Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

FBI Director Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired July 12, 2023 - 11:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[11:00:01]

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: Respectfully, Congressman, in your home state of Florida, the number of people applying to come work for us and devote their lives working for us is over -- up over 100 percent.

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): We're deeply proud of them, and they deserve better than you.

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): The time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for five minutes.

REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And, Director Wray, thank you for continuing to serve with all of these attempts to sell your name, suggests you have committed crimes, when you have done an excellent job as FBI director.

I don't agree with everything you have done. But, mostly, I do. And I think the FBI is our premier law enforcement agency. And I support law enforcement. To attack the FBI is to attack law enforcement in general.

A few days after Mar-a-Lago, there was some individual went after the Cincinnati headquarters of the FBI. Can you tell us a little bit about that and how you think that came about?

WRAY: So the incident that you're asking about was obviously deeply disturbing.

We had an individual wearing a tactical vest armed with an AR-style rifle and a nail gun who attempted to forcibly enter and attack our Cincinnati field office. A subsequent review of the subject's devices and online postings identified a pretty striking anti-FBI, anti- federal law enforcement hostility.

He was calling on others to kill federal law enforcement, claiming that he felt he was fighting a, in his words, civil war.

And it's unfortunately part of a broader phenomenon that we have seen not just against the FBI -- and this is important to add -- but against law enforcement all across the country, not just against law enforcement professionals themselves, which is appalling enough, but calling for attacks against their families, which is truly despicable.

COHEN: And that man eventually was captured and eliminated, was he not?

WRAY: Yes.

COHEN: A few days later, was the Arizona FBI department subject of armed violence -- or not violence, but armed protesters?

WRAY: Well, I know that our Phoenix field office has had a number of very concerning security incidents where people attempted to attack or breach the facility.

I can't remember the dates of when that happened, but...

COHEN: All of this has happened kind of in the same sphere. It's been information has been put out on social media and just in general have been by members of Congress questioning the FBI, questioning law enforcement in general.

And this has had a deleterious effect on the safety of FBI officials, and you said others, like Justice. There was a story the other day, I believe, about people involved in the prosecution of the former president and threats to them, to DOJ personnel, as well as FBI.

Is that something that's going on presently? Is there efforts to have a unit at the FBI maybe look into how to protect and defend law enforcement personnel who are threatened with violence?

WRAY: We did stand up a whole dedicated unit to focus on threats to FBI individuals, FBI employees, and FBI facilities because of the uptick that we saw over that time period.

COHEN: The January 6 was beyond a weaponization of government. It was a nuclearization of government against the government.

I believe I heard that you said that you didn't have any prior notice or reason to believe that there would be such an event on January 6. Is that correct?

WRAY: We did not, to my knowledge, at least, have prior knowledge of an attempt, violent overthrow and breach of the Capitol Building itself.

Certainly, we were concerned about and put out a number of products, intelligence products, to partners and others warning of the potential for violence more generally on that date.

COHEN: So there have been -- I think Tucker Carlson and some of the members, colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said that Ray Epps was a secret government agent helping encourage this crime, so as to make the president look bad.

Do you have any knowledge of Ray Epps being a secret government agent?

WRAY: No.

I will say this notion that somehow the violence at the Capitol on January 6 was part of some operation orchestrated by FBI sources and agents is ludicrous and is a disservice to our brave, hardworking, dedicated men and women.

COHEN: Director, I agree with you. I think the FBI has some of the most talented law enforcement people in our nation and in the world. And they are concerned about safety.

[11:05:03]

They tend to, as I understand it, lean Republican, but they do their job down the line, and that's what they're supposed to do. I'm happy we have the FBI operating in Memphis and other places to work with our police departments and joint units to protect our citizens. And I thank you for your service to the United States.

And I yield back my time.

JORDAN: Gentleman yields back.

Gentleman from California is recognized.

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R-CA): Thank you.

Director, I'm going to follow up on my colleague from Memphis. How many individuals were either FBI employees or people that the FBI had made contact with were in the January 6 entry of the Capitol and surrounding area?

WRAY: So I really need to be careful here talking about where we have or have not used confidential human sources.

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: Was there one or more individuals that would fit that description January 6 that were in or around the Capitol?

WRAY: I believe there is a filing in one of the January 6 cases that can provide a little more information about this, and I'm happy to see if we can follow back up with you to provide that.

ISSA: I just want an answer. Was there one or more? I mean, you would know if there was at least one individual who worked for the FBI who entered the Capitol on that day.

WRAY: I can't -- again, I just can't speak to that here. But I'm happy to get the court filing that...

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: It's been two years, and you're now -- you now come before us. The gentleman asks these questions, makes all kinds of insinuations, and you nod your head yes. And then I ask you simply, was there one or more? And you won't answer that.

So I'm going to make the assumption that there was more than one, more than five, more than 10, and that you're ducking the question because you don't want to answer for the fact that you had at least one and somehow missed understanding that some of the individuals were very dangerous and that there were others inciting individuals to enter the Capitol after others broke windows.

So I'm just going to move on, because I think it is time to move on. Past January 6. I just -- seems that the other side won't.

You're a near-Cabinet-level individual. You enjoy a term in Senate confirmation. Do you feel comfortable speaking to other members, either Cabinet-level or sub-Cabinet-level, when appropriate, to resolve problems within the government?

WRAY: Absolutely.

ISSA: OK.

And so when the FBI censored the United States government, you would -- you wouldn't have to just take it down by calling Meta or Google, would you?

WRAY: I'm sorry. I'm not sure I'm following the question.

ISSA: Are you familiar with the official verified Russian-language account of the United States Department of State that was taken down at your agency's request?

WRAY: That doesn't ring a bell as I sit here right now, no.

ISSA: OK. Well, now you have something to take back and look at.

WRAY: OK.

ISSA: Because, in fact, in this bundle that SBU constantly was submitting to various agencies was, in fact, a Russian-language individual -- statement of the government.

Literally, you took down the free speech of the Department of State.

So -- yes, go ahead.

WRAY: You mentioned SBU. I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, but I will endeavor to provide a little more context, at least as to SBU.

ISSA: Yes.

WRAY: So, I believe what you may be referring to, but I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing, is that, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, the SBU, which is a longstanding good partner of the FBI, asked us for help on a whole range of things.

And one of those things was to contact U.S. companies on their behalf, because the Russians -- the invasion had cut off Ukrainians' communications. And so we did pass through information from the SBU to social media.

ISSA: Are you also familiar with the fact that President Zelenskyy has had to clean house at the SBU?

WRAY: I know there have been a number personnel changes.

ISSA: OK. Well, we will follow up in -- with this in more detail.

The question I have for you is, you're the premier law enforcement operation, and you're a former Department of Justice high-ranking executive at all levels. So would you agree that the job of the FBI is criminal investigation?

WRAY: Is criminal investigation and to protect the country from national security threats, those two things.

ISSA: So the idea that you take information and you have it taken down, use your authority and the leverage you have to have Meta, Google, Facebook -- or Facebook being Meta -- or Twitter take down people's information on things like where COVID came from, where do you find the national security interest in that?

[11:10:12]

Where do you find the interest in free speech of American citizens being taken down -- and I repeat -- free speech of American citizens? Where do you have that authority?

WRAY: So we don't ask social media companies to censor information or suppress information, when it comes to national security threats, certainly.

So what we do, do is alert them when some other intelligence agency gives us information about a foreign intelligence service being behind some account. We will call social media companies' attention to that. But at the end of the day, we're very clear that it's up to the social media companies to decide whether to do something about it or not.

(CROSSTALK)

ISSA: The suggestion of the most powerful law enforcement operation is not a suggestion. It is, in fact, effectively an order.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

JORDAN: Gentleman yields back.

Gentleman, from Georgia is recognized.

REP. HANK JOHNSON (D-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are here today because MAGA Republicans will do anything to protect Donald Trump, their savior, no matter how unfounded or dangerous it may be to do so. Welcome to the legislative arm of the Trump reelection campaign.

A grand jury found probable cause that, among other crimes, Trump illegally kept highly sensitive national security documents which could put our country and others and our sources in danger if they got out,and which photographs show Trump kept those records in bathrooms, showers, closets, and in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom.

MAGA Republicans are afraid that the justice system might hold Trump accountable for his actions. So, to protect him, Republicans are trying to intimidate FBI officials. And in case that does not work, Republicans are trying their hardest to discredit the FBI in the eyes of the American public.

When Trump lost in 2020, they tried to make Americans distrust their election systems. And now that the FBI and the Justice Department have sought to hold Trump to the same standard any other American citizen would be held to, MAGA Republicans are telling Americans not to trust the FBI.

To protect Trump, Republicans are trying to distract us from the real work that the FBI does every day, which is fighting violent criminals, child predators, and fighting domestic terrorists and extremists, so as to protect our democracy and our national security.

And, even worse, MAGA Republicans are stirring up threats that pose a danger to the safety of FBI employees. It's past time that Republicans realize the consequences of their words and put the good of this country over politics.

Now, Director Wray, I want to thank you for your service during a time of unprecedented travail.

Director Wray, you were a partner at an international law firm before you took a drastic pay cut to accept the job of FBI director; isn't that correct?

WRAY: Yes,that's something my wife reminds me of from time to time.

(LAUGHTER)

JOHNSON: And -- but let me ask you this, sir. And you took this office after Trump fired the former FBI director, Jim Comey, correct?

WRAY: Yes, sir.

JOHNSON: And did you contact the Trump administration to offer yourself for this job, or did the administration recruit you for the job?

WRAY: They contacted me and asked me if I would be willing to consider taking on the role.

JOHNSON: So, Trump handpicked you to be the FBI director?

WRAY: Yes.

JOHNSON: And he expected you to do what he wanted you to do, correct?

WRAY: Well, that, I can't speak to.

I can tell you the same thing I told him, which is that I'm going to do this job by the book.

JOHNSON: Well, I will put it like this. He's unhappy with you now, isn't he?

WRAY: I will let him speak for himself.

JOHNSON: Well, I think a lot of his acolytes here reflect his intent at this particular time.

Director Wray, are you aware that MAGA Republicans have repeatedly called for the FBI to be defunded?

WRAY: I have heard some of that language.

JOHNSON: In fact, Republicans on this very committee have said that your institution should be dismantled; isn't that correct?

[11:15:00]

WRAY: Well, I think certain members have.

JOHNSON: And one member even tweeted -- quote -- "Defund and dismantle the FBI" -- end quote.

Another told FOX News that -- quote -- "Republicans should defund the bureaucracy" -- end quote. And a third told the press that he thinks the FBI -- quote -- "needs to be split up and moved out into pieces" -- end quote.

Those are direct quotes and only a small sample of what's out there.

Can you briefly describe for us what the effect would be on our national security and on our domestic tranquility if the FBI were to be defunded or dismantled?

WRAY: Well, certainly, it would be disastrous for 38,000 hardworking career law enforcement professionals and their families.

But, more importantly in many ways, it would hurt our great state and local law enforcement partners who depend on us every day to work with them on a whole slew of challenging threats. It would hurt the American people, neighborhoods and communities all across this country, the people we're protecting from cartels, violent criminals, gang members, predators, foreign and domestic terrorists, cyberattacks.

I could go on and on. The people that would help would be those same violent gangs and cartels, foreign terrorists, Chinese spies, hackers and so forth.

JOHNSON: A member...

JORDAN: The time of the gentleman has expired.

Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado for five minutes.

REP. KEN BUCK (R-CO): I thank the chairman.

Director Wray, thank you. Thank you for your work with the FBI and thank you for your history of work in law enforcement. You started out as an AUSA. And I'm getting this information from Wikipedia, the great fount of knowledge in the digital age. and so I'm assuming that it's true, but you started out as an AUSA.

You were nominated by Republican President Bush for the position of assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice. And you were confirmed by a Republican Senate, if I am correct in that?

WRAY: Yes, by unanimous voice vote.

BUCK: And you were then nominated by Republican President Donald Trump to be the FBI director, and again confirmed by Republican Senate for that position.

WRAY: Yes. I think there were only five votes against me, and they were all from Democrats.

BUCK: According to Wikipedia, you're still a registered Republican, and I hope you don't change your party affiliation after this hearing is over.

But I want to thank you. I want to thank you for leading an agency, as you mentioned in your opening statement, that protects Americans from foreign terrorists, that -- an agency that protects Americans from spies from China and Russia and cyber crime and public corruption and organized crime and drug cartels and human traffickers and white- collar criminals.

And I want to thank you and the FBI for protecting law-abiding Americans from the evil that exists all around us.

Director Wray, you know this, but it's worth mentioning again anyway. The FBI doesn't protect America because this is a beautiful country. It doesn't protect America just because of the citizens who live in this country. You and the FBI protect America because of the values that we hold, because of our constitutional republic, because this is a special place.

And the rest of the world knows just how special this place is. Director Wray, I'm concerned about FISA. I'm not concerned about FISA in a partisan way. And, frankly, I am not in favor of the funding the FBI, nor am I in favor of splitting up the FBI,nor am I in favor of using the Holman rule for the FBI director.

I'm concerned about FISA because I'm concerned about what makes this place special and the threats to us. And I would love to work with the FBI on how we can protect Americans, at the same time protecting the civil liberties of Americans. And that area of FISA is what really concerns me.

And I know you have gone to great lengths to try to work with FBI agents on how they access information under 702. And I know that at times it has been successful and at times it has not been successful.

But the spirit of FISA and the spirit of our constitutional republic really demands that the FBI culture shift, and it shifts to a place where FBI agents understand that protecting Americans' civil liberties, that protecting the privacy that we all enjoy in this country -- even though we screw up, we still enjoy this privacy.

And, in court, we have the highest burden of proof the world has ever known to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. And that has to be -- that information has to be gathered by the government in a legal way.

[11:20:01]

And so I fear that we are going to overcorrect on FISA in Congress, that we are going to take away some tools that are necessary, because there is a trust factor here that's missing. And I'd love to know how we can draw that line in a way that assures the civil liberties.

I agree with my colleague from California. And I don't often agree with folks from California, but I agree with my colleague from California that it is essential that we not get geolocation information from the -- what I consider criminals at big tech and that we protect that information for Americans.

You, as a law enforcement official, should not know where I am, necessarily, unless you have probable cause to get that information. I'm also concerned about the ability of law enforcement, and particularly the FBI, to access information.

When I go on the Internet and I search for a gun vault or I search for a holster, I don't want the government to know that I own a gun. And I think I have that privacy right to make sure the government doesn't know that I own a gun or any other information that I search for on the Internet, unless you have got probable cause to make that search.

And so I want to ask you a question in the last few seconds. And that is, how can you work on the culture in the FBI and help us reach that sweet spot on FISA?

WRAY: Well, I thank you for that.

Certainly, we, starting with first principles, try to drive home every day to our entire work force that our mission is to both protect the American people and uphold the Constitution.

And we have, on the issue of FISA, clearly had failures in the past. I have been very plain about that. And we have implemented a whole series of reforms. And if you look, if you look at the reports that have started to come out now from the FISA court, from ODNI, from the Justice Department, from others who have looked at the effect of our reforms, over and over again, they are showing significant improvement in compliance.

We're talking about the most recent FISC, FISA court opinion finding 98 percent compliance and commending us for moving in the right direction. A DOJ report found 99 percent compliance. Our internal audit found a 14 percent jump up to 96 percent. These are all separate reports looking at the impact of our reforms.

A lot of the public commentary about our failures -- and, let's be clear, we have had problems. And those problems are unacceptable. And I'm determined with my leadership team to fix them. But those problems almost entirely predate those reforms, even though some of them have just come out recently.

And so we're going to keep working at this. It is not a one-and-done, from my perspective. I recognize that we need to work with the Congress on this issue, but this is an incredibly important tool, as you know from your own public service as a prosecutor as well.

(CROSSTALK)

WRAY: This is an incredibly important tool to protect the American people from very serious foreign threats.

JORDAN: Time of the gentleman has expired.

The gentleman from California is recognized.

REP. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Director.

I want to pick up where Mr. Buck began as well. But I thank you for your service. And I'm glad that we have an opportunity for one Democrat, one Republican in close succession to thank you for your service to the country.

You are being attacked and vilified by some of the members of this committee and others outside this committee because the Justice Department, the FBI has had audacity to investigate serious allegations of criminal conduct by a former president.

And I just want a chance to recap how we got to where we are. During the last administration and for four years, the Justice Department took the position, not unprecedented for the department, that a former president could not be -- a current president could not be indicted. Now, I think that's a flawed matter as a constitutional principle, but, nonetheless, that was the view of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department during the Trump years, that the president of the United States could not be indicted.

My Republican colleagues seem to believe that a former president similarly cannot be indicted. That would effectively make a president above the law, beyond the reach of the law. And, in my view, there would probably only one thing the founders would find more politically precarious and dangerous to our Constitution than the indictment of a president or former president, and that is the failure to indict a president or former president when they have engaged in criminal conduct.

The Justice Department, I believe, as Representative Lofgren, my fellow member of the January 6 Committee, asserted, took a very long time to begin the investigation of Donald Trump and his involvement in January 6.

[11:25:00]

I believe it began with urgency when it came to the foot soldiers who broke into the Capitol and assaulted police officers that day. But at least what I can tell from the public record, the activities of the president himself, some of which were a matter very much of public record, such as his tape-recorded conversation with the secretary of state in Georgia in which he badgered the secretary to -- quote -- "find 11,780 votes" that don't exist, while that was the subject of investigation by the local district attorney in Fulton County, it did not appear to be the subject of investigation for more than a year by the Justice Department.

To me, that is inexplicable. This was never the kind of case in which you could roll up the foot soldiers on the higher-ups, because there were multiple lines of effort in this plot to overturn the election. I do think that the appointment of the special counsel has accelerated the investigation of the former president's misconduct, and I think that is a positive step for the department and for the country, so we can get resolution to this.

But, likewise, with Mar-a-Lago, notwithstanding the protests of my colleagues, there were repeated, repeated requests by the Archives to get those documents back from the former president. And then, when those were unsuccessful, there was a grand jury subpoena that was administered. And when that was unsuccessful.

And only when that was unsuccessful and there was evidence that the former president was still withholding highly classified materials did the FBI go to this step of a search warrant. That was more than a year-and-a-half after those initial requests. This was anything but a rush to judgment in the Mar-a-Lago case.

So I believe the department, if anything, has exercised enormous caution, I would say too much caution, in the January 6 commission -- Committee's work and oversight to proceed against a former president, when there are serious and credible allegations of criminal conduct.

But I want to thank you for your stewardship during this incredibly difficult time. I don't think there has been a more difficult time for an FBI director. And notwithstanding concerns I have expressed, none of them go to your integrity or your commitment to the country. And I want to thank you for that.

Let me ask you about a different topic, although related to January 6 as well. Let me talk -- ask you broadly about domestic violent extremism. I offered an amendment in this committee voted down by the Republicans that we should oversee the increasingly dire threat of domestic violent extremism.

One of your recent reports underscored the rise of this prevalent threat, and I'd ask you if you would address it today.

WRAY: So the rise of domestic violent extremism is something that I and we have been identifying for quite some time.

It goes back well before January 6. In fact, a lot of people don't know this, but the Joint Terrorism Task Forces that we hear about so often at the FBI were largely created in response to domestic terrorism, not foreign terrorism.

But in my first few years as director, we were identifying this issue more and more, and that's why we elevated in the summer of 2019 racially motivated violent extremism to a national threat priority level. And we saw, I think, about a 40 percent increase in the number of domestic violent extremism investigations, all before anything to do with January 6.

Obviously, since then, it has continued. But domestic violent extremism cuts across the spectrum, from the racially motivated violent extremism, militia violent extremism, anarchist violent extremism, environmental violent extremism. And, of course, recently we have had a lot of violent extremism attacks against pro-life facilities.

And we're investigating those. So it really covers a wide spectrum. And what they all have in common is three things, violence or threats of violence motivated by some ideology, and it varies, in violation of federal criminal law. And that's the domestic violent extremism -- violent extremism that I'm talking about when I have identified this phenomenon.

SCHIFF: Mr. Chairman, could I request unanimous consent to enter into the record two letters, both from David Weiss, the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in Delaware, rebutting allegations concerning impartial -- concerning partiality -- concerning partiality in the investigation of the Hunter Biden case?

I would...

JORDAN: Without objection.

SCHIFF: I thank you.

Thank you, Director.

JORDAN: Without objection.

Director, what's the difference between a traditional Catholic and a radical traditional Catholic?

WRAY: I'm not an expert on the Catholic orders.

JORDAN: Well, your FBI wrote a memo talking about radical traditional Catholics. I just want to know if you can define it for us.

WRAY: Well, what I can tell you is, you're referring to the Richmond product, which was a single product by a single field office, which

[11:30:00]