b) ( 6)
NOTICE: This email (i ncludi ng any attachments) i s i ntended for th e use of th e i nd ividual or entity to whi ch it i s
addressed. It may contai n i nformati on that is pr•vi leged, confi dential, or otherwi se protected by applicabl e law. If you
are not the i ntended reci pi ent (or the reci pi ent's agent), you are hereby notified th at any di sseminatl on, di stri buti on,
copyi ng. or use or th is ema ii or its contents is stri ctly prohi bited. If you re-ceived this email i n error, pl ease noti fy the
sender i mmedi ately and destroy all copi es.
ATTORNEY WORI< PRODUCT/A TTORNEY-CUENT/DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEGED
From: Winn, Peter A. {OPCL)

Sent: Monday, December 18, 201712:56 PM
To: ( OPCL) (b ) ( 6)
-
(b) (5)
Peter

Sent: Monday, December 18, 201712:39 PM
To: (OPCL) (b) (6)
Subject: RE: FOUO: Privacy Act Assessment--01G Records & Public Disclosure (12-15-2017)
(b) (5)
Peter
From: (b) (6) {OPCL)

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2.017 5:07 PM
To: Winn, Peter A. (OPCL) (b)(6)
Subject: FOUO: Privacy ActAssessment--OIG Records & Public Disclosure (12-15-2017)
UNCLASSIFIED//FOUO
Dll1BERAIB/f. PROCESS // AITOR.i'lEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT
Peter,
(b) (5)
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Regards,
(b) ( 6)
Attorney Advisor
Office of Privacy and Civil liberties (OPCL)
(b) (6) (office)
(b)(6) (mobile)
(202) 307-0693 (fax)
(b) (6)
NOTICE: This email (i ncludi ng any attachments) is i ntended for the use of the i ndividual or entity to which it i s
addressed. It may contai n i nformation that is pri vileged, confi denti al, or otherwi se protected by applicabl e l aw. If you
are not the i ntended reci pi ent (or the recipi ent's agent), vou are hereby notified that any dissemi nation, distri buti on,
copying, or use of thi s email or its contents is strictly prohi bited. If you re.ce ived this email i n error, pl ease notify the
sender i mmed iately and destroy all copi es.
UNCLA.SSIFIED//FOUO
DELJBER.I\IB'E PROCESS // AITOR.i'lEY ClIE-H' PRIVILEGED DOC1JME,"IT
Winn, Peter A. (OPCL)

To: (b) (6) (OPCL)
Subject: Re: OPA Revised Statement
Thanks. I saw this earlier today. Not 100 percent sure what prompted this statement, but it looks like
later statements corrected it. We can follow up on Monday.
On Dec 15, 2017, at 7:05 PM, (b) (6) (OPCL) (b) ( 6) wrote:
http://1N·ww.businessinsider.com/doj-says-early-release-of-fbi-agents-texts-·was-not-
authorized-2017-12
• According to a DOJ statement, those text mes.sages "were not authorized" for
release.
(b) (6)
Attorney Advisor
Office of Privacy and Civil Liberties (OPCL)
(b)(6) (office)
(b) (6) (mobile)
(202) 307-0693 (fax)
(b) ( 6)
NOTICE: This email (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed. It may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient (or the recipient's agent), you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution, copying, or use of this email or its contents is strictly prohibited. If you
received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies.

To: Winn, Peter A. {OPCL}
Subject: FW: Texts Messages
Attachments: Strzok Texts Redacted.pdf
Per our conversation.
- Original Message--
From: (INSO) (FBI) (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI
To: Schools, Scott (ODAG} <[email protected]>
Cc: McNamara, Nancy (INSD) (FBI) (b) (6). (b) ("7)(C) per FB (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI, (DO) (FBI)
(b ) (6). (b) C)(C) per FBI
Subject: Texts Messages
Mr. Schools,
(b) (5)
-Let me know if you have any concerns or questions.
Th k
(b) (6). (b) C)(C) per
FBI
Unit Chief
External Audit Management Unit
Inspection Division
(b) (6) (b)(7)(C) per FBI
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 2175 20180326-0080067

From: Lasseter, David F. {OlA)

To: Hur, Robert {OOAG); Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA); Schools, Scott (ODAG); Brow er,
Gregory (00} {FBI}; (00) {FBI}; Terwilliger, Zachary (OOAG)
Subject:. RE: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Attachments: Response to 28 December letter_ dfl adds.docx
Scott-OLA adds attached. (b) (5)
S/F,
dfl
Fr om: Lasseter, David F. (OLA)

To: Hur, Robert (ODAG) <rhur@j md.usdoj.gov>; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) ; Schools,
Scott (ODAG) <sschools@j md.usdoj .gov>; Brow er, Gregory (DO) (FBI) <[email protected]>; Pcr FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
I (DO) (FBI} ; Terwilliger, Zachary {ODAG} <[email protected]>

Subj ect: RE: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Gentlemen (b) (5)
-
Thanks,
David
From: Lasseter, David F. (OLA)

To: Hur, Robert (ODAG) <[email protected]>; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} (b) (6) ; Schools,
Scott (ODAG) <[email protected]>; Brow er, Gregory (DO) (FBI) <[email protected]>; Pcr FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
I (DO) (FBI} ; Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG) <[email protected]>

Subject: FW: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Gentlemen- good afternoon. Attached is a new HPSCI production request. The letter states that the
Department and Bureau have been unresponsive since its 24 August subpoena. Further, it is requesting "All
20180326-0058406
. . - . . -
outstanding records identified as responsive to the August 24 subpoenas'' and also requests all 1023s, all
3025, and certain analytical and reference documents relative to Steele dossier and all that are responsive
that have not previously been provided.
Additionally, the letter requests interviews with the below individuals in January:
• Former DOJ Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr;
• FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA} Peter Strzok;
• FBI Attorney James Baker;
• FBI Attorney Lisa Page;
• FBI Attorney Sally Moyer; and
• FBI Assistant Director for Congressional Affairs Greg Brower.
Lastly, letter requests details from "an apparent April 2017 meeting with the media involving DOJ/FBI
personnel, including DOJ Attorney Andrew Weissman" and remaining text messages between Strozk and
Page.
(b) (5)
Thanks,
David
David F. Lasseter
202-514-U60
From: Ciarlante, Nick (b) (6) House Email

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <[email protected]>
Cc: Ciarlante, Nick (b) ( 6) House Email ; Stewart, Mark (b) (6) House Email
Glabe, Scott (b) (6) House Email
Subject: letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Good afternoon,
Attached please find a lette.r from Chairman N unes for Deputy Attorney General R osenstein.
Best,
Nick
Nicholas A. Ciarlante
Chief Clerk
United States House of Representatives
Capitol Visitor Center, HVC-304
0: (b) ( 6)
C: (b) (6)
Our :'\fission: To serve the American people by providing oversight, direction and resources to enable effectiv e., efficient
and constitutional intelligence activities.
20180326-0058407
LaSS-eter, David F. (OLA)
From: Lasseter, David F. {OlA)

To: Johnson, Joanne E. {OLA)
Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINAL.PDF
(b) (5)
dfl

To: Hur, Robert (ODAG) <rhur@j md.usdoj.gov>; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) ; Schools,
Scott (ODAG} <[email protected]>; Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI) <[email protected]>; Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
I (DO) (FBI} ; Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Document ID: 0.7.16060.53701 20180326-0058409

Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)
From : Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA)

To: Lasseter, David F. {OLA)
Cc: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA); Prior, Ian (OPA); Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA); Schools,
Scott (ODAG)
Subject: Re: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
(b) (5)
--
SB
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:52 PM, Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <[email protected]> wrote:
Scott
dfl
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 28, 2017, at 19:49, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes. (b) (5)
On Dec 28, 2017, at 6:44 PM, Lasseter, David F. {O LA)

Sarah- just making sure you have seen this. We received it at

4pm today and it was the lead on FNC Special Report this
evening .
David
David F. Lassete r
From: "Lasseter, David F. {OLA)"
20180326-0058452
<dlasseter@)jmd.usdoj.gov>
Date: December 28, 2017 at 17:14:13 EST
To: "Hur, Robert (ODAG)"
<[email protected]>, ''Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)"
(b) ( 6) , "Schools, Scott (OOAG}"
<[email protected]>, "Brower, Gregory {DO)
{FBI)" <[email protected]>, . {DO)
{FBI)" , "Terwilliger, Zachary
(ODAG}" <zterwilliger@jmd .usdoj.gov>
Subject: FW: Letter for Deputy Attorney General
Rosenstein
20180326-0058453

To: Herbert, Jenelle R. (OLA); Brooks, Roshelle {OLA)
Subject: Response to Chairman Johnson
Attachments: Draft Response to Chairman Johnson 12-21-2017 clean.docx; 2012-12-13 Draft
response to Johnson 12-6-2017 - KEK.docx; 2017-12-06 RHJ to DOJ Rosenstein
re PETER STRZOK - Johnson.pdf
Roshelle or Jenelle:
(b) (5)
Thanks!
Ken
20180326-0059124
Hur, Robert (ODAG)
From : Hur, Robert {ODAG)

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA}
Subject: RE: current
Importance: High
Suggested t\veaks in red belmv_

To: Hur, Robert {OOAG) <rhur@j md.usdoj.gov>
Subject: current
20180326-0062626
20180326-0062627
Suah Isgur Flo:res
Di:r:ector of Pubhc Affair.s
202.305.5808
20180326-0062628
Flores, Sarah Isgur (CPA)

To: Hur, Robert {ODAG)
Subject: current
20180326-0062644
20180326-0062645
Suah Isgur Flores
Director of Pubhc _·\£fun
202.305.5808
ocument ID: 0.7.16060.83406

Office of the Inspector General
December 13, 2017
Chairman
Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs
340 Dirksen Senate Office Bu ilding
Washington, DC 205 10
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Cha irman
224 Dirksen Sena te Office Building
United Sta tes Senate
Dear Cha irmen Johnson and Grassley:
Thank you fo r your letter of December 6, 20 17, requesting information
rega rd ing the Office of the Inspector General's discovery of certain electronic text
messages in connection with its review of the actions of the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in advance of the 20 16
presidential election. Our responses to the questions presented in your letter
are set forth below.
1. When and how did OIG become aware of the text messages between
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?
In gathering evidence for the OIG's ongoing 2016 election review, we
r equested, consistent with standard practice, that the FBI produce text messages
from the FBI-issued phones of certain FBI employees involved in the Clinton e-
mail investigation based on search terms we provided. After finding a number
of poli tically-oriented text messages between Page and Strzok, the OIG sought
from the FBI all text messa ges between Strzok and Page from their FBI-issued
phones through November 30, 20 16, which covered the entire period of the
Clinton e-mail server investigation. The FBI produced these text messages on
July 20, 2017. Following our review of those text messa ges, the OIG expanded
our request to the FBI to include all text messages between Strzok and Page from
Document ID: 0.7.16060.12297 20180326-0062666

November 30, 2016, through the date of the document request, which was July
28, 2017. The OIG received these additional messages on August 10, 2017.
2. When and how did OIG notify the Special Counsel Robert Mueller of
the text messages?
On July 27, 201 7, upon our identification of many of the political text
messages, the Inspector General met with the Deputy Attorney General and the
Special Counsel to inform them of the texts that we had discovered, and provided
them with a significant number of the texts, so that they could take any
management action they deemed appropriate.
3. Did OIG refer these allegations to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel
to pursue a potential Hatch Act inquiry? If not, why not?
The Hatch Act, and its associated regulations, identify authorized and
prohibited political activities for most executive department employees, including
FBI employees. The Hatch Act permits expressions of personal opinions about
candidates and issues. In contrast, political activity, which is defined as "activity
directed toward the success or failure of a political party, candidate for partisan
political office, or partisan political group" is prohibited in certain contexts. We
are cognizant of these issues and will determine whether there is a basis to refer
the allegations, along with relevant evidence we have gathered, regarding Page's
and Strzok's text messages to the Office of Special Counsel upon completion of
our review.
4. In connection with the OIG's review of the actions of DOJ and the
FBI in advance of the 2016 presidential election, has the OIG received any similar
allegations involving other government officials?
The OIG's review is ongoing, and we currently are in the process of
completing our witness interviews and document review. Thereafter, we intend
to issue a public report with our findings on these and the other issues we are
reviewing, and we would be pleased to discuss them with you at that time.
Thank you for your continued support for the work of my Office. If you
Document ID: 0.7.16060.12297 20180326-0062667

have any questions , please do not h esitate contact me or (b) (6) - Per OIG
'my
Advisor for Legislative Affairs, at (202) 5 14-3435 .
Sincerely,
Michael E . Horowitz
Inspector General

Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and

Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary
20180326-0062668

To: Schools, Scott (OOAG)
Cc: Lasseter, David F. {OLA); Escalona, Prim F. {OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA)
Subject: Response to HSGAC Chairman Johnson (Text messages)
Attachments: 2017-12-06 RHJ to DOJ Rosenstein re PETER STRZOK - Johnson.pdf; Response
letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson - Text Messages.pdf; Johnson 12-6~2017
response - OLA.docx
Good morning Scott:
(b) (5)
I made some proposed edits for your review.
Thanks,
Ken
20180326-0062669
House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on the Justice
Department's Investigation of Russia's Interference in the
2016 Presidential Election

GOODLATTE:
Good morning. The Judiciary Committee will come to order, and Without objection, the chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time.
We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on -- oversight hearing with Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein. And I'll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement.
Thank you, Deputy General -- Attorney General Rosenstein, for appearing for the first time in
front of this committee. There is much to discuss today, and we look forward to your testimony
and answers to your questions.
As chairman of the committee with primary oversight of the Department of Justice and the FBI,
I've always supported the department and the FBI in performing their valuable missions to keep
our nation safe and to hold individuals accountable for criminal conduct. Yet I and many on this
committee now find ourselves in the very difficult position of questioning the actions of both
prior and current department and FBI leadership.
You have a unique role at the Department of Justice in that you appointed Special Counsel
Mueller and have a supervisory role over his investigation. It is therefore very appropriate for
you to appear before this committee to answer questions related to the scope of the special
counsel's investigation, as well as its current efficacy in light of various events calling into
question its impartiality.
Reports on the political predisposition and potential bias of certain career agents and department
lawyers on Special Counsel Mueller's team are deeply troubling to all citizens who expect a
system of blind and equal justice. The Department of Justice investigations must not be tainted
by individuals imposing their own political prejudices.
We are now beginning to better understand the magnitude of this insider bias on Mr. Mueller's
team. First, we have FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, exchanging
communications showing extreme bias against President Trump, a fact that would be bad enough
if it weren't for the fact that these two individuals were employed as part of the Mueller dream
team, investigating the very person for whom they were showing disdain.
And calling it mere disdain is generous. According to the documents produced last night to this
committee, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page referred to the president as an utter idiot, a loathsome
human, and awful, while continually praising Hillary Clinton and the Obamas.
These text messages prove what we all suspected: high-ranking FBI officials involved in the
Clinton investigation were personally invested in the outcome of the election and clearly let their
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064015

strong political opinions cloud their professional judgment. And this was only an initial
disclosure containing heavy redactions.
Second, former embattled FBI General Counsel and current Mueller prosecutor Andrew
Weissmann expressed his awe of a former DOJ official for shunning the president and failing to
faithfully execute the law. However, we are the ones now in awe that someone like Mr.
Weissmann remains on an investigative team that looks more and more partisan.
Third, we have learned that a top Mueller prosecutor, Jeannie Rhee, in addition to the other
actions that would normally justify recusal, served as an attorney for the Clinton Foundation.
Aren't Department of Justice attorneys advised to avoid even the appearance of impropriety? A
former Clinton employee is now investigating President Trump. This seems to be the very
definition of "appearance of impropriety."
Fourth, we have just recently learned that another top Department of Justice official, Bruce Ohr,
has been reassigned because of his wife and his connections with the infamous dossier and the
company from whom the opposition research document originated.
We hope to hear your assessment of the foregoing conflicts, whether individuals are being held
accountable and whether you still have confidence in the judgment of the special counsel you
named and supervise.
Regarding the Clinton e-mail scandal, you, along with Attorney General Sessions, have to date
declined to appoint a second special counsel to investigate the improprieties that continue to
surface related to the handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation and other events surrounding
the 2016 election.
These are some of the important issues on which we will focus our energy and questions today.
We want to understand your participation and the department's involvement in addressing both
investigations.
Mr. Deputy Attorney General, the Department of Justice's reputation as an impartial arbiter of
justice has been called into question. This taint of politicization should concern all Americans
who have pride in the fairness of our nation's justice system.
While we continue to call on you to appoint a second special counsel, as you are aware, we have
also opened our own joint investigation with the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee to review FBI and the Department of Justice's handling of the Clinton e-mail
investigation.
I want to thank you and Attorney General Sessions for recently committing to provide us
relevant documents to enable robust congressional oversight of this matter. I implore you to
continue to work with us on these and other important matters facing our nation.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064016

One of these matters involves a critical program for our national security, FISA Section 702.
This committee passed, on an overwhelming, bipartisan basis, the USA Liberty Act, which
maintains the integrity of the program while protecting cherished civil liberties.
This overwhelming vote occurred despite the department's lobbying efforts against our bill. The
USA Liberty Act was characterized as bad for the program, highly problematic, unworkable and
a proposal that would effectively dismantle Section 702. However, the reality is that this
committee's legislation struck a balance that promotes national security and civil liberties.
I hope to hear from you why the Department of Justice felt it necessary to oppose a bill that
would reauthorize 702 and instill confidence in the American people that their privacy and civil
liberties are respected by a government whose duty it is to protect them.
The Department of Justice must reacquire the trust of the American people. I know there are
thousands of Department of Justice employees and line agents in the department -- in the bureau
of -- in Federal Bureau of Investigation that are dedicated individuals that are dedicated to
upholding the rule of law and protecting the American people, and I hope that we can come to a
conclusion about those people who have not met that standard in this hearing today.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Attorney General, for appearing today. I now yield to the gentleman
from New York, the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Nadler, for his comments.
Nonresponsive Record
NADLER:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064017

And let me be clear, I unequivocally endorse this letter. We should convene this hearing as soon
as possible. This is an opportunity for us to lead and to show the country that this kind of
behavior is unacceptable at any level of government.
Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying welcome to the House Judiciary Committee, Mr.
Rosenstein. For the better part of a year, my colleagues and I have employed this committee to
conduct real oversight of the Department of Justice.
On January 24th, 2017, we wrote to Chairman Goodlatte, insisting that the committee hold
hearings on President Trump's conflicts of interest at home and abroad. Citing to experts across
the political spectrum, we showed that, quote, "The administration's attempts to address its
ongoing topics of interest are so far wholly inadequate," close quote.
Six weeks later, Attorney General Sessions was forced to recuse himself from the Russia
investigation, but we have not held a single hearing on the question of conflicts of interest.
On March 8th, we wrote again to the chairman, encouraging him to call -- encouraging him to
call hearings on, quote, "Russia's alleged interference in the U.S. election." Again, no such
hearings were ever held.
In fact, this committee, which, during the Obama administration, held half a dozen hearings
around Operation Fast and Furious, received testimony from FBI Director Comey three times in
13 months and detailed staff and resources to a Benghazi investigation across the public almost
$8 million -- this committee, from Inauguration Day until four weeks ago, was largely silent in
terms of oversight.
We haven't lifted a finger on election security. Attorney General Sessions told us on November
14th that he has done nothing to secure the next election from threats from at home and abroad.
We have not once discussed the president's abuse of the pardon power. While the hurricane bore
down on Houston, President Trump sidelined the Office of the Pardon Attorney to pardon a
serial human rights abuser who bragged about running a concentration camp in Arizona.
And we have not held a single hearing on allegations of obstruction of justice at the White
House, not for lack of evidence, but because of the chairman's words: Quote, "There is a special
counsel in place examining the issue," unquote, and, quote, "Several other Congressional
committees are looking into the matter," and the committee, quote, "does not have the time to
conduct this critical oversight." I ask my colleagues to keep those excuses in mind.
Now, with the year coming to a close, with the leadership of the Department of Justice finally
before us, what do my Republican colleagues want to discuss? Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Let me
repeat that. With all of these unresolved issues left on our docket a week before we adjourn for
the calendar year, the majority's highest oversight priority is Hillary's e-mail -- Hillary Clinton's
e-mails and a few related text messages.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064018

As we saw in our recent hearings with the Department of Justice and the FBI, my Republican
colleagues seem singularly focused on the call for second special counsel, and failing that, on the
need to investigate the investigators themselves -- ourselves.
The White House has now joined the call by House Republicans for a new special counsel to
investigate the FBI. The president's private lawyers have done the same. I understand -- I
understand the instinct to want to change the subject after the Flynn and Manafort indictments,
but this request is grossly misguided for a number of reasons.
First, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the special counsel regulations work.
Some criminal investigations pose a conflict of interest of the Department of Justice; the Russia
investigation is such a case, because of the Attorney General's ongoing recusal and because
department leadership assisted in the removal of Director Comey, among other reasons. In cases
like these, the attorney general may use a special counsel to manage the investigation outside of
the ordinary chain of command.
But the key here is the criminal investigation. That's what special counsel does. The department
cannot simply assign a special counsel to look at things that bother the White House; there has to
be enough evidence to have predicated a criminal investigation in the first place. Then, and only
then, if the facts warrant, can a special counsel be assigned to the case.
So far, there's been no credible, factual legal claim that anybody at the Department of Justice
violated any law by deciding not to bring charges against Hillary Clinton or by attempting to
meet with Fusion GPS. In other words, there is no investigation to which the department could
even assign a new special counsel.
Second, the list of grievances raised by the majority for review by a new special counsel also
seems wildly off the mark. For example, there is nothing unlawful about Director Comey's
sitting down to draft an early statement about the Clinton investigation, nor would it have been
unethical to outline his conclusions before the investigation was over, if the clear weight of the
evidence pointed in one direction.
Nor is there anything wrong with FBI agents expressing their private political views via private
text message, as Peter Strzok and Lisa Page appear to have done in the 375 text messages we
received last night. In fact, department regulations expressly permit that sort of private
communication.
I have reviewed those text messages, and I am left with two thoughts. First Peter Strzok did not
say anything about Donald Trump that the majority of Americans weren't also thinking at the
same time. And second, in a testament to his integrity and situational awareness, when the Office
of the Inspector General made Mr. Mueller aware of these exchanges, he immediately removed
Mr. Strzok from his team.
To the extent that we are now engaged in oversight of political bias at the FBI, this committee
should examine evidence of a coordinated effort by some agents involved in the Clinton
investigation to change the course of the campaign in favor of President Trump by leaking
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064019

sensitive information to the public and by threatening to leak additional information about new e-
mails after the investigation was closed.
On Monday, Ranking Member Cummings and I sent a letter to the department asking for
additional materials related to these leaks, as well as to the claims that these efforts may have
been coordinated with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn and other senior figures in the Trump campaign.
Third, the president's call for an investigation of the investigation is at best wildly dangerous to
our democratic institutions. On the one hand, the president -- the president's old "Lock her up"
cheer seems quaint after a couple of guilty pleas by Trump Associates. On the other, as former
Attorney General Michael Mukasey, no fan of Hillary Clinton, has said, the president's continued
threats to prosecute his political opponents is, quote, "something we don't do here." If the present
were to carry out his threat, quote, again from Attorney General Mukasey, "It would be like a
banana republic."
Finally, and most important, this investigation into the investigation cannot credibly be a priority
for this committee at this time. I understand the instinct want to give cover to the president. I am
fearful that the majority's effort to turn the tables on the special counsel will get louder and more
frantic as the walls continue to close in around the president. But this committee has a job to do.
President Trump has engaged in a persistent and dangerous effort to discredit both the free press
and the Department of Justice. These are the agencies and institutions under our jurisdiction.
Every minute that our majority wastes on covering for President Trump is a minute lost on
finding a solution for the Dreamers, or curving a vicious spike in hate crimes, or preventing
dangerous individuals from purchasing firearms, or stopping the president from further damaging
the constitutional order.
I hope my colleagues will use today's hearing as an opportunity to find their way back to the true
work of the House Judiciary Committee. I thank the chairman and I yield back the balance of my
time.
GOODLATTE:
We welcome our distinguished witness. If you would please rise, I'll begin by swearing you in.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Thank you. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Rod Rosenstein was sworn in as the 37th deputy attorney general of the United States on
April 26th, 2017, by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Mr. Rosenstein has had a distinguished
career in public service.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064020

He began his legal career in the public integrity section of the Department of Justice's criminal
division, and later served as counsel to the deputy attorney general and principal deputy assistant
attorney general for the tax division.
Until his appointment by President Trump, Mr. Rosenstein served for 12 years as the United
States attorney for the district of Maryland. He holds a Bachelor's degree in economics from the
Wharton School and a J.D. from the -- from Harvard Law School.
General Rosenstein, your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and we
ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes. Welcome. We're pleased to have you
here.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064021

NADLER:
Thank you.
According to the department, the Office of the Inspector General informed Special Counsel
Mueller of the existence of these text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page on July 27th,
2017 -- the texts you sent us last night.
Mr. Mueller immediately concluded the Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the
investigation, and he was removed from the team the same day. Did Mr. Mueller take
appropriate action in this case?
ROSENSTEIN:
Yes, he did.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.24877-000001 20180326-0064029

Flo res, Sarah Isgur (CPA)

To : Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG); Hur, Robert (ODAG}; Bolitho, Zachary (OOAG};
Subject: FW:
Attachments: Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson - Text Messages.pdf
See attached HorO\vrt:z letter_Also this tweet
Manu Raju
@mkraju
Grassley sends letter to Rosenstein asking for more infonnation about the FBl's Peter Strzok, calling on Justice
Department to detail when it learned about the anti-Trump messages_Feinstein did NOT sign the l.etter.
https://twitter com/mkraju/status/94 1320378424676352
'°""'
Sa.ah Isgw: Flo_ces
D icectru: o f Pobhc Affun
202305.5808
From: Jarrett, Laura [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject:
20180326-0064009

To: Cutrona, Da nielle (OAG}
Subject: Fwd:
Attachments: Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson - Text Messages.pdf;
ATT00001.htm
20180326-0064103
From: Lasseter, David F. {OlA}

To: Flynn-Brown, Josh (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: CEG {Judiciary-Rep); Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep); Lay, Delisa {Judiciary-Re p);
Davis, Patrick {Judiciary-Rep); Sawyer, Heat her (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: RE: 2017-12-13 CEG to DOJ (Strzok Page McCabe Insurance Policy)
Received Josh
From : Flynn-Brown, Josh (Judiciary-Rep} (b) (6) Senate Email

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <[email protected]>
Cc: CEG (Judiciary-Rep) <[email protected]>; Foster, Jason {Judiciary-Rep)
(b) (6) Senate Email ; lay, Delisa (Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6) Senate Email
; Davis, Patrick (Judiciary-Rep) (b) (6) Senate Email ; Sawyer, Heather
(Judiciary-Dem) (b) (6) Senate Email
Subje.ct: 2017-12-13 CEG to DOJ (Strzok Page Mccabe Insurance Policy)
David,
Please find attached a letter from Chairman Grassley. Please confirm receipt and send all formal follow-up
correspondence to the email addresses copied above. Thanks.
V er:y Respectfully,
Josh Flynn-Brown
Investigative Counsel
Chairman Charles E. Gras.sley
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
(b)(6)
20180326-0071727
Prior, Ian (OPA)
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 9 :11 AM
To: Geoffrey Guray
Subject: RE: PBS NewsHour inquiries
Attachments: Letter Requesting Senate Fetal Tissue Report Unredacted Records (12-7-17).pdf
(1) Me
(2) Attached
(3} Yes, sent t o SJC, HJC, HPSCI, SSI, and Se nate Gove rnmental Affairs Committee
Ian D. Prior
Principal De puty Director of Public Affairs
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours, access to media events, and standard ground rulesfor interviews, please click
here.
From: Geoffrey Guray [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: PBS NewsHour inquiries
Hi again, Ian --
1 havethree quick inquiries for OPAtoday -- one about OPA itself, and two about letters members of Congress
have sent to DOJ.
(1 ) Is there someone at OPA who specifically deals with inquiries about the Office of Legislative Affairs and/ or AAG
Stephen Boyd? (I'm just asking for the future, given the fact that both of my questions today happen to probably
involve that office.)
(2) Has DOJ or FBI responded in any way to this December 2016 letter from Senate Judiciary Chairman Grasstey --
a referral on matters related to "paid fetal tissue practices"?
(3) Has FBI or DOJ responded in any way to this letter last week also from Grassley, asking for copies of certain
texts or other communications involving Peter strzok?
Thanks, as always, for fielding this,

Geoffrey
Geoffrey Guray
PBS NewsHour Politics Reporter/ Producer
- cell/signal
703-998-2192 office
@glguray
20180326-0072237
Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)
From : Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)

To: Mangum, Anela M. (OLA)
Subject: FW: letter re: texts
Attachments: 0365_001.pdf
Please have Shirley log this in and also send her last night's letter to Goodlatte so she can close it in
IQ. Thanks.
From: Parmiter, Robert (b) (6) House Email

Sent : Tuesday, December 12, 201711:01 PM
To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6) ; Tyson, Jill C. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Husband, Shelley (b) ( 6) House Email i Ritchie, Branden
(b) (6) House Email ; Breitenbach, Ryan (b) ( 6) Hou;,e Email
Subject: letter re: texts
Stephen, Jill: attached is an e-copy of HJC's letter requesting the text messages. Please confirm
receipt. Thanks.
ROBERT 8. PARMITER • CHJEF COUNSEL

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND IN VESTIGATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY • U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHINGTON, D.C. • 202-225-5727
20180326-0072240

Subject: Fwd: Text Msg Docs production - clean 12.12.17
Attachments: Text Msg Docs production - clean 12.12.17.docX'; ATT00001.htm
Jill C. Tyson
202-514-3597
From: "Schools, Scott (ODAG)" <[email protected] .gov>

To: "Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Text Msg Docs production - clean 12.12.17
20180326-0072864

To: Escalona, Prim F. {OLA)
Subject: Fwd: Text Msg Docs production - clean 12.12.17
Attachments: Text Msg Docs production - dean 12.12.17.docx; ATT00O0l.htm
Jill C. Tyson
202-514-3597
From: "Schools, Scott {ODAG)" <[email protected]>

To: "Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Text Msg Docs production - clean 12.12.17
20180326-0072868

To: Tyson, Jill C. {OLA)
Cc: Mangum, Anela M. (OLA); Esca lona, Prim F. (OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA);
Subject: Re: Letters
(b ) (5)
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 12 , 2017, at 20:01, Tyson, Jill C. (OLA} <[email protected]> wrote:
HSGAC SJCto Horowitz Dec 6:

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/download/chairmen- johnson-and-grassley-letter-to-doj-ig-
regarding-mr-strzok
Grassley to Wray Dec 5 (?):

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/ media/ doc/201 7-1 2-0S%20CEG%20to%20FBl%20
(St rzok%20Communications}.pdf
(b ) (5)
Jill C. Tyson
Office of Legis lative Affairs
202-514-3597
On Dec 12, 2017, at 7:48 PM, Tyson, Jill C. (01..A} <[email protected] j.gov> wrote:
(b) ( 5)
20180326-0072879
Jill C. Tyson
202-514-3597
ocument ID: 0.7.16060.5232


To: Patel, Kash
Cc: Lasseter, David F. {OLA); Glabe, Scott
Subject: Re: Letter from Chairman
Roger that, thanks . SB
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2017, at 6:06 PM, Patel, Kash (b) ( 6) House Email wrote:
Yes, I informed Dorothy, Scott Glabe will be in the office for receipt. I also provided an
email sync up between Dorothy and Scott. If there are any issues, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thanks very much.
Kashyap P. Patel
Desk:Wil(i
Ceh:Wil(g
On Dec 12, 2017, at 17:54, Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA} (b) (6) wrote:
Tha nk you.
Can you or a representative be available at 8:15 PM to received the first set of

text messages?
SB
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2017, at 5:52 PM, Pa tel, Kash (b) (6) House Email wrote:
Gents,
Please see the attached letter, per the request of DOJ so that you may
provide the agreed upon production. Thanks very much.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P . Patel
House Pennanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Desk (b) ( 6)
Cell: (b) ( 6)
NST~: @j@■
<CHM ltrto DAG re Strzok & Page Communications - 12 Dec

17.pdf>
20180326-0073087
tinitnl ~tatrs ~rnatr
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
December 6, 2017
The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz

Inspector General
Dear Inspector General Horowitz:
We understand that the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (DOJ OIG)
continues its review of the actions of DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in
advance of the 2016 presidential election. 1 As part of this review, your office discovered that a
senior FBI agent allegedly exchanged electronic text messages "that expressed anti-Trump
political views" with an FBI colleague.2 We write to seek more information about the OIG' s
discovery of these e lectronic text messages and the actions you took in response.
According to reports, FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were involved in the
exchange of text messages that exhibited political bias.3 Mr. Strzok was involved in the FBl's
investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's handl ing of classified information
through her use of a private email server. Mr. Strzok personally participated in the FBl's
interviews of Secretary Clinton, Huma Abed in, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, and Jake
Sullivan.4 Mr. Strzok most recently worked for Special Counsel Robert Mueller. 5 Mr. Mueller's
office announced that it removed Mr. Strzok from the investigation after learning of the
allegations.6
To understand OIG's discovery of these text exchanges, we respectfully request the

fo llowing information:
I. When and how did 0 10 become aware of the text messages between Peter Strzok and
Li sa Page?
1The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General released the following statement in response to inquiries
today, (20 17), https://oig. justice.gov/press/2017/20 17- 12-02.pdf (last visited Dec 5, 2017).
2
Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman, Mueller Removed Top Agent in Russia lnquily Over
Possible Anli-Trump Texts, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 2, 20 17, https://www.nyLimes.com/2017/ 12/02/us/politics/mueller-
re moved-top-fbi-agen 1-over-possib le-a nl i-tru mp-texts. htmI.
3
Karoun De111i1jian and Devlin Barret, Top FBI official assigned to Mueller's Russia probe said to have been
removed after sending anti-Trump texts, WASH. POST, Dec. 2, 20 17,
https://www. wash in gton post.com/world/nationa I-security/two-sen ior-fb i-officia ls-on-cl inton-trump-probes-
excha nged-po litica ll y-c hargecl-texts-d isparagi ng-trump/2017/ 12/02/9846421 c-d707-1 Ie7-a986-
d0a9770d9a3e story.html?utm term=.93899dad030d
4
Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 302s of Clinton Investigation (20 15-.16) (on file with Comm.).
5 Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman, Mueller Removed Top Agent in Russia lnquily Over
Possible Anti-Trump Texts, N. Y. TIMES, Dec. 2, 2017 https://www.nytimes.com/20 I 7/ 12/02/us/politics/mueller-

removed-top-fbi-agent-over-poss ib le-anti-trump-texts.htm1.
6
Id.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.25475 20180326-0080158

The Honorable Michael E. Horowitz
December 6, 20 I 7
Page2
2. When and how did 0 10 notify the Special Counsel Robert Mueller of the text messages?
3. Did 0 10 refer these allegations to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel to pursue a
potential Hatch Act inquiry? If not, why not?
4. In connection with tJ1e OIG's review of the actions of DOJ and the FBI in advance of the
2016 presidential election, has the 010 received any similar allegations involving other
government officials?
Please respond as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on December, 13, 2017, so that the
Committees may begin to receive responsive information.
The Comm ittee on Homeland Secmity and Governmental Affairs is authorized by Rule
effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the Government."7 Additionally, S. Res. 62
( I 15th Congress) authorizes the Committee to examine "the efficiency and economy of all
management of Federal regulatory policies and programs."8
If you have any questions about this request, please ask your staff to contact Brian
Downey of Chairman Johnson's staff at (202) 224-475 1 or Josh Flynn-Brown of Chairman
Grassley's staff at (202) 224-5225. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Commit e Homeland Security and Committee on the Judiciary
ntal Affairs
cc: The Honorable C laire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Ranking Member
7
S. Rule XXV(k); see also S. Res. 445, 108th Cong. (2004).
8
S. Res. 62 § 12, I 15th Cong. (2017).
Document ID: 0.7.16060.25475 20180326-0080159

From : Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)

Cc: Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)
Subject: FW: draft letter
Attachments: Text Msg Docs production - clean 12.12.17.docx
(b) (5) SB
From : Tyson, Jill C. (OLA}

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6)
Subject: draft letter
20180326-0080162

To: Tyson, Jill C. {OLA)
Subject: Text Messages Letter
Attachments: Text Messgaes Letter.docx
(b ) (5)
20180326-0086776
From : Lasseter, David F. {OlA}

To: Patel, Kash
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Nelson, Damon; Glabe, Scott; Stewart, Mark
Thanks Kash. What time do you plan to arrive?
Joanne - please be prepared for this arrival and provide any clearance coordination.
David
From: Patel, Kash (b) ( 6) House Email

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <d [email protected]>
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) ; Nelson, Damon (b) ( 6) House Email
Glabe, Scott ; Stewart, Mark (b) (6) House Email
David,
Scott and myself will be over some time tomorrow afternoon. Since are clearances have been previously
sent over to DOJ, let us know if we need to repeat. Thanks very much .
Regards,
kash
From: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) [mailto:[email protected]]

To: Patel, Kash (b) ( 6) House Email
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} ; Nelson, Damon
(b) (6) House Email ; Glabe, Scott (b) (6) House Email ; Stewart, Mark
(b) (6) Home Email
..... Subiect: Re: remainine- text messae-es
20180326-0072140
Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA)
From: Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA)

Sent: Wednesday, December 1 3, 2017 8:17 AM
I should add that Rich from Grassley's office called Jill last night around 9:30 when w e had just ret urned from
delivering the other packets.
From: Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA)

To: David Lasseter ([email protected]) <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: DOJ document revie w
(b) (5)

Sent: Tuesday, December U, 2017 9:39 PM
To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6)
Subjeci:: Re: DOJ document review
(b) (5)
On Dec U , 2017, at 9:35 PM, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6) wrote:
(b) (5)
Sent from my iPhone
From: "Lasseter, David F. {OLA)" <[email protected]>

Date: December U , 2017 at 9:24:36 PM EST
To: "Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA)" (b) ( 6)
Subject: Fwd: DOJ document review
(b) (5)
David F. Lasseter
From: "Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep}" (b) ( 6) Senate Email

To: "Lasseter, David F. (OLA}" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Davis, Patrick (Judiciary-Rep}" (b) ( 6) Senate Email
, "Stephen E. Boyd (OLA)"
20180326-0072246
(b) (6) , "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>, "Parker, Daniel {Judiciary-
Rep}" (b) ( 6) Senate Email
20180326-0072247
Press
From : Press
To: Prior, Ian {OPA)
Cc: Pettit, Mark T. (OPA)
Subject: FW: Media inquiry about FBI text messages against candidate Trump
Thank you-KJ
From : Kevin Mooney (b) (6)

Subject: Media inquiry about FBI text messages against candidate Trump
Dear Sir or Madam,
I'm a reporter with The Daily Signal doing a report about the ramifications attached.to revelations that FBI
agents sent text messages expressing hostility toward then candidate Trump during the 2016 election
See below for one ofthe reports.
Two questions
1) Is the DOJ concerned that the FBI's investigation into allegations the Trump campaign colluded wrth Russia
undermined and compromised as result of agents operating with a political bias?
2) Does the FBI andlor DOJ have any kind ofpolicy governing the use oftext messages and other types of
mobile messaging used as part of official business?
Thanks so much
Will a1s o call.
Kevin Mooney,
The Daily Signal
Report on FBI text messages taking rum against Candidate Trump
Kevin J. Mooney
Homepage
Daily CaJler
Daily Signal
National Review
20180326-0072191
Washington Free Beacon
Vlashington Examiner
The information contained in this electronic transmission is intendedfor the exclusive use ofthe
individuals to whom it is addressed and may contain information that is pn·vileged and confidential, the
disclosure ofwhich is prohibited by lm-v. If the reader ofthis transmission is not the intended recipient,
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying ofthis communication is strictly
prohibited. In addition, any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution ofthe material in this e-
mail and any attachments is strictly forbidden.
20180326-0072192
Schools, Scott (ODAG}
From : Schools, Scott (ODAG)

To: Stephen Grafman
Subject: RE: Pete Strzok
They have been delivered to the Hill.
From: Stephen Grafman (mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: Re: Pete Strzok
Yes
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 12, 2017. at 8:29 PM. Schools, Scott {ODAG) <[email protected]>wrote:
Steve:
I am prepared to send you the production, but the IG has requested that you agree not to
disclose it prior to its release to the HUI, which should occur within the next half hour or so. Are
you okay with that?
Scott Schools
Document ID: 0.7.1 6060.9759 20180326-0072470

SlawS-on, Guice Chip (OLA)
From : Slawson, Guice Chip (OLA)

To: Hankey, Mary Blanche {O LA)
Subject : Re: Text review
Sure thing. Sorry to be gone- right in the midst of it.
Also, I'm assuming the answer is "no" since Stephen didn't name them, but are Prim and Jill in the loop
on this one (in case they wonder why I' m off the grid for a while?)
Thanks
cs
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 27, 2017, at 3:06 PM, Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Chip-We think it would be best for Dorothy to stand down on this project. Will you please jump
right in on Tuesday when you return?
>
> From: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 2:55 PM
> To: Hildabrand, Dorothy W. {OLA) <[email protected]>; Slawson, Guice Chip {OlA)
<[email protected]>
> Cc: Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA) <[email protected]>; Lasseter, David F. (OLA)
<[email protected]>
> Subject: FW: Text review
>
> Dorothy and Chip:
>
> Please se-e below and attached, as we discussed the week prior to Christmas. (b) (5)
I know Chip is out for a few days, but

Dorothy can go ahead and get started.
>
> Thanks for your help & please let me or the others know if you have any questions.
>
> SB
>
,,. nu111 ; .:,1..riuu1:,, .:>\.Ull lVLIJ-\U/
> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2017 11:06 PM

> To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) (6)
> Subject: Text review
>
> Stephen:
>
> The 2015-2016 texts are in the attached spreadsheet broken out into three 6 month time frames for
your folks to take initial cut and mark fo r content per the attached memo. I am happy to sit down with
them as they get started or otherwise assist.
>
> Scott
> <Copy of Strzok_Page_SMS_formatted_dedup by content for review.xlsx> > <Memo on review.docx>
Hur, Robert (ODAG)
From : Hur, Robert {ODAG)

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA}; Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA)
Cc: Te rwilliger, Zachary (ODAG); Schools, Scott (ODAG)
Subject: RE: House intelligence committee letter
Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Memorialization of Call and Subpoena Compliance - 4 Ja.... pdf
Yep.

Se nt; Thursday, January 4, 2018 5:54 PM
To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG} <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott (ODAG)
<[email protected]>; Hur, Robert (ODAG) <[email protected]>
Subje ct: FW: House intelligence committee letter
Do we have this?
Sac.ah Isgur Flote3

D irector of Pub.Ee A.ffain
202305.5808
From: Herridge, Catherine [mailto:[email protected]]

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected]>; Prior, Ian {OPA) <[email protected];.gov:'S!'llltflltit
- (DO){FBI) Per FBI (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Cc: Gibson, Jake <[email protected]>
Subject: House intelligence committee letter
Good evening -
We understand the house intelligence committee chairman Devin Nunes has sent a letter to DAG Rosenstein
later today, memorializing the agreement, to provide access to all outstanding records by Friday this week,
and outstanding witnesses later this month.
If there is additional comment or context to provide from the Justice Department or FWI, we will add it to
our reporting.
Many thanks,
Catherine
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely
for the named addressee_ If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of
the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather,
you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by r eply e-mail.
Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business ofFox News. or Fox
Business must not be taken to have been sent or endorsed by either of them. No representation is made that
this email or its attachments are without defect_
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HVC 3 0 4 , T H E CAPITOL
WASHINGTON, D C 2 0 5 1 5
PERMANENT S E L E C T COMMITTEE (202) 225 4121
ON I N T E L L I G E N C E
January 4, 2018

U . S . Department of Justice
1201 Pennsylvania Ave, N W
Pursuant to our phone call yesterday evening, I write to memorialize the agreement we reached
regarding compliance with the subpoenas issued by the House P ermanent Select Committee on
Intelligence (the Committee) on August 24, 2017, to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
Federal Bureau of Investigation ( F B I ) , as well as several other outstanding requests by the
Committee for information and interviews. It is my hope that this agreement will p rovide the
Committee with all outstanding documents and witnesses necessary to complete its
investigations into matters involving D O J and F B I .
As agreed, designated Committee investigators and staff will be provided access to all remaining
investigative documents, in unredacted form, for review at D O J on Friday, January 5, 2018. The
documents to be reviewed will include all F B I Form F D - I 023s and all remaining F B I Form F D -
302s responsive to the Committee's August 24, 2017 subpoenas. The only agreed-upon
exception pertains to a single FD-302, which, due to national security interests, will be shown
separately by Director Wray to myself and my senior investigators during the week of January 8,
2018.
You further confirmed that there are no other extant investigative documents that relate to the
Committee's investigations into (a) Russian involvement in the 2016 Presidential election or (b)
D O J / F B I ' s related actions during this time period. This includes FD-302s, FD-1023s, and any
other investigatory documents germane to the Committee's investigations, regardless of form
and/or title. I f, somehow, "new" or "other" responsive documents are discovered, as discussed,
you will notify me immediately and allow my senior investigators to review them shortly
thereafter.
With respect to the witness interviews requested by the Committee, you have agreed that all such
witnesses namely, former D O J Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr; F B I
Supervisory Special Agent Peter Strzok; former F B I General Counsel James Baker; F B I
Attorney Lisa Page; F B I Attorney Sally Moyer; F B I Assistant D irector Greg B rower; F B I
Assistant Director B i l l Priestap; and F B I Special Agent James Rybicki - will be made available
for interviews to be conducted in January.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.9812-000001

Lastly, as to the remaining approximately 9,500 text messages between FBI Supervisory Special
Agent Peter Strzok and his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page, it is my understanding based on
your representations that another search is being conducted and all relevant messages will be
provided. Accordingly, the Committee requests production of these messages by no later than
close of business, Thursday, January 11, 2018. Similarly, I understand that your office is
researching records related to the details of an April 2017 meeting between DOJ Attorney
Andrew Weissman (now the senior attorney for Special Counsel Robert Mueller) and the media,
which will also be provided to this Committee by close of business on Thursday, January 11,
2018.
It was further agreed that all documents made available to the Committee will also be available
for review by the minority Ranking Member and designated staff.
The materials we are requesting are vital to the Committee's investigation of potential abuses
into intelligence and law enforcement agencies' handling of the Christopher Steele dossier. The
Committee is extremely concerned by indications that top U.S. Government officials who were
investigating a presidential campaign relied on unverified information that was funded by the
opposing political campaign and was based on Russian sources. Going forward, it's crucial that
we memorialize our conversations on this issue, and that we're as transparent as possible with
the American people, who deserve answers to the questions the Committee is investigating.
The subpoenas issued August 24, 2017, remain in effect.
Copies to:
The Honorable Jeff Sessions, Attorney General
The Honorable Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Document ID: 0.7.16060.9812-000001

From: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)

To: Hur, Robert (ODAG); Schools, Scott (ODAG); Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI)
Subject: Fwd: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Memorialization of Call and Subpoena Compliance - 4 Jan
18.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Sent from my iPhone
From: "Ciarlante, Nick" (b) (6) - House Email Address

Date: January 4, 2018 at 4:58:48 PM EST
To: "Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)" (b) (6) , "Lasseter, David F. {OLA)"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Ciarlante, Nick" (b) (6) - House Email Adch-ess "Glabe, Scott"
(b) (6) - House Email Address , "Stewart, Mark" (b) (6) - House Email Adch-ess , "Patel,
Kash" (b) (6) - House Email Address
Subject: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Good evening,
Attached please find a letter from Chairman Nunes for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
Best,
Nick
Chief Clerk
0: (b) ( 6)
C: (b) ( 6)
Our .M'.ission: To serve the .-\merican people by providing oversight, direction and resources to enable
effe<:tive, efficient and constitutional intelligence acti,;1ies.
From : Lasseter, David F. (OLA)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)
Subject: Re: Text message Review
Ah. I dropped by your office.
(b) (5)
David F. Lasseter
On Jan 3, 2018, at 19:51, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} (b)(6) w rote:
(b) (5)
FYI - I'm in ODAG.
SB
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:38 PM, Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA) <[email protected]>

wrote:
(b) (5)

Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 2:52 PM
To: Hankey, Mary Blanche ~OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Subject: Text message Review
MBH:
(b) ( 5)
■----■I- -
[-··-·-·
..
Thanks,
SB
Laz.eta, O..id r. [OIAI
fn>m: t=...tt·, O.v,oi f. ◄ Ol.Aj

Sent: Wedre,.,;,y, J• tL~O~ 2011iS:53PM
To: Sd,ods_ xou: (0 MG)
(k; ~~• f'"el\ : .jOLAf
Subject: FW: Qt:.e :tia u .re-.; .-rcfin; ~UJltdxur~ra p~~
Attamml'nts: 2017-12-0;i<lt. toOOJ Reonst€n.pdf
(b ) (5)
kom Zlo-."f'Jey,. E.ri!.., (1"$G..t.C (b) (6)

Sect \\'edoe54.--,,l.on.: rr 3, 1.¢139:l-3.AA'
To: Hsor.son, JD-: M -e: t.. (0:.AJ qoj«.es~~O....BOO~D; -22:'l,e,r, . C ei.r.e m E...{O'. Ji l <leJ',e~;ne..wz ai--£0't'>
C<:-rjfflffffl!tA;ttll®f,; ~:.ete:,. ~ ·"<!l.(Ot.Al <dl~ te:!';-:-1 o.uldoj.;J,>
s 2'tjec: ~ E: Q;.lelt,gr,u ~ ~"'d i-.; .re e!e!)t 0:1c.,rr-.er,t ~roaJaiOft
Fnurt Ct:111.t.,e:t, ~ ~C
Sent! .n-.na:~. ~ :.+,, mu 10:.zo .&..'1
TO-! l:lll'~~ ~ T .&e:~ 1:ot..AJ : ~ Ke.rieo E.(CI..IJ
cc<lffliif1t!fiW:ti!/f:P.!f.f'f lU ~ C~ woF. (~ 1 (Q:'" • : " \27:':~ soim1
S :~Jett! ~QCCiS :-~ :-eter.o.oc.rnev:.=ircc-~
Ittmona:nce! -fl"'
H lo,
Ch.inr.>nlo"""'1, se 1ut-,, .tt.::,h,od ~ qi.:= to Cl<l.G Re~ r,:;t<ii l\ re is .s1i seui~ "<>P= oq,.estio<u orc tlrr~h li..,. jfettl'» tt.tM-61. f,.rtl,e , , we lt.;-e • ~::,n,..~ •·a ri; tl,e
re ti.ct ens to 1n:e. '375 ~ t rr-ess.~ ~ the Dep,- ~ ~ .,. p:~ ~<tfto U'e Cotrri~e.. 7 he co't.rr n Esta\; ttr phorr: nt...--rrbe rs «:n.1'1t:ctrl to tJ-e ~ rr-e ~oes h-s. rr-: ry -ed:;,t:tioM.. ~ th,e:,~ o1he.·
i rdi,,;111.;; :Sph>n< m,r.b,n ~of,f,,,Jttext,,,ena,;u? ,ho, wt.. aa.-e'tl'l<R ;n.iivicl,n• :D"l':.0 l><"<>w:
1rmaj!lo4°:,t"76}1187
•,n►;~~, ~'
· ~l',,io.-:•1;,,.l
·"P, I
}'ta:;!14
..} fti.:tJ11 11
1
~ 1UIII
- rm-,fytllinllb,o"' .,.,,-,.,1im, l'<l!r.'loMle:lt

. •rt,. - -- - - -- - -1~-
l{'ri1Qdllt'1' :14m4eB
22"10,•1.,,~\f',4),<,'
11.is-.,Jome 'm'-ei"," Ju
t~•-i"""..11
5i,,.'.'to:.t".fl,"o,zo
niUli<Wll,~Jl..' :iu11b:o"
:r,0
-,..,,....
S.r.>nM. Dowc:y
Se ri.a 1.fWe.S:t!,;.-mir
Chai"'=n Ren /i. J:>MS<l!l jW t
U.S. So=te Car-n:tte e o n ho~niS.cu-,ty >rdG,werm--e_ncaJ Affoia
W • s.!in,,~OC
◄ P1@IW
Hur, Robert (ODAG)
From: Hur, Robert {ODAG)

To: Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG)
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Schools, Scott (ODAG)
Subject: Draft letter to Nunes
Attachments: DAG Letter - Draft- Boyd Preferences_ v3 (RKH EDITS).docx
Importance: High
DAG,
(b) (5) I
I
Thanks,
Rob
Boyd, Steph en E. (OLA)

To: Hur, Robert {ODAG)
Subject: RE: Call w/ DAG and FBl/0
Attachments: DOJ PRODUCTION LINE BY LINE V2.docx
Fro m: Hur, Robert (ODAG)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) ( 6)
Cc: Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG} <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Call w/ DAG and FBl/0
Happening now.
SB - could you please send along the separate category-by-cat egory document too?
Thanks,
Rob
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 3, 2018, at 2:41 PM, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) wrote:
(b) (6) - Per OIG

SB

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 201 8 2:39 PM
To: Brower, Gregory {DO) (FBI)
Subject: Draft
Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG)
From : Rosenstein, Rod (OOAG)

Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 8:18 AM
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)
Subject: Re: Draft letter
(b) (5)
On Jan 3, 2018, at 7:17 AM, Schools, Scott (ODAG) <[email protected]> wrote :
(b) (5)
ss
From: Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} (b) (6) ; Schools, Scott (ODAG)
<[email protected]>
Subject: Draft letter
(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.14388-000001

Document ID: 0.7.16060.14388-000001
Document ID: 0.7.16060.14388-000001

Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINAL.pdf; ATT00001.htm
No finger prints par favor

HVC-304, THECAPITOL
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WASHINGTON, DC 2051 5
(202) 225 41 21
PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE
ON INTELLIGENCE
December 28, 2017
Deputy Attorey General
U.S. Department ofJustice
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (the Committee) writes in
response to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBD
filure to flly produce responsive documents and provide the requested witnesses in compliance
with the subpoenas issued overfur months ago, on August 24, 2017.
Several weeks ago, DOJ infrmed the Committee that the basic investigatory documents
demanded by the subpoenas, FBI Form FD-302 interview summaries, did not exist. However,
shortly befre my meeting with you in early December, DOJ subsequently located and produced
numerous FD-302s pertaining to the Steele dossier, thereby rendering the initial response
disingenuous at best. As it ts out, not only did documents exist that were directly responsive
to the Committee's subpoenas, but they involved senior DOJ and FBI officials who were swifly
reassigned when their roles in matters under the Committee's investigation were brought to
light. Given the content and impact of these supposedly newly-discovered FD-302s, the
Committee is no ,· longer able to accept your purported basis fr DOJ's blaet refsal to provide
responsive FBI Form FD-1023s-ocumenting meetings between FBI officials and FBI
confidential human sources-r anything less than fll ad complete compliance with its
subpoenas.
As a result ofthe numerous delays and discrepancies that have hampered the process of
subpoena compliance, the Committee no longer credits the representations made by DOJ and/or
the FBI regarding these matters. Accordingly, DOJ and the FBI are instructed to promptly
produce to the Committee no later than January 3, 2018 ALL outstanding records identified
as responsive to the August 24 subpoenas, including but not limited to:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92840-000001

• All responsive FD-1023s, including all reports that summarize meetings between
FBI confidential human sources and FBI officials pertaining to the Steele dossier;
• All responsive FD-302s not previously provided to the Committee; and
• In addition to the FD-302s and FD-1023s, certain responsive analytical and
reference documents that were specifically identified and requested by the
Committee, and supposedly subject to imminent production, as of December 15.
Should DOJ decide to withhold any responsive records, or portions thereof, from the
Committee, it must, consistent with the subpoena instructions, provide a written response, under
your signature, detailing the legal j ustification for failing to comply with valid congressional
subpoenas.
Additionally, by the same deadline, please provide- in writing- available dates in

January 2018 for interviews with the following officials:

• FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Peter Strzok;
• FBI Attorney James Baker;
• FBI Attorney Lisa Page;
The Committee further reminds you of these other outstanding requests for information:
• Details concerning an apparent April 2017 meeting with the media involving
DOJ/FBI personnel, including DOJ Attorney Andrew Weissman (due December
13) and
• The remaining text messages between SSA Strzok and Ms. Page (due December
15).
Unfortunately, DOJ/FBI's intransigence with respect to the August 24 subpoenas is part

of a broader pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated. As I said in a public statement
several weeks ago, when the reason for SSA Strzok's removal from the Special Counsel
investigation was leaked to the Washington Post before that reason was provided to this
Committee, at this point it seems the DOJ and FBI need to be investigating themselves.
I look forward to your timely written response.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92840-000001


To: Tanfani, Joseph
Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINAL.pdf; ATT00001.htm
Colborn, Paul P (OLC)
From : Colborn, Paul P (OLC}

Subject: FW: Draft letter
Att achments: Dear Chairman Nunes ale (clean).docx; Dear Chairman Nunes ale (redline) .docx
fyi
From : Engel, Steven A. (OLC}

Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 201811:35 AM
To: Rosenstein, Rod {ODAG) (b)(6)
Subject: RE: Draft letter
Document ID: 0.7.16060.9793

Engel, Steven A. (OLC)
From: Engel, Steven A. (OLC)

Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 11:3S AM
To: Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG)
Attachments: Dear Chairman Nunes olc (clean).docx; Dear Chairman Nunes olc (redline) .docx
Rod:
(b) (5)
•
Best,
Steve
To: Engel, Steven A. {OLC) (b) (6)
Steve-
(b) (5)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) ( 6) ; Schools, Scott (ODAG) <[email protected]>
Brower, Gregory {DO) (FBI)
From: Brower, Gregory (DO) {FBI}

Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 1 0:41 AM
To: Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG) (JMD)
(b) (5)
Gregory A. Brower
Assistant Director
FBI Conaressional Affairs
(Direct) er FBI (b)(6) (b) (7)(C)
(Mobile Per FBI (b)(6) (b) (7)(C)
From: Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG) (b) (6)

Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 201810:34AM
To: Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI) <[email protected]>
Thanks.
(b) (5)
From : Brow er, Gregory (DO} (FBI) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent : Wednesday, January 3, 2018 9:56 AM
To: Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG} (b) (6)
A few comments:
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Please let me know if you would like to discuss.
Thank you.
GB
Gregory A. Brower
Assistant Director
FBI Conaressional Affairs
(Direct) Per FBI (b)(6) (b) (7)(C)
(Mobile e, FBI (b)(6) (b) (7)(C)
From : Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG) (b) (6)

To: Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI) <[email protected]>
Greg-
(b) (5) Please call my cell

anytime with comments.Dlmllllllll
From: Rosenstein, Rod {ODAG)

Sent : Wednesday, January 3, 2018 3:24 AM
To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) (6) ; Schools, Scott {ODAG) <[email protected]>
From : School s, Scott (ODAG)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA)
Attachments: 2018-01-03 DAG to Nunes.sns.docx
(b) ( 5) (b) (5). (b) (6)
From : Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6) ; Schools, Scott (ODAG) <sschools@j md.usdoj .gov>
From : Rosenstein, Rod (OOAG)

To: Raman, Sujit {ODAG)
Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINAL.pdf; Underletter.pdf;
FederallnvestigationofSchedulingError.pdf
(b) (5)
From: Rosenst e in, Rod ( ODAG)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6) ; Schools, Scott ( ODAG) <sschools@j md.usdoj .gov>
From : Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG}

To: Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG); Bolitho, Zachary (ODAG}
Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINAL.pdf; linderletter.pdf;
FederallnvestigationofSchedulingError.pdf
(b) (5)
From: Rosenstein, Rod ( ODAG)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6) ; Schools, Scott (ODAG) <[email protected]>

Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 201 8 7:47 PM
To: Schneider, Jessica
Subject: RE: Question re tomorrow deadline from Nunes
Let's touch base tomorrow night when the deadline actually is_
Sai:ah Isgoc Flom

Dice-ctoi: of Pubhc Affam
202.3055$08
From : Schneider, Jessi ca [mailto:[email protected]]

To: Flores, Sarah Lsgur (OPA) <siflores@j md.usdoj.gov>
Subject: Questi on re tomorrow deadline from Nunes
Hi Sarah -
I hope you had some time off and got to rel ax a bit over the holidays!
I wanted to check in about the deadline set for tomorrow by House Intel Committee Chairman Devin Nunes. -
he' s asking for the OOJ to tum over documents related to the Steele dossier.
Will the DOJ be handing over these documents tomorrow? Any other information you can give?
Also - I w anted to loop back in on the Dec 27 deadline set by Chuck Grassley for DAG Rosenstein to hand over
materials related to the Strzok texts and other issues. last I checked with you, you said that DOJ was working
with the Committee. Has any material been handed over yet? Any info you can give me on this is
appreciated too.
Thanks so much!
Jessica Schneider
CNN Justice Correspondent
(m)-
[email protected]
@SchneiderCNN
Prior, Ian (OPA)
From : Prior, Ian {OPA)

To: Schneider, Jessica
Subject: Re: Question re tomorrow deadline from Nunes
You should reach out to Sarah. I'm in the process of flying back right now
tan D. Prior
Office: 202.616.0911
Cell: (b) (6)
For information on office hours; access to media events; and standard ground rules for jntervjews;
pf ease click here.
On Jan 2, 2018, at 4:41 PM, Schneider, Jessica <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Ian-
Hope the rest of y-our time off was QUIET! Happy 2018.
I wanted to check in about the deadline set for tomorrow on the request from House Intel
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes - he's asking for the DOJ to turn over documents related to
the Steele dossier.
Will the DOJ be handing over these documents tomorrow? Any other information you can give?
Also -I wanted to loop back in on the Dec 27 deadline set by Chuck Grassley for Rosenstein to
hand over materials related to the Strzok texts and other issues. Last I checked with Sarah, she
said that DOJ was working with the Committee. Has any material been handed over yet? Any
info you can give me on this is appreciated too.
Thanks so much Ian.
Jessica Schneider
(m)-
[email protected]
@SchneiderCNN
From : Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA}

Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 2 :59 PM
Cc: Lasseter, David F. (OLA)
Subject: RE: Text m essage Review
Roger. (b) (5)
From : Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA}

To: Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA) <[email protected] .gov>
Cc: Lasseter, David F. {OLA) <dlasseter@j md.usdoj.gov>
Subject: Text message Review
MBH:
(b) (5)
Thanks,
SB
From : Rosenstein, Rod {OOAG}

Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2018 11:5 1 AM
To: Schools, Scott {ODAG); Lasseter, David F. {OLA)
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Hur, Robert {OOAG)
Subject: RE: PN:
Attachments: Underletter.pdf; FederallnvestigationofSchedulingError.pdf
Thank you. (b) (5)
-
From: Schools, Scott (ODAG}
Sent: Tuesday, January .2, 201810:50 AM
To: Rosenstein, Rod (ODAG} (b) (6) ~ Lasseter, David F. {OLA)
<dlasseter@j md.usdoj .gov>
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} (b) (6) ; Hur, Robert (ODAG} <rhur@j md.usdoj.gov>
Subject: RE: FW:
(b) (5)
Scott

Sent: Tuesday, January 2, 2018 10:52 AM
To: Colborn, Paul P (OLC)
Subject: Help wanted
Attachments: 2017-12-28 CHM ltrto DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINAL.pdf;
Nunes letter.v2.docx
Paul:
We received the attached letter from Nunes on Thursday. (b) (5)

Thanks.
Scott
From: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA)

Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 3:45 PM
To: Rosenstein, Rod {OOAG}; Schools, Scott (OOAG); Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA); Hur,
Robert (ODAG); Lasseter, David F. {OLA)
Subject:. Fwd: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Attachments: CHM ltr to DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINALpdf; ATT00001.htm
Original incoming email below (w/ attachment}.
Sent from my iPhone
From: "Ciarlante, Nick" (b) ( 6) House Email

To: "Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)" (b) (6) , "Lasseter, David F. {OLA)"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Ciarlante, Nick" (b) (6) House Email , "Stewart, Mark"
(b) (6) House Email , "Glabe, Scott" (b) (6) House Email
Subject: Letter for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein
Good afternoon,
Attached please find a letter from Chairman Kunes for Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
Best,
Nick
Chief Clerk
0: (b) ( 6)
C: (b) (6)
Ow- ~fusion: To serve the American people by providing oYersigbt direction and resources to enable
effectiv e, efficient and constitutionalintelligence activities.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.9789

Gibson, Jake
From : Gibson, Jake

To: Sarah Isgur Flores {OPA}
Subject: Fwd: **URGENP.- Exclusive - HPSCI Chairman Nunes Letter to DOJ and FBI re
Subpoena Compliance
Attachments: CHM ltr to OAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINALpdf; ATT00001 .htm
Subject: **URGENT** Exclusive - HPSCI Chairman Nune_s Letter to OOJ and FBI re
Subpoena Compliance
House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes has sent a letter to the DOJ addressing
their response and requesting more documents in relation to the Russia ' dossier'. Nunes
says that due to "numerous delays and discrepancies that have hampered the process of
subpoena compliance" the committee can no longer credit representations made by the
agency. Nunes said that the OOJ and FBI have until January 3 to produce "All outstanding
records identified as responsive to the August 24 subpoenas". The chairman closed his
letter by saying "at this point it seems the OOJ and FBI need to be investigating
themselves."
###l###lt##
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE December 28, 2017 HVC-304, THE
CAPITOL WASHINGTON, DC 20515 (202) 225-4121

1 201 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington, O.C. 20004
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (the Committee) writes in

response to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
(FBO failure to fully produce responsive documents and provide the requested witnesses in
compliance with the subpoenas issued over four months ago, on August 24, 2017.
Several weeks ago, DOJ informed the Committee that the basic investigatory documents
demanded by the subpoenas, FBI Form FD-302 interview summaries, did not exist.
However, shortly before my meeting with you in early December, DOJ subsequently
located and produced numerous FD-302s pertaining to the Steele dossier, thereby
rendering the initial response disingenuous at best. As it turns out, not only did docum ents
exist that were directly responsive to the Committee's subpoenas, but they involved senior
DOJ and FBI officials who were swiftly reassigned when their roles in matters under the
Committee's investigation were brought to light. Given the content and impact of these
supposedly newly-discovered FD-302s, the Committee is no longer able to accept your
purported basis for DOJ's blanket refusal to provide responsive FBI Form FD-1023s-
documenting meetings between FBI officials and FBI confidential human sources-or
anything less than full and complete compliance with its subpoenas.
As a result of the numerous delays and discrepancies that have hampered the process of
subpoena compliance, the Committee no longer credits the representations made by DOJ
and/or the FBI regarding these matters. Accordingly, DOJ and the FBI are instructed to
promptly produce to the Committee-no later than January 3, 2018-ALL outstanding records
identified as responsive to the August 24 subpoenas, including but not limited to:
• All responsive FD-1023s, including all reports that summarize meetings between FBI
confidential human sources a nd FBI officials pertaining to the Steele dossier;
• All responsive FD~302s not previously provided to the Committee; and
• In addition to the FD-3025 and FD-1023s, certain responsive analytical and reference
documents that were specifically identified and requested by the Committee, and
supposedly subject to imminent production, as of December 15.
Should DOJ decide to withhold any responsive records, or portions thereof, from the
Committee, it must, consistent with the subpoena instructions, provide a written response,
under your signature, detailing the lega l justification for failing to comply with valid
congressional subpoenas.
Additionally, by the same deadline, please provide-in writing-available dates in January

2018 for interviews with the following officials:
• FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) Peter Strzok;
• FBI Attorney James Baker; • FBI Attorney Lisa Page;
The Committee further reminds you of these other outstanding requests for information:
• Details concerning an apparent April 2017 meeting with tl,e media involving OOJ/ FBI
personnel, including DOl Attorney Andrew Weissman (due December 13) and
• Tl,e remaining text messages between SSA Strzok and Ms. Page (due December 15).
Unfortunately, DOJ/FBl's intransigence with respect to the August 24 subpoenas is part of

a broader pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated. As I said in a public
statement several weeks ago, when the reason for SSA Strzok's removal from the Special
Counsel investigation was leaked to the Washington Post before that reason was provided
to this Committee, at this point it seems the DOJ and FBI need t o be investigating
themselves.
I look forward to your timely written response.
SincereIv,
Devin Nunes
Chainnain
This message and its attachments may contain legally privilege d or confidentia l information. It is
intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the a ddressee indicated in this message (or
responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or
its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments
and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does
not relate to the official business of Fox News or Fox Business must not be taken to have been sent or
endorsed by either of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without
defect.
John Roberts
Cbief\Vbite House Correspondent
Fox News Channel
+1 202-365-2550
john.robe:[email protected]
@johnrobertsfox
Document ID: 0.7.16060.92007-000002

AON JOHNSON, WISCONSIN, CHAIRMAN
JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA CLAJRE M,CASKIU MISSOURI

ROB PORTMAN, 01110 THOMAS R CARPl'R. DELAWARE
RAND PAUL. KENTUCKY JON TESTER, MONTANA
JAMES LANKFORD, OKLAHOMA HEIDI HEITKAMP, NORlll DAKOTA
tlnitrd ~tatrs ~rnatr

MICHAEL 8. ENZl, WYOMING GARY C PETER$, MICHIGAN
JOHN HOEVEN, NORTH DAKOTA MARGARET WOOD HASSAN. NEW HAMPSHIRE
STEVE DAINES, MONTANA KAMALA 0. HARRIS, CALIFORNIA
COMMITTEE ON
CHRISTOPHER R. HIXON. STAFF O!RECTOR
MARGARETE. DAUM, MINOR! IY STAff DIRECTOR HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
December 6, 2017

Acting Attorney General
Dear Acting Attorney General Rosenstein:
r understand the Department of Justice (DOJ) is reviewing thousands of electronic text

messages sent and received by Federal Bureau oflnvestigation (FBI) employees Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page for production to Congress.' These text messages exchanged between Strzok and
Page reportedly "expressed anti-Trump political views."2 I write to seek more information about
your awareness of these text messages and what actions, if any, you took in response.
Strzok reportedly "helped lead" the FBI's investigation into former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton's handling of classified information through her use of a private email server. 3
During the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton, Strzok pa11icipated in interviews of Clinton,
Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, Heather Samuelson, and Jake Sullivan.4 In addition, Strzok
reportedly edited then-FBI Director James Corney's statement about Secretary Clinton, changing
the description of her actions from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless. " 5
After you tapped Robert Mueller as special counsel to examine potential Russian
interference in the 2016 election,6 Strzok reportedly began "play[ing] a major role" in the
investigation. 7 Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation after becoming aware of the text
message allegations. 8
To understand your awareness of these text messages and the Department's actions in
response, I respectfully request the following information:
1
See, e.g., Jake Gibson, 'Over 10,000 texts' between ex-Mueller officials found, after discovery ofanti-Trump
messages, Fox News, Dec. 6, 2017.
2
Michael S. Schmidt, Matt Apuzzo & Adam Goldman, Mueller removed top agent in Russia inquiry over possible
anti-Trump texts, N.Y. Times, Dec. 2, 20 17.
3 Id.
4
Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 302s of Clinton Investigation (2015-16) (on file with Comm.).
5
Laura Jarrett & Evan Perez, FBI agent dismissedfi"om Mueller probe changed Comey 's description ofClinton to
'extremely careless,' CNN, Dec. 4, 20 17.
6
Devlin Barrett, Sari Horowitz, & Matt Zapotosky, Deputy attorney general appoints special counsel to oversee
probe of Russian inte1ference in election, Wash. Post, May 18, 2017.
7
Schmidt, Apuzzo & Goldman, supra note 2.
s Id..
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000001

December 6, 2017
Page 2
l . When and how did you become aware of the text messages allegedly exchanged
between FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page?
2. When and how did the Special Counsel Robert Mueller notify you of the allegations
and the decision to remove Peter Strzok?
3. Did you or the Special Counsel Robert Mueller refer these allegations to the U.S.
Office of Special Counsel to pursue a potential Hatch Act inquiry? If not, why not?
4. ls the Department aware of any similar text messages sent or received by Peter Strzok
during any other investigation?
5. Js the Department aware of any similar allegations involving other government

officials?
6. Please produce all documents and communications sent or received by Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page referring or relating to candidates for the 2016 presidential election or
indicative of political bias.
Please respond as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 13, 2017, so that the
Committee may begin to receive responsive information.

9
effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the Government." Additionally, S. Res. 62
(1 15th Congress) authorizes the Committee to examine "the efficiency and economy of all
management of Federal regu latory policies and prograrns." 10
If you have any questions about this request, please contact Brian Downey of the
Committee staff at (202) 224-4751. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Ranking Member
Enclosure
9
S. Rule XXV(k); see also S. Res. 445, I 08th Cong. (2004).
10
S. Res. 62 § 12, 1 15th Cong. (2017).
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000001

Instructions for Responding to a Committee Request
115th Congress
A. Responding to a Request for Documents
1. In complying with the Committee’s request, produce all responsive documents that are in
your possession, custody, or control, whether held by you or your past or present agents,
employees, and representatives acting on your behalf. You should also produce
documents that you have a legal right to obtain, that you have a right to copy or to which
you have access, as well as documents that you have placed in the temporary possession,
custody, or control of any third party. Requested records, documents, data, or
information should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred, or otherwise made
inaccessible to the Committee.
2. In the event that any entity, organization, or person denoted in the request has been or is
also known by any other name or alias than herein denoted, the request should be read
also to include the alternative identification.
3. The Committee’s preference is to receive documents in electronic form (i.e. CD, memory
stick, or thumb drive) in lieu of paper productions.
4. Documents produced in electronic form should be organized, identified, and indexed
electronically.
5. Electronic document productions should be prepared according to the following
standards:
a. The production should consist of single page Tagged Image Files (“.tif”), files
accompanied by a Concordance-format load file, an Opticon reference file, and a
file defining the fields and character lengths of the load file.
b. Document numbers in the load file should match document Bates numbers and .tif
file names.
c. If the production is completed through a series of multiple partial productions,
field names and file order in all load files should match.
d. All electronic documents produced should include the following fields of
metadata specific to each document:
BEGDOC, ENDDOC, TEXT, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, PAGECOUNT,

CUSTODIAN, RECORDTYPE, DATE, TIME, SENTDATE, SENTTIME,
BEGINDATE, BEGINTIME, ENDDATE, ENDTIME, AUTHOR, FROM, CC,
TO, BCC, SUBJECT, TITLE, FILENAME, FILEEXT, FILESIZE,
DATECREATED, TIMECREATED, DATELASTMOD, TIMELASTMOD,
INTMSGID, INTMSGHEADER, NATIVELINK, INTFILPATH, EXCEPTION,
BEGATTACH.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000002

e. Alternatively, if the production cannot be made in .tif format, all documents

derived from word processing programs, email applications, instant message logs,
spreadsheets, and wherever else practicable should be produced in text searchable
Portable Document Format (“.pdf”) format. Spreadsheets should also be provided
in their native form. Audio and video files should be produced in their native
format, although picture files associated with email or word processing programs
should be produced in .pdf format along with the document it is contained in or to
which it is attached. In such circumstances, consult with Committee staff prior to
production of the requested documents.
f. If any of the requested information is only reasonably available in machine-

readable form (such as on a computer server, hard drive, or computer backup
tape), consult with the Committee staff to determine the appropriate format in
which to produce the information.
6. Documents produced to the Committee should include an index describing the contents
of the production. To the extent more than one CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb
drive, box or folder is produced, each CD, hard drive, memory stick, thumb drive, box or
folder should contain an index describing its contents.
7. Documents produced in response to the request should be produced together with copies
of file labels, dividers or identifying markers with which they were associated when the
request was served.
8. When producing documents, identify the paragraph in the Committee’s schedule to which
the documents respond.
9. Do not refuse to produce documents on the basis that any other person or entity also
possesses non-identical or identical copies of the same documents.
10. This request is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered information.
Any record, document, compilation of data or information not produced because it has
not been located or discovered by the return date, should be produced immediately upon
subsequent location or discovery.
11. All documents should be Bates-stamped sequentially and produced sequentially. Each
page should bear a unique Bates number.
12. Two sets of documents should be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to
the Minority Staff. When documents are produced to the Committee, production sets
should be delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 340 of the Dirksen Senate Office
Building and the Minority Staff in Room 346 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
13. If compliance with the request cannot be made in full by the date specified in the request,
compliance should be made to the extent possible by that date. Notify Committee staff as
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000002

soon as possible if full compliance cannot be made by the date specified in the request,
and provide an explanation for why full compliance is not possible by that date.
14. In the event that a document is withheld on the basis of privilege, provide a privilege log
containing the following information concerning any such document: (a) the privilege
asserted; (b) the type of document; (c) the general subject matter; (d) the date, author, and
addressee; and (e) the relationship of the author and addressee to each other.
15. In the event that a portion of a document is redacted on the basis of privilege, provide a
privilege log containing the following information concerning any such redaction: (a) the
privilege asserted; (b) the location of the redaction in the document; (c) the general
subject matter of the redacted material; (d) the date, author, and addressee of the
document, if not readily apparent; and (e) the relationship of the author and addressee to
each other.
16. If any document responsive to this request was, but no longer is, in your possession,
custody, or control, identify the document (stating its date, author, subject and recipients)
and explain the circumstances under which the document ceased to be in your possession,
custody, or control.
17. If a date, name, title, or other descriptive detail set forth in this request referring to a
document is inaccurate, but the actual date, name, title, or other descriptive detail is
known to you or is otherwise apparent from the context of the request, produce all
documents which would be responsive as if the date, name, title, or other descriptive
detail was correct.
18. In the event a complete response requires the production of classified information,
provide as much information in unclassified form as possible in your response and send
all classified information under separate cover via the Office of Senate Security.
19. Unless otherwise specified, the period covered by this request is from January 1, 2009 to
the present.
20. Upon completion of the document production, you should submit a written certification,
signed by you or your counsel, stating that: (1) a diligent search has been completed of
all documents in your possession, custody, or control which reasonably could contain
responsive documents; and (2) all documents located during the search that are
responsive have been produced to the Committee.
B. Responding to Interrogatories or a Request for Information
1. In complying with the Committee’s request, answer truthfully and completely. Persons
that knowingly provide false testimony could be subject to criminal prosecution for
perjury (when under oath) or for making false statements. Persons that knowingly
withhold subpoenaed information could be subject to proceedings for contempt of
Congress. If you are unable to answer an interrogatory or information request fully,
provide as much information as possible and explain why your answer is incomplete.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000002

2. In the event that any entity, organization, or person denoted in the request has been or is
also known by any other name or alias than herein denoted, the request should also be
read to include the alternative identification.
3. Your response to the Committee’s interrogatories or information requests should be made
in writing and should be signed by you, your counsel, or a duly authorized designee.
4. When responding to interrogatories or information requests, respond to each paragraph in
the Committee’s schedule separately. Clearly identify the paragraph in the Committee’s
schedule to which the information responds.
5. Where knowledge, information, or facts are requested, the request encompasses

knowledge, information or facts in your possession, custody, or control, or in the
possession, custody, or control of your staff, agents, employees, representatives, and any
other person who has possession, custody, or control of your proprietary knowledge,
information, or facts.
6. Do not refuse to provide knowledge, information, or facts on the basis that any other
person or entity also possesses the same knowledge, information, or facts.
7. The request is continuing in nature and applies to any newly discovered knowledge,
information, or facts. Any knowledge, information, or facts not provided because it was
not known by the return date, should be provided immediately upon subsequent
discovery.
8. Two sets of responses should be delivered, one set to the Majority Staff and one set to the
Minority Staff. When responses are provided to the Committee, copies should be
delivered to the Majority Staff in Room 340 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building and
the Minority Staff in Room 346 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
9. If compliance with the request cannot be made in full by the date specified in the request,
compliance should be made to the extent possible by that date. Notify Committee staff as
soon as possible if full compliance cannot be made by the date specified in the request,
and provide an explanation for why full compliance is not possible by that date.
10. In the event that knowledge, information, or facts are withheld on the basis of privilege,
provide a privilege log containing the following information: (a) the privilege asserted;
(b) the general subject matter of the knowledge, information, or facts withheld; (c) the
source of the knowledge, information, or facts withheld; (d) the paragraph in the
Committee’s request to which the knowledge, information, or facts are responsive; and
(e) each individual to whom the knowledge, information, or facts have been disclosed.
11. If a date, name, title, or other descriptive detail set forth in this request is inaccurate, but
the actual date, name, title, or other descriptive detail is known to you or is otherwise
apparent from the context of the request, provide the information that would be
responsive as if the date, name, title, or other descriptive detail was correct.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000002

12. In the event a complete response requires the transmission of classified information,
provide as much information in unclassified form as possible in your response directly to
the Committee offices and send only the classified information under separate cover via
the Office of Senate Security.
13. Unless otherwise specified, the period covered by this request is from January 1, 2009 to
the present.
C. Definitions
1. The term “document” in the request or the instructions means any written, recorded, or
graphic matter of any nature whatsoever, regardless of how recorded, and whether
original or copy, including, but not limited to, the following: memoranda, reports,
expense reports, books, manuals, instructions, financial reports, working papers, records,
notes, letters, notices, confirmations, telegrams, receipts, appraisals, pamphlets,
magazines, newspapers, prospectuses, inter-office and intra- office communications,
electronic mail (e-mail), contracts, cables, notations of any type of conversation,
telephone call, meeting or other communication, bulletins, printed matter, computer
printouts, teletypes, invoices, transcripts, diaries, analyses, returns, summaries, minutes,
bills, accounts, estimates, projections, comparisons, messages, correspondence, press

releases, circulars, financial statements, reviews, opinions, offers, studies and
investigations, questionnaires and surveys, and work sheets (and all drafts, preliminary
versions, alterations, modifications, revisions, changes, and amendments of any of the
foregoing, as well as any attachments or appendices thereto), and graphic or oral records
or representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs,
microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings and motion pictures), and electronic,
mechanical, and electric records or representations of any kind (including, without

limitation, tapes, cassettes, disks, and recordings) and other written, printed, typed, or
other graphic or recorded matter of any kind or nature, however produced or reproduced,
and whether preserved in writing, film, tape, disk, videotape, or otherwise. A document
bearing any notation not a part of the original text is to be considered a separate
document. A draft or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of
this term.
2. The term “communication” in the request or the instructions means each manner or
means of disclosure or exchange of information, regardless of means utilized, whether
oral, electronic, by document or otherwise, and whether face to face, in meetings, by
telephone, mail, telex, facsimile, email (desktop or mobile device), computer, text
message, instant message, MMS or SMS message, regular mail, discussions, releases,
delivery, or otherwise.
3. The terms “and” and “or” in the request or the instructions should be construed broadly
and either conjunctively or disjunctively to bring within the scope of this request any
information which might otherwise be construed to be outside its scope. The singular
includes plural number, and vice versa. The masculine includes the feminine and neuter
genders.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000002

4. The terms “person” or “persons” in the request or the instructions mean natural persons,
firms, partnerships, associations, corporations, subsidiaries, divisions, departments, joint

ventures, proprietorships, syndicates, or other legal, businesses or government entities,
and all subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, departments, branches, or other units thereof.
5. The term “identify” in the request or the instructions, when used in a question about
individuals, means to provide the following information: (a) the individual’s complete
name and title; and (b) the individual’s business address, email address, and phone
number.
6. The terms “referring” or “relating” in the request or the instructions, when used
separately or collectively, with respect to any given subject, mean anything that
constitutes, contains, embodies, reflects, identifies, states, refers to, deals with or is
pertinent to that subject in any manner whatsoever.
7. The term “employee” in the request or the instructions means agent, borrowed employee,
casual employee, consultant, contractor, de facto employee, independent contractor, joint

venturer, loaned employee, part-time employee, permanent employee, provisional
employee, or subcontractor.
8. The terms “you” and “your” in the request or the instructions refer to yourself; your firm,
corporation, partnership, association, department, or other legal or government entity,
including all subsidiaries, divisions, branches, or other units thereof; and all members,
officers, employees, agents, contractors, and all other individuals acting or purporting to
act on your behalf, including all present and former members, officers, employees,
agents, contractors, and all other individuals exercising or purporting to exercise
discretion, make policy, and/or decisions.
# # #
Document ID: 0.7.16060.11899-000002


Subject: Re: Grassley 12/13 Letter
Thanks David.
On Dec 28, 2017, at 8:33 AM, Lasseter, David F. {OLA) <[email protected]> wrote:
(b) (5)
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 28, 2017, at 08:05, Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA) <[email protected]> wrote :
(b) (5)
On Dec 28, 2017, at 7:19 AM, Lasseter, David F. (OLA}

Good morning MBH. (b) (5)
Thoughts?
David F. lasseter
On Dec 27, 2017, at 22:12, Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA}

(b) (5)
From: "Schools, Scott (ODAG)"

<[email protected]>
Date : December 27, 2017 at 6:34:32 PM
CC'T
C..:> I
To: "Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA)"

< [email protected]>
Cc: "Lasseter, David F. (OLA)"
< dlasseter@jmd .usdoj.gov>
Subject: RE: Grassley 12/ 13 Letter
Yes. (b) (5)

Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 11:57
AM
To: Schools, Scott (ODAG}
<[email protected]>
Cc: Lasseter, David F. (OLA}
<[email protected]>
Subject: Grassley 12/13 Letter
Hi Scott,
Grassley sent a letter to the DAG (see link

below} regarding Strzok and Page' s text
messages and requesting a response by
today.
https:ljwww.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/med
ia/doc/2017-12-13%20CEG%20to%20DOJ%20
(Striok%20Page%20McCabe%20lnsurance%
20Policy).pdf
Mary Blanche Hankey

Chief of Staff and Counsel
Office: 202-305- 0149
Cell:-
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, IOWA, CHAIRMAN
ORRIN G. HATCH, UTAH DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CALIFORNIA
LINDSEY 0. GRAHAM, SOUTH CAROLINA PATRICK J . LEAHY, VERMONT
JOHN CDRNYN, TEXAS RICHARD J. DURBIN, ILLINOIS
MICHAEL$. LEE, UTAH SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, RHODE ISLANO
TEO CRUZ, TEXAS
BEN SASSE, NEBRASKA
JEFF FLAKE, ARIZONA
MIKE CRAPO, IDAHO
AMY KLOBUCHAR, MINNESOTA
AL FRANKEN, MINNESOTA
CHRISTOPHER A, COONS, DELAWARE
ilnitcd ~tntrs ~cnetr
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CONNECTICUT COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
THOM TILUS, NORTH CAROLINA MAZIE K, HIRONO, HAWAII
JOHN KENNEOY, LOUISIANA
KOi.AN L. DAVIS, Chief Counsel and StaffOirccror
JENNIFER DUCK, Dcmocrotic Staff Director
December 13, 2017

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:
Yesterday, the Justice Department released a subset of text messages requested by the
Committee. The limited release of 375 text messages between Mr. Peter Strzok and Ms. Lisa
Page indicate a highly politicized FBI environment during both the Clinton and Russia
investigations. For example, one text message from Ms. Page proclaims to Mr. Strzok, “God(,)
Trump is a loathsome human.” 1
Some of these texts appear to go beyond merely expressing a private political opinion,
and appear to cross the line into taking some official action to create an “insurance policy”
against a Trump presidency. Mr. Strzok writes the following to Ms. Page:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s
office that there’s no way he gets elected but I’m afraid we can’t
take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you
die before you’re 40… 2
Presumably, “Andy” refers to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe. So whatever was being
discussed extended beyond just Page and Stzrok at least to Mr. McCabe, who was involved in
supervising both investigations. 3
1
Laura Jarrett, Months worth of FBI employees’ texts dreading Trump victory released to Congress, CNN (Dec. 13, 2017)
2
Id.
3
Recently, I have written to the Justice Department several times regarding my concerns about Mr. McCabe’s potential conflicts
of interest. Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, to Hon. James B. Comey, Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation (October 28, 2016); Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary
Committee, to Hon. James B. Comey, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (March 28, 2017); Letter from Hon. Charles E.
Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, to Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of
Justice (May 2, 2017); Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, to Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein,
Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (June 28, 2017); Letter from Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate
Judiciary Committee, to Hon. Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice (June 29, 2017); Letter from
Hon. Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, to Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice (December 1, 2017)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.10831

December 13, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Another text from Ms. Page to Mr. Strzok on April 2, 2016, says the following:
So look, you say we text on that phone when we talk about hillary
because it can’t be traced, you were just venting bc you feel bad that
you’re gone so much but it can’t be helped right now.
That text message occurred during Mr. Strzok’s involvement in the Clinton investigation and
days before he interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills on April 5, 2016 and April 9, 2016,
respectively. Thus, the mention of “hillary” may refer to Secretary Clinton and therefore could
indicate that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page engaged in other communications about an ongoing
investigation on a different phone in an effort to prevent it from being traced.
Any improper political influence or motives in the course of any FBI investigation must
be brought to light and fully addressed. Former Director Comey’s claims that the FBI “doesn’t
give a rip about politics” certainly are not consistent with the evidence of discussions occurring
in the Deputy Director’s office around August 15, 2016.
Accordingly, please answer the following no later than December 27, 2017:
1. On what date did you become aware of the text messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms.
Page and on what date were they each removed from the Special Counsel’s office?
2. Are there any other records relating to the conversation in Andrew McCabe’s office
shortly before the text described above on August 15, 2016? If so please produce them to
the Committee.
3. Please provide all records relating to Andrew McCabe’s communications with Peter
Stzrok or Lisa Page between August 7, 2016 and August 23, 2016.
4. What steps have you taken to determine whether Mr. Strzok, Mr. Page, and Mr. McCabe
should face disciplinary action for their conduct?

5. My understanding is that the Inspector General’s current investigation is limited to the
handling of the Clinton email matter only. What steps have you taken to determine
whether steps taken during the campaign to escalate the Russia investigation might have
been a result of the political animus evidenced by these text messages rather than on the
merits?
6. Has the Department identified the referenced “that phone” Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page used
to discuss Secretary Clinton? What steps has the Department taken to review the records
on this other phone that allegedly “can’t be traced.” If none, please explain why not? If
steps have been taken, please detail them and provide all records reviewed.
I anticipate that your written reply and any responsive documents will be unclassified.
Please send all unclassified material directly to the Committee. In keeping with the requirements
of Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive documents do contain classified information,
please segregate all unclassified material within the classified documents, provide all
unclassified information directly to the Committee, and provide a classified addendum to the
Office of Senate Security. Although the Committee complies with all laws and regulations
governing the handling of classified information, it is not bound, absent its prior agreement, by
any handling restrictions.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.10831

December 13, 2017
Page 3 of 3
Should you have any questions, please contact Josh Flynn-Brown of my Judiciary
Committee staff a (b) (6) .
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman

Inspector General
Document ID: 0.7.16060.10831


To: Gibson, Jake
Cc: Prior. Ian (OPA)
Subject: Re: Question
Yep:)
On Dec 27, 2017, at 5:57 PM, Gibson, Jake <[email protected]> wrote:
So .... what do Itell Tucker?
That you're in touch with SJC but that's it?
On Dec 27, 2017, at 6:45 PM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>
wrote:
We're in touch w sjc. But nothing to share wthe group;)
On Dec 27, 2017, at 4:27 PM, Gibson, Jake <[email protected]>

wrote:
Sent from my iPhone
From: "Couger, Charles"

<[email protected]>
Date:. December 27, 2017 at 3:57:05 PM EST
To: "Herridge, Catherine"
<[email protected]>, "Gibson,
Jake" <[email protected]>
Subject: Question
Catherine or Jake -
Earlier this month, Senator Grassley sent the DOJ a list of

questions regarding the Strzok anti-Trump text messages
(see below). Today was the deadline for answers - do
either you know if the DOJ responded in time?
Thanks,
Charles Couger
Producer, Tucker Carlson Tonight
From : Chairman Grassley (Judiciary-Rep)

(b ) (6)
To: Foy, Taylor (Judiciary-Rep) (b ) (6)
; Hartmann, George (Judiciary-Rep)
(b) ( 6)
Subject: Grassley Seeks Clarity on Justice Dept.'s
Response to Political Texts
<image005.png>
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Thursday, December 14, 2017
Grassley Seeks Clarity on Justice

Dept _'s Response to Political Texts
Senior FBI staffs✓ "insurance policy"
and "Hillary" texts ra ise specter of political
Influence
WASHINGTON- Senate Judicia ry Committee

Chairman Chuck Grassley sought additional
background on text messages exchanged between
two senior FBI employees and records of their
communications with the current FBI Deputy
Director. One of the employees, Peter Strzok, played
a critica l role in the FBI' s investigation int o for mer
Secre tary of State Hilla ry Clinton's use of a private
email server for officia l business and mishandling of
classified infor mation. He also appears to be
involved in helping to launch the FBI' s investigation
into potential collusion between the Trump campaign
and the Kremlin during the 2016 presidentia l e lection.
The text messages provided to Congressional

investigamrs on the eve of testimony by Deputy
Attorne y General Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing
the special counsel's investigation, appear to indicate
that some officials took actions beyond expressing
their political opinions. One message by Strzok
apparently referenced a discussion in the current
deputy director's office about the chances that
candidate Donald Trump could be elected,
saying "I'm afraid we can't: take that risk" and
making a comparison to the need for an insurance
policy. Another missive referenced a second phone
used to "talk about hilla ry because it can' t be traced."
In a letter Wednesday to Rosenstein, Grassle y is

seeking additional information, including when and
how the department became aware of the politica lly-
charged messages, and what steps are being taken to
fu lly review the activities referenced in the messages
and take any necessary disciplinary measures.
In October, Grassley sought an ,me -vie w with Strzok

as a part of his ongoing investigation into improper
political influence or bias in the Justice Depanment
or FBI. Grassle y cal led on the FB Ito turn ove r any
documents re lated to Strzok's work and
communications following reports of the politica l
messages.
fu ll text of Grassley s lette,. to Rosenstein fo llows:
December 13, 2017

Deputy Attorney Genera l
Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:
Yesterday, the Justice Department re leased a subset

of text messages requested by the Committee. The
limited re lease of 375 text messages between Mr.
Peter Strzok and Ms. Lisa Page indicate a highly
politicized FBI environment during both the Clinton
and Russia investigations. For e xample, one text
message from Ms. Page procla ims to Mr. Strzok, "God
(,) Trump is a loathsome human."ill
Some of these texts appear to go beyond merely

expressing a private political opinion, and appear to
cross the lme mto taking some ott1c1al action to
create an "insurance policy" against a
Trump presidency. Mr. Strzok writes the following to
Ms. Page:
I want to believe the path you threw out for

consideration in Andy's office - that there's no
way he gets e lected - but I' m afraid we can't
take that risk. It 's like an insurance policy
in the unlike ly event you die before you' re 40...
ill
Presumably, "Andy" refers to Deputy FBI Director

Andrew McCabe. So whatever was being discussed
extended beyond just Page and Strzok at least to Mr.
McCabe, who was involved in supervising both
investigations.lfil
Another text from Ms. Page to Mr. Stnok on April 2,

2016, says the following:
So look, you say we text on that phone when

we talk about hilla ry because it can't be
traced, you were just venting be you feel bad
that you' re gone so much but it can't be
helped right now.
That text message occurred during Mr. Strzok' s

involvement in the Clinton investigation and days
before he interviewed Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills
on April 5, 2016 and April 9, 2016, respectively. Thus,
the mention of ''hilla ry" may refer to Secretary
Clinton and therefore could indicate that Mr. Strzok
and Ms. Page engaged in other communications
about an ongoing investigation on a different phone
in an effort to prevent it from being traced.
Any improper political influence or motives in the

course of any FBI investigation must be brought to
light and fu lly addressed. Former Director Corney's
cla ims that the FBI "doesn' t give a rip about politics"
certainly are not consistent with the evidence of
discussions occurring in the Deputy Director's office
a round August 15, 2016.
Accordingly, please answer the following no later

than December 27, 2017:
1. On what date did you become aware of the
text messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms.
?age and on what date were they each
- - - - •• -.J ,t,_ _ _ .JI.I-- r ___ : _ I r " - • •- - - l t _ ___u; __ ")
r emo ve □ rrom r ne .::,pec1 a 1 1....ounse1 s on,ce r
2. Are there any other records re la ting to the
conversation in Andrew McCabe's office
shortly before the text described above on
August 15, 2016? If so please produce them
to the Committee.
3. Please provide a ll records re lating to Andrew
McCabe' s communications with Peter Strzok
or Lisa Page between August 7, 2016 and
August 23, 2016.
4. What steps have you taken to determine
whether M r. Strzok, Mr. Page, and Mr.
McCabe should face disciplinary action for
their conduct?
5. My understanding is that the Inspector
Genera l's current investigation is limited to
the handling of the Clinton email matter only.
What steps have you taken to determine
whether steps taken during the campaign to
escalate the Russia investigation might have
been a result of the political animus
e videnced by these text messages rather than
on the merits?
6. Has the Department identified the
referenced "that phone" Mr. Strzok and Ms.
0 age used to discuss Secretary Clinton? What
steps has the Department taken to review the

records on this other phone thar
allegedly "can't be traced." If none, please
explain why not? If steps have been taken,
please detail them and provide all records
reviewed.
I anticipate that your written reply and any
responsive documents will be unclassified.
Please send a ll unclassified material directly to the

Committee. In keeping with the requirements of
Executive Order 13526, if any of the responsive
documents do contain classified information, please
segregate a ll unclassified materia l within the
classified documents, provide a ll unclassified
information directly to the Committee, and provide a
classified addendum to the Office of Senate Security.
Although the Committee complies with a ll laws and
regulations governing the handling of classified
information, it is not bound, absent its prior
a greement, by any handling restrictions.
Should you have any questions, please contact Josh
-·
Flynn-Brown of my Judicia ry Committee staff attmlfl
Sincere ly,
Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judicia ry
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged

or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named
addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message
(or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you
may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to
anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and
its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any
content of this message and its attachments that does not relate
to the official business of Fox News or Fox Business must not be
taken to have been sent or endorsed by either of them. No
representation is made that this email or its attachments are
without defect.
RICHARD BURR., NORTH CAROLINA, O IAlflMAN
MARK R. WARNER, VIRGINIA, VICE CMAJRMAN
JAMES E. RISCH, IOAHO DIANNE FEINSTEIN. CALIFORNIA COMMITTEE SENSITIVE

MARCO RUBIO. FLORIDA RON WYOEN, OREGON
SUSAN M. COLLINS. MAINE MARTIN HEINRICH, NEW MEXICO
nov 8LUNT. M ISSOURI
tinittd ~rates ~rnatr
ANGUS S. KING, Jn,, MAINE
JAMES LANKFORD, OKLAHOMA JOE MANCHIN, WEST VIRGINIA
TOM COTTON. ARKANSAS KAMALA HARRIS, CA LIFORNIA
JOHN CORNYN, TEXAS
SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE
MITCH McCONNELL, KENTUCKY. ex OFFICIO
CHARLES SCHUMEFt NEW YORK. EX OFFICIO WASHINGTON, DC 20510- 6475
JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA. EX OFFfCfO
JACK REED, RHODE ISLAND, EX OFFICIO
CHRISTOPHER A. JOYNER. STAFF OfRECTOR

MICHAEL CASEY, MINORITY STArr- DIRECTOR
KEI.SEY STROUO 8All.EY, C►HtF CLERK
December 19, 2017
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Room 1145
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:
We write to you today concerning FBI Special Agent Peter Stzrok and his recent
reassignment after exchanging inappropriate messages with a colleague. We request all messages
in the Department' s possession that he sent or received concerning Christopher Steele, Michael
Flynn, Russian counterintelligence activities, and matters relating to the 20 l 6 U .S. elections. We
are not requesting nor are we interested in receiving communications or materials that might be
considered personal or salacious, unless they are related to the four topics noted in this letter.
Please respond in writing upon receipt of this letter. If you have any questions about this
letter, please contact Committee counsel Vanessa Le at 202-228-61 17 or April Doss at 202-224-
1737.
Sincerely,
cs
Richard Burr Mark R. Warner
Chairman Vice Chairman
COMMITTEE SENSITIVE
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5749-000001


Subject: RE: Question re Grassley deadline t omorrow
https:llwww.judiciary.senate.gov/Imo/media/doc/2017-12-13%20CEG%2oto%20DOJ%20(Strzok%20Page%
20McCabe%20Insurance%20Policy).pdf
From : Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA)

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <dl asseter@j md.usdoj .gov>
Subject: FW: Question re Grassley deadline tomorrow

To: Hankey, Mary Bl anche {OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) ; Escalona, Prim F. {OLA} <[email protected]>;
Prior, Ian {OPA) <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott {OOAG} <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Question re Grassl ey deadline tomorrow
(b) (5)
On Dec 26, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Hankey, Mary Bl anche {OLA} <[email protected]> wrote:
(b) (5)
On Dec 26, 2017, at 7:50 PM, Boyd, Stephen E. jOLA} (b) ( 6) wrote:
(b) (5)
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 26, 2017, at 6:33 PM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>
wrote:
(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5750

UUf!
On Dec 26, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)

(b) (6) w rote:
Don' t have the letter in front of me but...
(b) (5)
- Grassley is j ust one of many who have

requested. SB
Sent from my iPhone
....
On Dec 26, 2017, at 6:24 PM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)
From: " Schneider, Jessica"

<[email protected]
m>
Date: December 26, 2017 at
5:18:50 PM CST
To: "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA}"
<[email protected]
>, " Pri or, Ian (OPA}"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Question re Grassley
deadline tomorrow
Hi Sarah and Ian -
(b) (6)
Does Deputy AG Rosenstein

plan to respond to Senator
Grassley'5 letter dated
December 13th requesting
various Information about Mr.
Strzok and Ms. Page' s text
messages by the deadline of
tomorrow, December 27th?
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5750

Is there any information you
can give us ahead of time, if
so?
If not, have you talked with

Grassley's office about an
extension?
I know this request comes late

in the day-I am likely going to
be on air with this tomorrow
by 9am, so hopefully I'll hear
from you before then.
Thanks again.
Jessica Schneider
{m}- - -
[email protected]
@SchneiderCNN
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5750

Schneider, Jessica
From : Schneider, Jessica

Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA}
Subject : Re: Question re Grassley deadline tomorrow
Thank you!
Jessica Schneider
Cell: (b) (6)
Twitter. @SchneiderCNN
On Dec 26, 2017, at 11:56 PM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
We've been in touch w sjc but not going to comment further.
• I.
• •• ... ,. I • I . .
Duplicative Material
Document ID: 0.7.1 6060.57647

O'Malley, Devin {OPA)
From : O'Malley, Devin (OPA)

Subject: Fwd: Question re Grassley deadline WEDNESDAY
Hey Jessica-
Have you reached out to Lauren from our team?
Sent from my iPhone
From: Press <[email protected]>

To: "O' Malley, Devin {OPA)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Prior, Ian (OPA)" <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Question re Grassley deadline WEDNESDAY
Thank you - Kristen
From : Schneider. Jessica [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, December 2.6, 2.017 6:2.4 PM
To: Pre ss <[email protected]>
Subject: Question re Grassley deadline WEDNESDAY
Hi-
I'm hoping to get some information on this prior to 9am tomorrow.
Does Deputy AG Rosenstein plan to respond to Senator Grassley' s letter dated December 13th
requesting various information about Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page' s text messages by the deadline
of tomorrow, December 27th ?
Is there any information you can give us ahead of time, if so?
If not, have you talked with Grassley's office about an extension?
I know this request comes late in the day - I am likely going to be on air with this tomorrow by
9am, so hopefully I'll hear from you before then.
Thanks again.
.....
Jessica Schneider
.,
1m,MQm 1
[email protected]
@Schnei derCNN
Hankey, Mary Blanche{OIA,
From: Hanke'{, Mary Blanche (OLA)

Seit: Friday, December 22, 2017 1;q3 PM
To: LassetEr, David F. (OLA)
Subj ect: R£; Cot¥; re.ssiona I Priority - 12/21/2.017
Cit, th ar:h. ~tarui by.
Rom: La.il!?t!?T, Oil\lld f. (OLA)

sent: Frld3y, December 22, 201711'1 PM
TO : ttan~y, Ma,y 6landle (OLAl <[email protected].!loj.~V>
subject: Re: COngres,(or.a1 i>riority - 1.2/Z1/201J
(b) (5)
DavidF. Lusaer
OnDec 22, 2017, 2t 13:03, ~ Y, Y...b.ryBlancl:e {OL<\) <nilllah-~.lajoj.1!0¢ wr-ot?:
Perfect. Thnk vou (b)(5)
From: =.e=, Davidf.(OIA)

sent: Ffc!:ay, De~Jlll>e(22, 2017 Ul2 PM
To:Kan-key, Mary e.lanctie ra.A) <mharke,y@l mcl.lilSAAf.:<ll\<>; S:rook.!, R<>£hc-J'e (01Af<rllrooks@1n:11.u.ao1~0V>; tt=~rt, fe,m; lle R.(Ol.A)
<l~e rbeTt2@jmd. i;,;noj. ~mr>
-
subject: RE: COFlf"&ona Prlo-'ty -12/"l1/20i7
(b) (5)
From: tta1key, Mary Pilal>Clw (OLA)

sent Fii clay, Decembe,r 2.2, 20111.00 PM
To:La..~cter, Da~ d f. (OLAl<11a.£[email protected].:!ll01,!:.-V>; Brooks, RoEAei e IDlA► <[email protected]. ~'<>; li2rbert, !En~ R. [OLA]
<lt>e<[email protected]!!ll>llb; O\I>
subject: RE: COil:!: re.;siona Prior ty - 12/21/2011
(b) (5)
From: l..a2E.eter, David f. [a.A)

sent: Fr ruy, oecen>be< 2.2, 201112:...--0PM
10:ttank.ey, Mary e.ianclle {OIAI <rr~arkeyf9\md. i..r~ PO»; e.-rooks, Rw.Jiel~ [OLA ► <'1>'00k! F-l , rr:t uco , ~ov>; tierbert, Jen-e eR.{a.AI
<gte rbe rt2(1£jtH. L'!lio j. £OV>
subject: 1<E: congre;.;.' ona. Pr;oriry-12./21/2017
« f ;!e : 2lll.7-12-05R l\l to DOI l<OSE111Stei11.paf »<<ri le: 2017-12-14 l<IU to Ff>I re COm£y .l!Jly 5-Statement.pdl »
(b) (5)
From: Hankey, M a,- y e.landle [OIA)

sent: f-lichy, De~ember2.2, 201712:3-~PM
TO: 6.roolcs, Ros.lie e (a.Al <,bfoo~..s pf1n-.c tJSl!OL!!":>v">; tierbe<t, reneJ e R. IOLA} <1te rbert2@ <n>~ .us ::t-, . !1ll1>; raseter, David F. (OlAI
<d ~~ter(=Jur tt udcL: OV>
SU bject: RE: ~ng 'S!lona! Priority - 12/"ll/2m7
From: Lassere-, David F. (01.Al

Sent: Frida(, December 22, 2017 L1ll PM
To: H aikey, Marv Blarche (OLA); Brooks, Rashel'= (DI.Al; Herbert, Jenele R. (OLA)
Subject: RE: Corgressia,al Priolity-12/21/2017
Attachments: 2017·12·12 FBIStrzck lext · Johnsonpclf
Attached is the re si:xmse that wesentmeachc.ommittee th at ha:: qu e:.."lioru-a bo11t the r:axt.s. Asm e_nooneo, we also hav e 3 re:sponse spe-dfictoCha1rma n
Johnson's Gdecember Jetter
From: Hankey, Mary Blanc.he_ (OLA )

5ent:Fnday, D;,cember22, 201712:39 PM
Ta Brocks, Roshelle (OLA )<rl>rooks@jmd. usdoj.gov>; Heri>ert, Jenelle R. [OLA)<ji'terl>[email protected]>; ~eter, David F. [OLA)
<dlas212r@j mdusdoj.gov>
51.i>j;,ct: RE: Congr..ssion al Priority-12/2l/'1Dl7
uplicative Material
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530

Chairman
DEC 1·2 2017
Dear Chairman Johnson,
This responds to the Committee' s request that the Department of Justice (Depaitment)
provide the Committee with copies of text message communications between Federal Bureau of
enclosures to a number of Congressional Committees that have made similar requests.
As you may lmow, on Januai·y 12, 2016, the Department of Justice's Office ofinspector
related to, the FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016, 1 and the Director's letters to
decisions were based on improper considerations.2" As part of that review, the OIG obtained,

Depaitment continues to review documents and will provide pertinent documents as they become
available.
1
_Justice that no charges should be filed relating to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a ptivate email
server.
2
DOJ OIG Am10unces Initiation of Review, January 12, 2017, available at: https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017-
01-12.pdf
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5341-000001

Page Two
Mr. Strzok could no longer participate in the investigation, and he was removed from the team ..
facts and circumstances ofthis paiticular matter. The Depaitment appreciates the work of the

Ranking Member
Enclosures
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5341-000001

AON JOH'-SON WISCON ;m lltAIRMAN
JOHN M, CAIN. ARIZONA CLAIR! M CAS~ILL MlSSOUfl

IIOII PORTMAIS OHIO tHOMAS R CAl\f'!.R. DI LAWAR[
RA~D PMJl. Kit,TIJCkY JON 1LSTFI\ t.lONTA~A
JAMES LA~KFOAD. OfUAHo,.t" HEJOI Hfrtt<AMr, NOAH! OIJ<OlA
M\CHAH 8 ENlt. WYOMING
JOHN HOt V£'j NORTH DAKOTA
STEVI' l>Al'-U. MO'ITAN-.
GARY C P(T(R$, MIClll<,-.N
MARGAIIH WtlOO HASSAN N[ W HAMl'SltlRE
KAMALA D IWVIIS CAl ORM-. llnitcd ~rotes ~mote
COMMITTEE ON
CHR!STOP>i£R R HIXO'< 51AH DIRECTOR
MARGARCT E DAUM. MINORITY SJAlf D<RICTOfl HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERN MENTAL AFFAIRS
WA SHINGTON, DC 20510-6250
December 14, 2017

Director
935 Pennsylvania Avenue
Dear Director Wray:
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is continuing its

oversight of the Office of Special Counsel's (OSC) Hatch Act investigation of former Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Corney. I write to request additional material
concerning the public statements made by Director Corney in reference to the FBI's investigation
of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. I appreciate your
cooperation with this request.
On November I 7, 2017, the FBI produced documents that it had previously transmitted
to OSC as part of OSC's Hatch Act investigation of Director Comey. 1 These documents help to
inform the Committee's understanding of both OSC's and the FBI's investigations. However,
these documents raise additional questions about both investigations.
The FBI's production included early drafts of Director Corney's public statement,
ultimately delivered on July 5, 2016, clearing Secretary Clinton of criminal wrongdoing in her
use of a private email server. 2 On May 2, 2016, Director Corney emailed a draft statement to
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and FBI Chief of
Staff James Rybicki-a full two months before the FBI had completed over a dozen interviews,
including its interview with Secretary Clinton.3 The drafting of this statement began before the
FBI immunized key witnesses to the investigation, including Cheryl Mills and Heather
Samuelson. 4 The immunity agreements with Ms. Mills and Ms. Samuelson, executed on June
1 Letter from Gregory A. Brower to Sen. Ron Johnson, Chairman, S. Comm. on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs (Nov. 17, 20 17).

2
Documents FBI produced to the Committee on Nov. 17, 20 17 marked SJC 000028-000271 [herein after " FBI
documents"]. For clarity, I have attached the e ntire document containing track-changed edits to Director Corney's
original draft July 5 statement. This document is marked SJC 000031-000037.
3 FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000 140.; Letter from Sen. Charles Grassley, Chairman, S. Comm. on
Judiciary, to Christopher Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Aug. 30, 20 17. The FBI conducted an
interview of Secretary Clinton on July 2, 2016.
4 Comm. review of Justice Dep't immunity agreements with Cheryl Mills & Heather Samuelson, (Sept. 27, 2016).
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page2
10, 2016, also included side agreements requiring the FBI to destroy evidence on devices turned
5
over to the FBI.
According to documents produced by the FBI, FBI employees exchanged proposed edits
to the draft statement. On May 6, Deputy Director McCabe forwarded the draft statement to
other senior FBI employees, including Peter Strzok, E.W. Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an
6
employee in the Office of General Counsel whose name has been redacted. While the precise
dates of the edits and identities of the editors are not apparent from the documents, the edits
appear to change the tone and substance of Director Corney's statement in at least three
respects. 7
1. Repeated edits to reduce Secretary Clinton's culpability in mishandling classified

information
The original draft of Director Corney's remarks included a statement that could be read as
a finding of criminality in Secretary Clinton's handling of classified material:
There is evidence to support a conclusion that Secretary Clinton, and others, used
the private email server in a manner that was grossly negligent with respect to the
handling of classified information. 8
The edited statement deleted the reference to gross negligence-a legal threshold for
mishandling classified material9-and instead replaced it with an exculpatory sentence:
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues
intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is
evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive,
highly classified information. 10
This change appeared in the statement as Director Corney delivered it on July 5, 2016. 11
Further, the original draft of Director Corney's statement connected the volume of
classified material on Secretary Clinton's private server with a finding of criminality. It read:
5
Id.; see also FBI agreed to destroy laptops of Clinton aides with immunity deal, lawmaker says, Fox News, Oct. 3,
2016.
6
FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000028-29.
7 Id.
8
FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 0000142.
9
See 18 U.S.C. § 793.
10
FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000034
11
Statement by FBI Director James B. Corney on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton 's Use of a Personal
E-Mail System, July 5, 2016, available at https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-
director-j ames-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton20 l 9s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
[hereinafter Corney July 5 statement].
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page 3
Similarly, the sheer volume of information that was properly classified as Secret
at the time it was discussed on email (that is, excluding the "up classified"
emails) supports an inference that the participants were grossly negligent in their
handling of that iriformation. 12
This statement was edited to deemphasize the amount of classified information and, again, to
remove a reference to gross negligence. The edited version read:
In addition to this highly sensitive iriformation, we also found information that

was properly classified as Secret by the US Intelligence Community at the time it
was discussed on email (that is, excluding the 'up classified emails). 13
The edited version also contained a sentence that read, "This is especially concerning because all
of these emails were housed on servers not supported by full-time security staff, like those found
at the Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government." 14 This sentence was not included in
the statement as delivered by Director Corney on July 5. 15
12
13
14
15
Corney July 5 statement, supra note 11.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page4
Figure I: Edits to "extremely careless" in Director Comey's statement

TbA!', wb• r wt bRn dout. '.':ow It ! int ttll you whAI wt found.
:\hh,m b 1
· , ,fol nc· rin,I ,;Jc;,r s>l,lso,;s 1,a1
1
'>,► acr 10· s hu-,n, or hsa ►1..,U, 1·•us,
JlllW, k,l ~k, S " ~ J . . , , ill • j 'llb-'W ·~~·~
s\ldcnss dPt ths\' wcts s::msmsb·smels.,, mrhsn h~nJluts ,,f, cn· cn,nn·c,
bnhl\' sb»thel ,ntcnu'lhW n,,. h • ,,d1nu ,, sr1t11n11 .- ,ettthL10u fife,
Seettltu) (lm1eu. @uda1he:Ht1!.td1h, p:i u11 •1nfttl: htt. idftdtftil11e1 thot c.ft
iFSjj¾I~• n•eh,1,u •• nh u ~•ill 1a 1h1 l~An~liRI el Jlt11r • it.1.I utfe,~ Rha11 For
e,cnmple. ,c,·en cmnil chnin, conccm mntt••" •h~t were cln,,ified at the TS SAP
level when the)' were ~nt :md rcce1\'ed. TI1e~ ch:iuu iiwoh·ed S«1 euuy Cfouon
borh ~11du12 em.i ii, about tho.e mane n and recel\·mg e111>1I, &0111 others about the
,nme moncr,. TI1ere i, e,·idence to , 11ppo11 n conchi.ion thnr any re,.onnblc
SJC000034
peno,1 in Sccrctnry Clinton·, po,irion. or iii the po,ition of tho~ go\'cnuue111

emplo>~e, with whom .Jie wa, C01TC\poudu1J ~bout tb«e m.,n=. ,hould bn,~
known that an uncla,..ticd ,ystem wa, no place for wch an email co,wCNrion.
A1d,8u,., , tlul not tintl ale..1 • uh tu ti,~! ', 1111a ) ( 11111 011 ~ l:o 11H101 t
..
l 113 I F I t
$u111l11rl) ln !"ldthtson to tlu, highly ,cn,itt\e mtt'tnutllon \\C nl...o found ~

ol u•u of infonnatioo that "'" properly claniticd •• Secre1 .!u:..!hsJ. ~
lnt5U,gcosc C9PYJIIWIIY at the time tt \\'a\ discm~d on emlld (that i\, cxcluduia
the ··up cla\\ificd·· c1u..'lil't), Ihh ,, s,occiollY sonssnuns bcsou:rs ;JII of tbs'-£
enL~1I, were hou~d on ,c,,·cn not "•pponcd by f111l-11111e ,c,:urirv ,t~ff, like thp,e
fmmd iU Dc:o:utnKlll' J.Jld Agcn-cic-. of the e s.
oo, e.nuncm ··~· .. , ...
111icN11u 1ha11h, p••••••p,1111 .. ere.,.,, ly ncih,•111 1ft 1httt llfl11dhn, eftl.,.,
inftu 11111 ti01
In addition, the original draft of Director Corney's statement stated that the FBI had
found evidence of potential violations of the gross negligence statute and of the statute governing
misdemeanor mishandling of classifed information:
Although there is evidence ofpotential violations ofthe statute proscribing gross

negligence in the handling ofclassified information and ofthe statute proscribing
misdemeanor hishandling, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would
bring such a case. At the outset, we are not aware ofa case where anyone has
been charged solely based on the "gross negligence " prohibition in the statute.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page 5
In looking back at our investigations in similar circumstances, we cannot find a

case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases
prosecuted involved some combination of (]) clearly intentional misconduct; (2)
vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of
intentional misconduct; (3) indications of disloyalty to the United States; or (4)
efforts to obstruct justice. We see none of that here. 16
The edited version removed Director Corney's specific reference to potential violations of the
gross negligence and misdemeanor mishandling statutes. The edits changed the first sentence
of the quoted text to read:
Although there is evidence ofpotential violations ofthe statutes regarding the

handling of classified information, my judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor
would bring such a case. 17
A comment bubble accompanying the edit, in which the editor wrote, "we changed none of this
text, we simply reordered it. The original text is below, struck out." 18 The editor did not address
the deletion of references in the original draft to evidence of potential violations of the gross
negligence or misdemeanor statutes.
Director Corney's public remarks on July 5 lacked any specific reference to the FBI
finding of evidence potential violations of the "gross negligence" and "misdemeanor
mishandling" statutes. Instead, Director Corney stated:
Although there is evidence ofpotential violations ofthe statutes regarding the

handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor
would bring such a case . .. . 19
6
t FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000036.
7
t FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000036.
ts FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000036.
19
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page 6
Figure 2: Edits removing references to evidence of violations of statutes about the use of classified information
In •ooluns bad, 11 our ,nv, ,ripnoos in unular cu-cum\lancfi.. we clllUIOI find •
CIR tlull wou•d suppor1 bonging cnnuna• charg,s on tbcR liicts AU the ca..,
proo«u~ u,,-oh·cd ..,_ combmahon of <•)
cle•••Y an1conOlllll nu.iw.dliog of
d a«Jied mfonnanon. (2) ,·ut q~ nn• • of mat<Nlb exposed an SU<b • way H to
suppon an inftt<ncc of intentional 1111SConduc1, (3) 1nd,ca1ion, of d,s•o>, •fY 10 lbt
Unit<d Sun••· or (4) efforts 10 obstn1ct JUllK t AU charatd ca, tl o f which wt are
awart ba,·t an,-oh·cd th,, acc.,...11011 tba1 a go,·..-nm,,,1 cmp•oyu inknriooall>•
mnhandle-d clawfitd mfomYhoa We~ aooc oh hac ~e{_ ./ ~ ~'!!»;,..":=~=:::.• _,......,
AhbouJh tbcrt ss .-,dtoct of po1t111ia• \'JO.alloos of lht 111rut., t<prdmJ ~..
baJldlma o f cl.uulicd infonnahon. m y JUdpllffll ts lba1 no rouonable prORCUtor
\\-ould bnn& such • caw Pr:e!«UIOH 0£S'C'stn1Y lY£1gh I PUmha: of [AC-!90 btforr
brw1m1 s:hocar, Dane acs ob\110\!S connskrnnon, hkr 1hr ~urnRJh of tbr
cYJdrocr But rbs;y wu,s br ba)aoc:£4 ,,aunt 1lun1, hkr 1hr unnu l!Kl son,ras of
llx: P£OOU \ KhOll> Io bf ckar ,ru, I\ POI 10 'UCCt"l lb:nl IO HPMLIC
cucm1ura11tr- an wdaudt~l >'ho mfitttd m. dui ns11DIY wonld ft(t f'O
COll\.N)Ut'llC~\ To rht> co1\1™)' ,uch mdl\idu:al, a.rt' oftrn wbJ«I 10 w-c:untv or
tdmJOt\l@ttYr <..'\Q(IIROS But tbnt dttUJOQ J\ nor \\'bill 11 brfoer WC now
0: hlump)a thtHr 1,; •• ••••" 1fpeuu11nl 1elu111n ef:lt, unsm, p10uAh1a1 r•• •
11e1h11nu '" the lu111cll11t1 of•I~, 1fiul: 111M1M11um 1111tl efd111 Iii IUk p e .c u~••r
1iu1M:1tt111! •••• lllfl Mo.Uu:lf •1 JHtlpt1it1H u 1M1 neut a w'eh puittttl ta:ld
ll••f ,utk: 1 tlU :\t slut s ,, r Ht . . . . . au tfa t■c1 e 41.-. MUMr ha, ltrN
thtute• 11111 1, u:11 at 11,e pen 111th11111u p,eh1lu111n"' •• ~- hlllf -ltt ~ ,.1..
leelttt1r \,ult 11 • • • e llf 1111n 111 s•tl•, uuttt I nu, , t 1nsmut kl,,., aa ,1
1l1n1 waulll, •l'P•• IIM t91n9 :;r R II I shHft« 111 duu C1111 1: II sh, tt 11
puuutHd en tl
01 qun.u I U
t• AW umllbdt11a
,r. 1,1101
,r
(I) ,lead, 11uar wl • ,.,..,,, U)
.., . , .. IU l 1d1 I D} 81 ,. n1pp1P11111 mfot I .,
""'""••"'• ou, ee11d1101 E•) "'~"""""' •' .........,•..,. 1a ••or l..'11111• ~'""'• •• I •I
,rr.,1111 ,lntu1,tJH uu u ·:1 ,u e 1c ef1b111 hu:1
AccorduosJy. • llbouJh Ill< 0cparn,,t'111 o f Ju, 1Jce Dlllktt fin.i• d<cotions oo Dl&h<n
such •• tlu,. I am comp••llll&1bt 111,·,st1p 11on by <Xpr,..,ng 10 Ju<ti« any , ·1•w
lba1 no chargu art appropnacc an dus case
SJC000036
2. Edits to remove reference to the lntellige,ice Community's role in identifying

vulnerabilities related to Secretary Clinton's private email server
Director Corney' s original statement acknowledged the FBI had worked with its partners
in the Intelligence Community to assess potential damage from Secretary Clinton's use of a
private email server. The original statement read:
[W}e have done extensive work with the assistance ofour colleagues elsewhere in
the Intelligence Community to understand what indications there might be of
compromise by hostile actors in connection with the private email operation.20
The edited version removed the reference to the intelligence community:
2
°FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000142.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page 7
[W]e have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be o{i
compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation. 1
Director Corney delivered this edited statement in his July 5 remarks. 22 It is unclear why FBI
staff removed the reference to working with the Intelligence Community during the editing
process for Director Corney's statement.
3. Edits to downgrade the likelihood that hostile actors had penetrated Secretary Clinton's
private server
Finally, the original draft of Director Corney's statement included a conclusion that it was
"reasonably likely" that hostile actors had penetrated Secretary Clinton's private server. Director
Corney's original statement read:
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find
direct evidence that Secre,tary Clinton's personal email system, in its various
configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the
system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely
to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the
private email accounts of individuals with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular
contact from her private account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a
private email domain was both known by a large number ofpeople and readily
apparent. Given the combination offactors, we assess it is reasonably likely that
hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account.23
This statement was edited to downgrade the assessment that it was "reasonably likely" that
hostile actors had gained access to Secretary Clinton's private email account. Instead, the edited
statement simply read it was "possible" that those events occurred-the formulation Director
Corney ultimately used in his public statement on July 5. 24 Director Corney's July 5 statement
ultimately read:
With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find
direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various
configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the
system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely
to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the
private commercial e-mail accounts o..fpeople with whom Secretary Clinton was
in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary
Clinton's use ofa personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of
people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while
outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in
21
22
23
24
FBI documents, supra note 2 at SJC 000035 .
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page 8
the territory ofsophisticated adversaries. Given that combination offactors, we

assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's
personal e-mail account.25
The edited statement contains a comment bubble at the conclusion of the changed paragraph;
however the FBI redacted the comment. 26
Figure 3: Edits on "reasonably likely" that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account
Wiih rcipcct to potential computer intni\ion by ho\tile actors. we did not find
direct evidence that Secrctnry Clinton' \ pcr\onal email \~tem. in it\ nrious
configuratiom \mcc 2009. ,,u \Ucce\sfully hacked. But. ~ven the 1111nu-c of the
\Y\1em nnd of the ac tors po1e111folly involved. we assc\s 1hat we would be unlikely
to \Ce \uch direct e,·idcnce. We do :t\SC\\ that ho\tilc actor<, gamed accc\\ 10 the
private .:onunerc1:1l email accolwts of individuals with whom Secrctnry Clmton
was in regular contact from her ~ C C O lwt. We alw as\ e\\ that
Secretary Clinion· s use of A ~ e11L1i1 donLiin was both known by ft
large number of people and rcndily apparent. Given that combination of factors.
we a\~,:?.\ it is RIA'>onnl!I; hluly ~ t h a t hostile actors gained acccs\ to
Secrctnry Clinton·s ~ PSl'>90~I email ~co1111~- _,,.,- c-..-,.,,,
So tbat'i what w~ found.
Although it is not readily apparent from the draft statement, media reports suggest that
Mr. Strzok changed the language from "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" in the draft
statement. 27 Mr. Strzok also participated in the FBI's interview of Secretary Clinton on July 2,
2016.28 Other documents produced by the Justice Department show during the FBI's
investigation of Secretary Clinton, Mr. Strzok described then-candidate Trump as an "idiot" and
that his candidacy would be "good for Hillary."29 On March 4, 2016, he wrote that "Hillary
should win 100,000,000-0" in a hypothetical election with Trump. 30 In addition, while
exchanging text messages with Lisa Page in August 2016, Mr. Strzok wrote: "I want to believe
the path you threw out to consideration in Andy' s office--t/,at there's no way he gets elected-
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40 .... " 31
25
Corney July 5 statement, supra note I I.
26
27
Laura Jarrett and Evan Perez, FBI agent dismissed from Mueller probe changed Comey 's description ofClinton to
'extremely careless ', CNN, Dec. 4, 2017, http://www.cnn.com/2017112/04/politics/peter-strzok-james-
comey/index.html.
28
Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 302 of FBI interview with Hillary Clinton, July 2, 20 I 6, available at
https://vault. fbi.gov/h illary-r. -clinton/Hillary%20R.%20CIinton%20Part%2002%20of%20 I6/view.
29
Letter from Stephen E. Boyd, Ass't Attn'y Gen. for the Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Dep't of Justice, to
Sen. Ron Johnson, Chainnan, S. Comm. on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Dec. 12, 2017. Mr.
Boyd's letter was accompanied by a production of375 text message communications between Mr. Strzok and Lisa
Paige, another FBI employee dated August 16, 20 I 5 to December I, 20 I6 [herein after referred to as "text
messages." Text messages at 8-9; text messages at I0.
30
Text messages at 11
31
Text messages at 43 (emphasis added).
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page 9
In summary, the edits to Director Corney's public statement, made months prior to the
conclusion of the FBI's investigation of Secretary Clinton's conduct, had a significant impact on
the FBl's public evaluation of the implications of her actions. This effort, seen in light of the
personal animus toward then-candidate Trump by senior FBI agents leading the Clinton
investigation and their apparent desire to create an "insurance policy" against Mr. Trump's
election, raise profound questions about the FBl's role and possible interference in the 2016
presidential election and the role of the same agents in Special Counsel Mueller's investigation
of President Trump. Given these circumstances, the Committee has additional questions about
the process by which the FBI edited Director Corney's public statement of July 5, 2016. I
respectfully request the following information and material:
1. Please provide the names of the Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who
comprised the "mid-year review team" during the FBl's investigation of Secretary
Clinton's use of a private email server?
2. Please identify all FBI, DOJ, or other federal employees who edited or reviewed
Director Corney's July 5, 2016 statement. Please identify which individual made the
marked changes in the documents produced to the Committee.
3. Please identify which FBI employee repeatedly changed the language in the draft
statement that described Secretary Clinton's behavior as "grossly negligent" to
"extremely careless." What evidence supported these changes?
4. Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to remove the
reference to the Intelligence Community. On what basis was this change made?
5. Please identify which FBI employee edited the draft statement to downgrade the
FBI' s assessment that it was "reasonably likely" that hostile actors had gained access
to Secretary Clinton's private email account to merely that than intrusion was
"possible." What evidence supported these changes?
6. Please provide unredacted copies of the drafts of Director Corney's statement,

including comment bubbles, and explain the basis for the redactions in the material
produced to date.
Please provide this information as soon as possible but no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 28,
2017. Any classified information provided in response to this letter should be provided under
separate cover through the Office of Senate Security.

effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the Govemment," 32 Additionally, S. Res. 62
( 115th Congress) authorizes the Committee to examine "the efficiency and economy of all
32
S. Rule :XXV(k); see also S. Res. 445, 108th Cong. (2004).
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

December 14, 2017
Page 10
branches of the Government including the possible existence of fraud, misfeasance, malfeasance,
33
collusion, mismanagement, incompetence, corruption, or unethical practices ...."
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions about this request,
please contact Kyle Brosnan or Brian Downey of the Committee staff at (b) (6) I.

Ranking Member
Enclosure
33
S. Res. 62 § 12, I15th Cong. (2017).
Document ID: 0.7.16060.6408-000002

From: Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)

To: (b) (6) House Email
Subject: FW: Joint Committee investigation follow up
Attachments: DOJ response to Chmn Goodlatte and Gowdy re FBI interview requests.pdf
Hi, Perry.
Stephen is tied up and asked me to respond to your e--maiJ. At 1:20pm we transmitted our response to
the December 19th letter from Chairmen Goodlatte and Gowdy. I am attaching it here to make sure
you have it. We believe the minority has all of the same documents and text messages we have
provided to the majority in recent weeks. I am looking into the status of the response to your
December 11th letter and I will get back to you.
Thank you,
-JCT
Jill C. Tyson
(202} 514-3597
[email protected]
From: Apelbaum, Perry (b) ( 6) House Email

To: Mangum, Anela M. {OLA} <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >
Cc: Calanni, Rachel (b) (6) House Email
McElvein, Elizabeth (b) ( 6) House Email
av>>
Subject: Joint Committee investigation follow up
Stephen-
Last night, our Committee Majority copied us on a letter to the Attorney General from Chairmen
Goodlatte and Gowdy requesting interviews with three FBI employees: Andrew McCabe, Jim Rybicki,
and Lisa Page. Of course, we would look for.,vard to being copied on your written response to this
re-quest, but I write to ask that you also inform us by phone or email of any information you provide by
phone or email to the Majority prior to any response by letter so we could prepare adequately. Please
contact me and Rachel and Elizabeth with any such re sponse.
In addition, you may recall that as part of the investigation, Ranking Member Nadler and House
Oversight Committee Ranking Member Elijah Cummings sent a letter to Attorney General Sessions and
Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein on December 11 concerning correspondence issues and
requested any documents and communications related to "True Pundit", its connections to Wikileaks
or the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server, as well as Trump Campaign
personne l knowledge of the investigation. Please let us know when you expect to be able to receive a
response.
Thank you.
Perry

To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA}; Schools, Scott (ODAG}; Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA};
Brower, Gregory (DO) {FBI); . (DO) {FBI)
Cc: Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA)
Subject: Fwd: Committee's Letter to the DAG 121915
Attachments: DAG_Rosenstein_SSCl_121915.pdf; ATT00001.htm
FYI attached. Not necessarily a new production request, just a memorialization thereof from SSCI
concerning the PS/ LP te.x t messages.
David F. Lasseter
From: "Le, Vanessa {Intelligence)" (b) ( 6) Senate Email

To: "'Lasseter, David F. (OLA)'"
<David.F. [email protected]>, "'Joanne. [email protected]'"
<[email protected]>
Cc: "Doss, April (Intelligence)" (b) (6) Senate Email , "Llewellyn, Nicolette
(Intelligence)" (b) ( 6) Senate Email
Subject: Committee's letter to the DAG 121915
David,
Attached is a copy of the letter that Nicolette will be giVing Joanne in hard copy this afternoon.
Please confirm receipt and ensure this gets to the DAG.
Best,
Vanessa
Vanessa J. Le
Counsel
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
(O)~
Cutrona, Danielle (OAG)
From: Cutrona, Danielle (OAG)

Cc: Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG); Barnett, Gary E. (OAG}; Whitaker, Matthew (OAG);
Bolitho, Zachary (OOAG)
Subject: RE: edits

To: Mangum, Anela M. (OtA)
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA}
Subject: FW:texts
Attachments: 0365 _ 001.pdf
Connecting these emails and the attached written request from Good latte, referenced below, for record
keeping purposes. SB

Sent Friday, December 8, 201711:15 AM
To: 'Parmiter, Robert' (b) (6) House Email ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA}
<[email protected]>
Cc: Breitenbach, Ryan (b) (6) House Email ; Husband, Shelley
(b) (6) House Email Ritchie, Branden (b) (6) House Email
Subject: RE: texts
Roger. Will likely need a formal letter f rom the Chairman for th is, but we' ll proceed with the assumption
that is coming.
As you may know, the volume is very high. We are exploring ways to expedite review of a subset of the texts
that is likely to contain those most relevant to the Committee's interests.
Will update you as we know more.
SB

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Breitenbach, Ryan ; Husband, Shelley
(b) ( 6) House Email : Ritchie, Branden (b) ( 6) House Email
Subjed: texts
Stephen/David. I see here that DOJ has provided the Strzok/Page texts to HPSCI. Please provide HJC
with the same. Thank you.
ROBERT B. PARMITER • CHIEF COUNSEL

SUBCO?.,U..1l'ITEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, HOMELAND SECURITY, AND INVESTIGATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY • U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATfVES
WASHINGT01', D.C. •tm,Cij
BOB GOOOLATTE, Vtrgln1a JOHN CONYERS, JR,, Michigan
CHAIRMAN RANKING MEMBER
F JAMES SENSENBllENNER, JR, Wl.oconsln JEFl~OLO NAOl.ER. New York

LAMAR S SMITH, Texaa ZOE LOFGREN, Ca!ifornie
STEVE CHAOOT, Ohio SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Tans
OARREU £. !SSA. Celifomia ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS STEVE COHEN, Tennouoo
STEVE KING, lowe HENAY C, "HANK" JOHNSON, JR . Georgio
JUDY CHU, C.liromiu
TRENT FRANKS. Asizona
LOUIE GOHMERT, To.••
JIM JORDAN, Ohio
TEO POE. Te.es
JASON CHAFfETL. U1ah
[:onyrrss of the tinitrd ~tatrs TEO oeu·rcH, Florido
LUIS V GUTitRREZ. lllinol•
l<AREN BASS, California
CEDRIC L RICHMOND, Louis antt
TOM MARINO, Pe<in5Vlvanle
TREY GCYWOY. Sou1h Corohne
RAUL R. LAllilAOOR, ldoho
'lt\ausr of 1Rrprrsmmtiors HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New Var\
DAVID CIOLLI\J!:, Rhoda hil11nd
E'AIC SWAlWflL. California
TEO LIEU, Celi'omio
BLAKE FAAENTHOLO, T,,,..
DOUG COUtNS, Georgie
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY JAMIE RASKIN, Moryt,nd
RON DESANTIS, Flor do MP-MILA JAYAPAL, Washington
KEN BUCK, Colorado 2138 RAYBURN House OFFICE BUILDING
JOHN RA.lCLIFFE, T,)IH
MIKE BISHOP, Michigan
MAFllH.A A08Y, Al1bflm1t WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6216
MATT GAETZ, Flor1di1
M lKE JOHNSON, Loul,Lana (202) 225-3951
ANDY BIGOS. ArllOJ'l8
http://www.house.gov/)udlciary
December 12, 2017
The Honorable Jeff Sessions

Dear Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein:
Over the past several weeks, there has been widespread media reporting about former
FBI counterintelligence supervisor Peter Strzok, and his leadership role in both the Clinton email
investigation and the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
It has also been reported recently that Mr. Mueller removed Mr. Strzok from his team
after learning that Mr. Strzok had exchanged text messages critical of then-candidate Donald
Trump with Lisa Page, a FBI attorney who had similarly served on the Special Counsel team.
As you know, the Judiciary Committee, which is the principal Committee ofjurisdiction
over the FBI and DOJ, is currently conducting a joint investigation with the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform into the FBI and DOJ's activities during the 2016 election. It
is therefore imperative that this Committee be provided with these text messages, which relate
directly to that investigation. Please do so at your earliest convenience.
cc: The Honorable Jerrold Nadler

Ranking Minority Member
Document ID: 0.7.16060.44210-000001

From: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA)

To: Hankey, Mary Bl anche (OLA); Lasseter, David F. (OLA); Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA);
Escalona, Prim F. (OLA); Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle (OLA)
Subject: RE: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages
(b) (5)

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OIL.A) <kkellner@j md.usdoj.gov>; Lasseter, Davi d F. {OLA)
<dlasseter@j md.usdoj .gov>; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} ; Escalona, Prim F. (OLA}
<pfescalona@j md.usdoj .gov>; Tyson, Jill C. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle {OLA) <rbrooks@j md.usdoj.gov>
(b) (5)
From: Kellner, Kenneth E. {OLA)

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <[email protected]>; Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) (6)
Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA} <[email protected]>; Escalona, Prim F. (OLA)
<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. (OLA) < [email protected]>
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle (OLA) <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: OIG Response letter t o Sens Gressley and Johnson re Text Messages
(b) (5)

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. {OIL.A) <[email protected]>; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6)
Hankey, Mary Bl anche (OLA} <[email protected]>; Escalona, Prim F. (OLA)
<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. {OLA) < [email protected]>
(b) (5)
Sent Wednesday, December 13, 2017 2:49 PM
To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} (b) (6) ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>;
Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA} <[email protected]>; Escalona, Prim F. (OLA}
<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. {OLA) <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages
This OIG l etter responds to questions concerning the IG's discovery of certain text m essages between Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page of the FBI/Special Counsel.
Fr om : Lee, Rene R. (OIG}

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott {ODAG} <[email protected]>;
Sheehan, Matthew (ODAG} <[email protected]>
Cc:\Wl(WBP•Ufl•1,OIG) (b) (6)- Per OIG
Subject: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages
Attached please :find a copy ofthe DOJ Office of Inspector General' s response to the December 6, 2017 letter
from Chairmen Grassley and Johnson. Ifyou have any questions, please let me know.
Thank you,
Rene Rocque Lee
Senior Counsel to the Inspector General
(202) 514-3435

To: Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA); Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA); Lasseter, David F. (OLA};
Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA); Escalona, Prim F. (OLA)
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle (OLA}
Aneta prepared a set for OIG. Ken please treat them as close hold (we only gave them to the Hill in hard
copy). Thanks.

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OIL.A) <kkellner@j md.usdoj .gov>; Lasseter, Davi d F. {OLA)
<dlasseter@j md.usdoj .gov>; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} ; Escalona, Prim F. (OLA}
<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. {OLA) <[email protected] .gov>
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle {OLA) <[email protected]>

To: Lee, Rene R. {OIG)
Cc: itQl!WW·@ {OIG)
Subject: RE: OIG Response l etter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages
Attachments: 2017-12-12 FBI Strzok Text - Enclosure.pdf
Scanning did not take long.
From : Lee, Rene R. {OIG)

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OlA) <kkellner@j md.usdoj .gov>
Cc·\iff01P•U,· fOIG) (b) (6) - Per OIG
Subject: RE: OIG Response letter to Sens Gressley and Johnson re Text Messages
Hi, Ken:
Is there any way that we can get a copy ofthe text messages t hat w ere provi ded to the Hill?
Thanks,
Rene

To: Lee, Rene R. (OIG) <[email protected]>
cc-\WM1PP•U,: ~01G) (b) (6) - Per OIG
Subject: RE: OIG Response letter to Sens Gressley and Johnson re Text Messages
Thanks Rene. OlA leadership asked me to send the attached letters to you. The letters were t r ansmitted
yesterday.
Ken
From : Lee, Rene R. (OIG)

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <kkellner@jrnd .usdoj.gov>; Schools, Scott {ODAG) <[email protected]>;
Sheehan, Matthew (ODAG) <[email protected]>
Cc·\@1PP•U, ~ OIG) (b) (6) - Per OIG
Subject: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages
Duplicati\·e Material

(b) (5)
From : Lasseter, David F. (OLA}

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <kkellner@j md.usdoj.gov>
Ken
From : Kellner, Kenneth E. {OLA}

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. {OLA} <[email protected]>
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle (OLA} <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Mess.ages

To: Lasseter, David F. {OLA}; Tyson, Jill C. (OLA); Boyd, Stephen E. {OlA); Hankey,
Mary Blanche (OLA); Escalona, Pri m F. (OLA); Mangum, Anela M. (OLA)
(b) (5)
Fr om : Lasseter, Davi d F. {OLA)

Sent Wednesday, December 13, 2017 3:54 PM
To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (01.A)<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. (01.A)<[email protected]>;
Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA) <mhankey@j md.usdoj.gov>;
Escalona, Prim F. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Mangum, Anela M . {OLA} <[email protected]>
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle {OLA} <[email protected]>
Anela (b) (5)
Ken
Thanks,
dfl

To: Tyson, Jill C. {OLA) < [email protected]>; Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) ( 6) ; Lasseter,
David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA) <[email protected]>;
Escalona, Prim F. {OLA) <[email protected]>
(b) (5)
From: Tyson, Jill C. (OLA)

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6)
Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA}
<[email protected]>; Escalona, Prim F. {OLA) <[email protected]>
(b) (5)
To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. (OLA) < [email protected]>
Subject FW: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages
Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C 20530
The Honorable Richard Burr

Chairman
Select Committee on Intelligence
DEC 1 2 2017
Dear Chairman BmT,
provide the Committee with copies oftext message communications between Federal Bmeau of
enclosmes to a number of Congressional Committees that have made similar requests.
As you may know, on January 12, 2016, the Department of Justice's Office of Inspector
FBI policies or procedmes were not followed in connection with, or in actions leading up to or
related to, the ·FBI Director's public announcement on July 5, 2016, 1 and the Director's letters to
decisions were based on improper considerations.2" As part of that review, the OIG obtained,
Depmtment continues to review docmnents m1d will provide pertinent documents as they become
available.
1
On that date, then-FBI Director James B . Corney announced that the FBI was recommending to the Department of
Justice that no charges should be filed relating to fonner Secretruy of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private email
server.
2
DOJ OIG Announces Initiation of Review, January 12, 2017, available at: https://oig.justice.gov/press/20 l 7/2017-
01- 12.pdf
Document ID: 0.7.16060.90869-000004

The Honorable Richard Burr
Page Two
and will take appropriate action as wananted.
cc: The Honorable Mark Warner

Ranking Member
Enclosures
Document ID: 0.7.16060.90869-000004


To: Schools, Scott {OOAG)
Cc: Brower, Gregory (00) (FBI); er FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C) (DO) (FBI)
Subject: FW: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text M essages
Attachments: Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson - Text Messages.pdf;
ATT00001.htm
Scott-did you see attached OIG response to similar questions from Chairman Johnson?
d fl

Ta: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} i Lasseter, Davi d F. (OLA) <dlasseter@j rnd.usdoj.gov>;
Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA} <[email protected]>; Escalona, Prim F. (O!..A)
<[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. {OLA) <jctyson@j md.usdoj .gov>
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle {OLA) <rbrooks@j md.usdoj .gov>
Subjed : FW: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages
Mangum, Anela M. (OLA.)
From : Mangum, Anela M. (OLA)

To: Lasseter, David F. {OLA}; Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA); Tyson, Jill C. {OLA); Boyd,
Stephen E. (OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA); Escalona, Prim F. (OLA)
Attachments: 2017-12-12 FBI Strzok Text - Nunes.pdf; 2017-12-12 FBI Strzok Text -
Goodlatte.pdf; 2017-12-12 FBI Strzok Text - Johnson.pdf; 2017-12-12 FBI Strzok
Text - Burr.pdf; 2017-12-12 FBI Strzok Text- Grassley.pdf
Please find the cover letters attached.

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Tyson, Jill C. (OLA) <jctyson@j md.usdoj.gov>;
Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA) <mhankey@j md.usdoj.gov>;
Escalona, Prim F. {OLA} <[email protected]>; Mangum, Anela M. {OLA) <amangum@j md.usdoj.gov>
Cc: Brooks, Roshelle {OLA) <rbrooks@j md.usdoj.gov>
Subje-ct: RE: OIG Response letter to Sens Grassley and Johnson re Text Messages

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 201 7 8:18 PM
Subject: FW:texts
Written request of 12/05 for house judiciary.
Fro m : Boyd, St ephen E. (OLA)

To: 'Parmiter, Robert' (b) (6) House Email ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA}
<dlasseter@j md.usdoj .gov>
Cc: Breitenbach, Ryan (b) (6) House Email ; Husband, Shelley
(b) (6) House Email Ritchie, Branden (b) (6) House Email
Subject: RE: texts

To: Patel, Kash
Subject: Re: Text message production
Kash-l eft you a vm. We are ready to produce. I just need a short letter signed by Chairman. DOJ
attorneys are recommending based on future potential litigation.
Thanks,
Davi d
Davi d F. Lasseter
On Dec 12, 2017, at 13:19, Patel, Kash (b) (6) House Email wrote:
David,
The first formal request was made in writing to DOJ ( on an email which you were included on
12/2} for all communications between Strzok and Page, to include text messages. Furthermore,
the Chairman made the very same request in person to the DAG when they met at DOJ on 12/6.
Lastly, there was yet another follow-up email sent to DOJ on 12/6 itemizing the agreed upon
due outs from the meeting, which included again, the request for all communications to
include text messages. If these multiple requests in writing and in person from the Chairman to
the DAG are insufficient for DOJ to comply with agreement, please let me know. You may also
consider this yet another written request on behalf of the Chairman and the Committee to
produce said communications. Thanks and we look forward to receiving the production.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P . P atel
Senior Comisel for Counterterrorism
From: Lasseter, Davi d F. (Oil.A} [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 201711:57 AM
To: Patel, Kash (b) (6) Hottse Email
Subject: Text message production
Kash- good morning. It is our understanding that the Chairman has made a re-quest for text
messages between Pete Strzok and Lisa Page. If the committee will send us a formal request in
writing on letterhead today, we should be able to provi de an initial production in the next day
or two.
Thanks,
David
David F. Lasseter
(202) 514-1260
Lasseter, Dav id F. (OLA)

To: Herbert, Jenelle R. {OLA)
Cc: Johnson, Joanne E. {OLA)
Su bje ct: FW: A Letter from Chairman Johnson to Acting Attorney General Rosenstein
Attachm ents: 2012-12-13 Draft response to Johnson 12-6-2017.docx; 2017-12-06 RHJ to 0OJ
Rosenst ein.pdf
JH (b) (5)
Thanks,
David
From: Schools, Scott {0DAG}

To: Lasseter, David F. (0lA} <[email protected]>; Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI) <[email protected]>;
Per FBI (b)(6) (b)(7)(C) (00) (FBI) Per FBI (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6)
Subject: RE: A Letter from Chairman Johnson to Acting Attorney General Rosenstein
David:
(b) (5)
Scott

Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 201711:35 AM
To: Schools, Scott (0DAG) <sschools@j md.usdoj.gov>; Brower, Gregory (DO} {FBI} <[email protected]>;
Per FBI (b)(6) (b)(7)(C) , (DO) (FBI} Per FBI (b) (6), (b) (7)(C)
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA} (b) (6)

Subje-ct: FW: A Letter from Chairman Johnson to Acting Attorney General Rosenstein
Importance: High
Scott/Greg-good morning. (b) (5)
Thanks,
David
From: Downey, Brian (HSGAC) (b) ( 6) Senate Email

Sent: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 8:19. PM
To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA)
111
· -=1::'1'1•pmm•••1'2e••mm•••@::iw1~•m•
<jojohnson@jmd.•~s~_o!~!:_~~>; Lasseter, David F. {OLA) <dlasseter@jmd~:_~~!·~~v>;·r:o1p•
Document ID : 0,7 ,16060.54328

Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C) Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
{DO} (FBI} Per FBI: (b) (6). (b) C')(C) DO) (FBI) Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
Cc: Brewer, David (HSGAC) (b) (6) Senate Email
Subject; A Letter from Chairman Johnson to Acting Attorney General Rosenstein
Importance: High
Hello,
Please fin d attached a letter from Chairman Johnson addressed to Acting Attorney General
Rosenstein. Please confirm receipt of the letter and enclosure. Thank you.
Sincerely,
8rian M. Downey
Senior Investigator
Chairman Ron H. Johnson {WI}
U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Washington, DC
{P) (b) (6)
House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on FBI Oversight
December 7, 2017 (Final Transcript)
WITNESS:
FBI Director Wray
GOODLATTE:
The Judiciary Committee will come to order. And, without objection, the chair is authorized to declare
recesses of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and I'll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement.
Thank you, Director Wray, for appearing for your first time in front of this committee, and thank you for
your service to our country in your new position. There is much to discuss today, and we look forward to
your answers.
The president recently tweeted that the FBI is in tatters. While some will take umbrage with President
Trump's assertion, it does appear to me that, at the very least, the FBI's reputation as an impartial,
nonpolitical agency has been called into question recently.
We cannot afford for the FBI, which has traditionally been dubbed the premier law enforcement agency
in the world, to become tainted by politicization or the perception of a lack of evenhandedness.
Questions regarding the FBI's impartiality first came to light under the Obama administration,
surrounding the handling of the investigation into the Clinton e-mail server scandal. You, Director Wray,
have a unique opportunity to repair the damage of the reputation of the FBI, and we encourage you in
the strongest terms to do so.
Director Comey's decision to weigh in on the fate of the investigation into the mishandling of classified
e-mails by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was one that brought criticism to the bureau from all
sides.
The FBI's decision to recommend no charges against formers -- the former secretary or anyone
connected to her continues to raise serious concerns that our nation's system of justice applies
differently to the rich, powerful and well-connected than to everyone else.
Many on this committee have repeatedly called on Attorney General Sessions and Deputy Attorney
General Rosenstein to name a second special counsel to review the voluminous unresolved
inconsistencies and perceived improprieties with regard to formal -- to normal FBI and DOJ investigatory
practice that arose during the Clinton e-mail investigation.
Despite our request, the department has not appointed a second special counsel. While we still request
the appointment of a second special counsel, we have now also opened our own joint investigation with
the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to review FBI and DOJ's handling of that
investigation.
1
The attorney general has recently committed to provide us relevant documents and I hope to hear
directly from you that you will ensure your agency provides a fulsome response of documents to enable
unimpeded congressional oversight.
Even more recently, reports on the bias of some of the career agents and lawyers on current Special
Counsel Mueller's team are also deeply troubling to a system of blind and equal justice. Investigations
must not be tainted by individuals imposing their own personal political opinions.
We do not know the magnitude of this insider bias on Mr. Mueller's team, nor do we have a clear
understanding of the full magnitude of bias reflected in the Russia investigation and prior Clinton e-mail
investigation.
One thing is clear, though: It is absolutely unacceptable for FBI employees to permit their own political
predilections to contaminate any investigation. Even the appearance of impropriety will devastate the
FBI's reputation.
We hope to hear from you today about an action plan for making sure this never happens again, that
individuals are held accountable, and whether you plan to reevaluate prior decisions in light of the
prejudice shown by officials in integral roles on past and ongoing investigations.
Concerning substantive legislative measures, we find ourselves only weeks before a critical program for
our national security expires, FISA Section 702. This committee passed on an overwhelmingly bipartisan
basis a reauthorization of Section 702 that maintains the integrity of the program while protecting
cherished civil liberties.
GOODLATTE:
We ensure that the FBI is not hindered by having a -- having to obtain a warrant before performing a
search for information that the agency has inside its databases. However, we also put in place
protections to ensure that law enforcement cannot shortcut American civil liberties by reading
Americans' e-mails without a warrant when looking for evidence of run-of-the-mill crimes.
This committee's legislation struck a balance that will hope that will promote national security and civil
liberties. So I hope to hear from you that you will work with us to make any perfecting changes to the
legislation so that Section 702 can be reauthorized on time.
Needless violence on the home front is also a concern for all Americans who value and expect safety and
security as they go about their day-to-day lives. We have seen horrific violence in the past year,
including the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.
Violence has hit this very body when our colleague, Congressman Scalise, and others were shot. We also
see many of our major cities stricken by daily murders and excessive violence. Is this the new normal?
I'm unwilling to accept that.
While we have disagreements over policy for addressing this violence, we can all agree that it is
essentially -- it is existentially important for us to understand and address the underlying causes. If we
neglect this duty, we do a disservice for generations to come.
2
Director Wray, in addition to punishing individuals who have already committed criminal acts, I hope the
FBI is also committed to crime prevention initiatives.
I am interested to know what steps federal law enforcement is taking to address the underlying causes
of violence and whether Congress can offer any additional resources to ensure that we can faithfully say
that we have done what we can to battle gratuitous violence in all of its forms.
I believe that this committee's criminal justice reform legislation will help address these problems,
including helping to rehabilitate offenders so that they can become productive members of society,
once released.
Notwithstanding the question of the impartiality and independence of the FBI, I am often astounded by
the efforts that the men and women of the FBI contribute on a daily basis toward keeping our country
safe from foreign and domestic threats. There are many successes that never come to light -- that never
see the light of day, for which the FBI cannot receive public credit, due to the sensitivity of the FBI's
methods and operations.
We are truly grateful and hope that the line agents, analysts and support staff of the FBI know that their
jobs are sincerely appreciated and greatly valued.
Again, Director Wray, thank you for appearing today. And I'll now yield to the ranking member of the
committee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
NADLER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the House Judiciary Committee, Director Wray.
Earlier this week, in a message to your agents and employees, you gave us your vision of what the FBI is
supposed to be. Quote, "We find ourselves under the microscope each and every day, and rightfully so.
We do hard work for a living. We are entrusted with protecting the American people and upholding the
Constitution and laws of The United States.
"Because of the importance of our mission, we are also entrusted with great power, and we should
expect and welcome people asking tough questions about how we use that power. That goes with the
job and always has," unquote, from your statement.
I appreciate that sentiment. But it cannot be a coincidence that you sent this message to your agents
just hours after President Trump launched an online tantrum aimed largely at the bureau as an
institution and at individual agents. Early Saturday morning, the president tweeted, quote, "So General
Flynn lies to the FBI and his life destroyed, while crooked Hillary lies many times and nothing happens to
her? Rigged system or just a double standard?" question mark, unquote.
He went on: "After years of Comey, with the phony and dishonest Clinton investigation, running the FBI,
its reputation is in tatters, worst in history." These outbursts exemplify two key characteristics of the
administration: a cheapening and coarsening of our dialogue, and baseless but entirely predictable
political attacks against Hillary Clinton, political opponents, the Department of Justice and the FBI.
I fear that this demeaning language has infected much of our work here on this committee. And I
suspect, Mr. Director, that many of my Republican colleagues will take a similar approach in attempting
3
to shift the conversation away from questions they have largely ignored, like obstruction of justice,
election security and the rise in hate crimes.
Indeed, I predict that these attacks on the FBI will grow louder and more brazen as the special counsel
does his work and the walls close in around the president and evidence of his obstruction and o ther
misdeeds becomes more apparent.
In this moment, Director Wray, your responsibility is not only to defend the bureau, but to push back
against the president when he is clearly wrong, both on the facts and as a matter of principle.
When he says, quote, "the FBI person really reports directly to the president of the United States,"
unquote, it is your job to tell him that the director of the FBI has reported to the attorney general since
the founding of the bureau, and the president should not comment on pending cases.
When he claims that you should focus on, quote, "crooked Hillary," unquote, instead of his closest
associates, or when my colleagues argue for a new special counsel to do the same, it is your
responsibility to remind us that, absent sufficient evidence of a crime, there is no investigation to which
a special counsel can be assigned.
And when he tells you that you need to, quote, "clean house;" that your agents are, quote, "phony and
dishonest;" and that your, quote, "reputation" -- or "the reputation of the bureau is in tatters" and,
quote, "the worst in history," you should do more than send a private e-mail to your employees. Your
job, then, is to stand up to the president of the United States.
As former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates has said, "The only thing in tatters is the president's
respect for the rule of law. The dedicated men and women of the FBI deserve better."
Or, as former Attorney General Eric Holder said, "You'll find integrity and honesty at FBI headquarters,
and not at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, right now."
Or, as Thomas O'Connor, president of the FBI Agents Association, said, "The FBI continues to be the
premier law enforcement agency in the world. FBI agents are dedicated to their mission. Suggesting
otherwise is simply false," unquote.
I'm curious if you think their defense of the bureau is wrong or misplaced. And I hope you'll address the
matter in your testimony today. Your job requires you to have the courage, in these circumstances, to
stand up to the president. That responsibility is far more than a matter of politics.
There really -- there are real consequences for allowing the president to continue his attacks on the FBI
and to continue unchecked in this manner. For example, FBI statistics released last month show a
marked increase in the rise of hate crimes in the United States. Your data indicate 6,121 hate crimes
against seven -- against 7,615 victims last year alone.
Last week, about 70 of our colleagues wrote to me and to Chairman Goodlatte, asking us to, quote,
"convene immediate hearings to determine what can be done to stem the tide," unquote, of this
violence. I agree completely. This committee should address the matter without delay, and I ask that the
letter I have be made a part of the record.
4
GOODLATTE:
Without objection, it will be made a part of the record.
NADLER:
Thank you.
I am certain that more than one factor is to blame for this rise in violence, but I cannot help but look to a
president who has tacitly and sometimes explicitly created an environment that is more hostile to the
most vulnerable among us.
As a candidate, he denigrated women, characterized immigrants as rapists and openly mocked the
disabled. As president, he cracked a Pocahontas joke at a ceremony honoring the contributions of
Native Americans in combat defending this country, circulated unverified anti-Muslim videos produced
by far-right fascist extremists in Great Britain and asked us to remember the very -- the, quote, "very
fine people," unquote, among the racists and white nationalists at Charlottesville. According to reports,
he has even resurrected the question of President Obama's birthplace, a pernicious, racist lie from the
start.
We are looking for leaders who have the moral -- who can supply some moral authority to lead this
country. I hope you will be among them, Director Wray. I look forward to your testimony today.
I thank the chairman. I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
Chair thanks the gentleman.
We welcome our distinguished witness. And if you'll please rise, I'll begin by swearing you in.
Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
WRAY:
(OFF-MIKE).
GOODLATTE:
Thank you very much. Let the record show that the witness answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Christopher Wray was sworn in as the eighth director of the FBI on August 2, 2017. A New York City
native, Mr. Wray graduated from Yale University and subsequently earned his law degree from Yale Law
School.
Mr. Wray began his Department of Justice career in 1997 as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern
District of Georgia, where he prosecuted cases ranging from public corruption to gun trafficking and
financial fraud.
In 2001, he joined the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, where he served as associate deputy
attorney general and then principal associate deputy attorney general.
5
In 2003, Mr. Wray was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve as assistant attorney general
for the Criminal Division. At the conclusion of his tenure, Mr. Wray was awarded the Edmond J.
Randolph Award, the Department of Justice's highest award for leadership and public service. Mr. Wray
went on to practice law before returning to the public sector as Director of the FBI.
Mr. Wray, your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety, and we ask you
summarize your testimony in five minutes. Welcome.
WRAY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nadler, members of the committee, thank you for having me here
today. This is my first opportunity to appear before this committee, and I look forward to our discussion.
Let me start by saying that it is, for me, the honor of a lifetime to be here representing the men and
women of the FBI. There is no finer institution than the FBI, and no finer people than the men and
women who work there and are its very beating heart: almost 37,000 men and women with a fierce
commitment to protecting the American people and upholding the rule of law in all 50 states and in
about 80 countries around the world, men and women who face the darkest that life has to offer with
unyielding integrity and honesty and dedication. And I am both humbled and inspired to be back in
public service working alongside them.
I'd like to take a step back to consider the serious challenges that we're facing and to remember the
millions of people that we're protecting. On the national security front, we confront individuals who
want to harm the United States in whatever way they can -- terrorists hell-bent on striking us with IEDs,
vehicles, guns and knives. For example, as we speak, the bureau has about 1,000 active ISIS
investigations in all 50 states.
We have nation-states actively seeking our technology, our military secrets, our research and
development to build their own economic process and prowess and to tear ours down; cyber criminals
who are using sophisticated means to infiltrate our systems and steal every piece of data that they can
get their hands on.
These threats are real, they are many and they are a grave threat to all Americans. But, for the people
we serve, these are not the threats that they encounter the most in their everyday lives. Threats like
violent crime and the national opioid epidemic impact everyday people trying to lead everyday lives.
They don't want to have to worry about a terrorist driving a truck down a busy walkway. They don't
want to worry about an active shooter opening fire on a crowded public gathering. And they certainly
don't want to worry about whether their kids are safe from gangs and drug dealers and predators.
WRAY:
We all need to be aware of the world around us and of the threats we face, but we in the FBI are trying
to do everything we can to make sure that the American people can go about living their lives while we
focus on trying to keep them safe.
6
I'd like to highlight just a couple recent investigations that illustrate just a small, small part of our work,
together with our law enforcement partners and our colleagues in the Justice Department.
In October, through Operation Cross Country, which the FBI conducted in 44 states and the District of
Columbia, we arrested 120 sex traffickers and recovered 84 sexually exploited juveniles, including a
three-month-old girl and her five-year-old sister, who were recovered from a family friend who was
trying to sell them for sex for $600.
And, through our top 10 most wanted fugitives program, we have apprehended, just in the last couple
years, 10 of the most particularly dangerous offenders.
In August -- late August, we were able to work with our Mexican counterparts to capture Luis Macedo, a
gang member charged with first- degree murder for beating, then shooting, and then setting on fire a
15-year-old boy in Illinois who refused to show a gang sign.
And then, earlier this year, the pressure of being added to our top 10 list led fugitive Robert Van Wisse
to turn himself in to FBI agents in Texas for the 1983 murder of a young woman with a one-year- old
daughter. For 33 years, that little girl, now all grown up, had hoped and prayed for his arrest, and he was
finally captured on her birthday. Cold comfort, I suspect, but we hope that his capture provides some
measure of peace and justice to her.
The work that we do is not easy, to put it mildly. But the FBI is mission focused and passionate about the
work we do. We are determined to be the very best at protecting the American people and upholding
the rule of law. And I, for one, could not be more proud to be part of it.
I want to thank you, this committee, for your support. We could not do what we do without the funding
that you all help us secure, without the investigative tools and authorities that you granted us, including,
as you noted, Mr. Chairman, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is at risk and
set to expire very soon.
We need every tool and every authority we've got to keep people safe and to pursue justice. And, as
always, we're committed to using those authorities lawfully and appropriately for the good and
protection of the American people.
So thank you for having me here today. I look forward to your questions.
GOODLATTE:
Thank you, Director Wray. I'll begin by recognizing myself for questions.
Mr. Director, I'm sure you're aware of the recent media reports indicating that Peter Strzok, who is a
special agent at the FBI changed the words "grossly negligent" to "extremely careless" in former Director
Comey's statement closing the Clinton investigation. Are you aware of that?
WRAY:
I've heard some of the same information you have.
GOODLATTE:
7
Great. Do you know, by chance, what the criminal intent standard is under the Espionage Act? In
particular, 18 USC 793(f).
WRAY:
I haven't studied the statute recently, but I believe it's gross negligence.
GOODLATTE:
That's right. It is gross negligence. So would it be accurate to say that a senior FBI official changed the
wording of the director's statement to ensure that Secretary Clinton was not liable under the Espionage
Act?
WRAY:
Well, Mr. Chairman, as you may know, the handling of the investigation into Secretary Clinton is
currently the subject of an outside, independent investigation by the inspector general, and I think it
would not be appropriate for me to speculate about what the inspector general will or will not find.
GOODLATTE:
That is probably appropriate, but it's still not at all inappropriate to ask you to draw a legal conclusion
about a standard in the law that was changed in a statement that the -- your predecessor put out as a
justification for closing the investigation of the former secretary of state.
WRAY:
As I said, Mr. Chairman, I believe the standard is gross negligence. I leave it to others to conclude
whether "extremely careless" and "gross negligence" are the same thing.
But I will say that the particulars of the investigation and the decisions that were made and whether or
not it was handled appropriately is, as I think it should be, the subject of an outside, independent
investigation by the inspector general, and I look forward to his findings, as I'm sure the committee
does, as well.
GOODLATTE:
In July of 2016, the State Department revealed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged
on her unsecured private server nearly two dozen top secret e-mails with three State Department
officials.
The classification Top Secret means, in part, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be
expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to national security.
Can you explain to the American people how the FBI could not be investigating actions taken by
individuals like those named in 2016 -- Jacob Sullivan, Cheryl Mills, William Burns -- that threatened
grave damage to the national security?
WRAY:
Well, as I said, Mr. Chairman, the handling of the investigation and whether or not -- in particular
whether or not decisions made in that investigation were the product of any improper considerations is
precisely what the outside, independent inspector general is investigating. And, when we get his
findings, I will look and see what appropriate action we can take at the FBI in response to that.
8
GOODLATTE:
Can anyone on this committee set up a private server now and conduct classified business on it, since
not a single person has been prosecuted or held accountable for the Clinton e-mail investigation?
WRAY:
No.
GOODLATTE:
Thank you.
Director Wray, what are you doing to ensure that the top ranks of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
are cleared of individuals who are tainted by bias or those who have exhibited indiscretion by failing to
demonstrate the integrity Americans expect from their top law enforcement officials?
WRAY:
Well, the first thing I'm doing is respecting the outside, independent investigations that are underway.
My preference is to be one of these people who is not a "act first and ask questions later" kind of guy,
but an "ask questions first and then act" kind of guy.
And so I think these matters are being looked at, as they should be, by somebody outside the FBI. And,
when those findings come to me, I will take appropriate action, if necessary.
In the meantime, I am emphasizing in every audience I can inside the bureau that our decisions need to
be made based on nothing other than the facts and the law and our rules and our processes and our
core values, and not based on any political considerations by any side of the aisle.
GOODLATTE:
Thank you.
Does the FBI obtain a warrant before accessing and reading Americans' e-mail?
WRAY:
It depends on the situation, but yes.
GOODLATTE:
So can you explain why you obtain a criminal search warrant before reading an e-mail of someone under
investigation for a crime?
WRAY:
I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?
GOODLATTE:
Can you explain why you obtain a criminal search warrant before reading an e-mail of someone under
investigation for a crime?
WRAY:
Well, in the situations where a search warrant is required, and, of course, under the Fourth Amendment,
there are plenty of situations where a search warrant is not required -- there are all sorts of aspects to
9
the Fourth Amendment. But, in those situations where we seek a warrant, it's because the Fourth
Amendment requires it.
GOODLATTE:
Section 702, as you and I both noted, is up for renewal within a few weeks. It is a critical national
security tool that must be reauthorized. You and I agree on that, as well. But it is just that -- a national
security tool, not a criminal tool.
Is it reasonable, when accessing content that shows evidence of a routine crime and is located in the
FBI's 702 database, that agents should obtain some process, as is required in criminal cases?
WRAY:
Mr. Chairman, I've appreciated our discussions on Section 702. My own view is that Section 702, as
currently drafted, which is the view shared by the courts that have looked at the question, is fully
constitutional and lawful.
And I would say to you that our handling of querying of the information in the 702 database is querying
of information that is already lawfully and constitutionally in the FBI's possession and is most useful at
the earliest stages, when information is coming in in fragments and the bureau is trying to make
assessments of what do we have, is this a real threat, where is this going. And I would implore th e
committee and the Congress not to begin rebuilding the wall that existed before 9/11.
GOODLATTE:
Well, thank you. My time's expired, but I will add that we share that concern, as well, and that's why we
have drawn a clear distinction between national security and solving domestic crimes.
And, when it comes to the query, we allow that to move forward. But, when you then find that there's
something related to the investigation of a domestic crime, then you should go ahead and get a search
warrant. And we've protected the FBI's ability to access that database for the purpose of a query, but
then, if you're going to take it further and actually read the contents of the e-mails -- if they're national
security, go right ahead, because you may be stopping a terrorist attack.
But if you're solving a domestic crime, whatever it might be, then I think you need to respect the civil
liberties of American citizens and get a warrant.
I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, for his questions.
NADLER:
Thank you.
Let me say prior to my statement that I totally agree with the chairman and his observations on 702 and
on the distinctions we made in our bill between national security and counterintelligence operations, on
the one hand, and investigations of domestic crimes, on the other, where we -- where you should get a
warrant, where you'd normally need a warrant.
Director Wray, I'd like to ask you for your help putting the events of the last few days into context. To
set the stage, over the summer, in an interview with The New York Times, President Trump stated,
10
quote, "When Nixon came along, out of courtesy, the FBI started reporting to the Department of Justice,
but the FBI person really reports directly to the president of the United States," close quote.
Director Wray, you have one direct report to the executive branch. To whom do you directly report?
WRAY:
I directly report to the deputy attorney general, who then reports to the attorney general.
NADLER:
Thank you.
Has President Trump ever asked you to sidestep the chain of command and report directly to him?
WRAY:
No.
NADLER:
Also, over the summer, former Director Comey testified that, during a private dinner, President Trump
told him, quote, "I need loyalty. I expect loyalty." Has President Trump ever asked you for loyalty?
WRAY:
I have never been asked by the president to take any kind of loyalty oath. My loyalty is to the
Constitution, to the laws of this country and to the -- you know, the good men and people of America.
NADLER:
Thank you.
Last week, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to one felony count of lying to
the FBI about conversations he had with the Russian ambassador.
I would like to put President Trump's initial Twitter reaction up on the screen. I won't read it, but I will
simply say he claims here to have known that General Flynn committed a crime at the time General
Flynn was fired.
There's come controversy as to whether the president actually wrote this Tweet. The White House later
claimed that it came from the president's private attorney. But I'm not sure that it matters who wrote it,
given the Department of Justice's litigating position that these tweets are, quote, "official statements of
the president of The United States," close quote.
A few clarifying questions, Mr. Director. In your experience at the Department of Justice, have you ever
prosecuted a case involving a charge of obstruction of justice?
WRAY:
Yes.
NADLER:
11
And Sections 1503, 1505 and 1512 of Title 18 make it a crime if someone corruptly, quote, "obstructs,
influences or impedes any official proceeding," close quote. What does it mean to corruptly obstruct,
influence or impede an official proceeding?
WRAY:
Well, Congressman, that would require me to get into kind of a legal discussion...
(CROSSTALK)
WRAY:
... and it's been a while since I've looked at the case law on this subject. I do know -- have (ph) somebody
who's been both a line prosecutor and a senior Justice Department official and a defense attorney --
that sometimes the language of that statute can be trickier than folks...
(CROSSTALK)
NADLER:
OK, fair enough -- fair enough. And I'm glad you're respecting the fact I only have five minutes.
Does obstruction of justice require specific intent? In other words, does a prosecutor have to establish
that a defendant had knowledge of the official proceeding and intended to obstruct it?
WRAY:
Sitting here right now, Congressman, I don't remember the specifics of exactly what the intent
requirement is.
NADLER:
OK. So you can't say if it matters that a suspect -- well, does it matter that a suspect has knowledge of a
crime when he attempts to wave off criminal investigators? In other words, if a suspect has knowledge
of a crime and he attempts to wave off criminal investigators, does that constitute obstruction of
justice?
WRAY:
Well, certainly, the defendant's knowledge and state of mind and intent is a critical element of the
offense.
NADLER:
OK.
Later that day, the president tweeted this claim -- this claim that we'll put up there. And, in effect, he
accuses former Director Comey of giving false testimony. Mr. Comey testified that President Trump
urged him to be lenient with Michael Flynn, producing a note in which he quoted the president saying, "I
hope you can't -- I hope you can let this go."
In multiple appearances before Congress, Attorney General Sessions appears to have corroborated both
the fact of the meeting and the gist of the conversation between the president and Director Comey.
12
Director Wray, do you have any reason to doubt the testimony of Director Comey or Attorney General
Sessions on this point?
WRAY:
Congressman, the questions you're asking go directly to what Special Counsel Mueller is investigating. I
don't think it would be appropriate for me to be weighing in on that in this setting.
NADLER:
You don't think you can say whether you have reason to doubt the veracity of a statement because that
might be under investigation?
WRAY:
Congressman, you're -- the question you're asking me -- and I appreciate the reasons for the question,
but the questions you're asking me are -- would be asking me to weigh in on witnesses in the course of
an investigation that's ongoing...
NADLER:
OK.
WRAY:
... and I don't think that's appropriate for me to do.
NADLER:
I -- fair enough. As -- at your confirmation hearing, you testified that you would, quote, "consider any
attempt" -- I'm sorry, "any effort to tamper with Director Mueller's investigation unacceptable and
inappropriate, and any such effort would need to be dealt with very sternly and appropriately, indeed."
Since your confirmation, has the president ever contacted you about the special counsel's investigation?
Has the Attorney General or anybody else at the White House?
WRAY:
No.
NADLER:
OK.
My final question is, the president's tirade ended with one final tweet, where he says your reputation is
in tatters. After years of -- well, Director Wray -- and it's up there -- we have heard other veterans of the
FBI and the Department of Justice push back against this attack on the reputation of the FBI.
With the time I have -- we haven't heard from you. With the time I have left, will you respond to this
tweet by the president? Is the FBI's reputation in tatters?
WRAY:
Mr. Chairman, may I have time to answer this question? Because it's something that matters to me a
great deal.
GOODLATTE:
13
Yes, go ahead, please.
WRAY:
Congressman, there is no shortage of opinions out there. What I can tell you is that the FBI that I see is
tens of thousands of agents and analysts and staff, working their tails off to keep Americans safe from
the next terrorist attack; gang violence; child predators; spies from Russia, China, North Korea and Iran.
The FBI that I see is tens of thousands of brave men and women who are working as hard as they can to
keep people that they will never know safe from harm. And the FBI that I see is reflected in folks like the
new class of agents that I swore in at Quantico two days ago: hard-charging, high-integrity people;
people like the hostage rescue team and SWAT teams that we send out into all sorts of danger with
almost no notice.
The FBI that I see is people -- decent people committed to the highest principles of integrity and
professionalism and respect. The FBI that I see is respected and appreciated by our partners in federal,
state and local law enforcement; in the intelligence community; by our foreign counterparts, both law
enforcement and national security, in something like 200 countries around the globe. That's the FBI that
I see.
Now, do we make mistakes? You bet we make mistakes, just like everybody who's human makes
mistakes. And, when we make mistakes, there are independent processes, like that of the outside,
independent inspector general, that will drive and dive deep into the facts surrounding those mistakes.
And, when that independent fact-finding is complete, we will hold our folks accountable, if that's
appropriate.
NADLER:
It's very fine. Thank you very much. I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, for five minutes.
CHABOT:
Director Wray, you've mentioned that the I.G., the inspector general, is investigating matters related, for
example, to the Clinton e-mail server scandal, et cetera. But isn't it a fact that the I.G. does not have
prosecutorial powers?
WRAY:
Well, under certain circumstances, the inspector general works with prosecutors to bring criminal cases.
CHABOT:
Well, what about in this case?
WRAY:
Well, this is a matter that's under review, at the moment, looking into the facts surrounding all those
decisions.
14
CHABOT:
So the bottom line is the I.G. is looking into the matter, investigating it, but has no prosecutorial powers
per se at this time?
WRAY:
The inspector general does not himself have prosecutorial power, yes.
CHABOT:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
The president of the United States, as the chairman mentioned, recently expressed the opinion that the
FBI's reputation was, quote, "in tatters," unquote.
Now, someone who's sat on this committee, the judiciary committee that has oversight of the Justice
Department and the FBI, for over 20 years now, such a statement is, at least at first, shocking. But, wh en
you look at a few facts, it's understandable why the president might make such a statement.
A former head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, is put in charge of an important investigation, and who does
he pick to be on his team? Well, you'd want people who are experienced and smart and, most
importantly, unbiased, because, whatever you do, the result is going to be second-guessed. One side or
the other is going to be dissatisfied and critical.
So, above all things, they've got to at least appear to be fair and unbiased. So who does Mueller pick? He
picked 16 attorneys -- nine of the 16, more than half, have given money to the Obama campaign or the
Clinton campaign or both, and nobody has given a cent to Donald Trump or his campaign.
Does that show a lack of bias? Does that show fairness? I think the American people can decide that for
themselves.
And, perhaps even more shocking, we recently learned that one of those supposedly unbiased
investigators on the Mueller team was a guy named Peter Strzok. Turns out Strzok was sending out anti-
Trump, pro- Clinton messages, so he ultimately got canned from the investigation.
The question is, how did this guy get on your supposedly unbiased team in the first place, when you
consider that this is the same guy that had a key position investigating the Hillary Clinton e-mail server
scandal, and apparently had a hand in altering the FBI's conclusion that Clinton was grossly negligent,
down to "extremely careless," so she could escape prosecution and thus stay in the race against Donald
Trump.
And now we learn that the number two guy on Mueller's team, Andrew Weissmann, is just as biased as
Strzok. He made an anti-Trump communication to the since-fired Sally Yates, and the depths of this anti-
Trump bias on the Mueller team just goes on and on. It's absolutely shocking.
Director Wray, I know all this took place before you took the helm at the FBI, but none other than the
president of the United States has said that an organization that most Americans, including myself, hold
in the highest esteem, the FBI, is in tatters.
15
What can you do -- what will you do to restore confidence in the premier law enforcement agency in the
world?
WRAY:
Congressman, I appreciate the question and the reason for the question. It goes to the heart of whether
or not the bureau is following its processes and the rules and the guidelines, and adhering to the
independence and objectivity and professionalism that we all come to expect and respect from the FBI.
And I think the best way that I can validate the trust of the American people in the FBI is to ensure that
we bring that same level of professionalism and integrity and objectivity and adherence to process in
everything we do. As I said at the beginning, I think it is important that we not jump first and ask
questions later.
So the second thing that I think can be done is, when there are fair questions to be asked about things
like whether or not some of the decisions made in the 2016 investigation were handled appropriately or
were subject or based on any kind of improper considerations, rather than have the FBI investigate
itself, having an outside inspector general do the investigation and report to all of us on the findings, I
think, is the -- one of the best things I can do. And then, based on that information, I won't hesitate to
take appropriate action based on what it is he finds.
CHABOT:
Thank you.
And I'm almost out of time, but let me ask you, would you as FBI director, for example, ever permit
associates of someone under investigation who themselves could also be under investigation to sit in an
interview with the accused?
WRAY:
Well, I will say this: Having been, as I said to Congressman Nadler, both a line prosecutor a Justice
Department official, but then also a defense attorney, that -- that's not my experience as the normal
practice.
I'm also, however, reluctant to ever answer questions, as you can appreciate, with a hypothetical about
whether I would ever do something, because every investigation is subject to its own unique
circumstances.
CHABOT:
I certainly understand it, because that's exactly what happened in the so-called investigation of Hillary
Clinton. And I yield back my time.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, for five minutes.
LOFGREN:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Director, for being here today. And thanks to you for
your leadership of this agency, and to the men and women who work so hard to protect our country and
to serve the United States. It's -- we all appreciate it, even though we might have a few questions.
16
My question -- my first question has to do with cybersecurity. You know, the -- there's a rapidly growing
threat of cyber attacks at all levels, federal, state and local, business, personal level. And I was really
concerned to learn in November of a report highlighting the FBI's failure to notify multiple government
officials that they were the target of a Russian hacking campaign.
LOFGREN:
Now, at least according to this report, 500 people were targeted in the past year, including officials as
high-profile as the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the former head of the -- Air Force
intelligence. Many of these people still had security clearances or worked for the government.
So I'd like to know -- the FBI was, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong -- of these efforts for at least
a year, but, I am advised, informed only two of the targets. Can you explain why these individuals had to
learn from the Associated Press that they were targets of an aggressive Russian hacking effort?
And do we know if any classified information was stolen? Were any members of Congress or
congressional staff a target? And what mechanisms or additional resources need to be put in place so
that targeted officials know they're at risk when there's a foreign operation such as this?
WRAY:
Well, Congresswoman, I think I'm not comfortable trying to discuss this -- specific victim engagements in
a particular investigation, at least in this setting. But I think what I can tell you, which might be helpful,
in response is that we have very well- established criteria and policies and procedures for questions of
victim notification in cyber matters.
And the questions -- and I probably can't repeat them to you verbatim, but I can give you the gist of
them -- the questions go to things like, number one, can we identify the victim, which in a lot of cases is
harder than you might think; number two, is the information that we have at that point in the
investigation actionable for the victim -- is there something they can do with it, you know, can it -- could
sharing the information actually protect somebody, prevent a loss, et cetera?
We also look at whether or not sharing the information at the time that we -- you know, in question
would potentially compromise or jeopardize an existing investigation or reveal sources and methods,
which is often the case in these kinds of investigations.
LOFGREN:
But -- yeah.
WRAY:
And the last point I guess I would make is that, when you have a large number of people, it's much
easier for us to provide victim notification when we have official or government or corporate accounts,
where we can contact the chief information security officer and then they can communicate to all the
people who are on that server.
When you talk about Gmail accounts and things like that, it gets a lot harder, because a lot of people's
Gmail addresses don't have, you know, Wray -- C-W-R-A-Y, or, you know, Lofgren, or...
(CROSSTALK)
17
LOFGREN:
Right. But, for example -- and I assume, if what you're describing is the current practice, when the
Democratic National Committee was hacked by the Russians, the FBI contacted an intern. They never
contacted the chairman of the DNC. She found out, you know, months later. So, hopefully, those types
of procedures have been revised. Do you know that?
WRAY:
I think the procedures themselves remain the same, and the procedures themselves, I think, are pretty
sound. The question of -- but if you think about what they are, they are questions that the investigators
have to ask in each victim notification context.
LOFGREN:
Well, let me go -- when we had the Attorney General here recently, we asked -- there's an ongoing
effort to hack into the election system. We know that from various reports. And the Attorney General
said he -- really, nothing was going on that he hadn't been able to pay -- I'm paraphrasing -- he would
say it's really important; we haven't spent enough time on it.
I'm getting the sense that that's true across the government. In fact, we've got systems that were
hacked within half an hour at DEF CON by -- state voting systems. What is the FBI doing, relative to
preserving the integrity of the voting structure itself for the next election?
WRAY:
Mr. Chairman, may -- I see my time -- may I answer that one?
(CROSSTALK)
GOODLATTE:
Yes (ph).
WRAY:
Thank you.
Well, I think the FBI is actually very focused on this subject. It's one of the things that I've tried to insist
on, upon arriving. We have a foreign influence task force that we stood up that brings together both our
counterintelligence division, our cyber division and our criminal division, as well as some other parts of
the bureau.
We are in coordination, through that task force, with DHS, which of course has responsibility for a lot of
the election infrastructure, along with states. We are in contact with our foreign partners, because, as
you know, efforts to interfere with elections are occurring in other countries, as well, and so, by doing
that with our close relationships with our foreign counterparts, we learn more about tradecraft methods
and things like that.
So we're acutely focused on looking out for signs of interference in the 2018 or 2020 election cycle.
LOFGREN:
18
If I may, Mr. Chair, I know my time is up, but I hope that there is an effort by the bureau to communicate
with state election officers, who oftentimes have been kept in the dark.
And I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, for five minutes.
ISSA:
Director Wray, a couple of questions, one is one that I'm sure you're aware of, and I'm just going to ask
it as a "Do you agree?" And it's not hypothetical, but it's nonspecific. Do you agree that persons should
not have their assets forfeited without due process and a provable link to criminal activity?
WRAY:
Well, Congressman, it's been a while since I looked at the law on asset forfeiture. So I want to be
careful...
(CROSSTALK)
ISSA:
Well, this is a -- this is a constitutional, not a statutory question.
WRAY:
Well, I believe that, in the context of asset forfeiture, we should respect the constitution.
ISSA:
OK. So it's fair to say that, if somebody has $10,000 in their van, they have it taken from them and they
have to sue to get it back, even though they're never charged with a crime, that would be wrong under
due process in the Constitution?
WRAY:
Well, again, I'm not trying to make this difficult, but I -- you know, to me, asset forfeiture questions raise
all kinds of complicated case law questions about due process, et cetera.
What I do believe -- due process and adherence to the Constitution are incredibly important in the asset
forfeiture context, as in elsewhere.
ISSA:
Thank you, Director.
Now, switching to the matter of Peter Strzok -- and I had a long time working with your folks on the
personnel side, over at Oversight, where -- where we oversee a lot of those things.
And I just want to make the record straight, now that you're, in addition to being the chief from a law
enforcement standpoint, you're also sort of the ultimate head of H.R. for those tens of thousands of
people who are working so hard for us: Is an FBI agent allowed to have a political opinion?
19
WRAY:
Yes.
ISSA:
Is an FBI agent allowed to communicate that political opinion to their wife or even their mistress?
WRAY:
Yes.
ISSA:
So nothing in a text simply communicating a political opinion would be cause for firing or any other
action under the ordinary rules of the FBI or any federal person (ph), correct?
WRAY:
I think each question would have to be based on its own circumstances. Certainly, I can imagine
situations, as you're describing, where it wouldn't be, and I can imagine situations where it might be.
ISSA:
So that brings us to a situation, now, in which an individual is key to the question of whether or not
there should be a full de novo review of the FBI's actions as to Hillary Clinton and the decision not to
prosecute her, since he was -- he was actively involved in that.
So my question to you is, since it's clear that whatever Peter Strzok did was sufficient to have him
relieved -- something that, in the ordinary course of simply communicating a political opinion, would not
cause that, and would be inappropriate to relieve somebody simply for having a political opinion -- will
you make available to this committee, upon the chairman's obvious request, the ability to see any or all
of those 10,000 texts sufficient to understand why this individual was dismissed and how it might be
relevant to the question of the objectivity of Director Comey's investigation and conclusions?
WRAY:
Well, there's a couple parts to your question, if I might. First, I want to be clear that the individual in
question has not been dismissed or disciplined. What happened was -- what...
ISSA:
He has not been dismissed, but he's been relieved from the duties he had and he's now...
WRAY:
Well, he was...
ISSA:
... he's now in H.R., which...
WRAY:
... he was reassigned -- he was reassigned away from the special counsel investigation, which is different
than disciplinary action.
20
Second, as to the question of access to the text messages, we'd be happy to try to work with the
committee on that. I want to be sensitive to that fact that there is an active -- very active outside,
independent investigation by the inspector general, and the last thing I want to do and, I think, the last
thing this committee would want to do -- would somehow compromise or interfere with that.
So we'll have to go through a process to assess how we can be sensitive to those operational
considerations, while at the same time, as we should be, be responsive to Congress and this committee
in its oversight responsibility (ph).
GOODLATTE:
Would the gentleman yield on that?
ISSA:
Of course I'd yield to Chairman.
GOODLATTE:
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We have been in communication with the Inspector General. We very much respect the investigation
that is taking place there. And we have asked the Department of Justice and, through them, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation for all of the 1.2 million documents that have been provided to the inspector
general, minus those that relate to any particular on-going grand jury investigation.
Now, I have received back from the assistant attorney general, Mr. Boyd, a letter indicating that they
will make a fulsome response to that request.
So I would like, in following up with Mr. Issa's question, to hear you tell us that you will also provide us
with that honoring of that fulsome request, because most of those documents that the department has
committed to provide are coming from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
WRAY:
Sir, and I don't mean to suggest that we wouldn't be fully responsive and cooperative with the
committee -- I'm simply saying that we would work with the Justice Department in making sure that we
have considered all of the appropriate factors that we need to to make sure that we're not doing
something on the -- in terms of unintended consequences with ongoing investigations. But we have no
desire to frustrate the very legitimate oversight requests of this committee.
NADLER:
Would the chairman yield for a moment?
GOODLATTE:
Yes, I yield to the gentleman.
NADLER:
Thank you.
21
I just want to ask the director, do the -- can this kind or does this kind of document requests of the
inspector general on an ongoing investigation -- could it interfere with that investigation? Is it proper to
respond fulsomely? I mean, what are the limitations here?
WRAY:
Well, I think a lot of that is -- requires, as the chairman referenced, us to make sure that we are touching
base with the inspector general, since it's his investigation and not ours.
If the inspector general is comfortable with the information being provided and that it's not going to
interfere with or impede his investigation, then that's one very, very significant consideration that can
be put to the side. So we'll...
NADLER:
But if he's not going to abide (ph)...
(CROSSTALK)
WRAY:
I can commit that our staff will work with the Justice Department staff and your staff to make sure that
we're doing everything we possibly can to be responsive, while at the same time making sure that we're
not in some way jeopardizing or compromising an ongoing investigation or revealing something about a
-- you know, a grand jury matter or anything like that.
NADLER:
We ask for it minus grand jury material. Obviously, it takes some time to do that. The -- Mr. Boyd
committed to a date of January 15, and he's going to require your cooperation. So we want to have your
assurance that that cooperation in meeting that date will be forthcoming.
We would tend to follow up with further letters on clarifying this. But it's very important that we have
this information very quickly. The inspector general is completely cooperative with us in his
investigation, but they're not his documents.
They are the FBI, the Department of Justice's documents. So the request is not directed at him; it's
directed to the department, and we need to have full response.
WRAY:
We intend to be fully cooperative with both this committee and the inspector general.
GOODLATTE:
I robbed the gentleman from California of a bit of his time. So I'm going to...
NADLER:
I have to say I yield back.
(LAUGHTER)
GOODLATTE:
22
I will...
ISSA:
I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman.
(CROSSTALK)
GOODLATTE:
The gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.
ISSA:
Thank you.
Director, at this time, as far as you know, you're not asserting or believe there's any privilege as to those
documents. Is that correct?
WRAY:
Well, I haven't reviewed the however many million documents that...
ISSA:
I'm only saying that you -- at this time, you know of no privilege?
WRAY:
I'm not aware of it, but I really haven't asked the question yet, to be honest.
ISSA:
OK, I appreciate that.
And then, lastly, since -- in the case of Peter Strzok and other statements, because this information was
not made available to us at a time in which you predecessor, Mr. Comey, specifically said he was
breaking precedent and being open and transparent as to the investigation of Hillary Clinton's taking
from government possession documents under the Federal Records Act and classified documents, do
you agree that a de novo review, at some point, by someone, is clearly warranted as to whether or not
the decision not to prosecute was appropriate?
WRAY:
Well, Congressman, I think what I would say to that is there is a -- what I would consider a de novo
outside, independent review by the inspector general into whether or not decisions made, including
charging or not charging decisions in the matter that you're referring to, were based on any kind of
improper considerations or political considerations.
And, depending on what the inspector general finds, there could be any range of possible steps that we
or others would have to take in response to those findings.
ISSA:
So it's not a de novo review by the inspector general, but a review of whether or not impropriety
occurred. And, as such, a de novo review of that decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton would be the
question?
23
GOODLATTE:
The time of the gentleman has expired.
WRAY:
I think I...
GOODLATTE:
The director may answer the question.
WRAY:
... yeah, I think I can briefly respond, which is, I think of the inspector general's investigation as de novo
in one sense, which is that it's objective, arm's-length, no skin in the game, if you will. But it's -- you're
right that the inspector general is not second-guessing prosecutorial decisions and things like that.
However, however, the inspector general is looking at the very important question of whether or not
improper political considerations factored into the decision-making. If he were to conclude that that's
what happened, then I think, at that point, we're in a situation we have to assess what else might need
to be done to un-ring that bell, if you will.
ISSA:
Thank you. I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Mrs. Jackson Lee, for five minutes.
JACKSON LEE:
I thank the chairman. I welcome you, Director, and I thank you for your service.
I'm holding in my hand right now the mission of the FBI, which reads, "The mission of the FBI is to
protect and defend the United States against terrorists and foreign intelligence threats, to uphold and
enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership and criminal justice services to
federal, state, municipal and international agencies and partners, and to perform these responsibilities
in a manner that is responsive to the needs of the public and is faithful to the Constitution of the United
States."
Do you adhere to that mission?
WRAY:
Yes, ma'am.
JACKSON LEE:
Does that mission include your responding to the political bias and comments of politicians?
WRAY:
I do not think it is part of my responsibility to respond to opinions and biases, if they are out there, by
politicians.
24
JACKSON LEE:
If -- and forgive me for the time period that I have -- if Director Comey made a statement that there
would be no prosecution against the former secretary of state, would that statement have been
reviewed by the Department of Justice?
WRAY:
Well, Congresswoman, I think that -- how that all -- that whole decision-making was handled...
JACKSON LEE:
But is that -- let (ph)...
WRAY:
... is part of what the inspector general is looking at.
JACKSON LEE:
... no, is that the protocol? You indicated that you report to the deputy attorney general; he reports to
the attorney general. And so, in the normal protocol, a statement that you would've made, or any other
FBI director would've made -- Director Mueller, when he was the FBI director -- reviewed by that
protocol.
Is that the likely protocol?
WRAY:
Likely protocol, sure.
JACKSON LEE:
Let me move on to indicate that it was stated earlier that the FBI -- that the former secretary disclosed
top secrets into e-mails -- whether that -- and asked the question whether that should be investigated.
The present president disclosed Top Secret classified information to Russian ambassador and foreign
minister in the Oval Office.
Is the FBI investigating those disclosures?
WRAY:
Congresswoman, I wouldn't confirm or suggest the existence of any ongoing investigation.
JACKSON LEE:
Just a few years ago, this committee considered and eventually moved on a obstruction of justice
element in an impeachment proceeding. Do you believe -- yes or no: Can a sitting president commit
obstruction of justice?
WRAY:
Congresswoman, legal questions, especially legal questions regarding impeachment, are not something
that I'm equipped to answer in this setting...
JACKSON LEE:
This is separate and...
25
WRAY:
... as an FBI director.
JACKSON LEE:
... this is separate and apart from impeachment. Do you believe that a sitting president can commit an
obstruction of justice?
WRAY:
That also is a legal question, and I would defer to the lawyers on that one. I'm a now-reformed lawyer as
an FBI director.
JACKSON LEE:
I understand. Is it your opinion that, if a sitting president commits a crime, then it becomes a non-crime?
WRAY:
I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.
JACKSON LEE:
If a sitting president commits a crime, does it become a non-crime?
WRAY:
Same answer.
JACKSON LEE:
Let me move on to the idea of the quote from the president of the United States. And do you believe
that the FBI's reputation is in tatters? What impact did that have on the FBI?
And my -- if you would move quickly, I know you gave a long assessment, but what impact would that
have on the FBI, if that is a statement made nationally, and also to the world -- that the FBI is in tatters?
WRAY:
Congresswoman, the agents, analysts and staff of the FBI are big boys and girls. We understand that we
will take criticism from all corners, and we're accustomed to that.
I believe, personally, based on what I've seen, that our reputation with our counterparts in law
enforcement, federal, state and local; our counterparts in the intelligence community; our counterparts
around the world; the communities that we serve; the victims that we protect; the judges we appear
before; the scientists we interact with in the laboratory services space, for example...
JACKSON LEE:
I have another question.
WRAY:
... my experience has been that our reputation is quite good.
JACKSON LEE:
Thank you very much.
26
I want it to (ph) be assured to the American people that Andrew Weissmann and Peter Strzok, who were
removed from their posts -- that that will not sabotage Bob Mueller's investigation to Trump campaign's
collusion with Russia -- their removal.
WRAY:
I'm sorry. I...
JACKSON LEE:
That their removal -- Peter Strzok and Mr. Weissmann -- will not sabotage Mueller's investigation into
Russian collusion -- their removal from the investigation.
WRAY:
I'm not aware of any effort by anyone to sabotage -- or less, even -- Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation.
JACKSON LEE:
Thank you. Let me ask the question on the black identity extremists. You indicated, or we have had
some conversations -- let me indicate to you that a report that was done August 14th, 2017 said that,
during the same period of this report, they found that right-wing extremists were behind nearly twice as
many incidents, 115, and just over a third of these incidents were foiled, than those who might be
considered Islamists or might be considered others.
There is a black extremist identity report. Again, I ask the question, would you see that that report be
clarified? And would you take note of the fact that the convictions dealing with violence are more for
the -- looking for my chart -- are more dealing with Islamists and left-wing and less for right-wing?
So right-wing extremists are not being prosecuted. Black identity extremists, as declared by the FBI, are
in fact subjected to a report. And in -- and, if I might say, a FBI that is not diverse, that I know that we
would like to work on to make diverse -- but they are not being prosecuted the way -- right-wing.
Right-wing has the lowest amount of prosecutions in the United States; percent of domestic terror
incidents involving federal prosecution, the right wing is the lowest. The left wing is prosecuted 100
percent. Can you explain that?
GOODLATTE:
The time of -- the time of the gentlewoman has expired. The director is permitted to answer the
question.
WRAY:
Congresswoman, I'd have -- I'd have to look at the statistics that you saw. I can tell you that we have our
-- in our domestic terrorism program, that the last time I looked, we have about 50 percent more white
supremacist -- what -- the category that we would call white supremacist investigations than we do in
the black identity extremist category.
The other point I would make is that, in all of these contexts in the domestic terrorism arena -- that we
only investigate if there are three things: one, federal criminal activity -- credible evidence of federal
27
crime; two, credible information suggesting an attempt to use force or violence; and three, those things
in furtherance of a political or social goal.
If we don't have that, we don't investigate -- it doesn't matter whether they're right-wing, left-wing or
any other wing.
JACKSON LEE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like a report back on that question, please. Thank you very much.
GOODLATTE:
The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, is recognized for five minutes.
KING:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Director, for your testimony here today and your service to
our country.
I -- a number of curiosities I come here with this morning, as all of us do. And one of them is that, in the
FBI interview and investigation of General Flynn -- are there -- are there notes from those interviews, do
you know?
WRAY:
Number one, I don't know. But, beyond that, I wouldn't want to comment on a ongoing investigation
being run by the special counsel.
KING:
And, in a normal circumstance like that, would you expect there to be notes in any other case?
WRAY:
It is our normal practice to memorialize interviews.
KING:
And do so by notes?
WRAY:
Well, it usually gets reflected in an FBI -- what's called an FBI 302. How agents go from the process of the
spoken conversation to the 302 varies. And then there are other settings where it's a different kind of
format.
KING:
But, when an agent sits someone down for that kind of interview, notes would be normal. In most cases,
would there also be an audio tape recorded?
WRAY:
Actually, I think an audio tape would be unusual.
KING:
Or a videotape would fit that same category as unusual.
28
WRAY:
Likewise, also unusual.
KING:
Thank you. And -- but you don't know whether there are -- they are available for General Flynn? I bring
this up because of the interview of Hillary Clinton.
And, when we interviewed some of the members of the former administration that were familiar with
the interview -- the matter, we'll use their word and the -- let's call it now the investigation of Hillary
Clinton -- and we learned here in this room that there were no notes available to us, that there were no
audio and no video available to us, and in fact they had not been made available to the attorney general,
Loretta Lynch, and neither had they been made available, or at least reviewed, by former Director
Comey.
And it was curious to me that a heavy decision of the -- one of the highest investigations in the history of
this country -- the people who made the decision on it didn't review the materials. They just simply
received the briefing of the people that they had appointed to do the investigation.
I guess I'll ask you -- you're going to tell me you don't have an opinion on that. Would you conduct
similar investigations in a similar manner? Doesn't -- wouldn't that send off an alarm bell to you, if that
were going on within your department today?
WRAY:
Well, I think what I would say is that I think investigations are best conducted by taking appropriate
memorialization of an interview. What I will also say is that, in the particular investigation, I think your
question goes to whether or not the handling of the investigation was skewed or tainted in some way by
improper political considerations. And I think that's what the outside inspector general is looking at, and
I'm looking forward to seeing what he finds.
KING:
And I -- and I believe that the question's already been asked about the principals that were in the room
during that investigation, and (ph) one is counsel, and -- at the same time being a subject of the
investigation.
I'll pass that along and put some more information out here before this committee. In October of 2015,
President Obama referenced the lack of intent on the part of Hillary Clinton -- that she wouldn't
jeopardize national security, would never intend to do so.
That was October of 2015. April of 2016, he made a similar statement that Hillary Clinton was an
outstanding secretary of state; she would never intentionally put America in any kind of a jeopardy.
We also noticed that the language has been moved from "extreme carelessness" -- or, excuse me, from
"gross negligence" to "extreme carelessness." That "carelessness" was also language that President
Obama used in his public discussions of the matter.
Now, I'm going to make the point here that it looks to me that the "get out of jail free" card that Hillary
Clinton received is rooted clear back in Barack Obama, in his introduction of the word intent, or lack of
intent, as a requirement for 18 USC 793(f). And that's been brought up here.
29
And so I'd ask you again -- surely you've examined the definition and the distinction between "extreme
carelessness" and also -- "extreme carelessness" and the "gross negligence" that's within the statute.
You're really going to tell us today that you don't have an opinion on that distinction?
WRAY:
"Gross negligence" is the language in the statute, I believe. But I believe, also, that almost anybody who
grabbed a thesaurus would say that "gross negligence" and "extremely careless" are pretty darn close to
each other.
I will also say that the -- whether or not the handling -- including the handling of the statement that
Director Comey issued -- is exactly what the inspector general is investigating, and, I think, as he should.
It's better that the FBI not -- FBI not investigate itself on this, and I think that's what the inspector
general is doing. So that would be my response to that question.
KING:
And I thank you. And it does do a clarification to your earlier response, and I appreciate that.
I'd like to follow up with this: that there's a report that there are investigations going on on 27 potential
leakers within the FBI. And I want to also ask if the unmasking that was ordered by the executive branch
of government that took place shortly before the election -- I'll say September, October of 2016, and on
throughout the transition period until the inauguration of -- and even beyond, perhaps -- of President
Trump -- has any investigative committee in Congress had access to the full list of those unmasking
requests? And how much of that is classified?
WRAY:
Congressman, I don't know what access committees have had to unmasking requests -- specific
committees. I'd be happy to have my staff take a look at that. I will say that unmasking requests get
made not just by parts of the intelligence community, but by -- congressional committees themselves
often ask for unmasking, so that they can digest the information.
A lot of times, concerns -- legitimate concerns about unmasking are really almost more about, to me, a
problem that I take very seriously, which is leaks of information. And that's something that -- we have,
now, a dedicated unit, since I've taken over, that's focused specifically on that.
We've also recently reissued -- not reissued, issued -- a new media policy that clamps down and tightens
up the rules about interaction with the media inside the FBI. And that's something that I think we take
very, very, very seriously.
KING:
Well, I thank you. I'll just say, in conclusion, we know as much about the conversation on the Phoenix
tarmac between President Clinton and Loretta Lynch as we do about the interview of Hillary Rodham
Clinton within the FBI.
GOODLATTE:
Time of the gentleman has expired.
KING:
30
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for five minutes.
COHEN:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Wray, we in Memphis have been blessed with good FBI agents, and I
believe the FBI has an outstanding reputation, and has, probably, other than some flaws with J. Edgar
Hoover, historically had a great reputation.
In Memphis, I had a situation where there was a county employee named Mickey Wright, who was
murdered. The FBI worked on that case and saw to it that justice was found, and he got a life sentence.
And it was the FBI that did that.
They recently arrested a man named Castelo -- Lorenzo Castelo -- and found -- got him for 15 pounds of
meth, which is the drug you ought to be looking at -- drugs like opioids and meth and crack and heroin,
not so much cannabis -- and $400,000, and had 10 people arrested and convicted.
And they also got Larry Bates, who swindled a lot of people in church from -- out of millions and millions
-- $68 million, and got him 22 years in jail. So the FBI's done a great job.
After the president said, which I disagree with, that the FBI was in tatters, Director Comey tweeted, "I
must let the American people know the truth. The FBI's honest. The FBI's strong, and the FBI is and
always will be independent." Did you welcome his tweet, and do you agree with it?
WRAY:
Well, I believe that description of the FBI aligns with my own description. As my folks would tell you, I'm
not really a Twitter guy. I've never tweeted, don't have any plans to tweet and don't really engage in
tweeting.
COHEN:
You've been at the FBI long enough to know the reputation of previous directors. What was the
reputation of Director Comey within the agents of the FBI?
WRAY:
Well, my experience with Director Comey -- it was that, when I worked with him, which was back in the
early 2000s -- was that he was a smart lawyer, a dedicated public servant and somebody that I enjoyed
working with. We haven't stayed in as much touch over the last several years, and of course, there's
now the ongoing investigation, but my experiences have all been positive.
COHEN:
Do you know the reputation of Director Mueller within FBI agents, in FBI lore (ph)?
WRAY:
My experience has been that Director Mueller is very well- respected within the FBI.
COHEN:
31
When you were interviewed by President Trump, and you were interviewed by President Trump before
you were appointed, was that -- is that not the case?
WRAY:
Yes. Not exclusively, but yes.
COHEN:
What questions did he ask you?
WRAY:
My recollection is the conversations were more about my background, and in particular, we talked a lot
about my desire to join the war on -- counter terror, as somebody who had been in the Justice
Department and in FBI headquarters on the day of 9/11 itself, and having met -- I talked a lot about my
interaction with the victims of 9/11 in my last law enforcement experience and my desire to return to
public service to keep people safe.
COHEN:
He didn't ask you any questions about Russia or about Mr. Comey or Mr. Mueller, or any other
questions like that at all?
WRAY:
No.
COHEN:
Good. Very good.
The FBI concentrates on situations that presently are a threat to United States, or to safety of the public.
Is that correct?
WRAY:
Yes.
COHEN:
So the issues concerning the current president would be more important to you than the issues
concerning the person who he defeated, who is now in -- not in office. Would that be an accurate
assessment?
WRAY:
Well, I'm reluctant to try to compare one matter to another in that way. What I would tell you is that we
take any effort to interfere with our election very seriously. I take any effort to mishandle classified
information very seriously.
COHEN:
Well, thank you.
Benjamin Franklin said that he gave the American people a republic, if you can keep it. You are the heir
to the legacy of Griffin Bell, having worked at King & Spalding. And you have an excellent reputation, if
you can keep it. You will be tested. I feel you will rise to the task, but you will be tested.
32
I yield back the balance of my time.
GOODLATTE:
Chair thanks the gentleman.
Recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for five minutes.
JORDAN:
Thank you. Director, was Agent Peter Strzok the former deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI?
WRAY:
I don't remember his exact title, but I believe that's correct.
JORDAN:
And he's the same Peter Strzok who was a key player in the Clinton investigation, the same Peter Strzok
who interviewed Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, participated in the Clinton -- Secretary Clinton's interview?
And he's also the same Peter Strzok who -- now we know -- changed Director Comey's exoneration
letter, changed the term "gross negligence," which is a crime, to "extreme carelessness"? Is that the
same guy?
WRAY:
Well, Congressman, I don't know every step that the individual you mentioned was involved in. But
certainly, I know that he was heavily involved in the Clinton e-mail investigation.
JORDAN:
And he -- thank you. And he -- and is it -- is this the same Peter Strzok who helped -- was a key player in
the Russian investigation, and the same Peter Strzok who was put on Mueller's team -- Special Counsel
Bob Mueller's team?
WRAY:
I certainly know that he was working on the special counsel's investigation. Whether or not he would be
characterized as...
JORDAN:
And the same...
WRAY:
... a key player on that investigation, that's really not for me to say.
JORDAN:
... OK -- and the same Peter Strzok that, we learned this past weekend, was removed from the special
counsel team because he exchanged text messages with a colleague at the FBI that were -- displayed a
pro-Clinton bias -- is that accurate?
WRAY:
Yes.
33
JORDAN:
Talking about the same guy? OK.
WRAY:
Yes.
JORDAN:
Well, here's what I'm not getting: Peter Strzok is selected to be on Mueller's team, after all this history,
put on Mueller's team, and then he's removed for some pro-Clinton text messages. I mean, there are all
kinds of people on Mueller's team who are pro-Clinton. There's been all kinds of stories -- PolitiFact
reported 96 percent of the top lawyers' contributions went to Clinton or Obama.
But Peter Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation; interviewed Mills, Abedin; interviewed
Secretary Clinton; changed "gross negligence," a crime, to the term "extreme carelessness;" who ran the
Russian investigation; who interviewed Mike Flynn gets put on Mueller's team, and then he gets kicked
off for a text message that's anti-Trump.
If you kicked everybody off Mueller's team who was anti-Trump, I don't think there'd be anybody left. So
here -- there's got to be something more here. It can't just be some text messages that show a pro-
Clinton, anti-Trump bias. There's got to be something more. And I'm trying to figure out what it is.
But my hunch is it has something to do with the dossier. Director, did Peter Strzok help produce and
present the application to the FISA court to secure a warrant to spy on Americans associated with the
Trump campaign?
WRAY:
Congressman, I'm not prepared to discuss anything about a FISA process in this setting.
JORDAN:
Not a -- we're not talking about what happened in the court. We're talking about what the FBI took to
the court, the application. Did Peter Strzok -- was he involved in taking that to the court?
WRAY:
I'm not going to discuss in this setting anything to do with the FISA court applications.
JORDAN:
Well, let's remember a couple of things, director, and I know you know this. We've all been made aware
of this in the last few weeks. Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier.
The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now know were one and the
same, paid the law firm, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Christopher Steele, who then paid Russians to
put together a report that we call a dossier, full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage.
And it's been reported that this dossier was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and
presented as a legitimate intelligence document, that it became the basis for granting a warrant to spy
on Americans.
34
And I'm wondering -- I'm wondering if that actually took place. It sure looks like it did, and the easiest
way to clear it up is for you guys to tell us what was in that application and who took it there.
WRAY:
Congressman, our staffs have been having extensive interaction with both intelligence committees on
our interaction with the FISA court, and I think that's the appropriate setting for those questions.
JORDAN:
Here's what I think, Director Wray. I think Peter Strzok, head of counterintelligence at the FBI; Peter
Strzok, the guy who ran the Clinton investigation, did all the interviews; Peter Strzok, the guy who was
running the Russian investigation at the FBI; Peter Strzok, Mr. Super Agent at the FBI -- I think he's the
guy who took the application to the FISA court.
And if that happened -- I mean, think -- if this happened, if you had the FBI working with a campaign, the
Democrats' campaign, taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence
document and taking it to the FISA court so they could spy on the other campaign -- if that happened,
that is as wrong as gets.
And you know what? Maybe I'm wrong. You could clear it all up. You could clear it all up for all of us
here -- all the Congress who wants to know, and frankly, all of America who wants to know -- you could
clear all up by releasing (ph) -- we sent you a letter two days ago -- just release the application.
Tell us what was in it. Tell us if I'm wrong. But I don't think I am. I think that's exactly what happened.
And, if it did, it is as wrong as it can be, and people who did that need to be held accountable.
WRAY:
Congressman, we will not hesitate to hold people accountable after there has been an approp riate
investigation, independent and objective, by the inspector general into the handling of the prior matter.
And, based on that, I will look at all available remedies, depending on what the facts are when they are
found.
As to the access to the dossier, that's something that is the subject of ongoing discussion between my
staff and the various intelligence committees.
JORDAN:
There's nothing prohibiting you, Director. Is there anything prohibiting you from showing this committee
the -- what was presented to the FISA court -- that -- the application you all put together at the FBI, that
was presented to the FISA court? Is there anything preventing you from showing us that?
GOODLATTE:
The time of the gentleman has expired. The director can respond.
WRAY:
I do not believe that I can legally and appropriately share a FISA court submission with this committee.
JORDAN:
I'm talking about what the FBI put together, not what the court had. What you took there -- what was --
the process put together, what you presented, what you took to the court.
35
WRAY:
When I sign FISA applications, which I have to do almost every day of the week, they are all covered with
a "classified information" cover. So that's part of why we will not be discussing it here.
JORDAN:
Director, is it likely that Peter Strzok -- is it likely that Peter Strzok...
GOODLATTE:
The gentleman -- the gentleman -- the gentleman...
JORDAN:
... played a part in the application presented to the FISA court?
GOODLATTE:
... the gentleman's time has expired. However, I do want to follow up on your last response to the
gentleman.
This committee, the House Judiciary Committee, has primary jurisdiction over the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court. So any request for documents coming to any part of the Congress should include the
House Judiciary Committee.
And if it is classified in any way, shape or form, it can be provided to us in a classified setting, but that is
information that we are very much interested in...
JORDAN:
Mr. Chairman...
GOODLATTE:
... and very much want to receive.
JORDAN:
... the discussion -- the chairman -- yeah, I don't think there's anything prohibiting the FBI from giving us
what they used to put together what was taken to the FISA court. That's what we're asking for, and
there is nothing prohibiting him from doing that.
GOODLATTE:
I don't think there is, either. The time the gentleman has expired, however. You care to respond to that,
Director Wray?
WRAY:
No, I think I've covered.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes.
JOHNSON:
Thank you.
36
Director Wray, you've led a distinguished career as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta -- we're homeboys on that part -- Justice Department associate, deputy attorney
general, even serving as an assistant attorney general heading up the criminal division of the entire
Justice Department.
And then, as a litigation partner at the international and premier law firm of King & Spalding, you
headed up the special matters and government investigations practice group, which involved
sophisticated government investigatory matters, and -- involving your clients. And, also, you even
represented Governor Christie during the Bridgegate scandal -- successfully, I presume at this point.
So you've had a long career in criminal law and in matters involving government, and I find it hard to
believe that you have not pondered the question of whether or not a president can be guilty of
obstruction of justice. You have pondered that question, have you not?
WRAY:
To be honest, it's really not something I've pondered. That is a question that involves complicated
questions of separation of powers, and I have...
JOHNSON:
Well, do you...
WRAY:
... this committee won't be shocked to learn, quite a lot on my plate as it is. So I don't have a whole lot
of time to do a lot of pondering.
JOHNSON:
... well, let me just -- let me just ask you the question. Is it your belief that a sitting president can be
guilty of obstructing justice?
WRAY:
That's a legal question that I haven't tried to evaluate.
JOHNSON:
All right. Thank you, sir.
Within the last few days, the House Intelligence Committee has requested documents from you and
other government officials from the so-called Steele dossier.
To date, you and other government officials have refused to comply with the production of these
documents. Why have you failed to produce these documents?
WRAY:
I -- we are having extensive interaction with multiple committees about these issues. They involve
complicated questions, not just of classification; they also affect ongoing investigations, in particular, the
special counsel's investigation.
37
And, in particular, in many instances, we are dealing with very, very dicey questions of sources and
methods, which is the lifeblood of foreign intelligence and for our liaison relationships with our foreign
partners.
JOHNSON:
Thank you.
Director Wray, earlier this year, the FBI opened an investigation into the vulnerabilities of the state of
Georgia's election systems. Thereafter, Georgia citizens filed a lawsuit over the security, or lack thereof,
of Georgia's election systems, which were then outsourced by Georgia's secretary of state to the Center
for Election Systems.
Four days after that lawsuit was filed, Georgia election officials wiped clean or deleted the election data
on CES servers. One month later, two additional servers were wiped clean.
So evidence that is critical to the issues raised in the lawsuit and to the FBI investigation, perhaps -- that
information has been destroyed. Can you confirm that the FBI obtained copies of the data on Georgia's
election servers prior to the data being destroyed by Georgia election officials?
WRAY:
Congressman, I can't discuss what the FBI may or may not have obtained in the course of any particular
investigation in this setting.
JOHNSON:
Can you confirm that there is an ongoing investigation into this matter?
WRAY:
Again, I don't want to confirm or deny -- it's important that I put both those words in there -- the
existence of a specific investigation.
JOHNSON:
Would you be willing, upon your investigation's completion, if there is an investigation -- would you be
willing to provide this committee with an update on this issue?
WRAY:
If there is information that we could appropriately share on the topic that you're answering (sic) about,
I'd be happy to see if there's something we can do to be helpful and responsive to the committee.
JOHNSON:
Thank you, sir.
The Department of Justice recently admitted in court that they are treating the president's disturbing
and combative tweets as, quote, "official statements of the president of the United States," end quote.
Considering the DOJ's position and the president repeatedly demanding that the FBI investigate his
political opponents, do you consider these tweets to be orders that the FBI must follow?
WRAY:
38
That's a legal question, and I'll be guided by the lawyers on that one.
JOHNSON:
So have your lawyers given you an opinion as to whether or not the president's tweets are official
statements?
WRAY:
Well, without discussing, you know, attorney-client communications, I'm still following the ordinary
course of business in terms of what orders we follow.
JOHNSON:
Sir, you've given me every objection for not answering the questions that is in the books, and I
appreciate it. Thank you so much. I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for five minutes.
POE:
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Wray, for being here.
My background -- I was a former prosecutor. I was a judge for 22 years. During that time in the criminal
courts, I had always thought that the FBI had a stellar reputation. In the last few years here in Congress,
I don't have that belief any longer, and I think your predecessor did a lot to damage the reputation of
the FBI. I don't think that the FBI has come back around with that stellar reputation, and that's
unfortunate.
You gave us lots of statistics in the opening statement that -- you made about what the FBI is doing. The
-- I want to talk about FISA, secret courts issuing secret warrants, supposedly to go after terrorists
overseas.
A recent Washington Post article made the comment, or stated that, when information is seized on bad
guys, there is the so-called seizure -- or the seizure of information that belongs to Americans --
inadvertent, as it's called by the legal community.
And in that database are Americans and non-Americans. And the Washington Post article quote (sic)
says, "Many of them in this database were Americans; 90 percent of the account holders whose
communications were collected under 702 were not the intended targets." And about half of the
surveillance files were on Americans.
So you had this database that's supposed to go after the bad guys, and you get that information. But,
inadvertently, you pick up all of this information on Americans who have nothing to do with terrorism.
How many times has this database been queried -- I call the word "searched" -- to find out if there are
identifiers on Americans? How many times has the FBI or the intelligence agency or government done
that?
39
WRAY:
Congressman, I don't -- I don't have numbers for you here today. I will tell you that database that we're
talking about is not bulk collection on anyone, first. Number two, it is a database of foreigners
reasonably believed to be located overseas for foreign intelligence purposes. That's what's collected by
the NSA...
POE:
Let me interrupt you...
WRAY:
... the FBI...
POE:
... reclaiming my time. The -- but I'm talking about the inadvertent seizure of information based on this
idea we're going after terrorists. How many people have been queried, searched in that big database?
That's my question.
WRAY:
And, Congressman, I don't have the statistics for you. I can give you one number that may be helpful to
you in answering your question, which is that of what the NSA collects, that the FBI only receives --
much less queries against -- about 4.3 percent of what the NSA collects.
And the individuals that are incidentally collected -- the U.S. person information that's incidentally
collected are people who are in communication with foreigners who are the subject of foreign
intelligence investigations. So, like an ISIS recruiter -- if there's a U.S. person picked up, that person
would've been in e-mail contact, for example, with an ISIS recruiter.
POE:
I understand. I understand that. I'm not talking about terrorism. I'm talking about the inadvertent --
where there's a communication with an American, and that American's information is seized and then
later searched by -- whether it's the intelligence community or the FBI. The Washington Post said 90
percent of those seizures were on non-terrorists. Do you agree or disagree with that statistic?
WRAY:
I haven't reviewed the Washington Post's article.
POE:
So you don't. We've asked -- this committee has asked, for a long time -- to give us that information,
because we are now coming up with FISA reauthorization. My opinion is that the FBI and intelligence
service is back-walking that information, because they know FISA comes up at the end of this year, and
then Congress should just reauthorize without knowing how many Americans are searched.
The right of privacy in the Fourth Amendment is guaranteed. I'm sure you believe this, but it is being
abused and stolen by government, in this situation on what's happening to Americans.
And the search of that database, whether it's the first query, which is a search, or a later specific search
of that communication, is being done in secret by our government, and Congress, Judiciary Committee,
40
is entitled to that information. And I will disagree with what you said about, "Well, it's classified. I can't
tell you that." That's ridiculous.
Congress is entitled, members of Congress are entitled to every classified piece of information that is in
your possession. That is our position; that is our right as members of Congress. So government can't
have classified information and say, "We're not going to tell you because it's classified." We're entitled
to it in some type of setting.
So I totally disagree with you on that. I hope you can provide us that information before the -- we
reauthorize FISA; otherwise, I'm going to vote against FISA. And I yield back to the chairman.
WRAY:
Mr. Chairman, may I briefly respond?
GOODLATTE:
The director may respond.
WRAY:
First off, as to classified information, we are engaged with the intelligence committees, and we share
classified information with the intelligence committees all the time. And then, under certain
circumstances, as the chairman noted, we are also sharing classified information with the authorizing
committees, like the two judiciary committees.
As to the question of abuses, every court -- every court to have looked at the way in which Section 702 is
handled, including the querying, has concluded that it's being done consistent with the Fourth
Amendment, as has the Independent Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
And there has been no abuse found in the 702 program, despite oversight by the inspector general,
multiple sections of oversight within the executive branch, oversight by the federal FISA court and
oversight by the intelligence committees.
POE:
And I disagree with the secret courts on their interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, as does many
other members of Congress.
GOODLATTE:
Chair thanks the gentleman (ph). His time has expired.
I just want to reiterate, as with the other request, this is a reasonable request by the gentleman from
Texas. It has been made in varying forms by this committee in a bipartisan way, in the past, and we have
not yet received the answers to those questions.
So I would again point out that this committee has oversight responsibility over both the intelligence
unveiled (ph) in court and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we have a very nice SCIF where this
all can be discussed in a classified setting, where documents can be examined in a classified setting, and
we think you need to be forthcoming on this.
41
So thank you, Director.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutch, for five minutes.
DEUTCH:
Director, I thank you for being here today and thank you for your service to our country.
Director, as you know, what separates the United States from oligarchies and despots around the world
is the American commitment to the rule of law. That means that powerful people don't get to write
their own rules, means that the president doesn't direct law enforcement to target political enemies or
to go easy on political friends. And it means that judges, police officers and the FBI agents are not
intimidated by demands or tweets or whispers coming out of the White House.
Director Wray, I would commend your commitment to the independence of the FBI and the rule of law.
As to the president's tweet over the weekend that the reputation of the FBI's in tatters, the worst in
history, which, sadly, seems to be shared by many of my colleagues on this committee, I would like to
just take a moment to thank the women and men of the FBI for their hard work, for the work they do
investigating threats of terrorism, public corruption, organized crime, cyber crime, white-collar crime. I'd
like to thank you and them for the work they do to combat violent crime. And I'd like to thank you for
the work they do to enforce our civil rights laws.
I also want to thank your agents that are working with the Mueller investigation, an inquiry that has
already delivered serious charges against the president's campaign manager and a guilty plea from the
president's national security adviser.
Back in September, you reviewed the classified reports compiled by U.S. intelligence agencies that
concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election and tried to tilt it in Donald Trump's favor. You said
at the time, "I have no reason to doubt the conclusions the hard- working people who put that together
came to." You still -- you still have that view?
WRAY:
I still believe fundamentally that the conclusions of the ICA are accurate.
DEUTCH:
And the FBI continues to focus on the threats posed by Russian interference in future elections?
WRAY:
Yes, as I was mentioning earlier, we are -- special counsel, of course, is looking backwards. We're looking
forward. We're focused on trying to make sure that any effort by any foreign power to interfere with
our elections is something that we can try to get in front of, investigate and prevent, as best we can.
DEUTCH:
When the special counsel looks backwards on what happens, it's important that the special counsel be
able to do his job. There is legislation -- bipartisan legislation that's been introduced that -- as I
understand, it codifies existing DOJ regulations that special counsel may only be removed for
42
misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause. Is that how you
understand the DOJ regulations?
WRAY:
I'm not intimately familiar with the exact wording of the regulations, but I have no reason to doubt your
summary of them.
DEUTCH:
Which is why, Mr. Chairman, we ought to be doing exactly that. We have sat here for almost two hours,
and have heard nary a word from my Republican colleagues about Russian interference in our election,
or about the efforts of the Mueller investigation to get to the bottom of it.
And, based on the talking points that we've heard that sound so eerily familiar to those coming from the
president of the United States, it is more apparent than ever -- of this (ph) bipartisan legislation to
protect the special counsel, to ensure that the special counsel can do his job and can pursue, ultimately,
the truth wherever it takes him. It has to be brought up in this committee, must be.
I would urge my colleagues who are as concerned about the Russian interference in our last election and
the potential Russian intervention in future elections, who are as concerned as Director Wray and the
FBI and so many of us are, to let us protect the special counsel.
Director Wray, you also said in September, and I quote, that you said that you "saw no evidence of
White House interference in the probe," the Mueller probe. And you said, quote, "I can say very
confidently that I have not detected any whiff of interference with that investigation," close quote. I
want to make sure that that continues to be your position.
WRAY:
Certainly, Congressman. As I sit here today, I am not aware of -- since I've been on the job, there's been
no effort that I've seen going forward here -- any effort to interfere with Special Counsel Mueller's
investigation.
DEUTCH:
Director Wray, if the president of the United States fired Special Counsel Mueller, would that constitute
interference with Special Counsel Mueller's investigation?
WRAY:
You know, I'm not going to engage in a discussion of hypotheticals. It would absolutely depend on the
circumstances surrounding the firing.
DEUTCH:
If the -- if the president fired the special counsel without satisfying any of the requirements that
currently are in DOJ regulations, without doing it for a cause, but only because he was concerned about
the special counsel getting too close to him, or his closest advisers, or his family, I think the answer to
that is clear to anyone who is watching today, and that's exactly why at this moment, Mr. Chairman, we
have to protect the special counsel.
43
There is legislation to do it. History is being written at this moment, and what it's seeing is efforts to
obscure the very reality that's taking place in this country, which is the president's efforts to try to avoid
the special counsel getting too close to him. We can do something about that, to protect this
investigational on behalf of the American people, and I do hope that we will.
And I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy -- I'm sorry. I'm sorry -- the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized for five minutes.
GOHMERT:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Director, we appreciate you being here. I was so thrilled when I first got
to question Director Comey. I didn't realize what direction that would take. But you are taking an FBI
department that was weakened by Mueller's time, and I'm not asking for comment on that.
But I know, for his -- from his five-year "up or out" policy, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, he got
rid of thousands and thousands of years of experience, I came to believe, because he wanted younger
people that were more yes-men.
And so he got rid of people that could've advised him against some of the poor decisions he made,
whether it's squandering millions of dollars on software that didn't work and wouldn't work -- and
people he got rid of knew that -- but all kinds of things.
And I came to understand, as a young prosecutor who knew the law better than some of the older
lawyers, that there is something to be gained from experience. And so we lost thousands of years of
experience, and Comey took over a weakened FBI because of what Mueller did, and Mueller made a lot
of mistakes he wouldn't have otherwise.
So that was rather sad. But I want to -- and I'll be glad to have my friend across the aisle know that I am
outraged by the government's collusion with Russia.
I was outraged. I was -- I didn't think President Bush and our State Department went far enough in
condemning the invasion into Georgia by Putin and the Russians, but they did take some strong actions
to make known their discomfort and their upset over that.
And of course the response by the Obama administration was to send over a plastic reset button with
the wrong Russian word on it. But they made clear nonetheless that "We're not bothered by your
invasion of Georgia. You can invade anybody you want."
That was the message the Russians took, and I am really outraged at the allowing of Russia to buy our
uranium, even though the FBI and the Justice Department had already found out that they were trying
to get our uranium illegally with bribes and violating the law, and that has not been addressed. So yes, I
am outraged.
44
But, as you're aware, Deputy Director McCabe was involved in highly charged political cases that have
been controversial due to his political leanings. So I want to ask you if you are aware of any other senior
FBI executives that are aligned with McCabe's political views.
Yes or no: are you aware of any other senior FBI executives?
WRAY:
I'm not aware of any senior FBI executives who are allowing improper political considerations to affect
their work with me right now.
GOHMERT:
OK. Let me ask you this -- I'm going to ask about specific executives, some of whom have been promoted
by McCabe within the last few years. So my question to you, Director, is, are you aware of any of the
following people openly aligning themselves with the political bias expressed by McCabe, or openly
speaking against this administration?
First, Carl Ghattas -- yes or no?
WRAY:
My experience with Executive Assistant Director Ghattas has been very positive, and he's been a
complete professional in all my interaction with him.
GOHMERT:
But have you -- are you aware of him openly aligning him -- selves with the political bias that McCabe
expressed?
WRAY:
Well, I'm going to quarrel a little bit with the premise of your question about Deputy Director McCabe.
GOHMERT:
All right.
WRAY:
As far as -- but as far as Executive Assistant Director Ghattas, as I said, he's been a complete
professional, and by that I mean to include apolitical...
GOHMERT:
Have you heard him open...
WRAY:
... in his interaction with me.
GOHMERT:
... align himself with political bias against the Trump administration?
WRAY:
No.
45
GOHMERT:
Mike McGarrity?
WRAY:
No.
GOHMERT:
Same question, and I'll take McCabe out of it. Are you aware of him openly aligning him -- selves with
political bias against the Trump administration?
WRAY:
No.
GOHMERT:
Josh Skule?
WRAY:
No.
GOHMERT:
Larissa Mentzer?
WRAY:
I actually don't know who that is.
GOHMERT:
OK. All right. Thank you. Fair enough.
Brian Parman?
WRAY:
No.
GOHMERT:
Thank you.
And I know you appointed Brian Parman to the New York field office, counterterrorism division, so it is
important that we have fair-minded people.
And there's never been a requirement that anybody not be able to vote or have political beliefs, just
that they not let them affect their out -- their output. So I would encourage -- well, I got a lot more to
ask, but thank you for your work.
I want to be your best friend, as long as you stay on the straight and narrow. Thank you, Director.
WRAY:
Thank you, sir.
46
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Bass, for five minutes.
BASS:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Director, for being here with us today. And I also
want to thank you for the time that you spent, a week or so ago, with representatives of the
Congressional Black Caucus, following up on the black identity extremists. And I would like to ask you
questions following up from that meeting.
We raised a number of concerns, one of which the idea that that document was distributed to law
enforcement nationwide, and also the concern that the message that that sends to many local law
enforcement agencies -- and how you distinguish between what might be problematic behavior, and
also what is people just exercising their First Amendment rights.
And so one of the questions that we asked you that I wanted to follow up on is if you've learned any
more about what criteria, evidence, methodology that was used to even come up with that category of
black identity extremists?
WRAY:
Congresswoman, as I think I may have mentioned in our meeting, the analysis that occurred there
involved a -- which is our standard practice for one of these products, and we issue them across all of
our various program categories -- is to take both so-called open source information, which is what the
intelligence community would call it...
BASS:
Right.
WRAY:
... and our own ongoing investigations, of which there are many, and mesh them two (ph) together with
other information and try to make sure that the information that we're speaking on -- that those two
things align.
As to your concerns, and we discussed them, and I hope -- I found the conversation constructive,
hearing your concerns...
BASS:
Yes.
WRAY:
... and I hope you did, too -- we take respect for the First Amendment very seriously. And, in this
context, as in every other domestic terrorism context, we want to be very clear with people -- and all the
American people -- that we do not investigate rhetoric, ideology, opinion...
BASS:
Right.
WRAY:
47
... no matter how -- who might consider it extremist. What we do investigate is when rhetoric, ideology,
opinion takes that next step into the category of federal crime, and in particular, violence.
BASS:
Yes, exactly. And I did find our conversation constructive. There did seem to be several things that I
know you were going to follow up on. And so you were clear about the three categories that led -- that
were reasons for investigation.
And one of the things that I mentioned to you is the difference -- and we talked about this -- the
difference between an investigation and surveillance. So you have the surveillance activity that may or
may not lead to an investigation.
And so what a number of activists are complaining about around the country is the increase of
surveillance, being visited by FBI agents, having FBI agents come to their house, leaving their business
cards. And so that, you know, was a concern. And what was that really based on?
So these are activists that are protesting because of community police relations, because of killings that
might have happened, a variety of reasons. Some of this is -- it might be the, you know, protests that
have taken place in Baltimore and several of the cities around the country.
And so I want to know if there's any additional information that you have found from that. What is
happening in your offices around the country, where activists are complaining of this?
WRAY:
I have -- after our meeting, I did farm out a whole number of follow-up questions to people. I will
confess that I've been fairly busy lately and have not yet gotten the results of those. But we will
continue to look into those questions.
BASS:
OK. We really need to do that, because -- let me just explain to you that one of the things that all of us
would like to take place in our communities is for our communities to cooperate with law enforcement.
But, at this point in time, to have FBI agents come by people's house after peaceful demonstrations -- I
know I can't recommend that they speak to the FBI.
I have to tell them that they can't speak to the FBI because, if you do say something and you innocently
say something that might not be true, then that person feels as though they might be entrapped,
because they could be -- they could be charged with lying to an FBI agent. And so to find the information
out as soon as possible, I think, is really important. I want our community to participate, but we can't
participate if it's not really clear where the FBI is coming from.
So many organizations have called for the withdrawal of the BIE designation, in particular, NOBLE, which
is the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. And so, in light of the public outcry,
including from law enforcement, I want to know if part of the follow-up from our meeting is if you are
considering retracting that category of Black Identity Extremists and then sending out clarification to law
enforcement around the country that that category really doesn't exist.
WRAY:
48
I think what we're doing right now is what we would normally do with any intelligence assessment,
which is we continue to evaluate the data as it rolls in. The intelligence assessment in question was a
snapshot in time. And, as we get more information that comes in from all quarters, considering all sorts
of information, I expect that we will update that information in an appropriate way. And, depending on
what the information shows, it could be anything from a reaffirmance, to a retraction, to a clarification.
It just depends on what the information shows...
BASS:
OK.
WRAY:
But the one thing we will not do is withdraw intelligence assessments based on public outcry. I'm sure
you can understand why that's not an approach that, ultimately, will stand (ph)...
(CROSSTALK)
BASS:
OK. Well, I want to continue to be in contact with you for this, because I think one of the points that we
made to you, and I really hope you take it seriously, is the harm that that document is causing.
Because what that says -- it sends a chill to activists around the country. And my big concern is that local
law enforcement will misinterpret that and will clamp down on people exercising their First Amendment
right.
GOODLATTE:
Time of the gentlewoman has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, Mr. Gowdy, for five minutes.
GOWDY:
Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte.
Director Wray, somewhere today, a group of our fellow citizens will be asked if they can be fair,
impartial, free of bias before they sit in judgment of others on a jury, even in the smallest of courtrooms,
where there are nothing but empty seats and no television cameras.
Somewhere today, those selected to sit in judgment of their fellow citizens will be told that they must
wait until the very last witness testifies and the last piece of evidence has been introduced before they
can even begin to deliberate on an outcome.
So if our fellow citizens should be impartial and free of bias, and if our fellow citizens must wait until the
last piece of evidence is introduced, the last witness is called, before they can reach a verdict, a
conclusion, an outcome, then I don't think it's asking too much that the Department of Justice and the
FBI do the same thing.
49
There is no member of Congress who holds the department and the bureau in higher esteem than I do.
There are others who hold you in high esteem, but I would take a second place to no one, and I have
defended the department and the bureau when, frankly, it was pretty damn lonely to do so.
When my Democrat friends were asking that Jim Comey be prosecuted for a Hatch Act violation, about
this time last year -- they now want him canonized, but this time last year, they wanted him prosecuted
for a Hatch Act violation -- when your predecessor sat right where you're sitting and was embroiled in a
fight with this little tiny startup company called Apple, I was on the side of the bureau.
When there are calls for special counsel, even today, I reject them, because I trust the women and men
of the Department of Justice and the bureau, the professionals that we hired, to do their job. And the
vast majority of line prosecutors and line agents are exactly what you described in your opening
statement. They are exactly what you described.
But, unfortunately, the last two years have not been good years for the bureau, and they have not been
good years for the department. We had an attorney general meet with the spouse of a target of an
investigation on the tarmac and ask that an investigation be called something other than an
investigation, but be called a "matter."
We've had an attorney general recuse himself from the largest, most significant investigation currently
in his office. We had the director of the FBI appropriate a major charging decision away from the
Department of Justice, because he was concerned that the public wouldn't have confidence if the
Department of Justice handled that decision themselves.
We had an FBI director write two politically volatile letters, weeks before an election. We had an FBI
director memorialize conversations he had with the president of the United States because he didn't
trust the president's recall of those conversations.
And I think what frustrates some folks is, when Director Comey wanted special counsel for President
Trump, he leaked one of those memos. When he didn't have confidence in Loretta Lynch, we didn't hear
a word about it. There were no leaks that prompted special counsel when he didn't trust Loretta Lynch.
There were leaks when he decided he didn't trust President Trump.
We've had an acting A.G. fired. We've had the director of the FBI fired. And we can't manage to find
prosecutors who haven't donated to presidential candidates. Out of all the universal prosecutors that
you used to work with and I used to work with and Johnny Ratcliffe used to work with, we can't find a
dozen that haven't donated to major political candidates.
And now we have Special Agent Strzok. It was the inspector general, not the Department of Justice, not
the bureau, who found these texts. It was the inspector general, and I share your confidence in his
objectivity. I share it.
But it shouldn't have been the inspector general that had to bring this to our attention, 12 months after
it happened. And that same agent is the one who reportedly interviewed Secretary Clinton in an
interview that you and I have never seen conducted that way before.
50
To have potential witnesses and potential targets sit in on a witness interview -- I appreciate your
professionalism and your unwillingness to want to say how unprecedented that is, so I'm not going to
ask you -- I'll just tell you, it's unprecedented.
And that same agent is alleged to have been the one that changed the language. You're right, they are
synonyms -- "extremely careless" is a synonym for "grossly negligent," which begs the question, why
change it?
But you and I know why it was changed. It was changed because the statute says "grossly negligent,"
and if you're not going to charge someone, God knows you don't want to track the statute with the
language that you use. That would be stupid.
What's also stupid is to do that memo two months before you've interviewed the target. That memo
was drafted before the last witness was interviewed. Director, it was drafted before the target of the
investigation was even -- was even interviewed, which makes people wonder, was the decision made
before the interviews were finished?
And now, we believe that that same agent is also involved in the investigation into President Trump and
his campaign, and may have interviewed Michael Flynn. That hasn't been confirmed, and we don't know
what role, if any, he took in the preparation of documents for court filing.
So I'm going to say this, because I'm out of time, and I appreciate the chairman's patience with me: You
have a really important job. When all else fails in this country, we want to be able to look to the FBI. We
want to be able to look to the Department of Justice. When all the other institutions we trust, including
Congress, appear to be broken, we want to be able to look to you.
It's been a really bad two years. I am counting on you to help answer our questions in Congress, our
fellow citizens' questions. But I am, more than anything, counting on you to go back to work for that
blindfolded woman holding a set of scales that really doesn't give a whit about politics. That's the FBI
that I want.
GOODLATTE:
Time of the gentleman has expired...
(UNKNOWN)
Mr. Chairman -- Mr. Chairman, I...
GOODLATTE:
... the director is welcome to respond.
WRAY:
Just a 30-second response. First, let me say, Congressman Gowdy, I'm well aware of your longstanding
support for the bureau and the department, and I want you know we appreciate it.
And second, I want to assure you and every other member of this committee that there is no scenario
under which I would've taken the president's nomination if I were not committed to the kind of
independent, impartial, objective and professional pursuit of the facts -- I wouldn't be here if I weren't
committed to that, and I can give this committee that commitment.
51
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, for five minutes.
RICHMOND:
Director Wray, let me thank you for being here, but also thank you for the meeting we had a couple
weeks ago.
Let me ask you a question, because, as I think about our approach to opioid addiction and how we
combat this awful crisis, I also have to think back to our response to the crack epidemic and how we
responded to the crack epidemic, which was mandatory minimum sentences, which led to mass
incarceration.
But one thing in -- specific example is that, when we found grandchildren in public housing that may
have had crack cocaine or cocaine, we filed eviction notices with housing authorities to remove them
from public housing. That is not what we're doing with opioid addiction and people that we find in
possession of opioids.
Do you see and are you concerned about a double standard in our approach to opioid and our approach
to -- our response to crack? And should we address that in criminal justice reform, so that we treat
substance abuse addiction as the mental health crisis that it is, and that the president declared with his
opioid crisis?
So the question is, should we go back and look at how we treated crack and reform our old drug laws to
better represent the mental health crisis?
WRAY:
Well, Congressman, I -- questions of sentencing reform -- criminal justice reform, I think, are better
directed to the other side of the street, of the Justice Department, than to the FBI, where we largely
focus on trying to do the investigations and the intelligence assessments.
But I will tell you that, in the context of the opioid epidemic which is upon us now -- that it has become a
sufficiently big scourge on all communities in the United States that it's clearly going to require a whole-
of-government type response that involves not just criminal justice steps, aggressive investigation and
prosecution, but all sorts of other outreach, mental health treatment.
It's -- there might have been a time when we could've investigated and prosecuted our way out of the
problem, and that's clearly going to be a major part of it. But it's become too big now. We're going to
have to do something that's much more holistic and multidisciplinary.
RICHMOND:
And, you know, life experiences mean a lot, and I heard my colleagues on the other side talk about how
great the FBI has been, and how it's held in high esteem, except for the past eight years under President
Obama and, for my friend Congressman Gowdy, he said the last two years.
It just amazes me how we just missed the whole COINTELPRO history of the FBI. And that has to be one
of its darkest moments, when it did illegal surveillance and initiated propaganda in the media to
discredit civil rights activists who were trying to make the country a better place.
52
So let me just go there for second. First of all (ph) -- and I know that we just released a batch of
documents from the Church Committee on JFK's assassination, but have we released and made public,
in your knowledge, all of the documents and actions of the FBI during those COINTELPRO years?
WRAY:
Congressman, I don't actually know what information specifically has been provided on the COINTELPRO
era. I know that hearings were conducted, books have been written, lots and lots of discussion has been
had about it.
Certainly, I will tell you that I think I and everybody in the Bureau recognizes the COINTELPRO problems -
- and that means different things to different people -- as one of the darker moments in the FBI's
history. And it's something we're not proud of, but it also is something that we've learned from.
And, during some of the same time period, there is a lot that the FBI did that that we can all be proud of
in terms of aggressive investigation of various civil rights abuses, among other things.
So we're human. We make mistakes. We have things that we've done well. We have things we've done
badly. And, when we've done things badly, we try to learn from them.
RICHMOND:
And I would just hope that we expose as much as we can, so we can learn from it. But who was the
director of the FBI that initiated COINTELPRO and all of those programs that were the darker moments
of the FBI's history?
WRAY:
Well, I believe Director Hoover was in place at the time.
RICHMOND:
And who is your building named after?
WRAY:
Director Hoover.
RICHMOND:
And it's the darker -- or some of the darkest times of the FBI history, under Hoover, and the building is
named after him.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
WRAY:
Well, Mr. Chairman...
GOODLATTE:
The director is permitted to respond.
WRAY:
53
... well, I would just say that Director Hoover, like most of us mortals, did some things that he's probably
not proud of, wherever he is right now, and some things that we are all -- should be all very grateful to
him for, in terms of building the FBI into the organization it is today. So, like most people, he's
complicated.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for five minutes.
LABRADOR:
Director Wray, I really appreciated your opening statement to this committee. You and the great men
and women of the FBI have an important and very difficult job. That is why, during the time of the
Clinton investigation, I actually refused to question the integrity of your predecessor.
In fact, I spent dozens of town hall meetings as a Republican defending the integrity of your predecessor
and disagreeing with some my constituents about the things that they were saying.
And -- but now it's become pretty clear to me that my belief in the integrity of your predecessor was
misplaced. Could you please tell us what the letters "FBI" stand for? We know it stands for Federal
Bureau of Investigation, but it also stands for something else.
WRAY:
We consider "FBI" to stand for the words "fidelity, bravery and integrity."
LABRADOR:
Mr. Director, I have begun to have serious doubts about some in the FBI, about -- serious doubts about
the integrity of some of the highest levels of the FBI, because of actions taken by your agency over the
past two years.
And that is so disappointing, because your agency does such important work, as you expressed in your
opening statement, and that is to make America safe and secure. And it depends upon most of the work
that you do.
It's a matter of public record that Hillary Clinton's aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, blatantly lied to
the FBI investigators about the existence of Hillary Clinton's private e-mails. And we know that an FBI
agent, Strzok, investigated both Clinton and Trump. In fact, Strzok was present at many of these
interviews.
Director, were Sherry (ph) Mills -- Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin or any other Clinton associates ever
charged by the FBI for lying to them?
WRAY:
Congressman, the handling of the Clinton e-mail investigation, including all the other participants in that
matter, is the subject of an outside, independent investigation...
LABRADOR:
54
I understand. It's a simple question of...
(CROSSTALK)
WRAY:
... which is looking into that.
LABRADOR:
Was anybody charged for lying to the FBI?
WRAY:
No charges were filed against anybody in that investigation.
LABRADOR:
How many Clinton advisers were granted immunity during the e-mail server investigation?
WRAY:
I don't know the answer to that.
LABRADOR:
But there were several Clinton advisers who were granted immunity. Isn't that correct?
WRAY:
I believe that's true, but I don't know the answer to that, sitting here right now.
LABRADOR:
So we have recently heard that Strzok was the official who signed the documents that officially opened
the collusion inquiry into -- the Russia Trump collusion inquiry. How many Trump administration
advisers have been granted immunity during the Russia special counsel investigation?
WRAY:
For questions about the special counsel investigation, I'd refer you to the special counsel. I don't know
the answer to that question.
LABRADOR:
So, if we want to believe in the integrity of the FBI, explain to me, why the double standard? When you
have agents and people who work for the Clinton administration who were granted immunity, or who
lied to the FBI, and they're not charged, what about -- why is there a double standard today?
WRAY:
Congressman, we in the FBI are committed to not having a double standard.
LABRADOR:
But you haven't been committed over the last two years. So are you doing something to correct that?
WRAY:
55
As I think I said to one of your colleagues, in every meeting that I go to since taking over director -- as
director, I try to emphasize the importance of following the rules, following the process, following the
law, following the Constitution, being faithful to our core values...
LABRADOR:
OK, so...
WRAY:
... and not allowing political biases to affect our decision-making. And where there have been
situations...
(CROSSTALK)
LABRADOR:
OK. I only have -- I only have one minute...
WRAY:
... where there's a question, there's an Inspector General investigation.
LABRADOR:
Reclaim my time -- I only have one more minute left. So can you tell me definite -- definitively whether
Michael Flynn violated the Logan Act?
WRAY:
That's not a question I can answer.
LABRADOR:
I actually believe that the Logan Act is unconstitutional, by the way. But, if we're going to not have an
double standard, can you tell me whether the FBI is investigating former President Barack Obama for
violating the Logan Act?
He has been spending the last couple weeks traveling the whole United States -- I mean the whole
world, complaining about the foreign policy of the United States. Is the FBI currently investigating the
former president of the United States for violating the Logan Act?
WRAY:
Congressman, as you may know, we will not confirm or deny the existence of any ongoing investigation.
LABRADOR:
Do you think we should investigate Minority Leader Pelosi for meeting with Assad, despite objections
from then-sitting President Bush and Vice President Cheney in 2007?
WRAY:
Again, I'm not going to comment on -- speculate about whether or not there's an active investigation.
LABRADOR:
Let's not use an elected official. Should we investigate Dennis Rodman, who went to meet with the
North Koreans? Should we investigate him for that?
56
WRAY:
Same answer.
LABRADOR:
All right. I want you to help me bring back the integrity of the FBI to the United States. I love the FBI. I
even considered, as a young attorney, to join the FBI. I grew up on the show, and I have great love for
the work that the men and women at the FBI do. And I hope that we can do something over the next
two years that will counteract what happened over the last two years of...
ROBY:
The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for five minutes.
CICILLINE:
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Director, for your service and for the extraordinary service of the men and
women at the FBI, who are serving our country and who do important and dangerous work, and risk
their lives often in that work.
You hold, in particular, a very solemn responsibility to protect the integrity and the reputation of the
FBI, and you are clearly proud, as you should be, to lead this agency. And I think we are seeing an
administration which will continue to challenge the independence of the FBI, and in many ways, our
country is relying on your strength and your integrity to resist that. So I thank you.
I want to just begin with a couple of short questions. One is -- there's been a lot of question about
obstruction of justice. You are of course aware obstruction of justice is a criminal statute in our federal
law.
WRAY:
Yes.
CICILLINE:
And there is no exemption in it for the president or any other person in the United States; it applies to
every person in this country.
WRAY:
I'm not aware of any statutory cop-out (ph).
CICILLINE:
Exemption -- OK. And I'd next like to turn to the issue of hate crimes. There's a ProPublica report from
June of this year that identified at least 120 federal agencies that are not uploading information to the
FBI's national hate crimes database.
And I'm wondering whether or not the FBI has reached out to these agencies so far; if so, how many;
whether your plan is to reach out to all of them so that this information is being properly collected. And
I'd be delighted to work with you on ways that Congress can help support that work.
57
WRAY:
Thank you, Congressman.
We do believe strongly that more and complete data is really essential to having an informed dialogue
on that topic, just like in other areas of law enforcement.
As you may know, providing that kind of information is generally voluntary on the part of the state or
locality. We do have all manner of outreach to various agencies to try to encourage them to provide
information.
CICILLINE:
This is actually 120 federal agencies. These are not local. These are federal agencies.
WRAY:
You're only asking about the federal agencies, right.
CICILLINE:
So it's not voluntary. I mean, they're required to do this reporting.
WRAY:
Well, we -- right, so we have interaction with all sorts of federal agencies to try to collect their
information.
CICILLINE:
Right. My question, really, is I hope you are putting together a plan now to reach out to those 120
agencies -- you be sure that they are complying with this reporting requirement -- and happy to work
with you in ways that we can help support that.
Next, I'd like to turn to the NICS system, the background check system. The Pentagon's Office of
Inspector General just released a report identifying serious deficiencies in the reporting system, with
officials in all four branches failing to submit final disposition reports in 31 of those cases.
And we've seen a recent incident where that allowed someone who should not have been able to buy a
gun to buy a gun and kill a great number of people. Has the bureau begun to coordinate with the
Department of Defense to fix this very serious problem?
WRAY:
Yes, Congressman, we've been in sort of active engagement with the Department of Defense, and
already a very significant amount of new records have come to the FBI, and a number of transactions
have already been denied as a result.
CICILLINE:
Thank you, Mr. Director.
Under federal law, Director Wray, fugitive from justice -- those individuals who are fugitives from justice
cannot lawfully possess a firearm. After a 2016 inspector general's report, the Obama administration
agreed that the FBI would use ATF's interpretation of the terms "fugitive from justice," any individual
with an outstanding warrant who has traveled across state lines.
58
Since taking office, Attorney General Sessions has narrowed this definition to include only those who
have fled across state lines to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in a criminal
proceeding.
This change resulted in the removal of almost 500,000 entries from the NICS database, with only 758
fugitives remaining. Do you agree with the narrowing of his definition? And you think Congress should
take steps to define "fugitive from justice" to avoid this kind of action?
WRAY:
A couple things. First off, I actually think the change occurred before the change in administration. And
there was a letter written by the Justice Department under the prior administration to Congress,
notifying them of the change and essentially inviting legislative attention to the issue.
CICILLINE:
But do you -- do you agree with that?
WRAY:
Then the second -- as I said, the FBI's position for years and years had been that the "fugitive from
justice" interpretation didn't require crossing of state lines. I gather there's been a legal interpretation,
which I'll defer to the lawyers on.
I will tell you, though, that, as to the 500,000 point, that's -- there's been a little bit of confusion in the
reporting on that. That's -- it removed it from one part of the NICS database, but it's still in the states'
warrants database.
CICILLINE:
OK. My final question, Mr. Director -- last month, a Las Vegas shooter used a bump stock device to
accelerate the rate of the assault weapon discharge, killed 58 people and injured about 500. Do you
support the bipartisan effort in Congress to ban bump stocks?
WRAY:
I haven't reviewed the legislation, but obviously, we're deeply concerned about the bump stock issue.
CICILLINE:
And do you generally support a prohibition?
WRAY:
Well, the FBI doesn't normally take positions on that.
CICILLINE:
OK.
WRAY:
So we'd sort of provide operational assessment, and I've worked through the Justice Department on
that.
CICILLINE:
59
Thank you. And, Madam Chair, I just -- before I yield back, I just want to say, Mr. Director, that the rule
of law is really the guardian of our democracy, and the president and this administration are going to
continue to test our commitment, as a nation, to this. And you're going to play a very critical role in
defending that.
And our country is really depending on you, and I trust that you will continue to uphold the integrity of
the FBI and the rule of law in this country, because the very foundations of our democracy depend on it.
And with that (OFF-MIKE).
ROBY:
The gentleman's time is expired.
The gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, is now recognized for five minutes.
DESANTIS:
Welcome, Director.
Secretary Clinton's e-mails were backed up on a cloud by Datto, Inc. And they're now subject to an order
by U.S. District Judge Moss in a case brought by Judicial Watch. My question is, why did the FBI not
search the data -- Datto device in its possession for Hillary's deleted e-mails?
WRAY:
I believe decisions made in the course of the Clinton e- mail investigation are all the subject of the
inspector general's review.
DESANTIS:
But why -- do you know why the FDA -- the FBI didn't disclose that such device was in its possession?
WRAY:
I don't know the answer to that.
DESANTIS:
OK.
Was Attorney General Lynch's airplane cabin monitored when she met with Bill Clinton on 27 June,
2016, on the tarmac in Phoenix?
WRAY:
I don't know the answer to that. And I think that -- the tarmac meeting, I think, is part of or related to
the inspector general's outside and independent investigation.
DESANTIS:
Do you know how the meeting came about, though? It's not like you just bump someone in the
shopping mall. They met on a private plane or a plane. Do you have any insight into that?
WRAY:
60
I wouldn't say that I have any constructive insight to offer to that. I've read some of the same newspaper
covers that you have. But, as I said, that's -- that whole episode is wrapped up in the inspector general's
ongoing investigation.
DESANTIS:
How did the Russia investigation start? Did Peter Strzok -- was he -- did he start it?
WRAY:
I'm not aware of who started the investigation within the FBI.
DESANTIS:
Was it started because the dossier was presented to somebody in the FBI?
WRAY:
I don't have the answer to that question.
DESANTIS:
OK. Can you get the answer to that question for us?
WRAY:
Well, if there's information that we can provide that -- without compromising the ongoing special
counsel investigation, I'm happy to see what there is that we can do to be responsive.
DESANTIS:
Was Peter Strzok involved in coming up with the conclusion that the FBI reached about Russia --
whatever involvement they had -- when they issued a report after the election?
WRAY:
That's a question that goes right to the heart of the special counsel investigation, and I don't think it
would be appropriate for me to speculate or comment on that.
DESANTIS:
So here's the -- I think the problem that you have -- I think you're walking into a contempt of Congress. I
mean, the idea that we can't conduct oversight over how the FBI is handling things that are very
sensitive, and then you're going to come to us and say we should reauthorize all these programs willy-
nilly -- I just think you're wrong on that.
And I don't think you're trying. I just -- I don't know what advice you've got, but we do have a right to
conduct oversight over this. We all can deal with classified information all the time.
So we have a question about how this dossier was generated for political purposes. It ended up in the
FBI's possession. What did the FBI do with it? And your answer to us is you will not give us any
information on that today.
WRAY:
My answer has a couple parts to it. There are certain -- of the various questions that have been asked
here today, there's some topics that I think it's not appropriate to discuss in open forum. There's some
topics that are classified...
61
(CROSSTALK)
DESANTIS:
Whether you use it or not, though, is not classified. Go ahead.
WRAY:
There are some topics where, even though the information is classified, we can and do and will share it
with the committees in an appropriate setting. And then there are some topics that go straight to --
even -- it's not just a question of classification. They go straight to access to sensitive sources and
methods, which is something that all of us as Americans have to take very, very seriously.
DESANTIS:
You admit that (ph) the chairman of the Intelligence Committee has a right to that, and you still -- you
won't even produce it to the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
So here's the problem. Whether Strzok was involved in this -- that needs to be disclosed to Congress.
Whether the dossier was used to generate surveillance with the FISA court on a Trump associate -- that
needs to be disclosed to Congress.
I don't care about the sources and methods beyond (ph) we know where -- the sources and methods. It
was the Democratic Party paying Fusion GPS to get the dossier. So we know that.
The question is, how did your organization use it? You weren't there during that time, but, if they were
getting this information from a political party and then using it for surveillance against an opposition
party candidate, that's a problem.
Do you agree that that would be a problem for the American people?
WRAY:
I do agree, Congressman, that any inappropriate use of the FISA process for political purposes is
something that we should all be very concerned about and take very seriously.
DESANTIS:
So we need the answers to that. It's very, very important. Let me ask you this. Independence from
politics, I agree, but the FBI, like all agencies, need to be accountable to someone.
So let me ask you this. Would it have been inappropriate if President Kennedy ordered Director Hoover
to stop surveilling Martin Luther King Jr. in, say, 1962, if he believed that surveillance was illegitimate?
WRAY:
No.
DESANTIS:
Right. So you would be accountable. Is it customary to draft an exoneration memo long before
interviewing all relevant witnesses, including the target of that investigation?
WRAY:
62
Well, I do believe that, in any investigation, final decisions and conclusions should wait until, as
Congressman Gowdy said -- until the -- you know, until the last witness has been reached.
On the other hand, I also know, from having done investigations both for the government and on the
private side, that, as investigation develops, you start forming views about what you're finding, all
subject to revision and, in some cases, withdrawal, until you're done.
DESANTIS:
Fair enough. Is it acceptable practice for FBI agents to leak official work product to the media?
WRAY:
No.
DESANTIS:
ROBY:
The gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is now recognized for five minutes.
SWALWELL:
Welcome, Director Wray. Congratulations on your appointment, and thank you and your agents for their
service to our country.
I think there are fair questions, as you've pointed out, about prior investigations, and, if there's evidence
of any misconduct, they should be held to account.
But it is sickening to sit here and listen to the good names of people like Bob Mueller and James Comey
just be smeared, and that the work of your agents has become politicized, because I don't believe that is
the case and what I've observed on the Intelligence Committee and what I've observed just as a former
prosecutor who's had FBI agents on the stand.
But I would like to look forward. And our House Intelligence Committee investigation -- it's early, but it
has yielded some key takeaways, which is that our social media was weaponized by the Russians, that
senior presidential campaign aides were approached by Russians in a variety of ways to offer dirt on a
political opponent, and that our government response, from the very top, to our intelligence officials,
was probably not sufficient in how Congress was notified or how the public was notified.
Knowing that we have an election coming up in November 2018, what does the FBI plan to do, whether
it's Russia or any of the other adversaries that you identified who would love to interfere, meddle or
influence an election?
WRAY:
Well, Congressman, any effort to interfere with our elections, whether it's by Russia or any other nation -
state or, really, by any non-state actor is something that we at the FBI take extremely seriously, and I
know our counterparts throughout the government do, as well.
63
We are, as I think I may have mentioned, like you, focused on looking forward. We have created, a few
months ago, a foreign influence task force to ensure that we're bringing the right kind of focus and
discipline to the process. It combines -- because we think this is a multidisciplinary problem, it combines
both the counterintelligence division and the cyber division and the criminal division and some other
parts of the FBI, as well.
Our focus is on trying to look for, sniff out, determine whether or not there are any efforts to interfere
with the upcoming elections. We are, in that effort, coordinating closely with Department of Homeland
Security, which has a similar type of body on its end.
SWALWELL:
Would you be open to working with Congress on a "duty to report" law, whether it's social media
companies who observe interference on their platforms before the FBI does, or whether it's individuals
who are contacted by foreign nationals offering ill-gotten evidence against another campaign -- that
there would be a duty to report that to law enforcement? Would that be helpful for the FBI?
WRAY:
I'd be happy to have our staff coordinate with yours to review any legislative proposal and to give you
sort of an operational assessment of how that might or might not be helpful.
SWALWELL:
Director, again, looking forward, but being informed by prior conduct, in uncontradicted sworn
testimony to Congress, former Director James Comey described multiple efforts by President Trump to
influence the FBI's Russia investigation. Again, that's the only sworn testimony the record has.
Director Comey memorialized President Trump's inappropriate conduct a series of memos. A couple
questions for you. Since being sworn in, have you met one on one with President Trump?
WRAY:
No.
SWALWELL:
Has he called you, where just the two of you have talked?
WRAY:
I've gotten maybe one congratulatory phone call, you know, for example, the day of my installation
ceremony.
SWALWELL:
But haven't had to break a date with your wife?
(CROSSTALK)
WRAY:
... not a -- I haven't had sort of substantive engagement that way.
SWALWELL:
64
Now, knowing the prior efforts by the president to influence a past investigation, going forward, how
will you memorialize or report to Congress or the public any improper effort by any president to
influence an ongoing investigation? Have you thought about procedures or methods that you would
take?
WRAY:
I would evaluate each situation on its own merits. I'm acutely aware of the importance of trying to keep
careful track of conversations, especially important, sensitive conversations. Exactly what I would
memorialize and how and whether -- again, it would depend on the circumstances of the particular
situation.
But you can be confident that, in all of those situations, I would, as I said to the committee earlier, be
guided by my unwavering commitment to following my duty and my adherence to the Constitution and
the rule of law. And there isn't a person on this planet that can get me to drop a properly predicated
investigation or start an investigation that's not properly predicated.
SWALWELL:
Do you believe that president Trump is above the law?
WRAY:
I don't believe anybody's above the law.
SWALWELL:
ROBY:
The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for five minutes.
BUCK:
Thank you. And thank you, Director Wray, for your testimony today.
You've heard a lot about the appearance of impropriety or possible conflict of interest or the perception
that there are some that are tainted in their views. There is a statute that was enacted years ago that
the deals with this in part, and it's the Hatch Act.
And, as the former Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division and now the FBI director, I am
assuming that you are familiar with the Hatch Act.
WRAY:
Generally familiar, sure.
BUCK:
And, as a former federal prosecutor, I was also -- before you started in the department, the Hatch Act
was amended, and it allowed assistant U.S. attorneys and others to participate more fully in the political
process.
65
But it specifically prohibited, or specifically did not allow, that enhanced participation to apply to
prosecutors in the criminal division and FBI agents. At least that's my memory. Is that -- are you familiar
with that?
WRAY:
I would say I'm generally aware that -- as you say -- that there were some changes, some loosening
under the Hatch Act, at some point. I can't remember exactly when that was, relative to my time as a
baby prosecutor. And so the particulars of exactly when it applies and when it doesn't, and to whom --
unfortunately, I just don't have that committed to memory here.
BUCK:
So I think it was '93. But I think, again, the criminal division and the FBI were not -- the rules were not
loosened as to those two organizations.
And one of the -- one of the prohibitions is against individuals contributing to the -- a partisan political
candidate. And I'm -- again, I'm asking you, are you are you familiar with that prohibition? And is that a
prohibition that applies to FBI agents today?
WRAY:
I don't know that I can recall, right off the top of my head, exactly what the restrictions are on political
participation under the Hatch Act for FBI agents and criminal division prosecutors. So, unfortunately, I
would have to look at that and see if I can get back to you, if you would like me to.
BUCK:
I -- or a member of your staff would be -- would be great. I'd be interested in that.
There is at least one prosecutor on the Mueller team that was at the criminal division and donated to
Hillary for America, according to a record that I am looking at right now, and there are a number of the
prosecutors on the Mueller team now that have prosecuted in the past.
And I'm not sure that they were criminal division employees at the time they prosecuted, but my
question really is whether we need to amend the Hatch Act and make it more clear, in light of the
perception by members of the public that there are individuals that are investigating President Trump,
and they have an agenda -- an unfair agenda in their investigation.
There -- a spouse of an FBI -- a senior FBI employee received a large amount of money from the
Democrat Party to run for office in Virginia. And, again, the appearance of -- and my understanding is
the Hatch Act does not apply to spouses, and hasn't applied to spouses and was never intended to apply
to spouses.
But it does raise the issue of whether we should have further restrictions to make sure that the public
has faith and trust in the process that you and I hold dear. I'm just wondering if you'd be willing to
comment on that.
WRAY:
66
Well, any specific legislative reform would be something I'd have to look at more closely. I think the
fundamental underlying principle of your point is one that you and I share, which is that investigations
need to be conducted in a way that political bias doesn't taint.
Whether that -- how much of that is done through the Hatch Act, how much of that is done through
policies and procedures and staffing, how much that is done through recruiting the right people, training
and promoting the right people -- I think it's all of the above.
BUCK:
And I think that's a great point. In order to staff a case in a way that would assure the public that there
wasn't a bias going into the case, you would need to know who had donated to who, who had
participated in some political activity.
Should there be, at least internally -- maybe not as a matter of public record, but internally within the
FBI -- a process where, if someone complies with the Hatch Act, but is still involved in some activity --
that they disclose that, so that, if there is a staffing decision to be made, that the staffing decision can be
made with the assurance of supervisors that people are not tainted in some way, or at least the
perception is that they aren't tainted?
WRAY:
I'd have -- I'd have to think about the First Amendment implications of that. I certainly take the point.
You know, my guess, though, is that you could encounter similar concerns when you look at individuals'
charitable contributions too, right -- you know, contributions to particular organizations -- 501(c)(3)
organizations that have a particular social view, for example.
So I think questions of bias and objectivity back and forth, and questions of appearance of bias and
objectivity back and forth, have to be taken very seriously. And I think you and I share that view. But I
also want to make sure that, whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it in a way that's consistent with respecting
the fact that FBI employees, just like all Americans, have a right to have views and -- both about politics,
and about social issues.
BUCK:
Thank you for your...
ROBY:
BUCK:
... thank you.
ROBY:
Now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lieu, for five minutes.
LIEU:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Director Wray, for being here. I want the American people to know that, when you served in
the administration of President George W. Bush, you received the Edmund J. Randolph Award, the
67
highest award that the Department of Justice gives for leadership and public service. So not only have
you served the American people; you have served us well. Thank you.
Earlier today you stated that Donald Trump has not asked you to take a loyalty oath. If Donald Trump
were to ask you, later today or sometime in the future, to take a loyalty oath to him, would you do so?
WRAY:
The only loyalty oath I take is the one that I took when I was sworn into this job, which is of loyalty to
the Constitution and the laws of the United States.
LIEU:
Thank you. That is the right answer. I asked that same exact question Attorney General Sessions last
month. He did not give that answer. I commend you for understanding that your loyalty is to the
Constitution, the laws and the American people, not to whoever happens to be president at the time. So
thank you for recognizing that.
I'd like to ask you about intelligence community assessment. I have a document here called "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections." Madam Chair, I'd like to enter it for the record
-- or Mr. Chair, I'd like to enter the document for the record.
Chairman Goodlatte, I'd like to enter a document for the record.
GOODLATTE:
Without objection.
LIEU:
Thank you I'm going to ask you about three specific findings. This report was released earlier this year. It
states -- and this is the FBI, CIA, NSA, and others -- "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered
an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election.
"Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary
Clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian
government developed a clear preference for President- Elect Trump."
Does the FBI stand by that assessment?
WRAY:
As we sit here right now, Congressman, I have not seen any information that would cause me to
question the basic conclusions of the intelligence community assessment, including that one.
LIEU:
Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask you about two more. "We also assess Putin and the Russian
government aspired to help President-Elect Trump's election chances, when possible, by discrediting
Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him."
Report notes that the FBI has high confidence in this judgment. Does that remain true today?
WRAY:
68
Again, sitting here right now, the information that I've seen to up to this point would not cause me to
question the basic conclusions of the intelligence community assessment.
LIEU:
Thank you. And then one more: "Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of
multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards." Does the FBI stand by that assessment?
WRAY:
Same answer.
LIEU:
Great, thank you.
Earlier this week, the president of the United States attacked the dedication and integrity of 37,000 FBI
employees. I believe that's outrageous. It's also factually false.
I'd like to go through with you the extremely high caliber of the personnel in your department. As you
know, there are a number of disqualifiers that keep the FBI from even considering to hire you. So, first
off, you've got to be a U.S. citizen to be an FBI employee, correct?
WRAY:
Yes.
LIEU:
If you are convicted of a felony, if you violate the FBI's drug policy or fail the FBI's urinalysis test, you
cannot be hired as an FBI employee, correct?
WRAY:
That's my understanding.
LIEU:
If you fail to pay court-ordered child support, if you fail to file your taxes, if you even just default on a
student loan insured by the U.S. government, you can't be hired as an FBI employee, correct?
WRAY:
I believe that's right.
LIEU:
And all FBI employees, in addition to passing credit record checks, have to also pass a polygraph
examination, correct?
WRAY:
I believe polygraphs are applied to almost everybody in the FBI, yes.
LIEU:
Thank you.
69
To be an FBI special agent, there's even more qualifications. You have to pass a phase one test that
assesses reasoning and judgment, meet in person with FBI officials, pass a phase two test that includes a
writing exercise interview with FBI special agents and pass a physical fitness test, correct?
WRAY:
Again, I believe that's correct.
LIEU:
And then you have to pass a 21-week course at the FBI Academy in Quantico, correct?
WRAY:
I'm sorry, what was the length?
LIEU:
You have to pass a 21-week course at the FBI Academy in Quantico.
WRAY:
Right, 21 weeks, exactly. That's a subject of some -- sometimes, the instructors will tell the new agents
that it's only 20 weeks, and the agents will quickly point out, "No, no, no; it's 21 weeks. We know the
difference."
LIEU:
Thank you. I served on active duty in the military. They've been known to say that, too.
Now, that's why, of all these enormous qualifications people have to go through -- that, of the 12,000
applications the FBI had last year, you only hired approximately the top 6.3 percent to be special agents.
Correct?
WRAY:
Well, I don't have the numbers, but that sounds generally right.
LIEU:
So two more questions. The FBI's reputation is not in tatters, right?
GOODLATTE:
The time of the gentleman has expired. The director may answer the question.
WRAY:
As I said to the committee earlier, my experience with the FBI has been positive. I have enormous faith
and confidence in the people who work there.
I see example after example of fidelity and bravery and integrity everywhere I go inside the organization,
and I could not be more proud to be sitting here as one of their colleagues.
LIEU:
70
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, for five minutes.
RATCLIFFE:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, good to see you again.
Let me start off where my colleague from California just left off, about the tweet, FBI in tatters. As
you've pointed out, the I in FBI stands for integrity. I never misunderstood President Trump's tweet to
be anything other than questioning the integrity of senior leadership at the FBI, not the rank-and-file
agents within the FBI. And much of that swirls around the senior leadership of former FBI Director James
Comey.
Congressman Gowdy well highlighted a series of anomalies involving Director Comey -- former Director
Comey, as well as former Attorney General Lynch. Director Comey's gone. But now, we have new
questions raised this week about integrity of other senior FBI officials -- FBI Agent Peter Strzok.
Agent Strzok was, until recently, the FBI's number two counterintelligence official. Correct?
WRAY:
Well, I think he was number two -- one of the number twos in the counterintelligence division.
RATCLIFFE:
All right. And then, after some -- approximately 10,000 texts, some of which included anti-Trump or pro-
Clinton sentiments, he was reassigned to the human resources division at the FBI, correct?
WRAY:
Correct.
RATCLIFFE:
And so here's what we've learned about Agent Strzok before that reassignment: That he headed up the
Clinton e-mail investigation for Director Comey. Correct?
WRAY:
Well, I know he was actively involved in the investigation. Who headed it up -- I think I'd have to defer
on that.
RATCLIFFE:
But we know that he was present for -- from the FBI's own 302s, we know he was present for the
interview of Hillary Clinton.
WRAY:
I've heard that, as well.
RATCLIFFE:
Well, I have seen the actual redacted 302, so I'll represent to you that he was present. It was reflected
that he was present in the room.
71
We also know that, months before that interview of former Secretary Clinton, that Mr. Strzok was part
of the team that wrote an exoneration memo and changed, as you have been questioned about,
language in there, changing "gross negligence" to "extremely careless," a legally significant change.
Correct?
WRAY:
Well, Congressman, as you probably recall from your own prior life, you can probably guess what I'm
about to say, which is that there is a very active -- and I can assure you it's very active -- outside,
independent investigation by the inspector general into the matters that you're asking about.
RATCLIFFE:
I appreciate that. But I'm just trying to highlight all of the things where Agent Strzok was involved. And
we know that, after President Trump's victory in November, it's believed that he may have signed off on
various documents initiating the FBI's Russia election probe.
But we know, at a minimum, that he interviewed Trump campaign -- or was involved in the interview of
Trump campaign adviser Michael Flynn. Correct?
WRAY:
Again, I'm not going to discuss the facts of the ongoing investigation.
RATCLIFFE:
And then we know that, upon the appoint of special counsel to look into possible Trump Russia
collusion, Strzok was detailed to Mueller's investigative team. Some reports have him as the lead
investigator. Correct?
WRAY:
I don't know whether he was the lead investigator.
RATCLIFFE:
All right. Well, as has been pointed out, every FBI employee has and is entitled to have political opinions.
And now, we know that there are some 10,000 texts, which apparently very much highlight agent
Strzok's political opinions -- anti-Trump and pro- Clinton.
I'm not making accusations here. I'm not making conclusions here. But you remember from law school
that legal doctrine, the fruit of the poisonous tree -- it's really a legal metaphor that says that, if the
source, or tree, is contaminated, biased or prejudiced, that everything that it yields and that it -- arises
from that may also be -- I eat a fruit, it's contaminated -- prejudiced or biased.
And so I think you can see where I have concerns about the appearance of impropriety here, because
what we've learned about FBI agent Strzok is that this is the one FBI agent that is literally at the
epicenter of every -- virtually every major decision the FBI has been involved in, action and inaction,
about Candidate Trump, about President Trump and about Candidate Clinton.
And, if that one agent at the center or source is decidedly anti- Trump and decidedly pro-Clinton, that
raises real questions about all of the conclusions that the FBI has reached on any and all of these
matters.
72
Now, to his credit, it is being reported that Special Counsel Mueller is the one who demoted agent
Strzok upon learning about these anti-Trump, pro-Clinton texts. I want to give him credit for that, if in
fact those reports are true. Are they true?
WRAY:
Congressman, I would not say that the individual in question was demoted. I would say he was removed
from the investigation, and that was something that we did from the FBI end in coordination with the
Office of Special Counsel.
RATCLIFFE:
Well, I want to give credit where credit is due, and if Special Counsel Mueller is entitled to that, I will
certainly want to give that to him. But what I am troubled about is that we fund out these facts months
later, not from Special Counsel Mueller, but from Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
Two weeks ago, Attorney General Sessions was in this room, and I asked him a question, because I'm
part of an investigative team -- joint committee from Judiciary and the Oversight and Government
Reform Committee that are looking into these irregularities in the 2016 election -- decisions that were
made by the FBI and the Department of Justice.
And I asked Attorney General Sessions, will you allow us to go where the facts and evidence lead us in
that investigation, in our oversight capacity? He assured me that he would.
I'm asking you, and giving you the opportunity to represent to us as this oversight body, and to the
American people, that you will allow us to go where the facts and evidence lead us.
GOODLATTE:
The director can answer the question.
WRAY:
We -- I would want the FBI to cooperate with the committee's oversight and investigation in every way
we appropriately and legally can.
RATCLIFFE:
Well, Director, my time's expired. I just want to tell you that, as you know, we work together at the
Department of Justice. The FBI is an organization that I have revered for my entire life. Help me help you
restore the FBI's reputation with every American. Thank you, and I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, for five minutes.
RASKIN:
Thank you very much. Director Wray, welcome, and thank you for your commitment to the rule of law in
face of these continuing efforts to defame your department and its employees. When the White House
says that your office is in tatters, I think it's a case of what the psychiatrists call projection.
73
But I want to ask you about the crisis of gun violence in America. You said that you would not rule out, in
any way, common- sense gun reform legislation. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to have hearings
on any common-sense gun reform legislation, like a criminal background check in the case of all gun
sales which are supported by more than 90 percent of the people. But yesterday, the House passed
something called the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act which would, theoretically, if it passes the Senate,
allow for millions more guns in interstate traffic because it would wipe out the laws of the states with
respect to concealed carry.
Have you done any study or analysis as to what it would mean for federal and state and local law
enforcement if this legislation were to pass?
WRAY:
I'm not aware of any such study, Congressman.
RASKIN:
Do you have any thoughts on this legislation?
WRAY:
I haven't reviewed this legislation, I'd be happy to take a look at it, but I think we would have to make an
operational assessment depending on where the legislation goes.
RASKIN:
Do you support universal criminal background check, the kind that's supported by more than 90 percent
of the American people? Is that in the interest of public safety in the country?
WRAY:
Any legislative change to the current gun laws is something that I would evaluate from the standpoint of
all the operational impacts for the FBI.
RASKIN:
Mr. Director, some of my colleagues have asked questions about the possible politically-based targeting
by the FBI of African- American political activists denominated as black identity extremists. Other
colleagues across the aisle are asking questions about the possible politically-based targeting by the FBI
of Republican presidents.
There's a lot more in the FBI's history with J. Edgar Hoover and the campaign to smear and disrupt
Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement and the COINTELPRO program to justify
Congresswoman Bass' fears or Congressman Richmond's fears than the odd fears being expressed by
our colleagues that there is a conspiracy to target Republican presidents.
But let me just ask you some basic questions that might help to clear up some of the confusion. Does the
FBI target people for criminal investigation or prosecution based on their political party?
WRAY:
No.
RASKIN:
Would you accept any prosecutors doing that?
74
WRAY:
I would not accept any prosecution -- well, first off, prosecuting is not what we do...
RASKIN:
Investigate or (ph) prosecute?
WRAY:
...what we do, what we do is investigate. And that's important, that we keep straight who the
investigators are and who the prosecutors are. We open investigations, as I said earlier, only when
they're properly predicated, which in this context means, credible evidence of a federal crime, credible
evidence of a threat of force or violence and those things being -- both of those things being used to sort
of further a political or social goal, that's what we investigate.
We do not investigate opinion, ideology, political persuasion, rhetoric. Those are not things -- we've got
enough on our plate and we don't investigate those.
RASKIN:
But we know that President Trump tried to get Director Comey to drop the Flynn investigation and then
fired Director Comey after he refused to go along with that. Other than the heckling and hectoring that
you've experienced today by our colleagues, has anyone from the Trump White House tried to interfere
with any investigations you're involved in right now?
WRAY:
First off, I don't take any of the questions from any of your colleagues as heckling or hectoring. As I said
to my team earlier in the week, Congress has an important role and I welcome the tough questions. I
may not always be able to answer your questions, as you've seen here today, but you can count on me
to do my best and that -- that's what I will do as long as I sit in this chair. As for the, any effort to
interfere with our investigations, to my knowledge, to my experience, since I started in my job, nobody
has tried to interfere improperly with any investigation that's under my supervision.
RASKIN:
And in the face of political complaints that this group or that group doesn't like an investigation you're
doing, what is the proper response of the FBI?
WRAY:
I say to all of our folks as often as I can, because I think that's what's so important and it goes, frankly,
right to some of the concerns that members on both sides have expressed, that our job is to follow the
facts independently and objectively wherever they may lead, no matter to whom it may lead, and no
matter who doesn't like it. And one of the points that I try to make over and over again to our audiences
is that there is always going to be someone who doesn't like what we do.
You think about the most basic investigations that we have. If it -- it leads to an arrest, I guarantee you,
the guy we arrest, he didn't like it. And in those situations where we bring an investigation and we can't
arrest somebody, more often than not, the victim is frustrated and disappointed and they don't like it.
And our safe space is to follow the rules, follow the guidelines, follow the Constitution, follow the facts
objectively and independently and then let the critics go where they may because there will always be
lots of critics of everything we do.
75
RASKIN:
Thank you. And...
GOODLATTE:
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gates for five minutes.
GATES:
You said that your safe space is to follow the rules. Were the rules followed in the Hillary Clinton
investigation?
WRAY:
That's something that's being investigated right now by the outside Inspector General. I'm very much
looking forward to seeing what he finds on that.
GATES:
Yes, you and me both. Did she get special treatment?
WRAY:
Well, again, I think when you ask about special treatment, I -- I interpret that, and I may not be correctly
interpreting your question, in which case I'm sure you'll tell me, but I take that to be a question about
whether or not the handling of that investigation was tainted in some way by improper political
considerations. And that's exactly what the Inspector General's going to tell us.
GATES:
So I sent you a letter asking you to tell us whether or not Hillary Clinton got special treatment and your
answers, your office's answer was that you would provide it in a classified setting. Why don't the
American people deserve to know whether or not Hillary Clinton got special treatment?
WRAY:
Well, I think the reference to classified information went to the other part of your letter which has to do
with the dossier issues. But the -- but the -- but so on -- but on the first part on this question of special
treatment, what I would tell you, because I think this is one of the questions in your letter, is that we do
not have at the FBI some double standard of special, not special. It's not a -- there's no formal term
special. Special, as best as I can tell...
GATES:
It's an informal term.
WRAY:
It's an informal term.
GATES:
76
Yes, you could see how that informally designating something as special signifies a double standard,
right?
WRAY:
I can see how the term special could be misunderstood, but I will tell you that in my experience...
GATES:
Well, let me go to the dossier because I have limited time, Mr. Director. So on the dossier, did the FBI
pay for a dossier on the president?
WRAY:
Questions about the dossier are something that are better taken up in separate settings.
GATES:
Well, don't the American people deserve to know whether taxpayer money was used to buy a dossier
that was curated by a political party to discredit the President of the United States before and after his
election.
WRAY:
As I said, I understand the basis for the question, but I would tell you that questions on that subject are
something they we're having lots and lots of interaction with multiple congressional committees and
their staffs on in the classified setting.
GATES:
Did Bob Mueller recruit people to his probe that had a bias against the president?
WRAY:
I can't speak to how Director Mueller staffed or recruited for his team.
GATES:
It seems like a hell of a coincidence. I mean, we've got Mr. Strzok, who's clearly got a bias, that's why he
was reassigned. He's at the center of a lot of the development of facts. You've got Mr. Weissmann who's
praising people who are defying the president and then you have law firms that are overwhelmingly
donating to the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign that serve up the humans that are in that
investigation. So you can't say with certainty that bias against the president wasn't a factor that brought
people into the Mueller probe, can you?
WRAY:
As I said, I'm not going to weigh in on Director Mueller's staffing of his own team.
GATES:
So we don't know whether Mr. Mueller recruited people as a consequence of their bias. We don't know
whether Hillary Clinton was treated as special. We don't know whether the FBI used taxpayer money to
buy a dossier to discredit the president.
Now, what we do know is that you said you are and ask questions first, than act, kind of guy, which I
believe and appreciate. So you would never -- as and ask questions first kind of guy, draft and
exoneration statement before interviewing key witnesses in an investigation, would you?
77
WRAY:
Well, I certainly wouldn't finalize one. I -- I -- I will say as I said, I think -- I can't remember if it was to
Congressman Gowdy or are one of your other colleagues, in my experience in an investigation, you do
start to form a view, but keyword...
GATES:
But do you start drafting...
WRAY:
Keyword start...
GATES:
Do you start drafting an exoneration statement before conducting witness interviews?
WRAY:
We sometimes would draft reports before the investigation was...
GATES:
Exonerating someone?
WRAY:
Exonerating or incriminating, but in all cases -- in all cases, as Congressman Gowdy alluded to in his own
comments, in my view, you would not make any kind of final decision about anything exoneration or
otherwise, until you had all the evidence.
GATES:
So, we've got exoneration statement drafted before the interviews are done, you've got a meeting on
the tarmac with the spouse of someone that is being investigated. You've got the former FBI director
holding a press conference to make a determination about the outcome of an investigation. You've got
James Clapper, when he's confronted with information from an intelligence Inspector General saying
that he doesn't want anything to be a headache for the Clinton campaign. We don't know if these
taxpayer funds were used for opposition research.
My question is, what's it going to take? Why do we have to wait for Inspector General. If I walk outside
and it's raining, I don't need an Inspector General to tell me to get an umbrella. With these highly
aberrational circumstances, which almost anyone would acknowledge depart from the standard
procedures of the FBI, why wait for an Inspector General -- why not do what we know to be right and
institute reforms that bring transparency and oversight and redundancy, so that in the future, you won't
have some egomaniac rogue FBI director that departs from the normal procedures so that outcomes can
be predetermined before the investigation?
WRAY:
As I said before, and as Congressman Gowdy said in his question to me, I think it's appropriate that we
wait, in this instance, until we have all the facts, until the last witness, as he said, has been interviewed.
And then based on the facts we have take appropriate action. I completely understand the reasons
you're asking the question. I sympathize...
78
GATES:
Do you see...
WRAY:
But I do not think...
GOODLATTE:
The time of the gentleman has expired. The Director may answer the question.
WRAY:
Your concerns, which I completely sympathize with and understand, go to the question of whether or
not proper process, investigative and otherwise were followed. And I think the best way to get to the
bottom of that is not to bypass proper investigative process now into those things.
We should wait, let the fact-finding finish the Inspector General, as somebody who seen the Inspector
General in action, from the Justice Department side, as a line prosecutor, as a defense attorney, is not a
rubberstamp. This is somebody who puts people through their paces, and I look forward to hearing what
it is he finds. This is not the FBI investigating itself, it's an outside watch dog. And I look forward to
seeing what that report is. And then, at that time -- but at that time, that's when we should look at what
appropriate steps should be taken in response.
GOODLATTE:
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. Jayapal, for five minutes.
JAYAPAL:
Director Wray, thank you for being with us today. And thank you to your service to this country. I have a
question about the FBI's 2016 crime in the United States report. It surprised many of us to see a drastic
decrease in the amount of data available in the report. The report only contains 29 tables as opposed to
the 80 plus tables, that's almost a 70 percent decrease in the tables of previous years. And when
questioned, the Bureau explained that this plan had been in place since 2010.
However, state program mangers were only informed of the change recently. Are you aware of the shift
to dramatically decrease the amount of crime data available to the public?
WRAY:
Congressman, I recently learned of this issue. I guess I could say a couple things. The first is that the
decision to remove those particular tables was based on information that CGIS, which is part of our FBI
had, that spoke to how often those tables were even being reviewed by anybody.
Second, the information in those particular tables was largely just alternative views of data that was still
in the report. But third, and probably most importantly to your question, we recently made a decision
internally to go ahead and republish the information with the tables. It's going to take a few weeks for
that to happen, however.
JAYAPAL:
79
That's great, we really appreciate that very much. And I did want to submit this letter for -- for the
record, from the crime and justice research alliance about why those tables are so important. But we
very much appreciate you doing that. Let me move to some questions about hate crimes and various
ethnic religious and minority groups.
California State University's center for the study of hate and extremism found that biased crimes against
various minorities and religious groups were up 20 percent since the election of Donald Trump. The
majority of the crimes were against individuals in the Islamic or LGBT communities. Director Wray, the
president has repeatedly posted tweets insulting various ethnic religious and minority groups. Most
recently, he retweeted three videos by a discredited United Kingdom white separatist ultra nationalist
political group. Videos which allegedly showed Muslims committing crimes.
In the tense environment and climate that we operate under and with the frequent vilification of
minorities and the public's fear, do you believe that the president's rhetoric and actions such as these
tweets have an impact on the rising hate crimes that we are seeing?
WRAY:
Congresswoman, I -- I try to stay out of commenting on the business of what's being said in social media.
What I guess I would say is that as to the question of hate crimes statics and the apparent rise in hate
crimes. As I think was noted in one of the earlier exchanges, in trying to collect that information,
especially from state and local law enforcement, it's voluntary.
And so, we have challenges because it's sporadic as to which agencies will provide information and
which ones won't and how accurate and what resources they have to collect the information. So its hard
for us to get an accurate take on the rise, we do the best we can with the information we have.
JAYAPAL:
Director Wray...
WRAY:
I will say that my experience in dealing with communities as we do our investigation, is that it's very
important that we have the trust and confidence of all the communities we serve throughout the United
States and all the communities we serve and protect, especially not just because it's the right thing to
do, but because it's the smart thing to do. We need to be able to encourage sources, which are th e life
blood of investigations. And we need people to come forward and speak up and tell us when they see
something that is concerning so that if an investigation's appropriate, we can conduct one.
So I think the folks in the Bureau are acutely sensitive to that and intend to continue that practice and
approach.
JAYAPAL:
I appreciate that. I -- I -- I feel like you're taking my questions right out of my mouth because I do think
that it's important for you, as the director of the FBI, to be concerned about anything that hurts the
trust that we have with our communities across the country that are helping in the FBI's efforts.
President Trump has previously warned that immigration from Muslim majority nations threatens the
United States security. Do you share that view?
80
WRAY:
I am deeply concerned about global jihadist terrorism, which is a very real problem in this country...
JAYAPAL:
But do you -- but do you believe that Muslim majority countries and the immigrants that come from
those countries are a threat to our security? And let me -- before you answer that, let me ask you if you
know who said this quote. "Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people is a peaceful religion, a
religion that respects others. Ours is a country based upon tolerance and we welcome people of all
faiths in America."
Do you know who said that, Director Wray?
WRAY:
Well, I'm not a hundred percent certain about the quote, but I -- if memory serves, it may be President
George W. Bush shortly after 9/11.
JAYAPAL:
Very good. That's right. That's right. And so I would just ask, Director Wray, again, do you share the view
that immigration from Muslim majority nations threatens the United States security?
GOODLATTE:
Time of the gentlewoman has expired.
The Director may answer the question.
WRAY:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I would say is that an awful lot of our terrorism investigations do also
involve immigration violations. So there is a -- a close nexus between immigration violations and
counterterrorism investigations and an awful lot of the terrorist investigations we have involve global
jihadist rhetoric, which is disproportionately concentrated in certain countries.
GOODLATTE:
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for five minutes.
JOHNSON:
Director Wray, thank you for being here today. I have a number of questions on a variety of topics and
we have limited time so let me get right into it. First, I have always found it interesting that Director
Comey never sought to obtain the hacked DNC servers to -- to review any digital evidence or trails that
can definitively prove or disprove the Russian hacking allegation.
Have you -- have you sought those servers and if not, why not?
WRAY:
The handling of that investigation, including access to servers or anything like that, those are
investigative decisions made in the course of the Clinton e-mail investigation, which is now the subject
81
of a rigorous outside independent investigation by the Inspector General and I'm waiting to see what he
finds in order to decide what appropriate action might ensue from that.
JOHNSON:
Do you know if the Inspector General is seeking the servers or do you have any information on it?
WRAY:
I don't have any information on that.
JOHNSON:
The number two official on Mr. Mueller's team, former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissmann, as you
know, was just shown to have made biased comments against President Trump in e-mails sent to the
since fired Acting-Attorney General Sally Yates. As a matter of general policy, what happens when
employees at the FBI are shown to make biased comments, in the midst of an investigation on which
they serve?
WRAY:
Well, it's -- it's -- really, it's hard to generalize. It depends on the situation, depends on how severe the
bias, depends on lots and lots of different circumstances. So it's hard for me to make one sweeping
statement. Certainly, in some instances, we would, as has been alluded to earlier, remove somebody
from an investigation.
JOHNSON:
Who makes that decision? I mean, what's the criteria, is that ultimately your unilateral authority, or?
WRAY:
It wouldn't have to rise to my level. It would depend on the investigation, I would suppose.
JOHNSON:
With regard to terrorism, the Department of Homeland Security has recently indicated the threat
environment in the U.S. is perhaps the most serious since the 9/11 attacks. And in your opening
statement today, of course, you noted that the FBI's currently investigating about 1,000 ISIS-related
threats in all 50 states. Is the threat evolving now that ISIS is losing ground in Iraq and Syria and has the
threat grown as that organization has become more decentralized?
WRAY:
That's a very good question. I think what I would say is the threat is different. Some people would say is
it better or worse. The good news is, you know, the Caliphate is crumbling and that's positive for all of
us. The bad news is, ISIS is encouraging some of its recruits and potential recruits to stay where they are
and commit attacks right in the homeland.
So in addition to the thousand or thereabouts ISIS investigations, which I would define as sort of ISIS-
directed investigations, we have a lot of what we would call homegrown violent extremist
investigations. Which are individuals more kind of lone wolf types who are motivated and inspired by
ISIS to commit attacks and that's, I think, the threat that in our view is growing and not just in the U.S.,
but in a lot of our allied countries as well.
JOHNSON:
82
I wish we had time to unpack that further. But let me, let me ask you specifically regarding ISIS and
current investigations, can you confirm for us today, that the Las Vegas killer, Steven Paddock didn't
have any ties to international terrorism despite the fact that ISIS is claiming responsibility?
WRAY:
Well, I've -- I've seen the same claims of responsibility that you have Congressman. I would tell you that
so far in our investigation we haven't seen any evidence to support those claims of responsibility.
JOHNSON:
Thanks for that. In September, I led a letter with 17 members of Congress from Texas and Louisiana to
Attorney General Sessions to request a thorough investigation into Planned Parenthood Gulf Coasts'
actions of selling aborted fetal tissue for financial gain. If indeed that activity is shown to have taken
place, is that a crime?
WRAY:
I don't know the legal answer, as I said before, I consider myself now a reformed lawyer. But I will tell
you that we are aware of the request and we have farmed it out to the appropriate field offices and
parts of the Bureau to take a look at the information provided.
JOHNSON:
Last month we -- we got information the FBI requested from Senate Judiciary Committee, documents
that were obtained from those abortion providers regarding that probe and so, on behalf of all of our
delegations and those in the region, I want to thank you for that and we'll look forward to the outcome
of it. I appreciate your being here and your service to the country sir. And I yield back.
WRAY:
Thank you, sir.
GOODLATTE:
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries for five minutes.
JEFFRIES:
Thank, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director Wray for your service to the country. WikiLeaks has repeatedly published
information designed to damage the United States. Is that correct?
WRAY:
I think that's correct.
JEFFRIES:
And there's reason to believe that WikiLeaks works closely with Russian intelligence agents and spies. Is
that right?
WRAY:
I've seen some of the same information. Certainly, we're concerned about WikiLeaks.
JEFFRIES:
83
Donald Trump, Jr. had multiple conversations with WikiLeaks between September 2016 and July 2017. Is
that correct?
WRAY:
That one I don't know, but I think now you're getting into territory that I believe is right in the heart of
what the Special Counsel has on his plate.
JEFFRIES:
OK, for example I think on October 3rd, Donald Trump, Jr. asked WikiLeaks, "What's behind this
Wednesday leak I keep reading about?" Are you familiar with that?
WRAY:
I'm not going to comment on anything that might be part of the Special Counsel's investigation.
JEFFRIES:
OK, and on October 12th WikiLeaks contacted Donald Trump Jr. saying, "Great to see you and your dad
talking about our publications. And by the way, we just released Podesta e-mails part four."
Let me ask you this question, Donald Trump, Jr. never informed the FBI or other law enforcement
agencies that a known Russian collaborator had been in communication with him about matters related
to the United States presidential election. Is that right?
WRAY:
Again, Congressman, I'm not going to comment on anything that might be part of the special counsel's
ongoing investigation.
JEFFRIES:
OK, well the apparent existence of a triangular relationship between the Trump campaign, Russian spies
and WikiLeaks seems, to me, to be something we should all be deeply troubled about. Now, in 1974, the
House Judiciary Committee adopted articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, correct?
WRAY:
That sounds right.
JEFFRIES:
One of those articles of impeachment related to obstruction of justice, correct?
WRAY:
That I don't remember specifically. It's been a while since I studied that episode.
JEFFRIES:
OK, 1998, more recently, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against
President Bill Clinton, true?
WRAY:
Yes.
JEFFRIES:
84
And one of those articles of impeachment related to obstruction of justice, correct?
WRAY:
I believe that's correct.
JEFFRIES:
So, the president of the United States can commit obstruction of justice, isn't that correct?
WRAY:
Well, again, that gets into a legal question that I'm not going to try to take on here.
JEFFRIES:
OK. Sally Yates served as acting-attorney general in January prior to the confirmation of Jeff Sessions,
true?
WRAY:
Yes
JEFFRIES:
And while serving as acting-attorney general, she warned the White House that national security adviser
Michael Flynn could be a Russian asset, is that correct?
WRAY:
Again that's -- now you're into something that I think is part of the special counsel's investigation.
JEFFRIES:
OK. In four days after informing the White House that the Department of Justice was aware of Michael
Flynn's indiscretions related to Russia, Donald Trump fired Sally Yates. Is that a fact?
WRAY:
Again, I don't want talk with something that might be wrapped up in the special counsel's investigation.
JEFFRIES:
OK, but she was fired on January 30th, by Donald Trump, true?
WRAY:
Yes, she was fired by the president, and I can't remember the exact date, but I don't have any reason to
question your understanding of what the date is.
JEFFRIES:
OK, thank you. Preet Bharara served as a U.S. attorney for the sub district of New York when Donald
Trump was first elected, correct?
WRAY:
Yes.
JEFFRIES:
85
And Donald Trump met with Preet Bharara on November 30th and told Mr. Bharara he could keep his
job, is that true?
WRAY:
That I don't know.
JEFFRIES:
OK. Now, Preet Bharara's prosecutorial office in the Southern District of New York has jurisdiction over
Trump Towers, correct?
WRAY:
Yes.
JEFFRIES:
And at some point this year, it became clear that Preet Bharara office was investigating close allies of
the Trump administration, correct?
WRAY:
That I don't know.
JEFFRIES:
It has been publicly reported that the president's lawyer, Marc Kasowitz warned Donald Trump this guy
is going to get you. Is that true?
WRAY:
I have no idea whether that's true.
JEFFRIES:
Donald Trump fired Preet Bharara on March 11th, correct?
WRAY:
I know that he was, along with the other U.S. attorneys in place that were holdover U.S. attorneys, let go
and -- but that date may be right, I don't know.
JEFFRIES:
James Comey was your predecessor as FBI director, is that right?
WRAY:
Well, he was my Senate-confirmed predecessor. Acting Director McCabe was in between.
JEFFRIES:
And he's a first rate -- widely regarded as a first rate talented law enforcement professional, true?
WRAY:
As I said earlier in response to a question, during my interaction with him, especially during the early
2000s, that was my experience.
JEFFRIES:
86
And in February, Donald Trump asked James Comey to drop the investigation into Michael Flynn, is that
correct?
WRAY:
I don't know whether that's correct. I believe that's something that's part of the special counsel's
investigation.
JEFFRIES:
Donald Trump also asked James Comey to bow down and take a loyalty pledge to the president,
correct?
WRAY:
I have no idea whether that's true, and again, I don't want to comment anything that's subject to special
counsel's investigation.
JEFFRIES:
And on March 20th, James Comey testified before Congress in publicly stated that the Trump campaign
was under criminal investigation, is that right?
WRAY:
I don't know whether that's correct.
JEFFRIES:
FBI director James Comey led that criminal investigation into the Trump campaign, true?
WRAY:
Again, I'm not sure I can comment on that.
JEFFRIES:
Donald Trump fired James Comey on March 9th, is that correct?
WRAY:
I don't actually think -- I don't think it was March 9th.
JEFFRIES:
I'm sorry, May 9th.
WRAY:
May 9th.
JEFFRIES:
Is that correct?
WRAY:
I believe he was fired on May 9th.
GOODLATTE:
87
JEFFRIES:
So Donald Trump fired Sally Yates without justification, fired Donald Trump (sic) -- fired Preet Bharara
without justification, fired James Comey without justification. Feels like obstruction of justice, sounds
like obstruction of justice, looks like obstruction of justice.
I think the American people, Mr. Chairman, can reasonably conclude it's obstruction of justice.
GOODLATTE:
One thing to conclude is the gentleman's time has expired.
And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for five minutes.
BIGGS:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Director Wray for being here with us today.
I want to just ask some questions to follow up on some things that you have previously testified to
today, particularly when Mr. Issa was talking talking to you and then several of the people got in on that
exchange just a little bit.
One of the things you said, and I'm going to paraphrase part of it and then I'll quote part of it, you sa id, if
there's undo political considerations -- if you find -- if the I.G. finds that there's undue political
considerations at play in the original Clinton investigations, then the FBI would have to determine -- and
then you said, "How to un-ring the bell." And I guess my question is -- multiple there. What did you
mean when you said, "un-ring the bell?" And let's just start there.
WRAY:
It's hard for me to speculate about what I would do at that point. I think it would depend a lot on the
particulars of what the Inspector General found. I would not rule out anything appropriate that would
be in response to the Inspector General's findings. Sometimes there may be recommendations that
come with the Inspector General's report, in my experience, so that's something we would take into
account.
It could range from anything from changes to our policies, our structures. It could be personnel
decisions that come out of it. There could be follow up that we need to engage in, as a result of things
that we learn from the Inspector General's report. So there's -- it's hard for me to give kind of an
exhaustive list, but those are a few of the kinds of things that I can imagine.
BIGGS:
Well, the first two things that you mentioned there were really kind of internal processes, personnel,
maybe somebody needs to be corrected, maybe they need to be disciplined. Beyond that, though, I'm
wondering if there's additional options that might include even re-opening the investigation, taking a
harder look, and is that a potential option?
WRAY:
Well, I think what I would say to you there, Congressman, is something that I believe is true, really, in
any situation, which is, if we find, for example, new information or new evidence that would cause us to
88
want to reopen an investigation, assuming we don't have a statute of limitations problem or something,
that's something we would consider.
And likewise, if the information we receive from the Inspector General suggested that that's something
that would be appropriate, then that's something we would consider.
BIGGS:
And you also indicated that -- and is his name Mr. Strzok? I want to get the pronunciation right. I've
heard it about five different ways today. Strzok, is that?
WRAY:
Strzok.
BIGGS:
OK, so, Mr. Strzok was reassigned and you said that wasn't a disciplinary move. It just seems like an odd
lateral move. Are you telling me that's -- telling us all that that was a lateral move for him?
WRAY:
The individual in question was reassigned away from the special counsel investigation to the human
resources department. I understand that that may sound, to some of you, like a demotion, but I can
assure you that in a 37,000 person organization with a $9 billion budget, and offices all around the
country and -- and in 80 countries around the world, that I think our human resources department is
extremely important and a lot of what they do is cutting-edge best practice stuff. So, it's a very different
kind of assignment, certainly, but that's why I don't consider it disciplinary or a demotion.
BIGGS:
OK, and so with regard to the attorneys that are on the Mueller team, did the FBI vet them at all and if
so, what was the vetting process?
WRAY:
I am not aware of what vetting may or may not have been done in the staffing of Director Mueller's
team. Of course, all FBI agents when they join, are subject to an excruciatingly detailed background
investigation, and then over the course of their trajectories but should because of their access to
classified information, there are follow-ups, sort of, re-up investigations that occur over the life of an
agent's career. But as far as specific vetting, not sure exactly what you mean by that for purposes.
BIGGS:
Well, let's -- let's -- let's get to the heart of it. I won't mince words. So what we've talked about today is
appearance of conflict or bias and everything from donating rather large sums of money to candidates,
some of which have been, perhaps, even under investigation by the FBI at some point or another,
communication widely critical of this administration, or highly supportive of another administration or
candidates that, again, may have may have been under investigation at some point. What it -- what is
the process there?
What -- is there an official process that that goes into determining whether someone is -- is
compromised or has a bias in their investigation? Or is this -- like in the Department of Justice, when we
had Attorney General Sessions here, he said, "Well, we don't have a process, it's up to each attorney to
basically decide whether they have conflict of interest", which isn't the way it is in private sector, just so
89
you know. So I'm wondering what -- what would be your process in determining whether was the bias
was too great, because you said earlier...
GOODLATTE:
Director can answer the question.
WRAY:
We don't do political scrubbing of our agents. And of course, a lot of the questions today have gone to
prosecutors, which again, that's not a part -- we devote agents and staff to the special counsel
investigation, but not to the prosecutor side.
GOODLATTE:
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schneider for five minutes.
SCHNEIDER:
Thank you, and Director Wray, thank you for your time, your patience here in answering all of our
questions and your service to our country. It is all very, very much appreciated. You started today -- you
gave us a testimony this morning, a summary, 15 pages describing the programs and priorities of the
FBI, of the bureau.
You don't mention in this at all some of the work you've talked about later, which is, protecting our
elections. I think -- I don't know want to put exact words, but you talked about protecting the integrity
of our elections and it's critical to the foundations of our democracy. In fact, election security is national
security.
However, two months ago, Attorney General Sessions testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee
said the Department of Justice has not yet taken any actions towards protecting our elections from
foreign interference. It would be a gross understatement to say that I was deeply concerned about his
remarks when he came a few weeks later to this committee. I asked him what had been done and I was
astounded at his answer to say, we hadn't done anything, but I was grateful that he said he would take
action and work with us.
I understand that the FBI is making this a priority, that you have created a taskforce within the FBI. What
was it that prompted the development of the taskforce? What void does that fill? What's its mission and
who are its members?
WRAY:
Well, first off, I think, if I might, I think the fact that the Attorney General didn't mention the efforts that
we have underway is simply a reflection of the fact that there's lots and lots and lots of things that
happen in a gigantic Justice Department and some of them may not have been briefed to him as
promptly as we should have.
The Attorney General, I know, is -- cares deeply about this issue and in my view, is a great man and a
great public servant. I will say that on the -- in the context of foreign influence in our elections, that was
prompted in part by our concerns growing out of all of the dust up with the ICA that we knew from that
90
combined with what we saw from talking with some of our foreign partners that efforts to interfere, not
just with our elections, but other countries elections, is a real thing.
We know that that was true not just in the last election, but that that's something the Russians have
tried to do in prior elections, even before the last election.
SCHNEIDER:
They've done it before. We have to expect they'll do it again.
WRAY:
I think we all expect that and so, our foreign influence task force is a blend of people from the counter -
intelligence division, the cyber division, the criminal division, and other parts of the Department. A lot of
it is work that we were already doing, but I think putting them together in a single taskforce provides a --
it's a time-honored way to increase the focus, the discipline, the prioritization, the coordination, and it
allows us to pursue those concerns with greater vigor and focus.
SCHNEIDER:
If I may -- you talk about doing that within the Bureau.
WRAY:
Right.
SCHNEIDER:
You've mentioned coordinating with DHS, but this is a complex issue that cuts across many agencies.
How is the taskforce working with the other departments, the other agencies to make sure that we're
prepared to protect the integrity of our elections next year?
WRAY:
We have a -- our taskforce has a variety of contacts with, not just DHS. I mentioned them because
they're so critical to the election infrastructure in the country, but I didn't mean to leave out, in
particular, other members of the intelligence community. There's regular contact there and I want to
make sure I don't overlook our contact with our foreign counterparts where we're comparing notes
there as well.
The state elections bodies which of course are important part of it as well, that happens really more
indirectly through DHS and our coordination with DHS. And then, of course, as Congresswoman Handel
knows well from her prior life, there are private companies that are an important part of the election
infrastructure and we have some interaction with the private sector as part of this, as well.
SCHNEIDER:
What gives you the confidence that -- we're 11 months away from our next national election, primaries
are starting in the couple months ahead. What gives you the confidence that we'll be able to protect our
elections next year?
WRAY:
Well, what I can tell you is that I'm confident that we're working very hard on the issue. We're going to
continue working very hard on the issue. We're going to be continually looking at how we can get even
91
better at working on the issue, but I long ago gave up the idea of making predictions about whether or
not we're going to bat 1,000, but that's our goal.
SCHNEIDER:
So let me close with the question I asked the Attorney General when he was here. Are you willing to
work with the members of this committee? Will you commit to briefing us whether in public or in
classified briefings? And can you give us a point of contact with who we should be communicating with
in your department?
WRAY:
I'd be happy to follow up with your staff on that.
SCHNEIDER:
Thank you very much. I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Rutherford, for five minutes.
RUTHERFORD:
Director Wray, first let me say thank you for coming and appear before the committee today for quite a
while. Thank you very much. Listen, your appearance here is -- is critical to us doing our job and holding
the Federal Bureau of Investigations accountable for the people and -- and I know that's something that
-- that you, as the newly appointed director, are also very interested in. And I have to tell you as one
member of Congress, I'm very encouraged by the fact that you are now sitting in that chair.
So I want to start with the fact that, you know, as -- as a former law enforcement officer myself, I often
thought about and still think about the perceived or actual politicization of law enforcement agencies by
the acts of officers within our agencies. And -- and I share my colleagues' concerns regarding the private
communications by FBI personnel who were tasked with conducting the Clinton investigation, and -- and
certainly those types of biases and other forms of biases go against the ethics of the FBI and other law-
enforcement agencies if and when they begin to affect the fear and influence the fear and enforcement
of the law through political consideration.
And I know to earlier it -- it was -- it was mentioned. So, rather than repeat what my colleagues have all
gone through, I want to ask the question, what is it -- how does the FBI fight against the partisan --
partisan bias that can naturally exist in agents -- we all know that. But specifically, how does the Bureau
monitor your agents and whether that be over social media or other private messaging, does the FBI
have a formal guidance or policy on how this is conducted -- just answer that one first, please.
WRAY:
Well, I think an in-depth answer would require more of a follow-on briefing of some sort, but I what I
would say is that we try to address the kinds of concerns that you're highlighting, which are important to
me too. I think we share that. We do it through everything from making sure that we recruit the right
people, from making sure we train them in the 21 week training that I described earlier, we make sure
that we have policies that remind them about the importance of playing it straight, going by the book...
92
RUTHERFORD:
Are there policies then that specifically address contacts that they can put out publicly, understanding
their First Amendment rights, but also understanding the influence that it can have on -- on the
reputation of the agency? And -- and -- and I understand until it begins to effective an investigation,
which -- which I think in the in the case of Special Agent Strzok, it certainly did.
I mean, when we're looking at what was previously called the unprecedented actions, of not only giving
immunity, but not recording potential criminal investigation -- depositions, that's -- that's -- that is
unprecedented, I -- I think that that you would combine the two of those. To give immunity is -- is -- is
not unusual, and so, if I were to ask you, did anyone lie during the Clinton e-mail deposition would --
how would you answer that?
WRAY:
I'm not sure what deposition you're referring to, but I would say that questions about the handling of
the Clinton e-mail investigation, and in particular, whether or not certain decisions made over the life of
that investigation were in any way tainted or influenced, as you say, by improper considerations is
something that has been referred to and is very deeply under investigation by the outside independent
Inspector General.
RUTHERFORD:
Let me ask very quickly because my time is about to run out. So, the Inspector General has his
investigation going, but does the FBI -- do you conduct your own internal investigation as well? I mean,
surely it doesn't take an I.G. investigation to terminate an employee. That's certainly within your
purview, correct, as a director?
WRAY:
Well, we have a process -- you know, these are career civil servants. We have a process that, and I said
earlier, I prefer to ask questions first and then act later.
RUTHERFORD:
Exactly.
WRAY:
And in this situation, we would not normally be conducting a parallel internal investigation while the
Inspector General is doing his and the reason for that is because, and this is something that is a best
practice across investigations, we want to be sure that we're not doing something that would be viewed
as interfering with his.
RUTHERFORD:
I understand.
My time is expired, sir.
GOODLATTE:
The committee is advised that we have votes on the floor. We have Director Wray, a great appreciation
for the three hours and forty-five minutes you put in so far. We do have about a half dozen more
members that will come back immediately after these votes, so you can get a bite to eat or whatever. I
93
expect it will be 35, 40 minutes and we'll be back again to complete the hearing. And the committee will
stand in recess.
(RECESS)
GOODLATTE:
The committee will reconvene. When the committee reccessed we were in the questioning period with
the director of the FBI, and the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia, Mrs. Handel, for five
minutes..
HANDEL:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Director Wray. Thank you so much for being here. It's wonderful to see
you. And I would just like to say that given your distinguished and exemplary record of service, I am on
the optimistic side that under your leadership we really will see a heightened degree of integrity going
forward in the agency, so I look forward to that.
I wanted to ask a couple of questions around terrorism and ISIS. You mentioned that in your opening
testimony that the agency has some 1,000 active terrorism related investigations. How is that volume of
terrorism investigative cases continuing or not continuing to strain the agency in terms of resources and
your breadth of being able to cover other investigations?
WRAY:
It's a good question. We -- in addition to those thousand ISIS-related investigations, we have, you know,
probably a closely similar number of what we would classify as homegrown violent extremists, which we
would define as not so much ISIS directed, but ISIS inspired. You know, people -- lone wolves here who
see sermons and videos and things like that, and decide they want to act.
And then of course we have quite a fair number still even now in 2017 of Al Qaeda-related
investigations, Hezbollah-related investigations and a number of other terrorist groups. And then that's
not even talking about the domestic terrorism investigations.
So our counterterrorism division and our JTTS, our joint terrorism task forces around the country are
extremely busy. We have, I think, matured to a point where we're not having to redivert agents from the
more traditional criminal programs, except in rare situations where there's a sudden attack or
something, and then we'll surge.
But there's no question we are spread very thin and we're doing the best we can with what we have.
I said to somebody recently, everywhere I turn in the country I find people who want the FBI to do more
of something, and I have yet to find the person who has identified something they want the FBI to do
less of, but I'd love to some day.
HANDEL:
There you go. You brought up homegrown terrorists and ISIS-inspired terrorists. What ability does the
FBI have to actually investigate publicly available information that's posted online, specifically on various
social media sites, and Facebook, et cetera, about individuals who would be terrorist sympathizers?
WRAY:
94
We do not, as a matter of course, just sit and sort of monitor social media. We do, however, in the
context of specific properly-predicated investigations, look at all available sources, including publicly
available information, which could include the kinds of information that you're describing.
So it -- it's definitely true that social media becomes a major part of a lot of our terrorism investigations.
But we don't really have the means or, really, the authority to just kind of sit and troll...
HANDEL:
Right.
WRAY:
... social media, looking for problems.
HANDEL:
But if you have a case that you're working, do you have the authority to further those investigations...
(CROSSTALK)
WRAY:
Yes, yes.
HANDEL:
OK. Good, good. All right. You mentioned also, earlier in one of the -- your responses, about many
terrorist investigations are linked, also, to immigration violations. I wanted to talk about the diversity
visa.
As you know, it has been reported that the suspect in New York City, attack on Halloween, entered the
U.S. on a diversity visa. In the course of the investigations, can you just talk a little bit more about the
abuse of the immigration system, in particular visa security issues that are being exploited by subjects
who are -- or individuals who are the subjects of investigations, and are there changes to that process --
that vetting -- that you could recommend to us?
WRAY:
Well, I -- I think most changes to the immigration or visa program are, really, better directed to the
Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State, which have the responsibility for those
two aspects...
HANDEL:
(OFF-MIKE)
WRAY:
... of enforcement.
In the -- I think I can say this because it's public record in the charging documents. That, in the New York
attack, the individual in question, although he did come in through the diversity visa program, he
radicalized -- at least according to him -- radicalized a little bit after he got here. In other words, he
wasn't already radicalized when he came in, it -- it would appear.
95
Some of the visa concerns that we have, going forward, are as -- as the caliphate collapses and as
fighters from overseas fan out to other countries, they could well end up in countries, for example -- visa
waiver countries. And then -- and then end up in the U.S., right?
So a lot of people worry, "Well, are they gonna, when the caliphate falls, all come, you know, to the
U.S.?" You know, another scenario that's a little more worrisome, and maybe a little more likely, is that
they flee Syria or Iraq and go to some other country, some third country, and are there for a while, and
then come into the U.S., maybe a year from now, 18 months from now, two years from now. And that's
something that -- that concerns us.
HANDEL:
OK, great. Thank you. And my time is out, thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
GOODLATTE:
Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for five minutes.
FARENTHOLD:
Thank you very much.
Director, thank you for being here. And I know this has been touched on a couple of times, and I just
want to reiterate something that I hear regularly from my constituents in South Texas. And that's a
concern, we have a special counsel investigating the Trump administration, but it seems like no one is
addressing the Clinton administration.
I know the chairman touched on this, as do -- did some of the other questions. And I really don't have a
question here, other than to reiterate that it is a pretty strong concern of a lot of the folks that I
represent. And I know y'all don't comment on whether or not there is an ongoing investigation or is not.
But as we start seeing the results of the special counsel's investigations coming to fruition, with publicly-
announced indictments in the light, if there are investigations going on with the FBI -- and I hope they
are -- the time is -- is getting ripe to see some results for that.
And I think the other piece of that is, a lot of my constituents say it's not fair, we have a special counsel
investigating one side and -- and not the other. So I just put that out there.
Now -- now that I'm finished on my soap box, I -- I do want to talk a little bit about Section 702. During
our DOJ Oversight hearing a couple weeks ago with the attorney general, he indicated the DOJ finds it
problematic to require a warrant from the FISC (ph) court before accessing or disseminating contents of
communications that aren't related to foreign intelligence.
And I have a -- listen, I have a great deal of respect for Attorney General Sessions. But I have to say, I
wasn't totally satisfied with the answer to this question.
96
So I want to ask you, again: Is it fair to say that requiring a court order to view content in limited
circumstances -- after a 702 database was queried specifically to return evidence of a crime --
dismantles the 702 program? A national security tool designed to protect us from terrorists, not
common criminals?
WRAY:
Congressman, the "dismantles" language, I think, comes from the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence response to the bill. And that is the intelligence community's view about the bill in its
totality. You know, all the different changes. Not just the querying part of it that you referred to, but
some of the others.
We do believe, very strongly, that we are using the tool lawfully and appropriately, that -- that has been
consistently found by the courts that have looked at the issue, and by the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board, and by all the different oversight mechanisms that have existed.
We do believe that starting to, when there is no constitutional requirement to do so -- and that is, in my
mind, quite clear -- that adding additional burdens and hoops for agents to jump through at that really
early stage, that's when 702 is so important. Is at the very early stage, when tips are coming in, we are
getting flooded with leads and we're trying to evaluate, "Is this a lead that is something that is
important?"
It may come in, it may turn out to be foreign intelligence information, it may turn out to be some other
kind of crime. At that point, we don't know and all we want to be able to do is query, which is running a
database check of information that we have already, constitutionally, in our possession.
FARENTHOLD:
Again, my concern is, I understand the need to protect us from crime. But the Fourth Amendment is in
the Constitution for a reason, and I have a great deal of respect for that.
On a -- on a similar note, I've introduced legislation criminalizing improper unmasking. It's actually called
the Wrongful Unmasking Prevention Act, which establishes a penalty of 10 years' imprisonment for
anyone who knowingly makes an unmasking request for any reason other than to understand foreign
intelligence information, to assess the importance of foreign intelligence information or to determine
whether classified information is evidence of a crime which has been, is being, or is about to be
committed.
The idea behind this is, you don't want folks unmasking stuff for political purposes, or to check up on
their girlfriend or -- or their neighbor, or for some other improper reason. Now, obviously, this is just a
bill. But from an agency perspective, does the FBI now investigate unmasking claims that might be
improper?
WRAY:
There are situations where the request could lead to an investigation. Merely somebody making a
request -- an unmasking request -- and having it denied, for example, is not -- would not be enough. But
if we have evidence that somebody obtained -- which would, in that case, for example, be classified
information -- for an improper purpose, you know, that is something that we would investigate.
97
A lot of times, the unmasking concerns are linked to, and less about, the unmasking itself and more
about a -- in my mind, a very serious issue, which is leaks of the information, whether it's through
unmasking or something else. And that's something that we're trying to be very aggressive on.
The -- you know, my -- I think the department, the intelligence community, the FBI are open to working
with you and the committee on the unmasking issue. I think, ideally, it would be separated from 702,
which we think is an incredibly important tool...
FARENTHOLD:
That's fine. It's a separate piece of legislation.
WRAY:
... that (ph) we (ph) need (ph) to (ph) renew (ph). Yeah.
FARENTHOLD:
I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GOODLATTE:
The Chair recognized the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for five minutes.
COLLINS:
Thanks for being, thanks for staying. As for the -- sometimes we get here a little bit later and (ph) we go
earlier, many have left. But sometimes you get to stay to the end.
I think it's been good today because there was something that you had said earlier. The chairman
brought it up, and I just -- with (ph) one from northeast Georgia, it's good to, you know, be back. I know
you traveled to Gainesville and Judge Kelly's court, and everybody else up there for a while.
But I think the interesting thing, here, is something that was said earlier, especially about when asking
for stuff -- and it was a determination I'm not going to share that here. And I think the question is, I
would just have a -- a general question to start with. What is your belief -- personal belief -- in (ph) how
much you have to cooperate with this committee?
WRAY:
My own view is that we should be trying to do everything to cooperate with this committee that we
legally and appropriately can.
COLLINS:
OK. And -- and because you're -- when you come here, you're under oath, you're still under oath. It is
something we take very seriously. But I've also been here five years. And there -- and some of the
questions today -- and I (ph) want (ph) to put it in perspective because there's some things, I just want
to put it for the record.
Is (ph) we have a good relationship, starting forward, because I think you bring a -- a great breath of
fresh air, hopefully to this, you know, agency, as -- as I believe. My dad was a state trooper. I come from
a law enforcement background. We've got to have this trust.
98
But just as a few years ago, right before I got here, in July 6th of 2011, in a draft letter that was
circulated within the Department of Justice, a department official, a Faith Burton (ph), wrote, "I'd stay
away from the representation that we'll fully cooperate in the future." This was in dealing with Fast and
Furious.
So you've got to understand. The members up here, doing our constitutional job, are sometimes
skeptical of what has been said here. And I have had an interested tete-a (ph), you know, back-and-
forth with the former attorney general, with your former -- the former FBI director.
So I just have a few questions, if we could. One, is it possibly -- and recently, there's been some
problems -- and I want to hear it (ph) from you -- of unprecedented leak of information about FISA
wiretaps. We got into FISA a little bit ago. Specifically, there was a leak of information related to the FISA
wiretap of Paul Manafort.
Leaking information about FISA warrants is a felony, is it not?
WRAY:
I'm sorry. Leaking information about FISA warrants...
COLLINS:
(inaudible) FISA warrants is a felony. Is it not?
WRAY:
Yes. I would think it would be.
COLLINS:
What is the FBI currently doing to identify the leakers of that information?
WRAY:
Well, I'm not gonna comment on or confirm or deny the existence of any specific investigation. I will say
that, when we -- we have, at the moment, quite a number of active investigations into unauthorized
disclosures of classified information.
COLLINS:
Is it something you would say that you would put a high priority on? Finding out who leaks, and holding
them accountable.
WRAY:
I believe that finding out -- I -- I will say that I believe that finding out who has leaked classified
information is something that's extremely important. I will say, also, having been somebody who has
had responsibility for a lot of leak investigations -- not just now, but when I was assistant attorney
general and head (ph) of (ph) both Criminal Division and what's now the National Security Division, leak
investigations are breathtakingly difficult to pursue.
COLLINS:
Well, I think maybe...
99
(CROSSTALK)
WRAY:
And so that doesn't mean we shouldn't -- does not mean we shouldn't pursue them. and, in fact, I am a
big believer in the idea that we should, even if we may be pessimistic about our ability, ultimately, to be
able to find somebody to charge.
Because the mere fact of bringing -- of conducting those investigations sends a strong signal that -- that
we will not tolerate people leaking classified information.
COLLINS:
And -- and I agree with that. And I think that's -- that (ph) needs (ph) time (ph) because I think it's got to
start with you. And if it doesn't start with you -- and I think, frankly, there's not been that leadership in
that department for a while.
But let's go back to FISA. Because, earlier on, there was a discussion that you wouldn't -- it came across
as, you're -- "We're not going to provide that," or "provide that in this setting," or we didn't have a right
to that.
So I just have a few questions. So what information or documents related to FISA do you think the FBI
can withhold from the committee?
WRAY:
What...
COLLINS:
Can it withhold FISA warrants?
WRAY:
Well, I think there's a couple different stages of -- of cooperation here, right? So one is the question of
what we can provide in an open setting. And then one is what we can provide...
COLLINS:
Well, let me -- let me help you out...
WRAY:
Right.
COLLINS:
... because I just want to -- I want to get down -- because your time's valuable (ph), and mine. We'll just
assume it's in the proper setting, proper format. But what I was concerned about was the way it was
actually said earlier, was there may be some issues (ph).
So if properly asked for, a FISA warrant. Is there any reason why you withhold that information? Legally,
that you can?
WRAY:
100
There are situations where information related to a FISA application involves sensitive sources and
methods that, in my experience, are not shared with committees of Congress.
COLLINS:
Any (ph) information that has formed the basis for a FISA warrant? Or legal memorandum regarding
FBI's interpretation of FISA?
WRAY:
Well, the -- the FBI's legal interpretation of FISA, unless it's asking for attorney-client privileged
information, I would think it's something we could discuss with the committee.
COLLINS:
Again, I think that's the concern that I have. And look at this is, as the chairman said earlier -- and (ph)
backing up the chairman, the jurisdiction of this committee on both sides -- this has become one of the
biggest issues that we have here. And I've been here on different committees, asking different agencies,
under a Republican administration, now, and a Democrat administration, is, there's a belief that you can
withhold from this oversight -- and this is the primary, especially on FISA, it's (ph) the primary.
So I'll clear up the uncertainty you might have. The committee has the authority to demand any
document or piece of information related to the FISA program, and there are many things that we would
like to see and be a part of. And I think you've indicated your willingness to do that.
We need to continue that openness in this thing. Otherwise you're gonna continue to have the
discussions and innuendo and everything else. Because, at the end of the day, this is a problem.
But my last question has one concern. You made a mention earlier, and I thought it was sort of
interesting. You said that Mr. Strzok was not demoted or (inaudible) -- I'm not sure, frankly -- and this is
just a good North (ph) Order (ph) boy (ph) looking at this -- how do you take the number two
counterintelligence person, who is on one of the highest-profile and special investigative committees,
that's been in a long time in this town, and take him and put him in a random slot at Human Resources.
It's not offensive to Human Resources. They've got a big job. But I don't think there was a pressing need
for your number-two person, here, in counterintelligence -- who was on the highest-profile investigation
going on this Hill -- to all of a sudden say, "You know, there's a big need in Human Resources. Let's move
him over here."
I have a bigger concern that if it's (ph) some of the issues that have fallen out (ph) with Mr. Strzok, why
would you put him in Human Resources, where he would have an oversight -- or even teach
responsibilities of what other agents would be a part of? I think you need to be careful, maybe just from
an example part, of how we say that that wasn't a demotion or a transfer or something that did not
have proper -- at least on the appearance of what happened in this case.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
GOODLATTE:
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for five minutes.
MARINO:
101
Thank you, Chairman.
Director, it's good to see you again. It's always a pleasure.
I've got to tell you a little something, when I got out of high school, I didn't go right to college, but I was -
- wanted to be an FBI agent. So I got a job many, many years ago as a clerk at the Department of Justice.
I was there for a short period of time until we found out that I was colorblind, and would not make a
very good agent if I couldn't tell the color of a car or the color of clothing.
So I came back home and worked in a factory for a while. When I was a district attorney and U.S.
attorney, I was threatened a couple of times. And the FBI and the U.S. Marshals were right there to
watch my back. But what was more important, they were there to watch my family during these threats.
And I will never forget that, and I greatly appreciate it.
And I have the utmost faith in you and the bureau. We are part of the same honorable profession. You
and Jim Comey and I worked very well together. We got a lot of good work done. And the agents and
the staff of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, that would be Harrisburg, Scranton, and Williamsport,
they made me look good. And I appreciate that.
I know how proffers work. I've used them many times. I know how immunity works. I know what a 302
report is, and how that works. I'm not -- let's put it this way, rarely, in my humble opinion, should we be
using special or independent counsel. We know there is a strict criteria for that, if there is a conflict. And
the reason is because I trust the 99.9 percent of our agents, the scientists, and staff a bit more than I
trust Congress.
And I know you will follow the FBI and DoJ procedures, regardless of what happened in the past. If you
ever need anything from me, don't hesitate to call upon me. Thank you very much for your service, and I
yield back.
WRAY:
Thank you, Congressman Marino, I really enjoyed our time working in the department together. And I
know you're committed to supporting law enforcement and it's very much appreciated.
GOODLATTE:
The chair thanks the gentlemen, and recognizes the gentlewoman from Alabama, Ms. Roby, for five
minutes.
ROBY:
I thought I heard the chairman say since I was last I could go as long as I wanted to. But I won't. I will
stick to the five-minute rule.
Thank you for your time spent with us today and I appreciate you staying through the last series.
Have you read the USA Liberty Act, which was our bill to renew Section 702 of the FISA Amendments
Act, which this committee approved 27-8, last month?
WRAY:
I have -- I wouldn't say I reviewed it word for word, but I have read through it.
102
ROBY:
OK. And will you commit to working with this committee to reauthorize Section 782 in a way that
protects Americans' civil liberties, as well as our national security?
WRAY:
I'm absolutely committed, in fact, eager to work with the committee to try to make sure that we get 702
reauthorized in a way that's not only constitutional, but that also protects our national security.
Obviously, as you've gathered from some of my responses, I have very clear and very specific views
about what that is. And I have tried very hard in order to be responsive to this committee to really get
into the weeds with the agents about how we actually use 702.
I've actually sat at terminals with both kinds of agents, national security agents and criminal agen ts, in
this role as director, rolling up my sleeves, looking at the screen, watching what happens when they tap
the keyboard. So I feel like I have a pretty good handle on it. And I just implore the Congress to be really
careful here, and I just -- I worry that we're heading down a road that we will all regret. And I just hope
lives aren't put at risk as a result.
ROBY:
Well, I can -- I mean, I agree with you, as well. But I just want to make sure that we can continue to work
together. And I've heard you say that, so thank you.
WRAY:
Yes, thank you.
ROBY:
As you well know, we have an epidemic of human trafficking in this country, including the trafficking of
children. And the internet plays a huge role in that. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
shields some websites from legal liability regarding content posted by their users.
I have serious concerns about this. Under existing law, do you believe that legal action can be taken
against websites that enable -- that's a key word -- enable this horrible behavior?
WRAY:
Well, as I mentioned in some of the earlier questions in different contexts, I now consider myself a
reformed lawyer, former lawyer, almost. So I would have to look closely at the law to study the law in
this area. I will say that there are situations where we have been able to bring cases against what I
would call third parties for aiding and abetting some of the issues that we're talking about here,
payment processors, things like that.
So maybe there's a scenario where that kind of approach would work. Certainly, I am deeply concerned,
as I know you are, about human trafficking, especially with respect to kids, but not only kids. And as I
mentioned in my opening, that's something that we are very aggressively pursuing. So I would be happy
to look at -- and then have somebody sit down with you.
ROBY:
Yes, and I mean, we would welcome any of your thoughts or your recommendations on improving our
laws. Of course, we have several bills in front of the Senate and the House today, where we are, again,
103
trying to balance making sure that those that are enabling this type of horrific behavior are held liable,
but at the same time, protecting innovation in the -- in the -- on the internet, and the use of the
internet.
And so -- but I think at the end of the day, what we all can agree on is that we've got to come up with a
solution that works so that we can protect these precious young people and adults from being subjected
to this type of abuse.
So real quickly, given the decision by General Services Administration to scrap plans for the new FBI
headquarters, I would be interested in your thoughts as to where we go from here. While the Obama
administration requested $1.4 billion for the construction, Congress appropriated $523 million, leaving
an $882 million funding gap.
So the total cost of the proposed headquarters was a hefty $2.5 billion. And I understand that the
existing building is in a state of disrepair. However, I would be interested in your ideas about how to
reduce costs.
WRAY:
Well, we are actively -- when I say went back to the drawing board, we're considering all options. We are
working very hard with GSA, and I think there's a report due to another committee in late January about
some of our progress. We're looking not just at different building permutations and locations, but also
at funding permutations, which I think could be a change maybe in the way we go about getting to a
good answer to try to look at how we might pay for it first, and then see what flows from that as
opposed to the other way around.
I will tell you that as somebody who has now spent four months back in the building, I remember the
last time I was in the building in 2005, the place seemed like it was not in good shape then, and I can
assure you, it has not gotten better in the years that pass. So we do need to find a solution. I think the
men and women of the FBI deserve a building that's in better shape than this one is.
But I'm not ruling out any particular approach to that. But I do want to make sure we get an upgrade.
GOODLATTE:
If the gentlewoman would yield, I completely agree with the director on that. And we have some
excellent real estate in Virginia that would...
(LAUGHTER)
GOODLATTE:
... purpose exceedingly well, just across the river.
ROBY:
Well, my time has expired. But I just want to take the opportunity to tell you and your family, thank you
for your service to our country. But also all of the men and women who serve at the FBI. We really
appreciate all the hard work that is done. So thank you for being here.
WRAY:
Thank you, and on behalf of the men and women of the bureau and their families, we appreciate it.
104
GOODLATTE:
Thank you, Ms. Roby.
Director Wray, thank you very much. I do have one additional question. Have you personally seen any of
the struck texts that we have been talking about here at length today?
WRAY:
Yes.
GOODLATTE:
Can you characterize for us your impression of whether those do indeed constitute the kind of political -
- going beyond just expressing opinion, but political activism that does not befit an FBI agent?
WRAY:
Mr. Chairman, I really would prefer not to do that at this point. There is -- because of the investigation
that's ongoing and it's also because of whatever might come out of that, I don't think it would be
responsible for me to be offering an opinion at this stage.
GOODLATTE:
I respect that.
Let me just close by saying that I very much appreciate your testimony here today, not just that you're
here for five hours, but that you have answered questions with a great deal of candor when you can.
And I respect the fact that you can't answer all of our questions, particularly in a public setting,
regarding some ongoing investigations.
However, I think that members of the committee have made it very clear that there are deep concerns
about what has been happening at the FBI, not under your watch, but now under your responsibility to
repair that reputation of what I think -- truly think is the world's finest law enforcement organization.
And that's going to take your testifying before committees and responding to various inquiries. But it's
also going to take more than that.
It's going to take some action. There are going to need to be some personnel changes. We have had a
number of names in high-ranking positions at the bureau mentioned in passing here, without getting
into tremendous details. Again, the inspector general's investigation and the investigation being
conducted by this committee will probably reveal more that needs to be done there.
I also think that a renewed effort to be fully responsive and timely responsive to the inquiries of this
committee and other committees, but particularly this committee, which has oversight responsibility,
and in lieu of a second special counsel, is conducting an investigation that if there were a special
counsel, we would not feel the need to engage in that.
We need to have the information that we're requesting, and we need it promptly. And we have no
intention of interfering with the investigation being conducted by the inspector general. In fact, we think
his investigation is very important and very helpful, and we have been working with him in that regard.
105
So those sorts of actions, and probably some changes in protocol regarding how agents conduct
themselves and how they view some of the actions that have been revealed in the media and in during
the hearing today do not reflect well on the department and create in the minds of many Americans a
mis-impression of how the overwhelming majority of FBI line agents and others conduct themselves.
But because these people are in positions of great responsibility at the highest levels of the agency, I
think that those who stay need to get some new protocols on how to represent the agency. Some need
to go. And all of this needs to be made available to the appropriate committees that are investigating.
I thank you very much, sir. If there is anything you would like to add, we welcome it.
With that, the hearing is concluded. And -- oh, one more thing. We will be submitting additional
questions in writing, based upon some of the questions that members submitted, and some issues that
have come up that we think may be more suited to submitting questions to you in writing. We hope that
you will answer those promptly, as well.
Again, I thank you for your participation. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to
submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record.
And this hearing is adjourned.
List of Panel Members and Witnesses
PANEL MEMBERS:
REP. ROBERT W. GOODLATTE, R-VA. CHAIRMAN
REP. LAMAR SMITH, R-TEXAS
REP. JIM SENSENBRENNER, R-WIS.
REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.
REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA
REP. TRENT FRANKS, R-ARIZ.
REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TEXAS
REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO
REP. TED POE, R-TEXAS
REP. JASON CHAFFETZ, R-UTAH
REP. STEVE CHABOT, R-OHIO
REP. TOM MARINO, R-PA.
106
REP. TREY GOWDY, R-S.C.
REP. RAUL R. LABRADOR, R-IDAHO
REP. BLAKE FARENTHOLD, R-TEXAS
REP. DOUG COLLINS, R-GA.
REP. RON DESANTIS, R-FLA.
REP. MIKE BISHOP, R-MICH.
REP. KEN BUCK, R-COLO.
REP. JOHN RATCLIFFE, R-TEXAS
REP. MIKE JOHNSON, R-LA.
REP. MARTHA ROBY, R-ALA.
REP. ANDY BIGGS, R-ARIZ.
REP. MATT GAETZ, R-FLA.
REP. KAREN HANDEL, R-GA.
REP. JOHN RUTHERFORD, R-FLA.
REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y. RANKING MEMBER
REP. ZOE LOFGREN, D-CALIF.
REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE, D-TEXAS
REP. STEVE COHEN, D-TENN.
REP. HANK JOHNSON, D-GA.
REP. TED DEUTCH, D-FLA.
REP. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, D-ILL.
REP. KAREN BASS, D-CALIF.
REP. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, D-LA.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES, D-N.Y.
107
REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL, D-WASH.
REP. TED LIEU, D-CALIF.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN, D-MD.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL, D-CALIF.
REP. BRAD SCHNEIDER, D-ILL.

WITNESSES:
CHRISTOPHER A. WRAY, DIRECTOR, FBI
Source: CQ Transcripts
CQ CONGRESSIONAL TRANSCRIPTS
Congressional Hearings
Dec. 7, 2017 - Final
©2017, Provided under license from Bloomberg Government.
Bloomberg Government
Support: 1-877-498-3587
www.bgov.com
All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and/or license from Bloomberg
Government, and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of Bloomberg Government. You may not alter or remove any
trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.
108

To: Hur, Robert (ODAG); Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG}; Bolitho, Zachary {ODAG};
Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI); . (DO) {FBI); Flores, Sarah Isgur
{OPA}; Lasseter, David F. (OLA); Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA); Johnson, Joanne E.
{OLA); Schools, Scott (ODAG)
Subject : RE: Update on HPSCI Production
Sorry for the mi sfire.
(b) (5)
SB
From : Boyd, Stephen E. (OU\}

Sent : Monday, December 11, 2017 5:22 PM
To: Hur, Robert (ODAG) <rhur@j md.usdoj.gov>; TerviJilliger, Zachary (ODAG} <[email protected]>;
Bolitho, Zachary (ODAG} <[email protected]>; Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI} <[email protected]>;
Pe, FBI (b)(6) (b)(7)(C) (DO) ( FBI} ; Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA} <[email protected]>;
Lasseter, David F. (OlA} <[email protected]>; Hankey, Mary Blanche (OU\)
<mhankey@j md.usdoj.gov>; Johnson, Joanne E.(OLA}<j ojohnson@j md.usdoj.gov>; Schools, Scott {OOAG)
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Update on HPSCI Production
From : Hur, Robert ( ODAG)

To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA} ; Terwilliger, Zachary {ODAG)
<[email protected]>; Bolitho, Zachary (ODAG) <[email protected]>; Brower, Gregory {DO)
(FBI) <[email protected]>; {DO} (FBI} ; Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA)
<[email protected]>; Lasseter, David F. {OLA) <dlasseter@jmd .usdoj.gov>; Hankey, Mary Blanche {OLA)
<mhankey@ 1md.usdoj.gov>; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott (ODAG)
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Update on HPSCI Production
Stephen, many thanks to you and your team for helping navigate these requests.
(b) (5)
Thanks,
Rob

To: Hur, Robert {ODAG} <rhur@jmd .usdoj.gov>; Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG} <[email protected]>;
t:1011mo, Lacnary \UUAl::J ) <20011mocw1ma.usao1.gov;,; t:1rower, uregory \UU ) \tl::II J <gorowercwro1.gov>;
Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C), (DO)
(FBI} ; Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>;
Lasseter, Davi d F. (OIL.A) <dlasseter['a)jmd.usdoj.gov>; Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA}
<[email protected]>; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott (ODAG)
<[email protected]>
Subject: Update on HPSCI Production
All:
(b) (5)
Thanks,
Stephen
PS - See below.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Editorial Board
Dec. 10. 2017 5:02 p.m. ET
Christopher Wray was supposed to bring a new candor and credibility to the FBI after the James
Corney debacle, but the country is still waiting. The director' s tes1imony Thursday to the House
Judiciary Committee suggests he has joined the Justice Department effort to stop the public from
learning about the bureau' s role in the 2016 election.
Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte invited Mr. V..7ray to answer the multiplying questions about the
bureau's 2016 political interference. This includes the role that the Steele dossier-opposition
research financed by the Clinton campaign- played in the FBI's decision to investigate the Trump
presidential campaign. The committee also \Vants answers about reports that special counsel
Robert Mueller demoted Peter Strzok,, a lead FBI investigator in both the Trump and Hillary
Clinton email investigations, after Mr. Strzok exchanged anti-Trump texts with his mistress, who
also works at the FBI.
Mr. Wray spent five hours stonewalling. The director ducked every question about the FBPs
behavior by noting that the Justice Department Inspector General is investigating last year' s events.
Is Mr. V,..iray concerned that Mr. Strzok edited the FBI's judgment ofMrs. Clinton·s handling of
her emails to "extremely careless" from «grossly negligent" in a previous draft? The grossly
negligent phrase might have put Mrs. Clinton in legal jeopardy, but Mr. V.lray said he couldn' t
answer because that is subject to the ··outside, independent investigation.'°
Is Mr. \Vray taking steps to ensure his top ranks are free of political 4:ai.nt''? He couldn' t say
because of the "outside,_ independent'' investigation_
Ohio Republican Jim Jordan noted that the only way for Congress to know if the FBI used the
Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Tramp campaign is for the FBI to provide its
application to the Foreign Intelligence Swvei11ance Court. <-J s there anything prohibiting you from
showing this committee [that application]?" Mr. Jordan asked.
Mr. Wray' s answer was dismissive. "I do not believe that I can legally and appropriately share a
FISA court submission with this committee,» said Mr. Wray_..V lhen 1 sign FISA applications,
which I have to do almost every day of the week, they are all covered with a 'classified
information' cover_,,
This is an excuse, not a serious reason. The IG is a watchdog created by Congress to investigate
executive misbehavior. It was never intended to supplant congressional oversight, much less be an
excuse for executive officials to protect their decisions from scrutiny.
As for hiding behind «classified information," the House Intelligence Committee that is
.investigating Russian campaign meddling has appropriate clearances. Mr. Goodlatte reminded Mr.
Wray that the Judiciary Committee also bas primary jurisdiction over the FISA court
The FISA application is central to the issue of Russian meddling and whether the FBI used
disinformation to trigger a counterintelligence investigation of a U.S. presidential candidate.
Congress and the U.S. need to know not only if Tromp officials were colluding with Russians but
also if Russia and the Clinton campaign used false information to dupe the FBI into intervening in
a U.S. election. Yet the FBI and Justice have been stonewalling House Intelligence for months.
The lack of cooperation has become more troubling amid reports that senior career Justice
officials have a partisan motivation. Judicial Watch last week released emails showing that Mr.
Mueller' s top lieutenant Andrew Weissmann, praised Obama holdover and acting Attorney
0
General Sally Yates in January for defying Mr. Trump on his travel ban.
Justice also confirmed a Fox Kews report last week that one of its top lawyers, Bruce Ohr, was in
contact with Christopher Steele (the dossier author) before the election, and after the election
with Glenn Simpson, the founder ofFusion GPS, the opposition-research finn that hired Mr.
Steele. Mr. Ohr was demoted, which suggests his contacts were unauthorized.
By the way,_ the chief law enforcement officer of the United States is the President This means he
has the legal authority through his deputies at the White House and Justice to see the FISA
application. AG Jeff Sessions is recused from the Russia probe, ,vhlch complicates his access
because we don't know the extent ofhis recusal But D eputy AG Rod Rosenstein supervises the
FBI when Mr. Sessions does not.
Mr. Rosenstein can and should order the FBI to meet Congress' s document requests including the
FISA application. Ifhe refuses, then Mr. Trump through White H ouse counsel Donald McGahn
can order him to do so. Mr. Rosenstein could choose to resign rather than comply, but he will not
have the law on his side.
The easy way to solve this standoff is for executive officials, including the FBI, to do their duty
and cooperate with the duly elected Members of Congress. If they don' t, sterner measures like a
finding of contempt of Congress will be needed.

Subject: RE: OLA Document Production Update
(b) (5)

Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 2-:19 PM
To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA} <dlasseter@j md.usdoj .gov>
Subject: OlA Document Production Update
(b) (5)
All:
(b) (5)

Thanks,
Stephen
PS- See below.
WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Editorial Board
Daec. 10, 2017 5:02 p.m . ET
753 COMMEMTS
Christopher Wray was supposed to bring a new candor and credibility to the FBI after the James
Corney debacle, but the country is still waiting. The director' s testimony Thursday to the House
Judiciary Committee suggests he has joined the Justice Department effort to stop the public from
learning about the bureau' s role in the 2016 election.
Judiciary Chairman B ob Goodlatte invited Mr. Wray to answer the multiplying questions about the
bureau's 2016 political interference. This includes the role that the Steele dossier-opposition
research financed by the Clinton campaign-played in the FBrs decision to investigate the Trump
presidential campaign. The committee also wants answers about reports that special counsel
Robert Mueller demoted Peter Strzok, a lead FBI investigator in both the Trump and Hillary
Clinton email investigations, after Mr. Strzok exchanged anti-Trump texts with his mistress who0
also works at the FBL
Mr. V-lray spent five hours stonewalling. The director ducked every question about the FBrs
behavior by noting that the Justice Department Inspector General is investigating last year' s events.
Is Mr. V.lray concerned that Mr. Strzok edited the FBI's judgment ofMrs. Clinton' s handling of her
emails to ·'extremely careless" from -=grossly negligent" in a previous draft? The grossly negligent
phrase might have put Mrs. Clinton in legal jeopardy, but Mr. \Vray said he couldn' t answer
because that is subject to the "outside, independent investigation."
Is Mr. Wray taking steps to ensure his top ranks are free ofpoHtical °'taint"? He couldn't say
because of the "outside, independent" investigation.
Ohio Republican Jim Jordan noted that the only way for Congress to know if the FBI used the
Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign is for the FBI to provide its
application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "'l s there anything prohibiting you from
.)UV\\ LU~ UU:> \.,Vll.UlllllCC: LUldl <Ip}IULdUVUJ : l V.ll. J Vl U<l.U d::>!\.CU .
Mr. Wray's answer \Vas dismissive. '-1 do not believe that I can legally and appropriately share a
FISA c-0urt submission with this committee,» said Mr. Wray. «\\'hen I sign FISA applications,
which I have to do almost every day of the week; they are all covered with a 'classified
information' cover."
This is an excuse; not a serious reason. The IG is a watchdog created by Congress to investigate
executive misbehavior. It was never intended to supplant congressional oversight, much less be an
excuse for executive officials to protect their decisions from scrutiny.
As for hiding behind "classified information," the House Intelligence Committee that is
investigating Russian campaign meddling has appropriate clearances. Mr. Goodlatte reminded Mr.
·wray that the Judiciary Committee also has primary jurisdiction over the FISA court.
The FISA application is central to the issue ofRussian meddling and whether the FBI used
disinformation to trigger a counterintelligence investigation of a U.S . presidential candidate.
Congress and the U.S. need to knmv not only if Trump officials were colluding with Russians but
also if Russia and the Clinton campaign used false information to dnpe the FBI into inteivening in
a U.S. election. Yet the FBI and Justice have been stonewalling House Intelligence for months_
The lack of cooperation has become more troubling amid reports that senior career Justice
officials have a partisan motivation. Judicial Watch last week released emails showing that Mr.
Mueller' s top lieutenant, Andrew Weissmann, praised Obama holdover and acting Attorney
General Sally Yates in January for defying Mr. Trump on his travel ban.
Justice also confirmed a Fox Kews report last week that one of its top lawyers, Bruce Ohr, was in
contact with Christopher Steele (the dossier author) before the election, and after the election
with Glenn Simpson, the founder ofFusion GPS, the opposition-research firm that hired Mr.
Steele. Mr. Ohr was demoted, ,vhich suggests his contacts were unauthorized.
By the way, the chief law enforcement officer of the united States is the President This means be
has the legal authority through his deputies at the White House and Justice to see the FISA
applfoation.. AG Jeff Sessions isrecused from the Russia prob~ which complicates his access
because we don~t know the extent ofhis recusaL But D eputy AG Rod Rosenstein supervises the
FBI when Mr. Sessions does not.
Mr. Rosenstein can and should order the FBI to meet Congress' s document requests including the
FISA application. Ifhe refuses, then Mr. Trump through \Vhite House counsel Donald McGabn can
order him to do so_ Mr. Rosenstein could choose to resign rather than comply, but he will not have
the law on his side_
The easy way to solve this standoff is for executive officials, including the FBI, to do their duty
and cooperate with the duly elected Members ofCongress_If they don' t, sterner measures like a
finding of contempt of Congress will be needed_

Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 12:18 PM
To: Lasseter, David F. {OLA}; Hur, Robert {ODAG}; Terwilliger, Zachary (ODAG};
Subject:. RE: 2017-12-06 RHJ to DOJ Rosenstein.pdf
Attachments: 2017-12-06 RHJ to DOJ Rosenstein.pdf
ODAG:
(b) (5)
SB

To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) ; Hur, Robert (ODAG) <[email protected] .gov>;
Terwilliger, Zachary {ODAG) <[email protected] .gov>; Crowell, James {ODAG}
<jcrowell@j md.usdoj .gov>; Schools, Scott {ODAG} <[email protected] .gov>
Subject: Fwd: 2017-12-06 RHJ to OOJ Rosenstein.pdf
Gentlemen-good evening...please see attached. (b) (5)
S/F,
David
--
David F. Lasseter
From : "D o\vney, Brian (HSGAC)" (b) ( 6) Senate Email

Date: December 6, 2017 at 2037:50 EST
To: "Da\~d F. Lasseter (OLA)" <D,[email protected]>
Su_bject: 2017-12-06 RHJ to DOJ Rosenstein.pd(
H ere is a copy ofthe letter.

From : Lasseter, David F. {OlA}

To: Patel, Kash
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Schools, Scott {ODAG); Nelson, Damon; Stewart, Mark;
Glabe, Scott
Subject: Re: Due outs from yesterday's meeting
Kash-good afternoon. Can we arrange a call with the Chairman today anytime after 4:30 in order to
discuss plan for below items?
Thanks,
David
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:21, Patel. Kash (b) ( 6) House Email wrote:
Gents,
Below is a quick summary of yesterday' s agreed upon due outs. Thanks very much.
DOJ to propose satisfactory resolution within 48 hours regarding production of:
1.1023s
2.302s
3. unredacted copies of any FISAs
4. Woods file
S. Strzok text messages
Also need to settle timing and structure of Strzok interview.
Kashyap P. Patel
House Permanent Select Committee on Inte lligence
Desk: (b) ( 6)
Cell: (b) ( 6)

Subject: Re: Re-quest
Got it.
On Dec 6, 2017, at 4:48 PM, Lasseter, David F. {OLA) <dlasseter@ jmd.usdoj .gov> wrote:
All-I have spoken with the staffer. In accordance with our instructions to other committees I
informed HSGAC that the Chairman would need to send a formal request for this information.
It will be addressed to the DAG.
David

To: Kellner, Kenneth E.(OLA} <[email protected]>; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA)
<[email protected]>; (DO) (FBI)
Per FBI: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) ·'ll'IWWIWJfl 'DO) (FBI} Per FBI (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)
Cc Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C) (DO) (FBI} er FBI (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)
Subject: RE: Request
FBI/DOJ-1 will handle this initial request. More to follow.
Thanks,
David
David F. Lasseter
{202) 514-1260
From: Downey, Brian (HSGAC} (b) (6) Senate Email

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. {OLA} <[email protected]>; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA)
<[email protected]>; Lasseter, Davi d F. (OLA) <[email protected]>;
er FBI: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C) (DO} (FBI) Per FBI: (b) (6). (b) ("')(C) Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
(DO) (FBI) er FBI (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)

Cc: Brosnan, Kyle (HSGAC} (b) (6) Senate Email
Subject: Request
Importance: High
Hello, as mentioned in press reports, the Department is producing Mr. Peter Strzok's
electronic messages to congress. Our committee is requesting copies of these
documents. Please let me know if you' d like to discuss this request. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Brian M. Downey
Senior Investigator
Chairman Ron H. Johnson (WI}
Washington, DC
(P) (b)(5)

Subject: FW: Request
Importance: High
SB- we have a request from HSGAC now on the texts.
Thanks,
David
From: Downey, Brian (HSGAC) (b) ( 6) Senate Email

To: Kellner, Kenneth E. (OLA) <kkellner@j md.usdoj.gov>; Johnson, Joanne E. (OLA)
<[email protected] .gov>; Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <dlasseter@j md.usdoj.gov>; Per FBI: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C)
Per FBI (b)(6) (b) (7)(C)
, (DO) (FBI) (DO} {FBI} Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
Cc: Brosnan, Kyle ( HSGAC) (b) ( 6) Senate Email
Subject: Request
Importance: High

Subject: Fwd: Fox obtains letter to DOJ IG re: Peter Strzok
Attachments: 2017-12-06 RHJ CEG to DOJ OIG (Strzok).pdf; ATT00001.htm
From: "Gibson, Jake" <[email protected]>

To: "Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Fox obtains letter to DOJ IG re: Peter Strzok
Sent from my iPhone
From: "Herridge, Catherine" <[email protected]>

To: "069 -Politics" <[email protected]>, "030 -Root (FoxNews.Com)"
<[email protected]>, "050 -Senior Producers"
<[email protected]>, "202-FBN Editorialn
<[email protected]>
Subject: Fox obtains letter to DOJ IG re: Peter Strzok
Per herridge
Attached is a letter from Johnson and Grassley sent to DOJ IG Horowitz

regarding the alleged text messages exchanged between FBI employees Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page - when the IG became aware of the messages, how they
notified Mueller of the messages, and whether similar allegations were found
involving other government officials.
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential
information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee
indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee),
you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should
permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply
e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the
official business of Fox News or Fox Business must not be taken to have been sent or
endorsed by either of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments
are without defect.

To: Bitar, Maher
Cc: Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI); Bergreen, Timothy; Lasseter, David F. (OLA)
Subject : Re: HPSCI Minority Follow-Up - New Testimony
Happy to set up a call tomorrow. What time works on your side?
No text messages have been turned over, though we have indicated a general intent to comply with
the chairman' s request. It's going to· take a great deal of time, however.
We expect to formally update the committee by Thursday PM when we know more, but I' m sure DAG
will be happy to speak to the Ranking Member before that. Just let me know and I'll try to make it
happen.
Stephen
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 5, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Bitar, Maher (b) (6) House Email wrote:
Stephen-
We've recently been alerted to this Fox News article, which states that DOJ "is in the process of
handing over to the House Intelligence Committee the anti-Trump text messages that got a key
FBI official removed from Robert Mueller's Russia probe.'' The article also states that Chairman
Nunes "has been assured that those messages will be turned over in the coming days."
Has there been additional communication with our Majority - with the Chairman and/or staff -
beyond your email to our Majority, which you forwarded on Sunday? Do you have more
information on this new report that we can share with the Ranking Member? If so, we would
greatly appreciate if you can loop us into any correspondence with the Majority, including with
regard to document production or witness appearance.
As you can expect, the Ranking Member has also asked us to formally request a meeting or call
between him and DAG Rosenstein. Please advise how best to get the meeting or call scheduled
this week.
Thanks in advance,
Maher
Maher Bitar
General Counsel (Minority}
U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCJ}
-
HVC-304- The Capitol
From: Bitar, Maher

Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 9:10 AM
Cc: Brower, Gregory (DO} (FBI) <[email protected]>; Bergreen, Timothy
(b) (6) House Email
Subject: Re: HPSCI Minority Follow-Up - New Testimony
Thanks, Stephen.. Appreciate the assurance moving forward and will review what you sent.
--Maher
On Dec 3, 2017, at 9:06 A.t\,1, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) · wrote:
You are correct; you should have been c.opied on the email (Just forwarded it to
you.) Will do so moving forward. SB
Sent from my iPbone
On Dec 3, 2017, at 12:27 A..\111, Bitar, ~aher (b) ( 6) House Email · wrote:
Stephen, Greg, Sam -
Apologies for the late email, but we are reaching out in response to
press reports - links pasted below - that indicate DOJ and FBI have
informed our Committee' s :\i1ajority that Peter Strzok, Deputy Director
~kCabe, and an additional FBI agent have been cleared to provide
testimony to the Committee for the purpose ofits Russia inves.tigation.
ls this in fact the case? If so, we would reiterate the Ranking Member' s
request of and assurance from DAG Rosenstein that all DOJ and FBI
correspondence with the Committee, including on the Committee's
investigative matters, occur jointly with the Majority and Minority.
v.,re would appreciate an update from you about these developments,

and any additional information that may have been relayed to the
Majority, so that we can update the Ranking Member_ And please
ensure future correspondence with the Committee remain hip.artisan,
including follow-up on these matters.
Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you,

Maher
:Maher Bitar
General Counsel (Minority)
l:.S. House P ermanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI)
HVC-304 - The Capitol
FBI official's role in Clinton email investigation under review
By James Rose11, Jake Gibson I Fox News
http://www ioxnews.comlpolitics/2017 /12/02/fbi-officials-role-in-

clinton-email-investigation-under-review.html
Nunes blows up, threatens contempt after FBI stonewalls House

on Russia inYestigator demoted for anti-Trump bias
by .Byron York Dec 2, 201 7, 6:38 Pk[
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com!byron-york-nunes-blows-up-
threatens-contemp t-after-tbi-stonewalls-house-on-russia-investigator-
demoted-for-anti-tru:mp-bias/artide.12642387
OtAltll5£ ~ V . CIWA. OW1U,tAA
Qe!fJiG.HATQI.UTAM OV.XNf F(,',Sil,'H. ~ ~ I A
IJ'itlS£V(I ~$0UT>ICAIIOU~ P~!lt,(:I( J.lPNIV. vt.RM0\1
JOHNCOI!~ ,...~ RlCHAA.O J. ~ lU'IOCS
Ml()Wl.$ ll£. \ITAit $HO,QCW WHl'TOIOUSE. 1(lt()O( ISI.N.'0
l'EOCf;Jl.iU(AS
lifN'SASSf, NC"i!AASIV.
1'HF\M"l.tJIIZOl,I.
A.\.IT lU.OlftJO(M. M.SN:,,tSO.A
.Al. llW«i;l(,t.'JMHESQTA
o-i~~A.COQNS,on,.-.,,•.t.,.ifE
'1Unita1 oStatrn iScnotc
Ml!:£ CAA.IIO, l'JA,'fO A!CHMO !11.U\!~f'fW. COH.o.:£cnoJf
nlOM T't.US. NORnt tAIIOUH.ti UAZl(lt. HflO.\\'.l Ml'l'AI COMMITTEE ON THE JUDIC&ARY
JOii" Ci"-""iiO"V' I.OV$4NAi WASKINGTON, DC 2-0510-6275
December 5, 2017
Director
Dear Director Wray:
Over the summer, media outlets reported that Peter Strzok was removed from his position
in the FBI’s counterintelligence division and from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team and
had been reassigned to work in the FBI’s human resources department. According to recent
media reports, Mr. Mueller removed Mr. Strzok from the team after discovering that he and FBI
lawyer Lisa Page, his alleged mistress, “had exchanged politically charged texts disparaging
President Trump and supporting Hillary Clinton.” 1 It appears the Special Counsel may have
learned this information from the Office of Inspector General’s ongoing review of the handling
of controversial pre-election activities of the Justice Department and FBI related to the
campaign. 2
Reportedly, Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page exchanged these text messages while working on
the Clinton investigation. Mr. Strzok has been described as “a key player in the investigation
into [Hillary] Clinton’s use of a private email server to do government work as secretary of
state.” 3 Ms. Page reportedly “was a regular participant when Comey would hold ‘skinny group’
meetings on the case a small collection of advisers who gathered to address sensitive cases.” 4
Additionally, Mr. Strzok reportedly was one of two FBI agents who interviewed former National
1
Karoun Demirjian & Devlin Barrett, Top FBI Official Assigned to Mueller’s Russia Probe Said To Have Been
Removed After Sending Anti Trump Texts, T HE W ASHINGTON POST (Dec. 2, 2017),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national security/two senior fbi officials on clinton trump probes
exchanged politically charged texts disparaging trump/2017/12/02/9846421c d707 11e7 a986
d0a9770d9a3e story.html?utm term=.5628b4762af1.
2
Press Release, Office of Inspector General, Department of Justice (Dec. 2, 2017), available at
https://oig.justice.gov/press/2017/2017 12 02.pdf.
3
Dmirjian & Barrett, Top FBI Official Assigned to Mueller’s Russia Probe Said To Have Been Removed.
4
Id.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5307-000001

December 5, 2017
Page 2 of 3
Security Advisor Michael Flynn. 5 The communications between members of the Clinton email
investigation team raise questions about the integrity of that investigation, and about the
objectivity of Mr. Strzok’s work for the Special Counsel and in the FBI’s investigation of Mr.
Flynn.
The Committee has previously written to Mr. Strzok requesting an interview to discuss
his knowledge of improper political influence or bias in Justice Department or FBI activities
during either the previous or current administration, the removal of James Comey from his
position as Director of the FBI, the DOJ’s and FBI’s activities related to Hillary Clinton, the
DOJ’s and FBI’s activities related to Donald J. Trump and his associates, and the DOJ’s and
FBI’s activities related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. To date, the Committee has
received no letter in reply to that request. In advance of Mr. Strzok’s interview, please provide
the following communications, in the form of text messages or otherwise, to the Committee no
later than December 11, 2017:
1. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to then-
Director Comey’s draft or final statement closing the Clinton investigation, including
all records related to the change in the portion of the draft language describing
Secretary Clinton’s and her associates’ conduct regarding classified information from
“grossly negligent” to “extremely careless”; 6
2. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok regarding the
decision to close the Clinton investigation without recommending any charges;
3. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to opening the
investigation into potential collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian
government, including any FBI electronic communication (EC) authored or
authorized by Mr. Strzok and all records forming the basis for that EC;
4. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to the FBI’s
interactions with Christopher Steele relating to the investigation into potential
collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian government, including any
communications regarding potential or realized financial arrangements with Mr.
Steele;
5. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok related to any
instance of the FBI relying on, or referring to, information in Mr. Steele’s memoranda
in the course of seeking any FISA warrants, other search warrants, or any other
judicial process;
5
Nicole Darrah, FBI Agent Fired From Russia Probe Oversaw Flynn Interviews, Softened Comey Language on
Clinton Email Actions, FOX NEWS (Dec. 4, 2017), http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/fbi agent fired
from russia probe oversaw flynn interviews changed comey memos on clinton charges.html.
6
Laura Jarrett & Evan Perez, FBI Agent Dismissed from Mueller Probe Changed Comey’s Description of Clinton to
‘Extremely Careless’, CNN (Dec. 4, 2017, 4:57 PM), http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/04/politics/peter strzok james
comey/index.html.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.5307-000001

December 5, 2017
Page 3 of 3
6. All FD-302s of FBI interviews of Lt. Gen. Flynn at which Mr. Strzok was present, as
well as all related 1A documents (including any contemporaneous handwritten notes);
and
7. All communications sent to, received by, or copying Mr. Strzok containing
unfavorable statements about Donald J. Trump or favorable statements about Hillary
Clinton.
If you have questions, please contact Patrick Davis of my committee staff at (202) 224-
5225. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
JCharles E. Grassley
Chairman

Inspector General

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5307-000001

From : Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA)

To: Brennan, Samantha (Judiciary-Rep)
Cc: OOJ Correspondence (SMO); Foster, Jason (Judiciary- Rep); Davis~ Patrick
(Judiciary-Rep); CEG (Judiciary-Rep); Sawyer, Heather (Judiciary-Dem)
Subject: Re: 2017-12-05 CEG to FBI (Stnok Communications)
Received. Thanks Samantha.
On Dec S. 2017, at 6:49 PM, Brennan, Samantha (Judiciary- Rep) (b) (6) Senate Email
wrote:
Hi Mary,
Attached is a letter from Chairman Grassley to FBI Director Wray. Please confirm receipt and
send all follow-up correspondence to the email addresses copied above.
Thank you,
Samantha
Samantha Brennan
Investigative Counsel
Chairman Charles E. Grassley
----
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
<2017-12-05 CEG to FBI (Strzok Communications).pdf>


To: Parmiter, Robert; Lasseter, David F. {OLA)
Cc: Breitenbach, Ryan; Husband, Shelley; Ritchie, Branden
Subject: RE: texts
Slight clarification: we have expressed our intent to do so, but it's going to require a great deal of review and
evaluat ion. I am happy to discuss further offline (I think you'll understand after hearing the details) if you
want to give me or Lasseter a call tomorrow. Would ask for a written request from the chairman at some
point, but will move forward assuming that HJC is interested. Thanks. SB

Sent: Tuesday, December s , 20176:57PM
To: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6) ; Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>
Cc: Breitenbach, Ryan (b) ( 6) House Email Husband, Shelley
(b) (6) House Email ; Ritchie, Branden (b) ( 6) House Email
Subject: texts

Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 10:12 AM
To: Jarrett, Laura
Subject: RE: Contempt citations for OOJ/FBI?
FYI:nunes has a call or meeting with the DAG today. We' ve already told him that we're going to give him the
text messages.
Suah Isgur Flo-res

Director of Public Affau3
202.305.5808
From : Jarrett, Laura [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tues-day, December 5, 201710:06 AM
Subject: Fwd: Contempt citations for DOJ/FBI?
Laura Jarrett
CNN Justice Reporter
202-816-9771
From: "Langer, Jack'' (b) ( 6) House Email

Date : December 5, 2017 at 10:01:10 A..i\ll EST
To: "Jarrett, Laura" <LanraJarrett(a),cnn.com>
Subject: RE: Contempt citations for DOJ/FBI?
Hi Laura,
We are expecting to put out a press release on this today. I've added yon to our press list so you 'll
receive it
Jack Langer
Director of Communications
House Permanent Select Commrttee on Intelligence
Office: (b) ( 6)
Cell: (b) ( 6)
-----Original Message---- -
From: Jarrett, Laura [mailto:Laura.Ja:[email protected]]
Sent Monday, December 04, 2017 10:38 PM
To: Langer, Jack
Subject Contempt citations for DOJ/FBI?
Jack -
I cover DOJ for CNN and saw over the weekend that Chairman Nunes. bad set a deadline for
COB today for all outstanding subpoena requests to be met from the Justice Dept and FBL Do
you have any update on what happened or next s.teps? Thanks in advance.
Laura Jarrett
CNN Justice Reporter
202-816-9771

To: Hur, Robert {ODAG); Schools, Scott {ODAG); Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA); Brow er,
Gregory (DO) (FBI}; (DO} (FBI); Lasseter, David F. (OLA);
Hankey, Mary Blanche (OLA}
Subject: RE: Outstanding HPSCI Requests (12/04 Update]
(b) (5)
From: Boyd, Stephen E. (OlA}

sent: Sunday, December 3, 2017 U:52 PM
To: Hur, Robert (ODAG) <[email protected]>; Schools, Scott (ODAG} <[email protected]>; Flores,
Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]>; Brower, Gregory (DO} (FBI) <[email protected]\ mr:tfUW
- (DO}(FBI} Per FBI (b) (6) (b) (7)(C)
Subject: Outstanding HPSCI Requests
Team:
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Thanks for your assistance on this oversight request (b) (5)
Stephen

To: Bessee, Cecilia 0. {OGC} (FBI}
Subject: RE: Items needing follow up
Attachments: Strzok Texts Re dacted_ Reda cted .pdf
See below.
- Original Message-
From: Bessee, Cecilia 0. (OGC} (FBI) (b)(6)
Subject: Items needing follow up
Hi Scott,
I do hope that all is well. I tried to catch up with you today but was unable to reach you. (b) (5)
20180326-0060788
(b) (5)
Thank you.
Cecilia
Cecilia 0. Hessee
Acting Deputy General Counsel
Litigation Branch
Office of the General Counsel
935 Pennsylvania AveJ NW, Room 10140
Telephone: (b)l6)
Facsilile: 202-323-2168
Confidentiality Statement:
This message is transmitted to you by the Office of the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The message , along with any attachments, may be confidential and legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please destroy it promptly without
further retention or dissemination (unless otherwise required by law). Please notify the sender of the
error by a separate e-mail or by calling (b) ( 6)
20180326-0060789
Nat.a sha Bertrand
From : Natasha Bertrand

Subject : Re: Question
Hi, following up on this.
Also wondering if the DOJ plans to release the texts that preceded and followed this one: "So look, you
say we text on that phone when we talk about hillary because it can't be traced you were just venting be
you feel bad that you're gone so much but it can't be helped right now "
thanks,
N
On Tue, Dec 19, 201 7 at 12:51 PM, Natasha Bertrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi there
Had a foUow -up questi on - how did 0O'J determi ne w hich Strzok/ Page texts w ere okay to provi de to Congress?
In other words, how d id DOJ whi ttl e the texts down to t he 375 it consi dered most re levant? What was the standard f or
rel evancy?
Thanks,
Natasha
Narasha Bertrand
Po t1cal :orrespondem I Business Insider
631.317.8.409
@Natasha8ertrand
Natasha Bertrand
Pollt,cal Correspondent I Business ln5,1der
631.31~ ~
@NatashaBertrand
Document ID: 0.7.16060.115408

Flores., Sarah Isgur (OPA)
From: Flores, Saran Isgur (OPA)

To: Jarrett, Laura
Attachments: CHM ltrto DAG re Subpoena Compliance - 28 Dec 17 FINAL.pdf; AlT00001.htm
No nnger prints par favor
Document ID: 0.7.16060.118353

Brower, Gregory {DO) (FBI)
From: Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI)

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 4 :29 PM
Cc: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FB (DO) (FBI)
Subject: Fwd: Dec. 14 letter from Sen. Johnson
Attachments: 2017-12-14 RHJ to FBI re Corney July S Statement.pdf
- - Original message - -
From: (DO) (FBI (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI
Date: 12/15/17 3:41 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: (DO) (FBI)" (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI , "Brower, Gregory (DO) {FBI)"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Dec. 14 Letter from Sen. Johnson
All,
Please see attached. Thanks.
Best,
(b) (6). (b) {7)(q per FB
(b) (6). (b) (7)(q per FB
Legisl ative Affai rs Speci alist

FBI/Office of Congressional Affairs
f\2f@fwti'1Til
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 08617

Downey, Brian (HSGAC)
From : Downey, Brian (HSGAC)

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA)
Cc: Brosnan, Kyle (HSGAC)
Subject: letter to FBI
Attachments: 2017-12-14 RHJ to FBI re Corney July S Statement.pdf
David, the Chairman sent the attached letter to the FBI. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Brian M . Downey
Senior Investigator
Chairman Ron H. Johnson (WI)
Washington, DC
{P) (b) (6)
Document ID: 0.7.16060.116380

Gibson, Jake
From : Gibson, Jake

Subject: Fwd: letter to FBI re: comey draft speech
Attachments: 2017-12-14 RHJ to FBI re Corney July 5 Statement.pdf; ATT00001.htm;
Attachment with RHJ Letter (SJC 000031-37).pdf; ATT00002.htm
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or -eonfidential information. It is
intended solely for the named addressee. If you a re not the addressee indicated in this message (or
responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or
its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments
and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that
does not relate to the official business of Fox News or Fox Business must not be taken to have been
sent or endorsed by either of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are
without defect.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.115393

Flor-es, Sarah Isgur (OPA)

To: Singman, Brooke; Prior, Ian (OPA}
Cc: Gibson, Jake
Subject: RE: Stnok text 8/15/2016?
I cant speak to the nature of any texts. But Strzok has been cleared to be interviewed by Congress.
Sa.ah Isgur Flo.rei

~ectoi: of Pubk Affair&
202.305.5S08
From : Singman, Brooke (mailto:[email protected])

To: Prior, Ian (OPA) <IPrior@j md.usdoj.goV>; Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <siflores@j md.usdoj.gov>
Cc: Gibson, Jake <[email protected]>
Subject: Strzok text 8/ 15/201-6?
Hi Sarah and Peter,
Quick Q on th is text...not sure if you already were in touch with Jake on this -If so, I apologi ze!
Hope you' re well. Can you comment on this text or provide any guidance? Is it possible Peter Strzok was
referring to Andrew McCabe or could it have been someone else? Do you know what this text was about?
Text from Peter Strmk to Lisa Page 8/ 15/ 2016:
"I want to bel ieve the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -that th ere' s oo way [Trump]
gets elected-but I' m afraid we can' t take that risk. It's an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you' re 40."
Deadline ASAP.
Brooke Singman
Politics Reporter, Fox News Channel
[email protected]
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely
for the named addressee. If y-0u are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of
the message to the addressee). you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather,
you shomd permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by -reply e-mail.
Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Fox News or
Fox Business must not be taken to have been sent or endorsed by either of them. No representation is made
that this email or its attachments are without defect_
Patel, Kash
From: PatE!I, Kash

Sent: Wedne5day, December 13, 2017 5 :55 PM
To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA); Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA}
Cc: NelsoC1, Damon; Glabe, Scott; Stewart, Mark
Thanks david, we look forwa rd to complete production by December 15, as stated in our letter.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P . Patel
Senior Counsel for Cmmterter:rorism
House Pennanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Desk:
Cell:
NSTS:
From: Lasseter, David F. (OLA ) [mailto:[email protected]]

To : Patel, Kash[•M)iJl{]'it~tephen
;_tt____;
Cc: Nelson, Damon . ___!_~ _;_
E. (OLA (b) (6)
Glabe, Scott (b) (6) Congressional Email Stewart,
Kash-good afternoon. In response to your questions below:

1. The Congressional Committees wit h jurisdiction of this matter received hand-delivered copies of the text
messages last night. These messages were delivered prior to the Deputy Attorney General' s testimony
today before House Judiciary.
2. OLA cannot speak to OPA's briefing with the press. The messages reviewed by the press were the same
messages del ivered to the committees of jurisdiction.
3. DOJ acknowledges that there are many more text messages and, as stated previously, the Department
will plan to deliver these tot he committees of jurisdiction on a rolling basis to ensure the committees have
these in as timely a manner a s possible.
4. The text messages delivered last night are the ones most relevant to the committee' s inquiries.
Thanks,
David
From : Patel, Kash (b) (6) Congressional Email

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <[email protected]>; Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) (6)
Cc: Nelson, Damon (b) (6) Congressional Email Glabe,. Scott (b) (6) Congressional Email ;Stewart,
Subject: RE: remai ning text messages
Stephen and David,
Per the DAG's testjmony before House Judiciary this morning, the DAG acknowledged that the press was
invited to the DOJ yesterday eveningto review all text messages in private, before they were given to
Congressional Committees. The DAG has confirmed this happened, we now demand an answer as to how
many text messages the pres.s was able to review on the evening of December 13, 2017 at DOJ. If they were
given access to more than those turned overto our Committee, then DOJ has until close of business today to
produce all such messages to-this Committee. We also require an explanation as to why the press was given
acce55 to text messages, and the justification for doing so prior to their production to this Gorn mittee, also
do by COB today. Thanks very much.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P. Patel
Senior Coi.msel for Counterterrorism
Desk:
Cell:
NSTS:
From: Lasseter, David F. {OLA) [ mailto:[email protected]]

Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA) (b) (6) Nelson, Damon
(b) (6) Congressional Email Glabe, Scott (b) ( 6) Congressional Email Stewart, Mark
(b) (6) Congressional Email
subject: Re: remaining text messages
Kash-good morning. We continue to work on the additional r equests. As we mentioned last week we
wanted t o get y'all these ass oon as possible. The remainder will follow upon further review.
Confirming that y'all are on for tomorrow's review? What time will the Chairman and you/ Scott arrive?
Thanks,
David
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 13, 2017, at08:SO, Patel, Kash (b) (6) Congressional Email wrote:
Stephen,
Thank you for your production last night of 375 text messages. Atthis time, we renew our
communications by the date outlined in our letter to DOJ last night (attached herein for quick
roforonro\ Th~nk~ \lorv m t ,,-h
•· - • - • - •• '-"-/_. 111w • • "---' • - • 1 •11-"'' "
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P. Patel
<CHM ltr to DAG re Str:zok & Page Connnunications - 12 Dec. 17.pdf>

[email protected] .gov
From : [email protected]
To: Patel, Kash
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Nelson, Damon; Glabe, Scott; Stewart, Mark
Subject: Re: remaining text messages
Kash-good morning. We continue to work on the additional requests.
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 13, 2017, at 08:50, Patel, Kash (b) (6) Congressional Email wrote:
Stephen,
Thank you for your production last night of 375 text messages. At this time, we renew our
communications by the date outlined in our letter to DOJ last night (attached herein for quick
reference). Thanks very much.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P _P atel
House P ermanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Desk:
Cell:
NSTS:
<CHM ltr to DAG re Strzok & Page Communications - 1 2 Dec 17.pdf>
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114834

Patel, Kash
From: Patel, Kash

Subject: RE: Text message production
Dave, just called you, please let me know when you are available to chat. Thanks
kash
From: Lasseter, Davi d F. (OIA) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent Tuesday, December 12, 2017 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Text message production
Kash-l eft you a vm. We are ready to produce. I j ust need a short letter signed by Chairman. DOJ attorneys
are recommending based on future potential litigation.
Thanks,
Davi d
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 12, 2017, at 13:19, Patel, Kash (b) (6) Congressional Email wrote:
David,
The first formal request was made in writing to DOJ ( on an email which you were included on
12/2) for all communications between strzok and Page, to include text messages. Furthermore,
the Chairman made the very same request in person to the DAG when they met at DOJ on 12/6.
Lastly, there was yet another follow -up email sent to DOJ on 12/6 itemizing the agreed upon
due outs from the meeting, which included again, the request for all communications to
include text messages. If these multiple requests in writing and in person from the Chairman to
the DAG are insufficient for OOJ to comply with agreement, please let me know. You may also
consider this yet another written request on behalf of the Chairman and the Committee to
produce said communications. Thanks and we look forward to receiving the production.
Regards,
Kash
Kashyap P _P atel
House P ermanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Desk (b) (6)

Cell: (b) (6)
Nsrs:iww■
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114682

iWJWNJWl'ttt=!' (OGC) (FBI)
From: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI (OGC) (FBI)
Cc: (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI (OGC) (FBI)
Subject: FW: Time today?
Scott,
(b) (5)
-
Thanks,
(b) (6) (b ) (7)(C) per FBI
- -Origin~ Message---
From: (OGC} (FBI}
To: Schools, Scott (ODAG} (JMD) <[email protected]>
Cc: {OGC} (FBI) (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI
Subject: Time today?
Scott,
My apologies again for having to scoot out of Monday's meeting early.
Tha nk you,
Document ID: 0.7.16060.116882

(b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI
Unit Chief
Discovery Coordination and Policy Unit
FBI, Office of General Counsel
(b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FB
Confidentia lity Statement
This message is transmitted to you by the Office of General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The message, along with any attachments, may be confidential and legally privileged. If
you are not the intended recipient of this message, please destroy it promptly without further retention
or dissemination (unless otherwise required by law). Please notify the sender of the error by a separate
email or by calling (b) (6) (b)(7)(C) per FBI
Document ID: 0.7.16060.116882

1w11w·eiw,.,tt=u <00, (FBI)
From : (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI (DO} (FBI}
To: Boyd, Stephen E. {OLA); Brower, Gregory (DO} (FBI)
Subject: Re: Text Messages
Thanks for the heads up.
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: "Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)" (b) (6)
Date: 12/12/17 4:23 PM {GMT~0S:00}
To: "Browe r, Gregory (DO) (FBI)" <[email protected]>
Cc: (DO) (FBI)" (b) (6). (b) (7)(C) per FBI
Subject: Text Messages
Heads up: First t ranche ottext messages going by hand delivery tonight at 8 PM.
SB
Document ID: 0.7.16060.107996

Schneider, Jessica
From: Schne ider, Jessica

Sent: Tue5d ay, December 26, 2017 6 :49 PM
To: O' Malle y, Devin (OPA)
Subject: RE: Questi on re Grassley deadline WEDNESDAY
I haven' t - I will reach out to her now. Thank you.
Sarah also told me sh e' d look int o it.
Appreciate it, Devin!
Jessica Schneider
CNN Just k e Cor respondent
(m) -
[email protected] m
@SchneiderCNN
From: O'Malley, Devin (OPA} [maHto:Devin .O'Malley@usdoj .g ov]

Sent; Tuesday, December 26, 2017 6:27 PM
To: Schneider, Jessica <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Question re Grassley deadline WEDNESDAY
Hey Jessica-
Have you reached out to Laur en from our team?
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded mes.sage:
From: Press <[email protected]>

To: "O'Malley, Devin (OPA}" <[email protected]>
Cc: " Prior, Ian (OPA}" < [email protected]>
Subject: FW: Que-Stion re Grassley deadline W EDNESDAY
Tha nk you - Kriste n
From : Schnei der, Jessica (mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Tuesday, Decemlber 26, 2017 6:24 PM
Subject: Quest ion re G rassley deadline WEDNESDAY
Hi-
I'm hoping to get some information on this prior t o 9am tomorrow.

voes ueputy A(j Hosenstem plan to resp on a to !:ienator t:irass1ey· s letter aatea uecemoer Lr·
requesting various information about Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page's text messages by the deadline
of tomorrow, December 2ih?
Is there any informat ion you can give us ahead of time, if so?
If not, have you talked w ith Grassley' s office about an extension?
I know t his request comes late in the day- I am likely going to be on air with this tomorrrow by
9am, so hopefully I' ll hear from you before then.
Thanks again.
Jessica Schneider
(m) -
[email protected]
@SchneiderCNN
Schneider, Jessica
From: Schneider, Jessica

To: Pettlt, Mark T. (OPA)
Subject: Question re Gressley deadline tomorrnw
Hi Mark-
I see Ian is off, so I wanted to touch base and see if you can help me out.
Does Deputy AG Rosenstein plan to respond to Senator Grassl ey's letter dated December 13th requesting
various information about Mir. Strzok and Ms. Page' s text messages by the deadl ine of tomorrow, December
27th ?
Is there any information you can give us ahead of time, if so?
If not, have you talked with Grassley's office about an extension?
I know this request comes late in the day- I am likely going to be on air w ith this tomorrow by 9am, so
hopefully I'll hear from you before then.
Thanks again.
Jessica Schne1der
CN N Justice Correspondent
(m} -
[email protected] m
@SchneiderCNN
Patel, Kash
From: Pateal, Kash

To: Lasseter, David F. (OLA}
Cc: Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA); Schools, Scott (ODAG); Nelson, Damon; Ste-wart, Mark;
GlabeJ Scott
Subject: Re: Due outs from yesterday's meeting
Thanks David, we are checking the boss's schedule and will let you know.
Kashyap P. Patel
Desk (b) (6)

Cell: (b) (6)
On Dec 7, 2017, at 13:42, Lasseter, David F. (OlA} <[email protected]> wrote:
Kash-good afternoon. Can we arrange a call with the Chairman today anytime after 4:30
in order to discuss plan for below items?
Thanks,
David
David F. lasseter
On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:21, Patel, Kash (b) (6) wrote:
Gents,
Below is a quick summary of yesterday's agreed upon due outs. Thanks very
much.
DOJ to propose satisfactory resolution within 48 hours regarding production of:
1. 1023s
2. 302s
3. unredacted copies of any FISAs
4. Woods file
5. Strzol< text messages
Also need to settle timing and structure of Strzok interview.

Kashyap P. Patel
Desk: (b) (6)

Cell: (b) (6)
Bitar, Maher
From: Bitar, Mah~r

Cc: Brower, Gregory (DO) (FBI); Bergreen, Timothy; Lasseter, David F. (OLA)
Thanks, Stephen. Would 3p m work for the Deputy Attorney General? If so, I can put Ranking Member
Schiff s scheduler in touch with the right point of contact.
As for the below, appreciate the up-date. To the greatest extent possible, we would appreciate if you
could ensure we are included in all communication by OOJ and FBI to the Committee, including w ith
regard to conveying the general update you mention below.
Thanks again,
Maher
On Dec 5, 2017, at 9:34 PM, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) (6) wrote:
Happy to set up a call tomorrow. What time works on your side?
No text messages have been turned over, though we have indicated a general intent to
comply with the chairrman' s request. It's going to take a great deal of time, however.
We expect to formally update the committee by Thursday PM when we know more, but I'm
sure DAG will be- happy to speak to the Ranking Member before that. Just let me know and
I'll try to make it happen.
Stephen
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 5, 2017, at 9:19 PM, Bitar, Maher (b) (6) House Email wrote:
Stephen-
We've recently been alerted to this Fox News article, which states that DOJ "is in
the process of handing over to the House Intelligence Committee the anti-Trump
text messages that got a key FBI official removed from Robert Mueller's Russia
probe. 11 The arti de also states that Chairman Nunes ahas been assured that those
moc:c:::100 <: will ho turnor-1 f'\Vor in tho rnmina rl::1\1<:"
Has there been additional communication with our Majority-with the Chairman
and/or staff-beyond your email to our Majority, which you forwarded on Sunday?
Do you have more information on this new report that we can share with the
Ranking Member? If so, we would greatly appredate if you can loop us into any
correspondence with the Majority, including with regard to document production
or witness appearance.
As you can expect, the Ranking Memb-er has also asked us to formally request a
meeting or call between him and DAG Rosenstein. Please advise how best to ge;t
the meeting or call scheduled this week.
Thanks in advance,
Maher
Maher Bitar
U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence {HPSCI)
-
From: Bitar, Mai'ler

Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 9:10 AM
Cc: Brower, Gregory (DO}{FBI) <[email protected]>; Bergreen, Timothy
(b) (6) House Email
Thanks, Stephen. Appreciate the assurance moving forward and will review what
you sent.
-- Maher
On Dec 3, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA)

(b) (6) \VfOte:
You are correct; you should have be,en copied on the email. (Just
forwarded it to you.) Will do so moving forward SB
Sent ftom my iPhone
On Dec 3, 2017, at 12:.27 AM, Bitar, M aher

(b) ( 6) House Email wrote:
Stephen. Greg, Sam -
Apologies for the late email, but we Me reaching out in

response to press reports - links pasted below - that
indicate DOJ and FBI have iofonned our Committee' s
Majority that Peter Strzok, Deputy Director McCabe,
and an additional FBI agent have been cleared to provide
tes.timony to the Committee for the purpose ofits Russia
investigation.
Is this ln fact the case? If so, we would reiterate the

Ranking Member' s request of and assurance from DAG
Rosenstein that all DOJ and FBI correspondence \vith the
Committee, including on the Committee's investigative
matters, occur jointly with the Majority and Minority.
\Ve would appreciate an update from you about these

developments, and any additional information that may
have been relayed to the M ajority, so that we can update
the Ranking M ember. And please ensure future
correspondence with the Committee remaln bipartisan,
including follow-up on these matters.
Thank you and we look forward to hearing from you,
M aher
Maher Bitar
U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
(H:PSCI)
FBI official's role in Clinton email investigation

un,der review
By James Rosen, Jake Gibson I Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/02/tbi-officials-
role-in-clinton-email-investigation-wider-review.html
Nunes blows op, threatens contempt after FBI
stonewalls Hoose oo Russia investigator demoted
for anti-Trump bias
by Byron York l Dec 2, 2017, 6:38 PM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.coffilbvron-york-nwies-
blows-up-threatens-contempt-after-tbi-stonewalls-house-
on-russia-investigator-demoted-for-anti-trump-
bias/article/264 23 87
(b) (6)
Chat with
Tuesday, December 12, 2017

(b) (6 )
Hi Sarah, Lachlan at the Da ily Beast. Betsy suggested I touch base 8:18 PM
about the document preview tonight? Just wanted to get on your
radar. lachlan.markay@theda ilybeast.com
Page 1
(b) (6)
Chat with

(b) (6)
Hi Sarah it's Jessica from the WSJ. Del asked me to head to the 10:09 PM
DOJ for an update. Can I get escorted?

Me
I can't escort at th is point. Folks are wrapping and I can 't be 10:10 PM
outside for that long.
(b) (6)
10:10 PM
Is there any other way to do it?
Me
5 committees on the hill have th is stuff 10:10 PM
(b) (6)
I can be there in a short wh ile 10:10 PM
(b) (6)
10:11 PM
Is there anyone else that can get me inside?
Me
Not at this point. Sorry. 10:12 PM
Page 1
(b) (6)
Ok wil l try to find a replacement, thanks all the same 10:13 PM
Page 2
Chat with Alex Pfeiffer
Nonresponsive Records
Page 1
Hey whats uo 8:46 PM
Page 7
Alex Pfeiffer
*up 8:46 PM
Alex Pfeiffer
responding to ur ca ll 8:46 PM
Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Alex Pfeiffer
10:08AM
Assuming last night's ca ll was about Strzok?
Me
Yes sorry--turned out only some outlets have nighttime access. 10:10AM
Annoying!
Page 8
Chat with Brent kendal l

Brent kendall
Hi Sarah it's Brent kenda ll from the Wall Street Journal. I'm on my
way over to take a look at these documents. But I wanted to make 10:24 PM
sure how long you were going to be there. Thanks. I have a hard
pass.
Me
I'll be here for another 30 minutes for sure. Beyond that, I hope to 10:26 PM
leave at 11 . I've been up since 4:)
Brent kendall
Thanks. I'm sure it's been a super long day. I'm driving now from 10:27 PM
Silver Spring. Google says I wi ll be there before 11.
Me
The issue is you can't take them with you 10:27 PM
Me
You have to read them here 10:27 PM
Me
And take notes 10:27 PM
Page 1
Brent kendall
Well if I am able to j ust take a quick look and at least confirm a few 10:39 PM
of the texts then I can feed to Aruba who is already writing. thanks
Brent kendall
Excuse the grammar I am dictating text whi le driving thanks 10:39 PM
Me
Not a problem at all 10:39 PM
Page 2
Chat with Charlie Savage
Page 1
Charlie Savage
Sarah -- Given RR testimony, can you please say who decided to

put out the texts yesterday and why? did he know/authorize? If 1:02 PM
there is anything else DOJ is saying about the matter, can you
please send it to me? Thanks!
Me
He j ust sa id the IG approved 1:03 PM
Charlie Savage
I am in cab with Katie be we are worried about missing the window

for her to subm it credential paperwork so not watch ing hearing. 1:11 PM
He sa id IG approved giving the stuff to the press specifically? I was
asked to get Main Justice explanation for that in particular.
Me
Off the record: I bent over backwards to include NYT including

standing in 20 degree weather be the person you sent didn't have
a badge. The IG approved it. Lawyers and ethics officials approved
it. But not to worry. We will note the press doesn't want access to 1:14 PM
information that we provide to congress and isn't subject to any
withholding exemption. This is unreal to me after how much grief
I've gotten from med ia of everything we haven't been able to
make available.
Me
Ian has a statement. You can work through him from now on. 1:14 PM
Charlie Savage
I understand where you are coming from and obj ected. They sa id
1:25 PM
be RR confirmed it was a question we had to ask. (I am not even
writing the story.)
Page 23
Me
OTR again: yep, and it will never happen again. Be I was the one
who j umped through al l those hoops to ensure it cou ld be release
legally and ethical ly. Next time I won 't bother. I'll go home before 1:28 PM
m idnight, get to eat dinner, and get more than 4 hours of sleep.
And you guys wi ll never know the difference.
Me
I was working from 4am to m idnight yesterday. Why would I ever

bother to do this again when my boss and I are both better off 1:29 PM
keeping press in the dark?
Me
That's the end of my rant. But you and the other beat reporters can 1:29 PM
expect a very d ifferent relationsh ip w the department.
Page 24
Chat with Del Wilbur
Page 1

Page 16
Del Wilbur
How late can we send the someone ? 10:06 PM
Del Wilbur
10:06 PM
We send someone?
Me
It would have to be someone w a badge 10:07 PM
Del Wilbur
How late? Where do they go? 10:08 PM
Page 17
Me
10th street entrance. I'll be here for another 30 minutes. 10:09 PM
Del Wilbur
Brent Kendall is going if you want to leave the texts somewhere he 10:20 PM
can find them
Me
Can't do that 10:20 PM
Me
I'll have to stay here with him 10:20 PM
Del Wilbur
Ah. Ok 10:20 PM
Me
Can 't take it or take pictures of it 10:21 PM
Del Wilbur
10:21 PM
Sorry. Ah

Del Wilbur
Thanks so much for your help last night. Much appreciated. Sorry 8:22AM
for my Paper's chaotic approach to it
Me
8:28AM
No prob
Del Wilbur
Left you some caffeine on your desk be of the late night, but then
rea lized you are probably on the hill...oops. I only watched it on 2:32 PM
cspan.
Me
Aww. That's really really kind of you. I feel pretty burned by
everything that happened th is morning w stories about how I 2:37 PM
probably violated the law or something silly. but I guess I just need
to get over it.
Del Wilbur
How did you do that? 2:37 PM
Page 18
Del Wilbur
I thought I saw something about it but assumed it was a reporter 2:37 PM

p issed they didn't get the info
Del Wilbur
I feel like Obama Doj wou ld sometimes let us see documents that
were sent to congress, too. I have a vague recollection of that. But I 2:38 PM
bet others in the press corp would recal l it. Some have rea l
memories for that kind of thing.
Del Wilbur
Welp, feel free to enjoy it. Once you get back, you can nuke it. I 2:39 PM
like that 350 coffee p lace
Del Wilbur
Can we get the texts now that they have been made public by 2:45 PM
congress?
Me
Anyone from congress is and has been welcome to give you the 3:01 PM
texts
Page 19
Chat with Eric Tucker
Page 1
Eric Tucker
8:05 PM
Can you g ive any more clarity as to what we're looking at?
Eric Tucker
Is the DAG recusing? 8:05 PM
Me
8:06 PM
No. It's responsive to congress.
Eric Tucker
Thanks very much. Related to unmasking? 8:11 PM
Me
Please stop guessing 8:11 PM
Eric Tucker
Last question: this isn't an exclusive for AP, is it? Like, others are 8:18 PM
going to be there as well, right?
Eric Tucker
Or is this just us 8:18 PM
Me
Correct. Not j ust you. 8:18 PM
Page 22
Chat with Ian & Alan

Alan
Hi Sarah and Ian, it's Alan from US News. I know you're 10:13AM
probably following - or with - Rosenstein th is morning.
0 Would you mind call ing when you have a moment?
Me
10:14AM
I'm at the hearing. Happy to text.
Alan
Wanted to touch base on the Strzok texts that were shared 10:18AM
0 yesterday.
Me
You bet. Let me know what you need. 10:57 AM
Page 1
Chat with Jake Gibson
Page 1

Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Me
7:00 PM
Plan on coming back to doj a little after 8
Jake Gibson
7:00 PM
I'm long gone
Jake Gibson
7:00 PM
U all right?
Me
Who from fox wants to come? 7:00 PM
Me
Can 't talk now. And it's j ust a standby for the moment. Wi ll provide 7:02 PM
more clarity when I can.
Jake Gibson
Canu ca ll me? 7:02 PM
Jake Gibson
Are u ta lking about doing something tonight?? 7:02 PM
Page 76
Jake Gibson
You mean to do an on cam interview tonight? I'd be happy to

7:07 PM
come back for that. But need to know if it 's a go, so I can get a
crew
Me
No. Nothing on camera . 7:08 PM
Me
This would be an info dump 7:08 PM
Jake Gibson
Oh... understood 7:08 PM
Jake Gibson
7:08 PM
Copy
Jake Gibson
Lemme know and I will book it a ckt 7:09 PM
Jake Gibson
Takes me like 30 mins door to door 7:09 PM
Jake Gibson
7:29 PM
Canu ta lk anytime soon?
Me
Head th is way 7:44 PM
Jake Gibson
What's going on? What t ime? All Beat reporters? 7:45 PM
Me
Not all beats 7:46 PM
Jake Gibson
7:53 PM
K
Jake Gibson
On way 7:53 PM
Jake Gibson
Almost there 8:27 PM
Jake Gibson
10 mins 8:27 PM
Page 77
Me
You 're fine 8:29 PM
om·e~usive Records
Page 78
Chat with John Roberts
Page 1
John Roberts
8:41 PM
Hey...what's going on there tonight?
Page 7
Chat with Julia Edwards Ainsley

Julia Edwards Ainsley
7:51 PM
You sa id tonight, right?
Me
Yes. 830. Documents to review. 7:51 PM
Page 1
Me
Nothing on camera 7:51 PM
Ok. I'm coming 7:57 PM

Hey thanks again for giving us all a heads up last night. It was a 4:50 PM
very smooth roll out --Julia Ainsley NBC
Page 2
Chat with Kelly Cohen
Page 1
Kelly Cohen
8:29 PM
be there in 17 minutes !
Me
8:29 PM
No prob!
Kelly Cohen
i'm outside and can't get in! so cold! 8:41 PM
Me
10th street? 8:42 PM
Kelly Cohen
yes! 8:42 PM
Page 3
Chat with Laura Jarrett
Page 1

Page 54
Me
Plan on coming back to doj a little after 8 6:59 PM
Laura Jarrett
Got it, here now. You upstairs? 7:01 PM
Me
Yeah. I' ll come down in a bit hopefully. 7:01 PM
Laura Jarrett
sounds good, let me know 7:01 PM
Page 55
Chat with Matt Zapotosky
Page 1
Matt Zapotosky
You 're gonna get Devlin instead of me (I'm techn ica lly on vacation 8:04 PM
today but am in DC).

Me
No prob! 8:06 PM
Page 50
Chat with Mike Levine
Page 1

Page 22
Me
Can u come to office tonight at 830? 7:45 PM
Mike Levine
I can make it there at 9. Is that ok? 8:01 PM
Me
Yep no prob 8:01 PM
Mike Levine
Coo l thanks 8:01 PM
Mike Levine
Thanks for making all that happen. 10:13 PM
Me
You bet. It's my job:) 10:13 PM
Page 23
Mike Levine
Ha true. Have a good night 10:14 PM
Mike Levine
Hi, do you know the date of the first earliest text message? 11:09 PM
Me
11:10 PM
8/16/15
Mike Levine
Thanks 11:10PM

Mike Levine
Hey, apparently NBC reported that the texts were released by DOJ. 7:42AM
My folks wanted me to check to see if we can say that too, or stil l
case that can't mention DOJ?
Me
No she said released by doj to the hi ll, which is true, if you read the 7:43AM
story
Mike Levine
7:45AM
Gotcha thanks
Page 24
Chat with Paula Reid
Page 1
Paula Reid
Any update? I am using this suspense as an excuse not to go to 6:34 PM

the gym.
Page 21
Me
Ha. Yeah no lid yet. I may ask y'all to come here after 8 if that 6:34 PM
helps. If not, it'll just be a phone call.
Paula Reid
Ok. Thank you. Will keep my ca lendar open. 6:35 PM
Me
Be here at 830 7:48 PM
Paula Reid
Which entrance works th is t ime of day? 7:49 PM
Me
The 10th street one and you go through the car entrance? 7:59 PM
Paula Reid
Cool. Tks 8:00 PM

Paula Reid
It seems you have had a s--t day, but I have a prime parallel 7:51 PM
example for you if you need precedent to defend last night.
Page 22
Chat with Pete Will iams

Me
7:45 PM
Can u or send someone to office tonight at 830?
Page 1
Chat with Sarah Lynch
Page 1
Sarah Lynch
Hey. How come no one told me that the texts wou ld be at doj 9:42AM
yesterday??
Sarah Lynch
Sarah - I am coming by later but I really hope we can avoid this in 9:51 AM
the future
Page 3
Me
Oversight on my part. I tried to get the outlets with overn ight

access and you 're right that Rueters does but for some reason I 10:11 AM
thought it didn't.
Sarah Lynch
Julia Harte might come by for me later. I think her hearing with end 10:11 AM
before Rod's.
Sarah Lynch
In future def loop me in. We have 24 hour staffing around the 10:12AM
globe
Page4
Bessee, Cecilia 0 . (OGC) (FBI)
From : Bessee, Cecilia 0. (OGC) {FBI)

Subject: Re: Items needing follow up
Thanks Scott. (b) (5)
From: "Schools, Scott (ODAG)" <[email protected]>
Date: 12/19/1 7 11;00 PM (GMT-05 :00)
To: "Besse e, Cecilia 0. {OGC) {FBI)" (b)(6)
Subject: RE: Items needing follow up
Document ID: 0.7.16060.118647

Daniel Friedman
From : Daniel Friedman

Subject: Question about Rosenstein Answer on IG consultation on Strzok texts
Ian,
I read the !G's letter, Flores statements and Rosenstein's answers on IG consultation.. It seems like Rosenstein's
statement to Raskin, in particular, while not clearly contradicted by Horowitz's letter, could have left
the impression that he consulted with the IG about releasing the texts to the media.
Rask:in's line of questioning was about release oftexts to the media. Then he asked about IG rule that prohibits
release of info that is part of an investigation.
Rosenstcin: "When this inquiry came in from Congress, we did consult with the Inspector General and he
determined that he had no objection to release ofthe material. Ifhe had, I can assure you I would not have
authorized the release."
So Rosenstein didn't say IG okayed release ofmessages to media, but it didn't exclude that
I assume you guys will say Rosenstein didn't mean to imply IG approved release oftexts to press. But is he
considering sending any kind of clarification to the committee on that?
I don't know how significant this is, but I don't want to read any other stuff you guys out in Business Insider
again.
I am coming around to the view that your guys knew Congress was gonna leak these anyway, so releasing
them in whole could be as your first statement said, an attempt to avoid confusion/more selective leaking.
Thanks,
Dan
202.290.5424
Document ID: 0.7.16060.115281

Alexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal)
From: Alexander, Matthew {NBCUniversal)

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 8 :52 PM
Subject: RE: Hi
We're aboutto do a "TRMS law school" special on the investigation with four former US Attorneys to go over
viewer legal Q' s. Should be good. Not sure how and to what extent this issue will come up. But I'll take the
IG statement when you get and I'll try and get ready for air ASAP.
Genuinely sorry your Friday sucks. FWIW- I second Rachel' s opinion.

We also know what it's like when people accuse you of bias just because of who you are/what you
represent. People who know nothing accuse us of being liberal shills who distort reality, and it's like No- we
actua lly try to report everything straight.
We have opinions, sure but we never lie or misrepresent what we believe to be the objective truth.
It's almostthe weekend.
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) [mailto:[email protected]]

Document ID: 0.7.16060.116913

Chuck Rou
From : Chuck Ross

Subje ct: Re: DOJ IG letter on Strzok texts
Thanks. I' ll wait for the OIG statement
• . . I. . •. I . . •• • .. •• ! • . .
Document ID: 0.7.16060.116863

Natasha Bertrand
From : Natasha Bertrand

Cc: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)
Subject : OIG response to House
Hi, does OOJ have any response to this letter sent by OIG to House Judiciary? (attached)
Thanks,
Natasha
Natasha Bertrand
Pol•tica• Correspondent Business lns1der
631 ~17.8409
@NatashaBertrand
Document ID: 0.7.16060.1 08490

Jarrett, laura
From: Jarrett, Laura

Subject: FW: GUIDANCE on DOJ - release of texts to media
From: Kupperman, Tammy

To: *CNN Executive Producers (b) (6) ( *DCOigitalEditor (CNN)
(b) (6)
Cc: Jarrett, Laura <[email protected]>
Subject: GUIDANCE on OOJ - release of texts to media
We should not report that DOJ says the release of the Strzok/Page tests was "not authorized/' That is not
t rue.
Spokesperson Sarah Isgur Flores has tweeted that the Department showed copies of texts to reporters
working in the building after copies were delivered to the Hill and after some media outlets got hold of
them.
Sarah Isgur Flores (@SarahFloresDOJ)
12/15/17, 10:51 AM
So Umeline in short: (1} Copies delivered to Congress, (2} Some media outlets are in possession of copies
of texts (3) Department shows copies of texts to reporters working in the building.
There has been some significant confusion about this due to an inaccurate Business Insider article. DOJ never
said that the release was unauthorized. The press shop said that some unnamed reporters received the texts
by some other means, not through DOJ. Here's the full statement, showing context:
"The Chairman and Ranking Members of each of the congressional committees were provided the
opportunity to have copies of the texts delivered to their offices. This was completed before any member of
the media was given access to view the same copy of the texts by the Department's Office of Public
Affairs. A.s we understand now, some members of the media had already received copies of the texts before
th.at - but those dis.closures were not authori zed by the Department.
As the Deputy Attorney General said in this testimony on Wednesday, when the initial inquiries came
from committees and members of Congress, the Deputy Attorney General consulted with the Inspector
General, and the Inspector General determined that he had no objection to the Department's providing the
material to the Congressional committees that had requested it. After that consultation, senior career ethics
advisors determined that there were no legal or ethical concerns, including under the Privacy Act, that
prohibited the release of the information to the public either by members of congress or by the
Department."
Document ID: 0.7.16060.116368

Darren Samuelsohn
From : Darren Samuelsohn

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA}; Josh Gerstein
Su bject: Re: closing the loop
Ok-done.
Thanks for sticking with me on this.
Apologies again for the delay getting back to you and t he confusion.
Thank yo~
Darren Samuelsohn
Senior reporter, POLffiCO
Desk: 703 -842-1769
Cell: (b) ( 6)
Dsamuelsohn'flpolitico.com
@ dsamuelsohn
From: "Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA}" <[email protected]>

To: Darren Samuelsohn <[email protected]>, Josh Gerstein <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: closing the loop
Document ID: 0.7.16060.115333

[email protected]
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA}
Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA); [email protected]
I'm sorry but just saw old tweet and accept your explanation of that. As for your second point I have
consulted with former officials who say they have NEVER heard of a previous release of evidence in an
active investigation. So I am disturbed that you are unwilling or unable to produce any real evidence to
support your case. As to advocacy, I only advocate the facts so you should judge me by what I actually
publish, and accept that answering aggressive questions is part of your job. The way I read this you are
trying to bully or intimidate me and that is quite inappropriate for someone in your position.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 14, 2017, at 11:23, Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA) <Sarah.lsgur.Flores@usdoj .gov> wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114697

New Byron York
From : New Byron York

Subje ct: Re: strzok texts
thanks
On Dec 13, 2017, at 6:02 PM, Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA} <[email protected]>
wrote:
Further. prior to release, career officials determined that the text messages could be released
under both ethical and legal standards.
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114913

[email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: texts from last night
Attachments: image001.jpg; image002.jpg; image003.jpg; image004.jpg; imageOOS.jpg
Tks. Kind of a mess and the RNC release looks like ugly politics.
Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 13, 2017, at 15:46, Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114670

Alexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal)
From: Alexander, Matthew (NBCUniversal)

Subject : RE: Sarah - Stupid Q
Ha, Ok I figured, Just.... Ahem, checking.
Thanks!
Busy day?;)
From: Flores, Sarah Isgur ( OPA) [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 4: 12 PM
To : Alexander, Matthew ( NBCUniversal)
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Sarah - Stupid Q
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114894

[email protected]
To: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA}
Subject : Re: A couple of Stnok questions
Copy of letter please. Tks mh
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 15:06, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yes, these are the pertinent texts as determined by the IG as our letter to congress addresses this.
Ian can send you a copy.
>
> We sent you a statement that career officials approved the release on legal and ethical grounds that
included the release to both congress and the media .
>
>> On Dec 13, 2017, at 2:53 PM, "[email protected]" <Mark.Hosenball@thomsonr
euters.com> wrote:
>>
>> Colleagues tell me There are clearly SMSs omitted from the message chains in these documents.
Who made the decision to omit them, the IG or DOJ? Secondly as I understand it career officials
authorized release of messages to Congress but not to Media. Who explicitly a uthorized media
release ? Tks mh
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114233

[email protected]
Subject : Re: A couple of Strzok questions
Ok this clarifies remaining issues. Tks
Sent from my iPhone
> On Dec 13, 2017, at 15:06, Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114231

Natasha Bertrand
From: Natasha Bertrand

Subject : Re: FW: DOJ invited reporters over to DOJ to vie w Strzok/Page texts
Can you disclose who invited the reporters to view the texts? Was it an initiative by the AG's office?
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Natasha Bertrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Ok. Thanks.
• . . .
.
• .. : ••• • • • • ! • . .
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114 176

d [email protected] .gov
Cc: Davis, Patrick (Judiciary-Rep)
Problem is we have the DAG before HJC right now. I know we are working on getting this over to y'all
asap. The document production was atypical and thus necessitated hand delivery. We did this for each
committee that requested this information.
David F. Lasseter
On Dec 13, 2017, at 10:17, Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep) <Jason [email protected]>

wrote:
I'm happy to deal with any of he other folks who I CC'd. Sounds like you are tending to
more important things.
On Dec 13, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Lasseter, David F. (OLA) <David.F. [email protected]>
wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114879

Zoe Tillman
From: Zoe Tillman

Cc: Prior, Ian (OPA); Pettit, Mark T. (OPA)
My colleague Emma loop will be going over to look at the docs, I've given her Mark's information and
she'll be reaching out shortly.
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Zoe Tillman <[email protected]> wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114 121

Chuck Ross
From: Chuck Ross

To: Flores, Sarai, Isgur (OPA)
Su bject: Re: Strzok texts
Thanks. I'll try to track 'em down.
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:59 PM, Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote :
I
Document ID: 0.7.16060.114313

Grace Wyler
From: Grace Wyler

To: Press; O'Malley, Devin (OPA}
Subject: Strzok/Page Texts?
Hi all -
Can you please send over any documents DOJ has released containing text messages between
Peter Striok and Lisa Page?
ThaflkS so much!
Grace
Grace Wyler I BuzzFeed News I News Editor I 310-804-77851 @grace_lightning

6824 Lexington Avenue. Los Angeles. CA 90038
Emma loop
From: Emma Loop

To: Pettit, Mark T. (OPA)
Subject: RE: Text messages
Will do, Thanks!
Emma Loop I BuzzFeed [ Capitol Hill Reporter, Washington I @LoopEmma

c: (b) ( 6)
On Dec 13, 201710:30 AM, "Pettit, Mark T. (OPA)" <[email protected]> wrote:
Perfect, and correct! Our visitor entrance is on the south side of the building (Constitution Street). Give
me a call on my cell when you are heading in and I will meet you up front.
Mark T. Pettit
Confidential Assistan1
Office: 202.514.1449
From: Emma Loop [mailto:emma.loop@buizfeed .com]

To: Pettit, Mark T. {OPA} <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Text messages
I have a hard pass for t he Hill, but I'm guessing the one you' re talking about is different.
Full name on ID is (b) (6) . I'll probably be there in about 4S minutes. You' re at 9S0
Pennsylvania, right?
Thanks again,
Emma
Emma Loop I BuzzFeed N-ews I Capitol Hill Reporter, Washington I c:- (on Signal} I d: 202-602-
1706 I PGP: http://bit.ly/2pCPtiT I Twitter: @LoopEmma I buzzfeed.com/emmaloop
Got a confidential tip? Here's how to send it to us: iips. buzzfee-d.com
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Pettit, Mark T. (OPA) <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Emma,
I am assuming you don't have a hard pass (if you do let me know). I will need your full name as it
appears on your ID and I et me know what time you plan on coming in and I can get you cleared.
- Mark
Mark T. Pettit
Confidential Assistant
Office; 202.514.1449
From: Emma Loop (mailto:[email protected]]

To: Pettit, Mark T. (OPA) <mtpettit@ jmd.usdoj.gov>
Subject: Text messages
Good morning Mark,
My colleague Zoe Titlman has been in touch with you about viewing the Strzok texts. She's in a
hearing and mentionea we need to view them in person at DOJ. Can you let me know how to go
about doing that?
Thank you,
Emma
Emma Loop I BuzzFeed News I Capitol Hill Reporter, Washingt0-n I c:- (on Signal) I d: 202-602-
1706 I PGP: http://bit.ly/2pCPtiT I Twitter: @LoopEmma I buzzfeed .comlemmaloop
Got a confidenti al tip? Hei e's how to send if to us: hos.buzzfeed.com

From: "Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)" <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: Seeking comment on crit icism today DOJ is undermining the
overall Mueller probe?
1. The Department ensmes that its release ofinformation from the Department
to members of Congress or to the media is consistent with law, including the
Privacy Act. As the Department's letter to Congress last night makes clear,
this information was provided in response to requests from several
Congressional committees for access to this information that was not subject
to withholding exceptions. N otice and delivery of this information was made
to the lawyers for the parties and the relevant congre.ssional committees. in
advance ofpublic release. Further, prior to release, cmeer officials
determined that the text mes.sages co:uld be released under both ethic.al and
legal standards.
2. We followed past practice by including the attnbutable nllIIlber in N ote 3. I
don't know where you heard that wasn' t the case, but your information is.
incorrect.
Off the record:

1. Huh?! rm a comms expert and can tell yon the absolute worst \Vay to
sensationalize these tweets. was. to dump them all at once the night before a
hearing. Truly. I could have let people say "Oh, rve read them and their
*re ally* bad and then let R members have them just a little bit before the Ds
and leaked out one at a time as w e refused to release them and every cable
news. show would wonder when the next tweet was coming and cover it
constantly. But instead I gave it to a dozen reporters all at once with the
same embargo time because I thought it was. the most fair way to treat
Document ID: 0.7.16897.9245

everyone mvo.lved m a drtflcult story. And, tranlcty, l tind 1t ottenSNe that
anyone would think my motives were other.vise-I take my job and my
responsibilities here seriously and hope you ask some ofthe beat reporters
here who work ,vith me every day.
2. Mueller' s team made the call on not releasing his ethics form despite me
telling them why we should-which should be obvious because if they
wanted to release it, they are in possession of it and could do a vohmtary
release at any time (as we did with the AG' s sf86 if you remember when that
was subject to FOIA exemption but we did a voluntary release). So perhaps
you should ask them to do that and see whether they give it to you.
Otherwise, this theory will be particularly hilarious when its in your story to
thesea team that fought me on it.
3. I haven' t even heard whatever yonre talking about leaking to CNK? Do
people actually think this? I watch a lot oftv and haven't seen it.
4. So what was RR thinking when he said he was satisfied with the job Mueller
was doing? When he's constantly defended his hiring choices today and said
employees were entitled to their political opinions? I mean, theres an equal
opposite version ofthis story from the other side that would have just as
much evidence that we' re helping Democrats cement the Mueller probe.
S. This is a funny story to me only because republicans .a re bitting us
CONSTAN1LY for not providing them information like why Stroyk was
removed from SCO in August when they asked back ±n October and
covering up for the FBI, Mueller, etc. But I guess I should thank you for
writing it since it might help us fend offthose constant attacks . ..
""""
Sarah Isgw: Flo:res
Di:rectorofPublicAffau:~
202.305.5808
From: Darren Samuelsohn [mailto:dsamuel sohn@politi co.com]

To: Flores, Sarah Isgur {OPA) <siflor es@jmd .usdoj.gov>
Subject: Seeking comment on criticism today DOJ is undermining the overall
Mueller probe?
Hi Sarah,
Writing a piece for tomorrow AM that raises the question that came out of today's
hearing that DOJ i s quietly helping Republicans put pressure on the Mueller probe.
I know the DAG was asked about this several different ways today about this, in
light of last night's news release on the Strozk-Page text messages.
We' re also raising in this story several other subtle events that have given Mueller
critics a chance to criticize the probe, including the addition of the $3.5 million in
costs added to the overall Mueller budget probe for DOJ components that the
report itself noted were not required to be included by law or past precedent; the
DAG's unusual and vague medi a stat.gment in June; DOJ refusing to
Document ID: 0.7.16897.9245

disclose details on the process that led up to the special counsel being granted an
ethics waiver to serve as speci al counsel; DOJ not coming to Mueller's defense
amid criticism t hat his office leaked the news to CNN on the first indictments in
late October.
Does DOJ want to comment in any way beyond the DAG' s remarks today, which I'm
pulling from extensi vely in my story. You can get back to me until 11:30 pm this
evening.
Thank you,
Darren Samuelsobn
Senior reporter, POLIDCO
-
Desk: 703-842-1769
Dsamuelsobn1i::,politico.com
@ dsamuelsohn
Document ID: 0.7.16897.9245


To: Natasha Bertrand
Subject : Re: Dems statement
Attachments: Screen Shot 2017-12-18 at 10.03.31 AM.png
Refer you to my earlier statements on twitter and the IGs statement on Friday night that I sent you.
On Dec 18, 2017, at 9:06 AM, Natasha Bertrand <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi there,
Wondering if DOJ plans to respond to this statement put out by the Dems late Friday
night:
<Screen Shot 2017-12-18 at 10.03.31 AM.png>
Natasha
Natasha Bertrand
Pol m:al Correspondent Business Insider
6313 r 8'109
@NatashaBertrand
Document ID: 0.7.16897.8690

"We arc disappointed and alarmed that some within the Justice Department would mislead us about whether or not officials had obtained the approval of the
Inspector General before releasing the text messages of Department employees to Congress and the press. This baffling breach of procedure raises the
question of whether these messages should have been released at this time and in this manner in the middle of an ongoing IG investigation. It also invites
questions about whether any responsible DOJ officials are going out of their way, not only to disparage the reputations of their colleagues, but to actively try
to undermine confidence in Special Counsel Robert Mueller and the investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election in an attempt to appease
or directly serve the interests of President Trump. This is a very serious matter, and we expect a full and complete explanation for these misstatements and
the underlying suspicious actions by the Department of Justice, including by the Public Affairs Officer, in the coming days."
Document ID: 0.7.16897.8690-000001

11.19.19. Sharingtextmessagesstrzokandpage

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document informationStrzok and Page communications. FOIA. 11/19/19

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

11.19.19. Sharingtextmessagesstrzokandpage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11.19.19. Sharingtextmessagesstrzokandpage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

tlnitnt ~tatrs ~rnatr

December 21, 2017

The Honorable Stephen E. Boyd

Dear Acting Assistant Attorney General Boyd:

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059131

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059132

Nine Documents Listed in the Department's Vaughn Index

United States Senator United States Senator

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059133

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5699-000001 20180326-0059134

From: Lasseter, David F. {OLA}

Kash - good afternoon. In response to your questions below:

From: Patel, Kash (b) (6) Cong1essional Email

Stephen and David,

Document ID: 0.7.16060.44889 20180326-0072136

From: Lasseter, David F. (OLA) [mailto:[email protected]]

Desk (b) (6)

<CHM ltr to DAG re Strzok & Page Communications - 12 Dec 17 .pdf>

Document ID: 0.7.16060.44889 20180326-0072137

From: Lasseter, David F. {OLA)

From: Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep} (b) ( 6)

From: Foster, Jason {Judiciary-Rep)

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072185

From: Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6)

Just tried you...call when you are able.

From: Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep) (b) ( 6)

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072186

From: Lasseter, Davi d F. (OLA) [mailto:[email protected]]

From : Lasset er, David F. {OLA)

Monday 18 Dec 2-Spm

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072187

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5321 20180326-0072188

From: Lasseter, David F. {OLA)

Jason-good morning. (b) ( 6)

On Dec 13, 2017, at 09:19, Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep) (b) (6)

Document ID: 0.7.16060.62075 20180326-0072202

From: Lasseter, David F. {OLA)

Gotcha. (b) (5)

They refused to make a staffer available. (b) (5)

On Dec 13, 2017, at 09:28, Boyd, Stephen E. (OLA) (b) ( 6)

Sent from my iPhone

Be-gin forwarded message:

From: "Foster, Jason {Judiciary-Rep)"

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5206 20180326-0072206

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5206 20180326-0072207

From : Lasseter, David F. {OLA)

On Dec 12, 2017, at 21:04, Foster, Jason (Judiciary-Rep} (b) (6)

Document ID: 0.7.16060.5194 20180326-0072228

From : Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)

Suah Isgui- Flom

From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)

PLEASE CORRECT .IMMEDIATELY

Suah Isgui- Flore~

From: Darren Samuelsohn [mailto:[email protected])

Document ID: 0.7.16060.93256 20180326-0063931

Document ID: 0.7.16060.93256 20180326-0063932

From: Flores, Sarah Isgur (OPA)

Here's my on the record response: