Rep. Jordan Questions FBI Dir. Wray on Peter Strzok & the FISA Application

Contact Your Elected Officials

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. Director, was Agent Peter Strzok the former deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI?

Mr. WRAY. I do not remember his exact title, but I believe that is correct.

Mr. JORDAN. And he is 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 Secretary Clinton’s interview, and he is 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?

Mr. WRAY. Well, Congressman, I do not know every step that the individual you mentioned was involved in. But certainly, I know that he was heavily involved in the Clinton email investigation.

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you. And is this the same Peter Strzok who 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?

Mr. WRAY. I certainly know that he was working on the special counsel’s investigation. Whether or not he would be characterized as a key player on that investigation, that is really not for me to say.

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. 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 displayed a pro-Clinton bias. Is that accurate?

Mr. WRAY. Yes.

Mr. JORDAN. We are talking about the same guy.

Mr. WRAY. Yes.

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Well, here is what I am not getting. Peter Strzok is selected to be on Mueller’s team, after all this history, put on Mueller’s team, and then he is removed for some pro-Clinton text messages.

I mean, there are all kinds of people on Mueller’s team who are pro-Clinton. There has been all kind 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 is anti-Trump.

If he kicked everybody off Mueller’s team who was anti-Trump, I do not think there would be anybody left. There has got to be something more here. It cannot just be some text messages that show a pro-Clinton, anti-Trump bias. There has got to be something more and I am trying to figure out what it is. But my hunch is, it has something to do with the dossier. Director, did Peter Strzok helped produce and present the application to the FISA court to secure a warrant to spy on Americans associated with the Trump campaign?

Mr. WRAY. Congressman, I am not prepared to discuss anything about a FISA process in this setting.

Mr. JORDAN. We are not talking about what happened in the court; we are talking about what the FBI took to the court, the application. Was he involved in taking that to the court?

Mr. WRAY. I am not going to discuss, in this setting, anything to do with the FISA court applications.

Mr. JORDAN. Well, let’s remember a couple things, Director, and I know you know this. We have all been made aware of this in the last few weeks. Let’s remember a couple things about the dossier. The Democrat 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 has 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 of granting a warrant to spy on Americans. And I am 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.

Mr. WRAY. Congressman, our staffs have been having extensive interaction with both intelligence committees on our interaction with the FISA court, and I think that is the appropriate setting for those questions.

Mr. JORDAN. Here is 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 is the guy who took the application to the FISA court.

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 it gets. And you know what? Maybe I am wrong. You can clear it all up. You can 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. We sent you a letter two days ago; just release the application. Tell us what was in it. Tell us if I am wrong. But I do not think I am. I think that is exactly what happened. And if it did, it is as wrong as it could be. And people who did that need to be held accountable.

Mr. WRAY. Congressman, we will not hesitate to hold people accountable after there has been an appropriate 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 and when they are found.

As to the access to the dossier, that is something that is a subject of ongoing discussion between my staff and the various intelligence committees.

Mr. JORDAN. There is nothing prohibiting you, Director. Is there anything prohibiting you from showing this committee what was presented to the FISA court? 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?

Chairman GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. The director can respond.

Mr. WRAY. I do not believe that I can legally and appropriately share a FISA court submission with this committee.

Mr. JORDAN. I am talking about what the FBI put together, not what the court had. What you took there. The process put together, what you presented, what you took to the court.

Mr. 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 is part of why I will not be discussing it here.

Mr. JORDAN. Director, is it likely that Peter Strzok played a part in the application presented to the FISA court?

Chairman 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 and very much want to receive.

Mr. JORDAN. A question to the chairman. Yeah, I do not think there is anything prohibiting the FBI from giving us what they use to put together what was taken to the FISA court. That is what we are asking for. And there is nothing prohibiting him from doing that.

Chairman GOODLATTE. I do not think there is either. The time of the gentleman has expired, however. Do you care to respond to that, Director Wray?

Mr. WRAY. No. I think I have covered it.

Biden Doesn't Have Americans Best Interest At Heart