Return to Transcripts main page
CNN News Central
FBI Director Wray Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee. Aired 10:30-11a ET
Aired July 12, 2023 - 10:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[10:30:00]
CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: At the same time, inside the FBI, our special agent attrition has remained in the low single digits and would be the envy of almost any employer. And even with these bigger numbers, the folks were continuing to add, continue to be top notch. The percentage of both veterans and special agent hires with prior law enforcement experience has remained as steady as ever between 25 and 30 percent. Add to that, in a job market where applicants have a whole lot of other opportunities, the percentage of those new agent trainees that also have advanced degrees is up, and now approaches about 50 percent of every class at Quantico.
But the thing that unites them all is a commitment to public service, a willingness to put others above themselves, and that is true from the bottom of the organization to the top. Since becoming director, I have worked hard to have to assemble and cultivate a leadership team that embodies those value and characteristics. It's a team that I purposely chose because they walked the walk out in the field.
Just taking our top eight leaders as an example, they all came up to the bureau as line agents. They worked in 21 different field offices and have a combined 130 years of field experience. They include a West Point grad, veterans of the army, air force, and marines, as well as a former police officer, and state trooper. And not a single one is a political appointee. Not one.
Today's FBI leaders reflect the best of our organization, an organization that is made up of 38,000 men and women who are patriots, professionals and dedicated public servants. And that is the real FBI. I've now visited every single one of our 56 field offices twice, some of them more than twice.
I speak constantly with local chiefs and sheriffs from all 50 states who work closely with us every day, with judges coast to coast who see and hear our work up close, with business leaders who turn to us for help with cyberattacks and Chinese economic espionage, with victims and their families, people that we protect from gangs and predators. And the FBI they tell me about consistently, almost resoundingly is the same FBI that I see. An FBI that is respected, appreciated, trusted, and that is there for them when they need us the most. And that is the FBI that inspires me and that I'm proud to be here today to represent. Thank you.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH), HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: We thank you. We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with questions. The chair recognizes a gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Johnson.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Mr. Johnson Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Wray, this is no time to mince words. The American people have lost faith in the FBI. All of our constituents are demanding that we get the situation under control and we have to do that. That's our responsibility. This is not a political party issue, sir. This is about whether the very system of justice in our country can be trusted anymore. Without that, no republic can survive.
See, the American that we represent are losing count of the scandals that are mounting. The FBI has been involved and they've seen evidence that it's being use as a political tool by the Biden administration. They've seen counterterrorism resources being used against school parents. The homes of conservative political opponents being raided. They've seen conservative states being targeted of their election integrity laws and conservative Catholics and pro-life citizens characterizes violent extremists.
Just last month, as you know, special former -- Former Special Counsel John Durham sat right in that seat and testified that the Justice Department and the FBI should never have launched the bogus Trump- Russia investigation. And his lengthy report reluctantly concluded that the FBI, "Failed to uphold its mission of strict fidelity to the law." Just last week, "NBC" had a poll, only 37 percent of registered voters now view the FBI positively. 35 percent have a negative view. In 2018, by comparison, 52 percent of the country had a positive view of the FBI. There's a serious decline in the peoples' faith and it's on your watch, sir.
And then July 4th, we had this explosive, explosive, 155-page opinion from a federal court in my home state of Louisiana. It explains in detail that the FBI has been directly involved in what the court says, "Arguably the most massive attack on against free speech in United States history." The court ordered, the White House, DOJ, and FBI among other to immediately cease colluding with and coercing social media companies to suppress American speech. Of course, conservative speech in particular.
Director Wray, I find it stunning. You made no mention of this court opinion, either in your opening statement today or in this lengthy 14- page report that you prepared on July 12th, which is eight days after the court ruling.
[10:35:00]
Have you read the ruling, sir?
WRAY: I am familiar with the ruling and I've reviewed it with our office of general counsel.
JOHNSON: Are you deeply disturbed about what they've told you about the ruling, if you haven't read it yourself.
WRAY: Obviously, we're going to comply with the court's order, the court's preliminary injunction. We sent out guidance to the field and headquarters about how to do that. Needless to say, the injunction itself is the subject of ongoing litigation. And so, I'll decline to comment further on --
JOHNSON: Well, let me tell you what the court concluded because it should be the first thing you think about every morning, and the last thing you think about at night. They said that -- the court found, "Apparently the FBI engaged in a massive effort to suppress disfavored conservative speech and blatantly ignored the First Amendment's right to free speech. The evidence shows the FBI threatened adverse consequences to social media companies that they did not comply with its censorship request."
The court found that, "This seemingly unrelenting pressure by the FBI and the other defendants had the intended result of suppressing millions of protected free speech postings by American citizens." As a results, the court states, for example, millions of citizens did not hear about the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the November 3, 2020 election.
Page four of the court ruling lists some of the important subjects that the Biden administration and the FBI forced the social media platforms to suppress. The evidence shows you, your agency, the people that directly report to you, suppressed conservatively free speech about topics like laptop, the lab leak theory of COVID-19's origin, the effectiveness of masking, COVID lockdowns and vaccines. Speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election. Security of voting by mail, even parody about the president himself, negative post about the economy.
The FBI made the social media platforms pull that information off the internet if it came from conservative sources. They did this under the guise that it was disinformation. Can you define what disinformation is?
WRAY: What I can tell you is that our focus is not on disinformation broadly speaking --
JOHNSON: Well, wait a minute -- you're --
WRAY: Can I answer the question?
JOHNSON: You can in a minute. Your star witness said in the litigation, Elvis Chan who's in charge of this, said they do it on the basis of disinformation. We need a definition of what that is.
WRAY: Our focus is on malign foreign disinformation. That is foreign hostile actors who engage in covert efforts to abuse --
JOHNSON: Mr. Wray -- Mr. --
WRAY: -- out social media platforms which is something that is not seriously in dispute to this phenomenon.
JOHNSON: I have to stop you for a time. That's not accurate. You need to read this court opinion because you're in charge of enforcing it. The court has found that -- and Elvis Chan testified under oath, in charge of this, for you. He said, 50 percent. He had a 50 percent success rate in having alleged election disinformation taken down or censored. That wasn't just foreign adversary, sir. That was American citizens. How do you answer for that.
WRAY: Well, first of, I'm not sure that's the correct characterization of his testimony.
JOHNSON: It comes right out of "The Opinion", you should read it.
WRAY: But what I -- of his testimony. But what I would say is the FBI is not in the business of moderating content or causing any social media company to suppress or censor --
JOHNSON: That is not what the court has found.
WRAY: What I would also say is among the things that you listed off, I find ironic, the reference to the lab leak theory. The idea that the FBI would somehow be involved in suppressing references to the lab leak theory is somewhat absurd when you consider the fact that the FBI was the only, the only agency in the entire intelligence community to reach the assessment that it was more likely than not that that was the explanation for the pandemic.
JOHNSON: But your agents pulled it off the internet, sir, that's what the evidence in the court has found.
JORDAN: The time of the gentleman has expired. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
REP. JERRY NADLER (D-NY), RANKING MEMBER, JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Director Wray, House Republicans have attacked the execution of the search warrant of Mar-a-Lago last August as a, "Unprecedented raid." Would you consider the execution of the search warrant at Mar-a-Lago a raid?
WRAY: I would not call it a raid. I would call it the execution of a lawful search warrant.
NADLER: Can you describe how the search was executed?
WRAY: Well, we had the case team, you know, follow its standard procedure. It has sometimes been described as a SWAT operation. It was not, there was no SWAT involvement. But beyond that, I think I want to be really careful with getting too far into the details now that this case is not only in the hands of the special counsel, but more importantly, in my view, in front of the court. And I learned a long time ago as a line prosecutor and defense lawyer to respect the court process as where I think I should speak.
NADLER: Were particular steps taken to ensure that the execution of the search warrant did not draw undue attention?
WRAY: I think there were steps along those lines. Yes, sir.
NADLER: Can you name a couple of them?
WRAY: Well, among other things, we did not have people coming in so- called raid jacket, you know, which is often something you would see.
[10:40:00]
NADLER: So, in other words, the FBI agents executing the search wore plain clothes so as not to attract undue attention. The FBI had waited until Trump had left Mar-a-Lago to execute the search, is that correct?
WRAY: Yes.
NADLER: And Chairman Jordan has attacked the DOJ and the FBI for not attempting to get the documents back from Trump consensually before turning to a search warrant. I want to walk through all of these -- the opportunities Trump had to produce these documents, and I have a series of yes or no question. The National Archives, also known as NARA, first asked Trump to return all presidential records to them in May 2021, correct?
WRAY: Well, I don't remember the date, but I remember there was a request by the National Archives.
NADLER: OK. And then throughout 2021, NARA made repeated follow-up requests but still Trump replied to comply, correct?
WRAY: Yes, I would refer you to the pleadings that have been filed in court that lay out in better detail that I could here.
NADLER: In fact --
WRAY: Yes.
NADLER: -- in fact, it was not until January 2022 after NARA warned Trump that failing to return the documents could violate the Presidential Records Act that Trump finally produced 15 boxes of documents to it, correct?
WRAY: Again, I would just refer to our court filings which go into great detail about all of this.
NADLER: And even these 15 boxes did not contain all the documents Trump was required to return, correct?
WRAY: That's my recollection. But again, I'll refer the filings --
NADLER: So, in May 2020, a grand jury had to actually subpoena Trump for the missing documents, correct?
WRAY: Same answer, yes.
NADLER: And Trump was then present on June 3rd when his attorneys handed over another folder of documents and a certification that all classified material had been returned, correct?
WRAY: Again, I just want -- I want to stick with what's in the court filings. That sounds right to me, but I --
NADLER: OK.
WRAY: -- I really want to be careful to stay within the four corners of what I --
NADLER: But the certification was false, right? Even then, Trump had not returned all classified material, correct?
WRAY: I think that is part of the indictment.
NADLER: He had additional documents hiding in his bathroom, in his storage room -- in storage units, et cetera, yes?
WRAY: Again, I think that's part of the indictment.
NADLER: And so, finally, DOJ and FBI were required to obtain a search warrant to obtain the classified documents that had not been retained, correct?
WRAY: Same answer.
NADLER: The documents retrieved during that search included 69 marked confidential, 98 secret, and 38 top secret, is that correct?
WRAY: Same answer.
NADLER: So, to sum up, President Trump had many, many chances to voluntarily comply with FBI and DOJ's request. Instead, he made the choice to keep these highly classified defense and national security documents, apparently, because he wanted a souvenir. I find myself in a strange position of agreeing with Former Attorney General Bill Barr's statement that Trump brought this on himself. And I would add that it's absurd that House Republicans are attacking the FBI and DOJ for doing their job in ensuring that no person is above the law. I yield back.
JORDAN: Gentleman yields back. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes.
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I thank the chairman. Director Wray, in light of information provided to us about the FBI's investigation of the January 6th pipe bombs, in an interview with Assistant Director Steven D'Antuono, Chairman Jordan and I sent you a letter a month ago. Some of the information that we found in that interview was that phone data that could have helped to identify the pipe bomber was corrupted. It was unusable. He also wasn't sure who found or how the second bomb was found at the DNC. Do you know how the second bomb was found at the DNC, and when do you plan on answering our letter?
WRAY: Well, as to the letter, I will work with the department to make sure we can figure out what information we can provide. As you know, this is a very active, ongoing investigation and there are some restrictions on that. But we will do our best to --
MASSIE: Yes, we can handle classified information. And we fund your department, and so you need to provide that.
WRAY: I -- it's not -- respectfully, it's not an issue of classification. It's an issue of commenting on ongoing criminal investigations, which is something that by longstanding department policy, we are restricted in doing. And in fact, the last administration actually strengthened those policies partly because --
MASSIE: That's not our policy thought. And we fund you, so let's move on.
WRAY: If I could -- partly because --
MASSIE: Do you know how the second pipe bomb -- do you -- can you tell us how the second pipe bomb was found at the DNC?
WRAY: Again, I'm not going to get into that here.
MASSIE: 900 days ago, is when this happened, and you said you had total confidence we'd apprehend the subject. We found video that looks like somebody, a passerby, miraculously found this pipe bomb at the DNC and then notified the police. Miraculously, I say, because it was specifically the same -- the precise time to cause a maximum distraction from the events going on at the Capitol. Can you show this video that we have, please? I'd like to note the director has seen this.
This is somebody with a mask on, wearing a hat. They're walking in front of the DNC, which is out of the view on the right-hand side.
[10:45:00]
You'll see him come into view, he goes to one police car, he goes to another police car. He's holding a backpack. He's got a mask on. He's talking to the police. And within a minute, they start scrambling. You'll see the camera turn to the pipe bomb, the location of the pipe bomb. By the way, that's a, I believe, a metro police are now getting out of their car. And that's vice president-elect detail in the black SUV, I believe. Parked about 30 feet from the pipe bomb eating lunch. OK. Now, we go over to the location of the pipe bomb. The cameras are scrambling.
It appears to me that that's not a coincidence. That the person with the backpack who walked by that bench and then went up to the police and the detail didn't do that accidentally. They had a purpose in mind and what transpired after that was a result of information that person gave to them. If that person found the pipe bomb, would they be a suspect?
WRAY: Well, again, I don't want to speculate about specific individuals. I will tell you that we have done thousands of interviews. Reviewed something like 40,000 video files of which this is one. Assessed 500-something tips. Reviewed the devices --
MASSIE: Have you interviewed that person?
WRAY: We have conducted all logical investigative steps and interviewed all logical individuals at this point.
MASSIE: Then you need -- it's 900 days.
WRAY: We're continuing --
MASSIE: You need to tell us what you found because we're finding stuff you haven't released into the public.
WRAY: Well --
MASSIE: In my remaining minute, I want to turn to another issue. George Hill, Former FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst in the Boston field office, told us that the Bank of America with no legal process was -- gave to the FBI gun purchase records with no geographical boundaries for anybody that was a Bank of America customer. Is that true?
WRAY: Well, what I do know is that the -- a number of business community partners, all the time, including financial institutions, share information with us about possible criminal activity. And my understanding is that that's fully lawful. In the specific --
MASSIE: Did you --
WRAY: -- in the specific --
MASSIE: -- did you ask for that information?
WRAY: -- in the specific instance that you're asking about, my understanding is that that information was shared with field offices for information only. But then recalled to avoid even the appearance of any kind of over brief (ph), but my understanding is that that's a fully lawful process.
MASSIE: We -- was there a warrant involved?
WRAY: Again, my understanding is that the institution in question shared information with us, as it happens all the time by --
MASSIE: Did you request the information?
WRAY: I can't speak to the specifics.
MASSIE: OK. Well, we've got an e-mail where it says, the FBI did give the search queries to Bank of America. And Bank of America responded to the FBI and gave over this information without a search warrant. Do you believe there's any limitation on your ability to obtain gun purchase data or purchase information for people that -- for people who aren't suspects from banks without a warrant?
WRAY: Well, now you're asking a legal question, which I would prefer to defer to the lawyers since I'm not practicing as one right now, including the department. But I will tell you is that my understanding is that the process by which we received information from business community partners across a wide variety of industries, including financial institutions, sharing information with us about possible criminal activity is something that is fully lawful under current federal law.
MASSIE: Maybe lawful, but it's not constitutional. I yield back.
JORDAN: Gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes. REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you Director Wray for being here. You know, I think it's actually sad that the majority is engaging in conspiracy theories and efforts to try and discredit one of the premiere law enforcement agencies in the United States in the effort to try and, without really any evidence, make the case that the FBI is somehow opposed to conservative views. In my view, actually, I'm concerned that the FBI has been reluctant to do its job when it comes to the former president.
I'd like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record, an article from "The Washington Post," FBI resisted opening probe into Trump's role in January 6th for more than a year.
JORDAN: Without objection.
LOFGREN: Director Wray, would you disagree with the premise of this article that the FBI delayed in looking at Mr. Trump himself -- the January 6th Committee and I was a member, did find that the ex- president was the center of a wide-ranging conspiracy to overturn the election.
[10:50:00]
Did the FBI start looking right after January 6th that the ex- president?
WRAY: I'm sorry, I lost the last part of your question there.
LOFGREN: Did the FBI start looking at the ex-president's role in January 6th, starting January 7th or closely to that time?
WRAY: Well, let me start with I'm not in the business of, kind of, commenting or engaging on the truth or falsity of newspaper articles. And in this particular instance, as I'm sure you can appreciate, there is an ongoing, very important ongoing --
LOFGREN: OK.
WRAY: -- special counsel investigation that's now in court. And so, not only --
LOFGREN: All right.
WRAY: -- do I not want to talk about --
LOFGREN: I respect --
WRAY: -- the ongoing investigation that the --
LOFGREN: I respect --
WRAY: -- internal deliberations related to it are even more sensitive.
LOFGREN: I respect that you cannot discuss ongoing investigations. Let me turn to another item. I mean, there's been criticism, and the ranking member went through the scenario leading up to the warrant for the documents at Mar-a-Lago. But I'd like to ask a unanimous consent to put an article from "The Washington Post", showdown before the raid, FBI agents and prosecutors argued over Trump.
JORDAN: Without objection.
LOFGREN: It's pretty clear from this article that there was a resistance on the part of the FBI to actually look at the president or pursue that case vigorously and although you can't comment on it, the article does suggest that FBI agents want to just close the case because the ex-president made an assertion that a search had been made. Now, we had Mr. D'Antuono in as a witness, and he testified four times that the Mar-a-Lago search had adequate probable cause. Do you agree with that statement?
WRAY: That the search had probable cause?
LOFGREN: Correct.
WRAY: Yes.
LOFGREN: Thank you. And so, you don't have any dispute that there was probable cause for this warrant. You know, I just want to say before going to my next question that over and over again the FBI delayed and showed unprecedented caution before investigating the ex-president, even when there was a potential threat to national security, that is -- that's my view. That's very far from the assertion that there was unfair targeting. Let me ask --
WRAY: Can I just -- can I -- on that point, if I just -- if I may, while I can't discuss any specific investigation, my expectation for all of our investigations repeatedly communicated to all of our people, and this is especially important and sensitive investigations, is that our folks take great pains to be rigorous, professional, objective. Following all our policies and procedures and do the work in the right way, and sometimes that's frustrating to others.
LOFGREN: My time is almost up. I want to ask you another question. In the Senate hearing in response to Senator Wyden's question of whether the FBI is currently purchasing Americans' location data, you indicated that it was limited to data derived from internet advertising. It's since been reported that the FBI has admittedly bought U.S. location data. Is the FBI purchasing location data from commercial sources without a warrant?
WRAY: This is an area that requires a little more precision and context for me to be able to answer that fully. So, I'll let my -- I'll have my staff follow back up with you so that I make sure that I don't leave something important out.
LOFGREN: I'll just close with the FBI had 3.4 million backdoor searches of the FISA database without a warrant in 2021. Can you say whether the FBI's continuing to search the FISA database without a warrant for American -- Americans?
WRAY: Well, if you're asking about our use of 702 queries -- LOFGREN: I am.
WRAY: -- Those are -- there is no warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment for those queries. It's fairly well settled. The 3.4 million figure that you're talking about, I guess I would say a couple of things. One, that's not 3.4 million people. That's 3.4 million search terms or query terms.
LOFGREN: My --
WRAY: Second, that's not a -- those are not queries in violation of rules. Those are just queries under the procedure --
LOFGREN: My time has expired --
JORDAN: The gentlelady's time has --
LOFGREN: -- but the committee will look into the warrant requirement later.
JORDAN: We sure will. We sure will. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): The American people need to understand what just happened. My Democrat colleague just asked the director of the FBI whether or not they are buying information about our fellow Americans.
[10:55:00]
And the answer is, well, we'll just have to get back to you on that. It sounds complicated. But I have other questions. I'm sitting here with my father. I will make certain that between the man sitting next to me and every person he knows and my ability to forever hold a grudge that you will regret not following my direction. I am sitting here waiting for the call with my father. Sounds like a shakedown, doesn't it, Director?
WRAY: I'm not going to get into commenting on that.
GAETZ: You seem deeply uncurious about it, don't you? Almost suspiciously uncurious. Are you protecting the Bidens?
WRAY: Absolutely not. The FBI does not --
GAETZ: Well, you won't answer the --
WRAY: -- has no interest in --
GAETZ: Hold on.
WRAY: -- protecting anyone politically.
GAETZ: You won't answer the question about whether or not that's a shakedown, and everybody knows why you won't answer it, because to the millions of people who will see this, they know it is. And your inability to acknowledge that is deeply revealing about you. But let's go from the uncurious to the downright nosy. How many illegal FISA queries have occurred under your leadership of the FBI?
WRAY: Well, there are reports that have come out with different numbers about compliance incidents.
GAETZ: More than a million illegal ones? Because that's what the inspector general said. The inspector general said that in the 3.4 million of these queries, more than a million were in error. Do you have any basis to disagree with that assessment by the inspector general?
WRAY: I'm not sure, actually, that's a correct characterization of the inspector general's findings on that but --
GAETZ: Well, the internet will remind you of that moment. But let's now go to what the court said. The court said it was over 200,000 that have occurred on your watch. Would -- do you have any basis to disagree with that assessment?
WRAY: Again, I don't have the numbers as I sit here right now. What I can tell you --
GAETZ: It seems like a number you should know. How many times the FBI is breaking the law under your watch, especially if it's, like, over a million to not know that number. And I'm worried about your voracity on the subject as well. Play this -- play the video.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WRAY: Letters for investigation of the Capitol.
SEN. MIKE LEE (R-UT): Are you --
WRAY: I don't believe FISA is remotely implicated in our investigation.
LEE: Are you --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GAETZ: So there, Senator Lee is asking you whether or not FISA was, in any other way, involved in your January 6th investigations. And you say, no. Was that truthful?
WRAY: I said that I did not believe it was.
GAETZ: OK. So, now let's pull up what the court said, which was something a little different than what you said.
So here -- no, that's not the right one.
Yes, here we go, right there. It says, the government has reported additional significant violations of the querying standard, including several relating to the January 6, 2021, breach at the Capitol. So, I guess the question, Director Wray, is did you not know when you were answering these questions that the FBI was engaging in these illegal searches, or did you perjure yourself to Senator Lee?
WRAY: I certainly did not perjure myself at the time that I testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I didn't have that piece of information. I will add --
GAETZ: Well, that was a court order. You didn't have that piece of information because the court hadn't yet rendered a judgement. Did you not know when you gave the untruthful answer before Senator Lee that this was going on?
WRAY: It was a truthful answer. I did not believe FISA had been involved in January 6th.
GAETZ: But it was. So, you didn't -- the answer is, the FBI has broken so bad that people can go and engage in queries that when you come before the Congress to answer questions, you're, like, blissfully ignorant. You're blissfully ignorant as to the unlawful queries. You're blissfully ignorant as to the Biden shakedown regime. And it just seems like it gets into, kind of, a creepy place, as well.
Go to our next image on what the court said. Like -- just so that the American people realize. The court has smacked you down, alleging -- ruling, FBI personnel apparently conducted queries for improper personal reasons. People were looking themselves up, they were looking their ex-lovers up. Who has been held accountable or fired as a consequence of the FBI using the FISA process as their, like, creepy personal snoop machine?
WRAY: There have been instances in which individuals have had disciplinary action, and no longer with --
GAETZ: Name them.
WRAY: I can't get into it here, but we can follow back up with --
GAETZ: But don't you see that that's kind of the thing, Director Wray? That you preside over the FBI that has the lowest level of trust in the FBI's history. People trusted the FBI more when J. Edgar Hoover was running the place than when you are. And the reason is because you don't give straight answers. You give answer that later a court deems untrue, and that at the end of the day, you won't criticize an obvious shakedown when it's directly in front of us. And it appears as though, you're whitewashing the conduct of corrupt people.
[11:00:00]
