James Comey Briefings

It is frustrating when the FBI refuses to answer this committee's

questions. But leaks relevant information to the media. In other

words, they don't talk to us, but somebody talks to the media.

Director Comey, have you ever been an anonymous source in news reports

about matters relating to the Trump investigation or the Clinton

investigation? Never. Question two on relatively related... Have few

other authorised somebody else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in

news reports about the Trump investigation or by investigation?

No. Has any classified information relating to President Trump or his

associates being declassified and shared with the media? Not to my

knowledge. You testified the four by House intelligence committee --

before the House intelligence committee that a lot of classified

matters have ended up in the media recently. Without getting into any

particular article, and I want to emphasise that, without getting into

any particular article, is there an investigation of any leaks of

classified information relating to Mr Trump or his associates? I don't

want to answer that question, Senator, for reasons I think you

know. There have been a variety of leaks, leaks are always a problem,

but especially in the last 3-6 months. And where there is a league

of classified information, the FBI, if that is our information, makes a

referral to the Department of Justice, or if it is another

agency's information, they do the same, and the DOJ authorises an open

of an investigation. I don't want to confirm if there are any

investigations open. I want to challenge you on that. The

Government regularly acknowledges when it is investigating classified

leaks. You did that in the Valerie plane case, what is the difference

here? The most important difference is that I don't have authorisation

from the Department to confirm any of the investigations they have

authorised. It may be that we can get that at some point, but I'm not

going to do that in the open setting without having talked to them. You

can expect me to follow up on that offer. Sure. There are several

senior FBI officials who would have had access to the classified

information that was leaked, including yourself and the deputy

director. So how can the Justice Department guarantee the integrity

of the investigations without designating an agency of than the

FBI to gather the facts and illuminate senior FBI officials?

Well, I'm not going to once about any particular investigations, but I

know of situations in the past where if you think the FBI or its

leadership are suspect, you have another investigative agencies abort

the investigation by federal prosecutors. It could be done, and

it has been done in the past -- support the investigation. Moving on

to another subject. The New York Times recently reported that the FBI

had found a crumbling e-mail among the ones -- a troubling e-mail among

the ones found from Democratic operatives. The e-mail reportedly

provided assurances that Attorney General Lynch would project academic

written by making sure that -- would protect Secretary Clinton by making

sure that the investigation did not go too far. How and when did you

first learn of this document? Also, who sent it and who received it?

That is not a question I can answer in this forum, Mr Chairman, it would

call for a classified response. I have briefly to ship the

intelligence committees on that particular issue, but I cannot talk

about it here so I have briefed leadership. You can expect me to

follow up with you on that point. Sure. What is that that did the FBI

take to determine -- what steps did the FBI take to determine if

Attorney General Lynch had... Did the FBI interview the person who

wrote the e-mail? I cannot talk about that in an unclassified

setting. OK, then you can expect me to follow up on that. I asked the

FBI to provide this e-mail to the committee before today's hearing.

Why haven't you done so? And were you provided by the end of this

weeks -- will you provide it? To react to that, I have to give a

classified answer, and I can't give it sitting here. So that means you

called give me the e-mail? I'm not confirming there was an e-mail,

surf. The subject is classified. In an appropriate forum, I would be

happy to brief you on it, but I can't do it in an open hearing. I

issue that other members of the committee can have access to that

briefing if they want -- I assume. I want to talk about going dark, a few

years ago you testified before the committee about going dark problem

and the inability of law enforcement to access encrypted data despite the

existence of a lawfully issued court order. You continue to raise this

issue in your public speeches, most recently at Boston College. My

question, you mentioned at the beginning in your testimony briefly,

but can you provide the committee with a more detailed update on the

status of the going dark problem, and how it has affected the FBI's

ability to access encrypted data. Has there been any progress

collaborating with the technology sector to overcome any problems, at

our hearing in 2015 you said you didn't think legislation was

necessary. At that time. Is that still your view? Thank you, Mr

Chairman. The shadow created by the problem we call going dark continues

to fall across more and more of our work. Take devices, for example. The

ubiquitous default for this encryption devices is affecting now

about half of our work. The first it's months of this fiscal year, FBI

examiners were presented with over 6000 devices, forward we have lawful

authority, search warrant a court order to open, and 46% of those

cases we could not open those devices with any technique. That

means half of the devices that we encounter in terrorism cases, in

counterintelligence cases, in gang cases, cannot be opened with any

technique. That is a big problem. And so the shadow continues to fall.

I'm determined to continue to make sure the American people and

Congress know about it. I know this is important to the president and

the new Attorney General. I don't know yet how the new administration

intends to approach it, but it is something we have to talk about,

because like you, I care a lot about privacy, I also care a lot about

public safety. And there continues to be a huge collision between those

two things we care about. I look forward to continuing that

conversation, Mr Chairman. You didn't respond to the part about you

still have the view that legislation is not needed? I don't know the

answer yet. I hope I said last time I talked about this, it may require

a legislative solution at some point. The Obama administration was

not in a position where they were seeking legislation. I don't know

yet how President Trump intends to approach this. I know he spoke about

it during the campaign and he cares about it, but it is per for me to

say. -- it is premature for me to say. Director, I have one question

regarding my opening comment. And I view it as the most important

question. And I hope you will answer it. Why was it necessary to announce

11 days before a presidential election that you were opening an

investigation on a new computer without any knowledge of what was in

that computer? Why didn't you just do the investigation, as you would

normally, with no public announcement? A great question,

Senator, thank you. October 27, the investigative team that had finished

the investigation into life focused on Secretary Clinton's e-mail, I met

with them later that morning in my conference room. They laid out to me

what they could see from the meta data on Anthony Weiner's laptop,

that had been seized in an unrelated case. What they could see from the

meta data was that there were thousands of Secretary Clinton's

e-mails on that device. Including what they thought might be the

missing e-mails from her first three months as Secretary of State. We

never found any e-mails from her first three months. She was using

Akers and blackberry then, that is very important. If there was

evidence that she was acting with intent, that is where it would be.

But they were not there? , I finish my answer, Senator? They said, we

can see thousands of e-mails from the Clinton e-mail domain, including

many from the rise and blackberry domain. They said, we think we have

to get a search warrant. -- from the Verizon. The Department of Justice

agrees, and by authorised them to seek a search warrant, I faced my

choice. I have lived my entire career by the solution that you can

possibly avoid it, you avoid any action in the run-up to an election,

why you might have an impact, but I sat there that morning and I could

not see a door labelled no action here. I could see two doors, and

they were both actions. One was labelled speaks, the other was

labelled conceal. Here is how I thought about it, I want you to know

my thinking. Having repeatedly told this Congress, we are done, there is

nothing there, there is no case there, to restart in a hugely

significant way, potentially finding the e-mails that would like to her

intent from the beginning, and not speak about it, that would acquire

an active concealment, in my view. I stared at speak and conceal. Speak

would be really bad, there is an election in 11 days, that would be

bad. Concealing in my view would be catastrophic, not just to the FBI

but well beyond. And honestly, between really bad and catastrophic,

I said to my team, we've got to walk into the world of really bad, I've

got to tell Congress that we are restarting this. Not in some

burglars way, in a hugely significant way. -- not in a

frivolous way. The team worked night after night and they filed thousands

of new e-mails. They found classified information on Anthony

Weiner, somehow her e-mails had been forwarded to Anthony Weiner,

including classified information, by her assistant, Huma Abedin. They

found thousands of new e-mails, they called me the Saturday night before

the election and said, thanks to the wizardry of our technology, we have

only had to personally read 6000. We think we can finish tomorrow

morning, Sunday. I met with them and they said, we found a lot of new

stuff. We did not find anything that changes our view of her intent. We

are in the same place we were in July. It hasn't changed our view. I

asked them lots of questions. I said, OK, if that's where you are I

have to tell Congress this is done. This is terrible, it makes me

nauseous to think that we might have had impact on the election, but it

would not change the decision. Everybody who disagrees with me has

to come back to October the 28th with me and stare at this and tell

me what you would do. Would you speak or would you conceal? I could

be wrong, but we honestly made a decision between those two choices

that even in hindsight, this has been one of the world's painful

experiences, I would make the same decision, I would not conceal it on

October 28 from the Congress. I sent a letter to Congress, I did not make

a public announcement, I send a private letter to the chairs on the

rankings of the oversight committees. I know it is a

distinction without a difference in the world of leaks, but it was very

important that I tell them instead of consuming. Reasonable people can

disagree, but that is the reason that I made that choice, and it was

a hard choice. I still believe in retrospect it was the right choice,

as painful as this has been. I'm sorry for the long answer. That you

respond, on the letter it was just a matter of minutes before the world

knew about it. Secondly, my understanding and the staff has just

said to me that you didn't get a search warrant before making the

announcement. That is right. We are going to seek

a search warrant. I don't see it as a meaningful distinction. It is very

hard. You took an enormous gamble, the gamble was that there was

something there that would invalidate her candidacy and there

wasn't. So one has to look at that action in and say did it affect the

campaign? I think most people who have looked at this say, yes it did

affect the campaign, why would he do it? Was there any conflict among

your staff, people saying do it, people saying don't do it, as has

been reported? No. There was a great debate. I have a fabulous staff at

all levels and one of my junior lawyers said should you consider

that what you are about to do elect Donald Trump president. Hanky for

raising that, but I can't consider for a second whose political

fortunes will be affected in which way. I had to ask what is the right

thing to do. I am proud of the way debated it and everyone on my team

agreed that we have to tell Congress that we are restarting this in a

hugely significant way. There is a way to do that. I don't know whether

it would work, but certainly in a classified way, carrying out your

tradition of not announcing investigations. I look at this

exactly the opposite way you do. Everybody knew it would influence

the investigation before. But there was a very large percentage of

chance that it would. And that percentage of chance was taken.

There was no information and the election was lost. It seems to me

that before your department does something like this, you really

ought to... Because another senator began to talk about other

investigations and this theory does not hold up when you look at other

investigations. Let me go on to 702 because you began your comments

saying how important it is and coming yes, it is,. We've got a

problem the issue that we need to address as the FBI's practice of

searching 702 data using you as person identifiers as query terms

and some have called this a unconstitutional back door search.

Others see it as essential in ensuring terrorists don't slip

through the cracks as they did before. Could you give us your views

on that and how it could be handled to avoid the charge which may bring

down 702? Thank you, Senator. An important issue. The way 702 works

is that under the provision of the statute, the Pfizer Court, federal

judges, authorised us as US agencies to collect information overseas if

they are using American infrastructure. The criticism we

have got since 911 is you have to make sure you are in a position to

connect the dots. You can't have stove piped information. We have

responded to that, mostly the great work of my process, we collect

information under 702, it does not sit in a separate stovepipe. It sits

on a single cloud type environment, so that if I am opening an

investigation in the United States on a terrorism, criminal matter and

I have the name of the suspect, telephone, e-mail addresses, I

searched the FBI databases. That search necessarily will also touch

the information that is collected by 702 so that we don't miss a dot, but

nobody gets access to the information that sits in the 702

database unless they have been trained correctly. If there is,

let's imagine that terrorists overseas were talking about a

suspect in the knighted States, or were Connacht someone's --... We

open the case in the United States and put in that name that e-mail

address, it will touch that data and tell us that there is information in

the 702 database that is relevant. If the agent doing the query is

properly trained, they can see that information. If they are trained,

they will be alerted and they will have to get the appropriate training

to see it. To do it otherwise is to risk asked where it matters most in

the United States failing to connect dots. My view is that the

information that is the 702 database has been lawfully collected,

carefully overseen and checked and our use of it is also appropriate

and overseen and checked. You are an masking the data. -- unmasking. I

don't know what that means in this context. We collect data collected

from a lawful source all on place and we don't miss a dot. What we

make sure is that no one can see the information unless they have the

appropriate training and oversight. My time is up. Thank you. Senator

Hatch. In January I introduced the rapid DNA act. It is bipartisan.

Chairman, I want to thank you for putting this bill on the agenda for

tomorrow's business meeting. This is the same build that the Senate

unanimously passed last year and this technology allows developing a

DNA profile and performing database comparisons in less than two hours.

The following standards and procedures will allow law

enforcement to solve crimes and innocent advocates to exonerate the

wrongfully accused. You came before this committee in December 2015 and

I asked you then about this legislation. You said it would help

us change the world in a very exciting way. Is that still your

view of the value of this legislation and do you believe that

Congress should act on this without getting tangled up another criminal

justice reform issues? I agree very much. Rapid DNA will materially

advance the safety of the American people. If the police officer in the

United States has in their custody someone who is a rapist, before

letting them go on some lesser offence, they will be able to

quickly check the DNA database and get a hit that will save lives, that

will protect all kinds of people from pain. It is a great thing.

Thank you. You're prepared statement touches on what the FBI is doing to

protect children from predators. Personnel and youth serving

organisation such as employees, coaches, volunteers, often work with

unsupervised use. That magnifies the need for a thorough evaluating when

they join. I introduced a child protection improvement act which

gives youth serving organisation greater access to the nationwide FBI

fingerprint background checks system. Do you believe that

providing organisations like the YMCA and the Girl Scouts of America

greater access to the FBI fingerprint background checks is an

important step in keeping child predators and violent criminal away

from our children. I do. I think the more information you can put in the

hands of the people who are vetting the better. We have an exciting new

feature of the FBI's fingerprint system called wrap back, once you

check someone was Mike identification, check they have no

record. They later develop one, you can be alerted to it if it happens

later. That makes a big difference. Thank you for sub is broken at

length about the so-called going dark programme. Strong encryption

technology enters the ability of law enforcement to access the personal

data on smartphones and similar devices. You're prepared testimony

for today's hearing addresses this issue. I have expressed significant

concern about proposals that would require devices or software

manufacturers to build a back door into their programming to allow law

enforcement to access a cryptic data in the course of investigations. I

remain convinced that such back doors can be created without

seriously compromising the security of cryptic devices. I believe this

is an issue where law enforcement and stakeholders need to work

together to find solutions rather than coming to Congress with one

size fits all legislative fixes. What are you doing to engage with

stakeholders in this issue and what kind of progress are you making if

you can tell us? Thank you. Good news on that front. We have had very

open and productive conversations with the private sector over the

last 18 months. Everybody realises that we care about the same things.

We all love and care about privacy and public safety. None of us want

back doors. We don't want access to devices built in in some way. What

we want to work with the manufacturers on is to figure out

how can we accommodate both interests in a sensitive way? How

can we optimise the privacy, security features of their devices

and allow court owners to be complied with? We are having good

conversations. I don't know where they will end up. If you're going to

make devices of the United States is, you figure out how to sort it

out. We now have almost a decade of experience using a statute so we

have more to go on. The gamut intelligence value of 702 is

documented and it has never been intentionally misused or abused.

Every federal court has addressed the issue has concluded that 702 is

lawful and that both parties have strongly supported it. Describe the

targeting and minimisation procedures or section 702 and how

each agency's procedures oversee the executive branch. They said my

opening, 702 is a critical tool to protect this country. The way it

works is we are allowed to conduct surveillance under the supervision

of the foreign intelligence court on non-US persons who are outside the

net United States if they are using American infrastructure. It does not

involve US persons or activity in the United States. Each agency as

you said has detailed procedures as to how we will handle this

information. It is approved by the Pfizer court. Not only will we

overseen the Pfizer court, we are being overseen by the US general.

There have been no abuses. Every court that has used this has said

this is appropriate under the fourth Amendment, under the statute, it was

an act passed by a democratically controlled Congress and then renewed

by a Republican-controlled Congress and upheld by every court that has

looked at it. I am telling you what the rest of the intelligence

community has said, we need this to protect the country. This should be

an easy conversation to have, but often people get confused about the

details and mix it up with other things. It is our job to make sure

we expend it clearly. My time is up. I will turn to you. Welcome back.

You mentioned you like the annual meeting. We didn't have one last

year. Last year was the first one in 15 years that the FBI did not

testify for this committee. A lot has happened in the last year and a

half. Senator Feinstein noted that Americans across the country have

been confused and disappointed by your judgment in having an

investigation into Secretary Clinton's e-mails. On a number of

occasions, you chose to comment rectally and extensively on that

investigation. You even released internal FBI memos and notes. I have

missed this may be, but I have never seen anything like this. You said

nothing about the investigation into the Trump campaign into Russia. Was

it appropriate for you to comment on one investigation repeatedly and not

say anything about the other? I think so. Can I explain? I only have

so much time. People forget, we would not confirm

the existence of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation until three

months after it began, even though it began with a public referral and

the candidate herself talked about it. In October of 2015, we confirmed

it existed and then said not another word, not a peep about it until we

were finished. It was a critical time, a couple of weeks before the

election. I think there are other things involved in that election.

But there is no question that that had a great effect. Historians can

debate what kind of an effect it was. But you did do it. In October,

the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign's connection to Russia. You

sent a letter informing the Senate House that you were reviewing

additional e-mails. It could be relevant to this. But both

investigations were open but you still only commented on one. I

commentated, as I explained earlier, in a letter I sent to the chair and

rankings of the oversight committees that we were taking additional steps

in the Clinton e-mail investigation because I had passed the fight under

oath repeatedly that we were done, that we were finished. -- I had

testified under oath. We treated the Trump investigation like the Clinton

investigation, we didn't say a word about it until months into it, and

we only confirmed that we were investigating. We are not going to

say anything about it until we are done, and I don't know when that

will be, but that is the way we handled the Clinton investigation as

well. That we ask you this, during the investigation into Hillary

Clinton's e-mail, a number of people like Rudy Giuliani claimed to have a

pipeline to the FBI. Numerous agents talk to them all the time, and I

quote. Regarding the investigation. He even said that he had insinuated

he had advanced warning about the e-mails described in your October

letter. A former FBI agent made similar claims. Either they are

lying, or this is a serious problem within the bureau. The FBI during

this 2016 campaign have contact with Rudy Giuliani about the Clinton

investigation -- did anybody from the FBI? I don't know yet. But if I

found out that people were making information about our investigation

there will be severe consequence -- that people were leaking. I don't

know yet. Do you know anything about other former agents? I don't know

yet. But it is a matter that I am very, very interested in. But you

are looking into it? Correct. And once you have found that answer,

will be provide it to ask was young I will provide it to the committee

in some form. I don't know whether I will be able to say it publicly, but

I will let you know. There are reports that senior officials in the

Trump campaign of penetration are connected to the Russian

investigation. Like the Attorney General. Many members of this

committee have urged the deputy Attorney General, and he has that

authority, to appoint a special console to protect the independence

of the investigation. I recall, and I was here in December 2003 shortly

after you were confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, then Attorney

General Ashcroft accused himself in the investigation of the Valerie

plainly. You immediately appointed a special council, I think you

appointed... What led you to that decision? In that particular

investigation, my judgment was that the appearance of fairness and

independence required that it be removed from the political chain of

command within the Department of Justice because, as you recall, it

seems like a lifetime ago, but that involved the conduct of people,

senior level people in the White House. And my judgment was that even

I, as an independent minded person, was a political appointee, and I

should give it to a career person like Pat Fitzgerald. What about the

situation now? We have a Deputy Attorney General, I voted for his

confirmation, but should he be not the one to be investigating campaign

contacts when his boss, the Attorney General, was a central figure in

that campaign? That is a judgment you will have to make. He is, as I

hoped I was as deputy Attorney General, is very independent minded

career oriented person. It would be premature for me to comment on that.

President Trump said that the hacking on the DNC and other efforts

to influence the election could have been a lot of different groups. Is

that contrary to what the intelligence community has said? The

intelligence community with high confidence concluded it was Russian.

In many circumstances it is hard to do attribution of a hack. But

sometimes the intelligence is there. We have high confidence that the

North Koreans hacked Sony, and that the Russians that the hacking of the

DNC and other organisations. I have a lot of other questions that I will

submit. I want to praise the response of the FBI and South

Burlington, for -- Vermont. We had anonymous e-mails coming in,

threatening serious action against students at a high school.

Escalating cyber threats, including detailed death threats, multiple

lockdowns and all. The FBI were close to the college for digital

investigation, which you visited a number of years ago. It was a

textbook example collaboration between state, local and federal

authorities. And I want to thank all of those, it turned out to be very

disturbed young man who was doing it. But you only had to turn on the

TV and see what happens in different parts of the country, how worried we

were in Beaumont. I just want to thank you FBI agents for their help.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Graham will be next. Good morning, director

Comey. I'm disappointed to see that former Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton was in the news yesterday, essentially blaming you and blaming

everything other than herself for her loss on November the 8th. I find

it ironic, because you're not the one who made the decision to handle

classified information on a private e-mail server. You're not the one

who decided to have a private meeting with Secretary Clinton's

husband in the of the Justice Department's ongoing investigation

into Secretary Clinton's server. I use the word investigation here

because according to a recent piece in the New York Times you were

forbidden from using the word investigation and were instead told

to refer to the investigation, which it was, as a matter. Of course, it

was the former Attorney General Loretta Lynch who up until that

meeting with President Clinton was the person responsible for making

the decision of whether to convene a grand jury involved in key

allegations against Secretary Clinton. It was former Attorney

General Loretta Lynch who apparently forbade you from using the word

investigation. Indeed, if the New York Times' story is true, a

Democratic operative expressed confidence that the former Attorney

General would keep that investigation from going very far. I

think you were given an impossible choice to make. And you did the best

you could in light of the situation that you were presented with. And it

strikes me as somewhat sad for people here and elsewhere to condemn

the queue for notifying Congress shortly before the election -- to

condemn you. Secretary Clinton had made the decision to use a private

e-mail server. And I think it is important to remind folks that you

are not the one who decided to do business this way and keep State

Department e-mails on a computer of someone suspected of child

pornography. Again, I believe you were placed in and incredibly

difficult position and did the best you could. I was one of those who

felt that given the nature of the investigation and concerns that a

special council should have been appointed to conduct the

investigation, but of course the Attorney General Lynch and the Obama

administration opposed that effort. So I just wanted to express to you

my disappointment that this continued seeking of a reason, any

reason, other than the flawed campaign of the candidate herself

for Secretary Clinton losing the presidential election. If I can turn

to a couple of other substantive items here. You have mentioned 702,

the reauthorisation. I believe you referred to this is the Crown Jewels

of the FBI and counterterrorism investigations. Could you explain

why this provides such a unique to all, and why you regard it as

literally the Crown jewels of the FBI -- unique to all. Thank you,

Senator. Every time I talk about this publicly and went a little bit

because I don't want bad people around the world to focus on this

team at. It really bad people around the world, because of the genius of

American innovation, use our products and infrastructure, for

their e-mails and communications. What 702 allows us to do is quickly

target terrorists, weapons of mass destruction proliferators, spies,

cyber hackers, non-Americans who are using our infrastructure to

communicate, target than quickly and collect information on them. It is

vital to all parts of the intelligence community because of

its agility, its speed and its effectiveness. Again, in an open

setting we can't explain what you worried you know from classified

briefings about what a difference this makes. -- what you already

know. Because America is the mother of this innovation, they use a lot

of our agreement and that works to communicate with each other. If we

were ever required to establish the normal warrant process for these

non-Americans while not in our country, just because the photons

they are using to plan attacks across our country's runs, we would

be tying ourselves in not -- for reasons that make no sense at all.

We talked last year about the meta data database, that is a useful

tool. It does not compare in importance to 702. We cannot lose

702. I agree. It is a bit difficult to talk about things that are

involved classified matters in public. But I think the public needs

to know that there are multiple oversight layers, including the

Pfizer court. Congressional oversight, internal oversight within

the FBI and intelligence community that protect Americans under their

privacy rights whilst targeting terrorists and people who are trying

to kill us. I want to talk a minute about the electronic communication

transactional records, something that you and I have discussed before

as well. The FBI can use national Security letters, I believe, to get

financial information and telephone numbers now in the conduct of a

terrorist investigation. But because of a type of in the law the FBI has

not been allowed access to the meta data and national security cases --

because of a type of. To the extent that is necessary. Can you talk to

us about the importance of that particular fix, the electronic

Communications and transactional records six? Thank you so much,

Senator. This seems like a boring deal but it makes a big impact on

our work. In counterterrorism cases and counterintelligence cases, we

can issue with all kinds of layers of approval in the FBI, a national

Security letter to find out the subscriber to a particular telephone

number and to find out what numbers that telephone number was in contact

with. Not the content of those communications, but just the

connection. Because of what I believe is a typo in the law, and if

I'm wrong Congress will tell me they intended this, they say they do not

have the statutory authority to serve an NSL national Security

letter defined by subscriber to a particular e-mail handle or what

addresses were in contact with what addresses. Although we can do the

same with telephone communications. I don't think Congress intended that

distinction, but what it does us in our most important investigations is

that if we want to find out the subscriber to repeatedly e-mail

handle to go and get an order from a federal judge in Washington as part

of the Pfizer court, and incredibly long and difficult process. And I'm

worried about that slowing us down, and I'm also worried about it

becoming a disincentive for our investigators to do it at all.

Because of you are working a case in San Antonio or Seattle, you are

moving very, very quickly. If I have to go to get subscriber information

on in e-mail address to a federal court in Washington, I'm probably

going to try and find some other way around it. If that is what Congress

wants, we will follow the law. I don't think that was ever intended,

so I hope the West will fix what I believe was a typo. Thank you. I

have other questions for the record. Thank you.

We are going over to vote. I would also like to have both Democrat and

Republicans notify me they want a second round. So I can get in

inventories of that. Thank you, welcome back, director Comey. As you

are well aware, Russia is actively working to undermine our democracy

and hurt American businesses at the same time. Now more than ever

Americans are looking to Congress for the leadership, and we must be a

united front. And I'm appreciative of some of the members of this

committee on the Republican side who have spoken out about this. We must

be united as we seek information from the administration. Last month

during a hearing at the House intelligence committee, you confirm

that the FBI is investigating the Russian government's efforts to

interfere in the 2016 presidential election. Including any links

between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. I know that you

cannot discuss that ongoing investigation. But just one question

to clarify - you commit to ensuring that the relevant to national

committees receive a full and timely briefing on that investigation's

findings? In general I can, Senator, I need

Department of Justice's approval to brief on particular people. We've

briefed in the rankings, including this committee, on who we have cases

on and what we are doing and how we are using various sources of

information. I doepted be know if the department will approve that for

the entire committees. And do you now go to Rod Rosen Steyn, given the

other person is recuesed? Yes I briefed him in his first day in

office. He would be the person to make that decision. In your

testimony, you note that the Justice Department brought charges against

Russian spies and criminal hackers in connection with the 2014 Yahoo

cyber attack in February. An example of a cyber attack in our economy. In

December of 2016, the FBI and theent dove homeland security released --

the Department of homeland security released a 13-page report, providing

technical details on how federal investigators linked Russia to the

hacks against UK political organisations. Does Russia use the

same military and civilian tools it used to hack our political

organisations, in order to do things like hack into US companies, steal

identities and sell the credit card information of Americans on the

black market? And how is the FBI working to fight against hackers,

supported by foreign governments like Russia? ? The answer is yes,

both their government organisations and then they have a relationship

that is he a often difficult to define with criminals. The Yahoo

hack is an example. You had so. Greatest hackers and intelligence

agencies there working together so the answer is yes, what we are doing

is trying to see if we can impose costs on that behaviour in different

ways in different ways but what I mentioned in ply opening, lock up

people. Russia is not too great working with us outside their

borders but if we can put handcuffs on them to send a message that's in

the a free by. You said that transnational organised crime poses

a challenge to our security. Russia has vast criminal networks that the

Kremlin uses to sew instability around the world I heard this first

hand when I was in the balance particulars, Ukraine and Georgia

with other senators there have been concerns that Russians are using the

luxury real estate market to launder money. The Treasury department has

noted a significant rise in the use of shell companies and real estate

transactions because foreign buyers use them as a way to hide their

identity and find a safe haven for their money in the such. In fact

nearly half of all homes in the US, worth at least $5 million are

purchased using shell companies. Does the anonymity associated with

the use of shell companies, to buy real estate, hurt the FBI's ability

to trace the flow illicit money and fight organised crime and do you

need more transparency in these transactions? Yes and yes. Very

good. It is a huge problem when you hear that over $5 million homes,

half purchased by shell companies, that is a major problem. In March

this committee's subcommittee on crime and terrorism held it first

hearing, I think Senator Graham and Senator White House for that. I

raised the issue of proecting it election infrastructure with former

bush official Ken wine Steyn. He agreed it is an important issue. As

the rapging member of the rules committee I'm particularly concerned

about ensuring our elections are safe from foreign interference. I

recently led a group of 26 Senators in calling for a fall account of the

election assistance commission's efforts to address Russian cyber

security threats in the 2016 election. I'm also working on

legislation in thisser why. Can you discuss how the if. BI has

co-ordinated with the election assistance commission, Department of

Homeland Security and state and local election officials to help

protect the integrity of our election process? Thank you N short

what we have done with DHS is share the tools, tactics and techniques we

see hackers, especially from the 2016 election season using to attack

bored voter registration databases and engage in other hacks. We have

pushed that out to all the states and election assistance commission

for harden their networks. That's one of the most important thing we

can to, equip them with the information to make their systems

tighter. Very good. You know we have different equipment all over the

country, there's some advantage to that, I think, I think it's good

when we have paper ballot back-ups, of course but we have to be prepared

for this and this certainly isn't about one political party or one

candidate. The last time you will came before the committee in

December, 2015, just one week after the San Bernadino attacks, since

then as was noted by the chir we have seen other attacks in our

country. We had a tragedy in a shopping malin St Carmen, minute sow

too, ten wounded at a shopping mal. Thankfully brave off-duty cop was

there. He was able to stop further damage from being done. And I would

also like to thank you, and the FBI for your investigation, having

talked to the chief up there, Senator Franklin and I from briefed

by him, as well as congressman Emmer, right after this attack the

local Police Department, a mid-size department and they had to do a will

the with working with the community, they have a figure Somali community

there, that is a big part of their community that they are proud to

have there. So they are working with them, they are working with the

community, they are helping but the FBI really stood in and did the

investigation and I guess I want to thank thank you with that and end

with one question. It's been reported that Isis has encouraged

loan wolf attacks like we saw in Orlando. What chal eggs do these

type of ak at thats present for law enforcement and what is the FBI

doing to prevent these strategies? Thank you. The central challenges,

not just finding needles in a nationwide haystack but trying to

find out which pieces of hay might become a needle and that is which of

the troubled young people or sometimes older people are consuming

poisonous prop began ga, some Isis, some other sources and are moving

towards an act of violence, like a stabbing at a shopping malis some

way it achieve meaning in their lives. A huge part is building

relationships with the communities you mentioned. Because those folks

do not want anyone committing vile he is, committing violence in the

name of their faith so they have the same inp sentives we do in making

sure they see us that way and we see them that way is at the heart of our

response. We are not going to see some troubled kid going side ways

and thinking he should stab people, anywhere near as easily as the

people around that kid are going to see it. So getting into a position

where they feel comfortable in telling us or telling local law

enforcement is at the heart of our responsibility, to to find the

needles, evaliate the pieces of hay and stop this. Thank you, director

Comey could you pass on to our agents and support personnel how

much we appreciate their efforts to defend the country. We are going to

set a record for a questions asked and answers r answered in six

minutes and 54 seconds, if I can. Do you agree with me if is he quest

racial comes into effect it would be devastating to the FBI? Yes. And it

is due to do so, unless congress straining it. I have been told that.

Do you agree if Isil loses the caliphate these people will go out

throughout the world and welcome terrorist agents and the terrorism

threat to the homeland will get greater over time, not smaller? Yes,

it'll diminish in their power to put out their media to the troubled

people in the country will decrease but the hardened killers thrown out

of the caliphate will be a big problem. So from a funding point of

view, terrorism is not going to get better, probably worse? I think

that's fair to say. Did you ever talk to Sally Yates about her

concerns about General Flynn being compromised? I did. I don't know

whether I can talk about it in this forum. But, the answer is yes. That

she had concerns about General Flynn and she expressed those concerns to

you? Correct. OK. We'll talk about that later. Do you stand by your

House testimony on March 20th that there was no surveillance of the

Trump campaign that you are aware of? Correct. You would know about it

if there were is that correct? Think so, yes. Carter Paige was there a

warrant issued regarding his activity with the Russians? I cannot

answer that here. Did you consider carteder Paige an agent of that

campaign? Same answer, can't answer it here. Do you stand by your

testimony that there is a counterintelligence investigation,

regarding Trump campaign, individuals and the Russian

Government as to whether or not they collaborate? To see if there was any

coordination between the Russian evident and peoples... Is that still

going on? Yes. Nothing has changed, you stand by those two statements?

Yes. But you won't tell me about Carter Paige? Not here I won't. The

Chairman mentioned that Fusion, are you familiar with Fusion? I know the

name. Are they part of the Russian intelligence apparatus? I can't say.

OK. Do you agree with me that Fusion was involved in preparing a dossier

against Donald Trump, if they z that would be interfering in our election

by the Russians? I don't want to say. OK. Do you agree with me that

Anthonie Weiner of 2016, should not have access to classified

information? Yes, that's a fair statement. Would you agree with me

that if that's in the illegal we've got really bad laws? Well, if he

hadn't -... Well, he got it somehow? It would be illegal if he didn't

have appropriate clearance. Do you agree with me he didn't have

appropriate clearance or if he did, that would even be worse I don't

believe at the time we found that on his laptop he had any kind of

clearance. I agree. So for him to get it should be a crime. Somebody

should be prosecuted for letting him have access to classified

information. Does that make general sense? It could be a crime it would

depend upon... Do you agree with me that it should be, that anybody who

let him have the information probably should have been

prosecuted. If our law doesn't cover that, it probe should. There is no

Anthony Weiner statute. Well perhaps there should be. I wonder how you

can get information and it is notal crime. Unmasking, are you familiar

with that? Familiar with the term. Has the bureau asked for the

unmasking of a citizen... Oh, yes, I did it this week. Before I

reauthorise 702, and I'm a hawkish guy, I want to know how it works.

Are you aware of any request by the White House, anybody in the Obama

administration to unmask American citizens that were caught up in

incidental surveillances in 2015-16? I'm in the I'm in the aware of any

request to the FBI. Would you know? Who would they make the request to?

Well, they could make it to anyone in the FBI who was... What about the

NSA? Wouldn't you make it to them? Sure, if it was an NSA report. I

have read in the media and heard about NSA reports but I don't

know... Who do you sk, do you go to the NSA it ask somebody be unmasked.

I give you an example. I got a report that said that US company

number 1 had been removed. I said I believe I need to know the name of

that cop. Who do you ask? I ask my briefer who works for the PDB staff,

I would like to know, she goes and asks the owner of the information.

The NSA? In this case I think it was CIA. Does the owner of the

information, record, request for unmasking? I believe the NSA does, I

don't know about CSA. But there should be a record, somewhere in our

Government for a request to unmask regardless of who made the request?

I think that's right. Is it fair to say that very few people can make

requests for unmasking? I mean I can't go and make that request as a

Senator, can I? Sure, it is a fairly small group - the consumers, which I

am, of that small set of... The National Security Council, within

that group can make this request or do you know? I don't know for sure.

The national security advisor certainly can. When it comes to

Russia s it fair to say that the Government rf Russia actively

provides safe haven to cyber criminals? Yes. Is it fair to say

that the Russian government is still involved in American politics? Yes.

Is it fair to say we need to stop them from doing it? Yes. Fair to

say. Do you agree with me the only way they are going to stop is for

them to pay a price for interfering in our political process? I think

that's a fair statement. So what we're doing today is not working,

they are still doing it. They are doing it all over the world, aren't

they? Yes. So what kind of threat do you believe Russia represents to our

democratic process, given what you know about Russia's behaviour of

late? Well certainly in my view the greatest threat of any nation on

earth, given their intention and capability. Do you agree that they

did not change the actual vote tally but one day they might? I agree, we

found no information of any change in vote tallies. There was efforts

aimed at voter registration systems but I spokes in theory, the part of

the United States, the beauty of our system is that it is a bit of a

hairball and all different kinds of systems... Have they done this in

other countries, tampered with the vote? My attempt is they have

attempted to. And there is no reason they won't attempt it here if we

don't stop them, over time Think think that's fair. Thank you V --

thank you V 100 years ago, when women were

battling to win the vote in the United Kingdom, this place was on

the front line. Campaigners known as suffragettes had been fighting for

decades to secure the vote, but to no avail. So, one group decided to

take direct action. The women's social and political union was led

by Emily