Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

FBI Director Wray Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired July 12, 2023 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Your FBI wrote a memo talking about radical traditional Catholics. I'm just wondering if you can define it for us.

CHRISTOPHER WRAY, FBI DIRECTOR: Well, what I can tell you is you're referring to the Richmond product, which is a single product by a single field office, which as soon as I found out about it, I was aghast and ordered it withdrawn and removed from FBI systems.

JORDAN: You were aghast, then why don't you let us talk to the people who put it together?

WRAY: We are working on finishing an internal review into what happened here.

JORDAN: We had to wait the -- we, the Congress and the American people, have to wait until you do an internal review. It's on a criminal investigation going on or an internal review before we can talk to the people who wrote this.

WRAY: We -- when we finished our internal review, which will be very soon, we will come back before the committee --

JORDAN: Any idea how many Catholics in America?

WRAY: -- to provide a briefing on what we found. And then we can -- JORDAN: Well, we appreciate your briefing but we want to talk to the

people who wrote it. Any idea how many Catholics are in America, Director?

WRAY: No, sir.

JORDAN: There's a lot. Over 60 million. What percentage of those are radical traditional Catholics, according to the Richmond field office of the FBI?

WRAY: Again, that product is not something that I will defend or excuse. It's something that I thought was appalling and removed it.

JORDAN: Let's read -- let's read from that product, page four of that product. By the way, the copy you gave us, when can we get a copy that didn't have all these redactions on it, so we can actually see what the American taxpayers were paying for to see their rights, their First Amendment religious liberty rights attack?

Let me just read from page four. Provide new opportunities to mitigate extremist threats through outreach to traditional Catholic parishes and the development of sources with the placement and access to report on of worship. That's pretty fancy language for they're trying to put informants in the parish in the church. That's what this memorandum said, Director, from one of your field offices. And you won't let us talk to the people who did it. Any response to that?

WRAY: I didn't know. I was waiting for the question.

JORDAN: Oh, priests -- do you think priests should be informants inside the church, Director?

WRAY: We do not recruit open or operate confidential human sources to infiltrate target reports on religious organizations --

JORDAN: But that's not what this -- that's not what this said. It sounds like you were trying to do it in Richmond, Virginia.

WRAY: No, sir. No, sir.

JORDAN: You weren't?

WRAY: That's --

JORDAN: If this just didn't happen, you can assure us that this didn't happen?

WRAY: That product did not, as best as we can tell result in any investigative action as a result of it. None.

JORDAN: You know what the motivation for this was? Why would they even think about doing this? Do you know, what the motivation was?

WRAY: Well, again, I think that's what our internal review will find. And I'd rather wait until I hear what the results of that internal review are.

JORDAN: Well, I don't need an internal review, I can read the document. I assume you can do the same because it says right there on the same page. Richmond assesses extremely sisters and radical traditional Catholics is like to -- likely to increase over the next 12 to 24 months in the run-up to the next general election. Same paragraph. Events in which extremist and radical traditional Catholics might have common causes include legislation, and judicial decisions in such areas as abortion rights, immigration, affirmative action, and LGBTQ protections.

It's politics. That's the motivation in the run-up to the next election. And they talk about the border, affirmative action, and abortion rights, it's total politics.

I mean I think it's interesting, that affirmative -- we just got a decision from a bunch of Catholics to sit on the United States Supreme Court relative to affirmative action. Politics was the total motivation here. And that's what's scary.

That's what I think is so frightening and why we -- why we -- how this happens. I don't know. And five people signed off on it. Five people, including the chief division counsel at the Richmond field office.

I'd like to talk to this lawyer in -- a lot of people in this room went to law school to get a course on the Constitution talks about the First Amendment. I find that really scary. Again, when do you think we're going to have a chance? How soon you're going to complete this internal investigation, so we can talk to these folks who put this together?

WRAY: I expect us to be able to brief the Committee on our internal review later this summer.

JORDAN: Will that briefing include the names of the individuals who put this document together attacking Americans' first amendment liberty?

WRAY: I'm not sure yet what it'll include because it's not done yet. But when it is, we'll provide you with an appropriate briefing.

JORDAN: What are you doing to fix it so this doesn't happen again?

WRAY: Well, we've already started putting in place a number of fixes, and those will be further informed by the results of the run-in.

JORDAN: What are those fixes, more training, more things, more than the same thing you told us on FISA? And while you may have some improvement, you still got 204,000 times the database was illegally searched. So what are the training and procedures you're putting in place?

WRAY: Well, I'll put the FISA stuff to the side. I don't know (INAUDIBLE) if I can engage to that.

JORDAN: I'm just setting as an example of where you've told us the same thing you fix something you haven't.

WRAY: I do not believe the number that you just invoked on the FISA side is sense the reforms. The fixes, as you call them, we were getting close --

JORDAN: Can we get an unredacted --

WRAY: -- post-date, the numbers that you're referring to.

JORDAN: Director, can we get an unredacted copy -- while you're still doing this internal investigation, can we at least get an unredacted copy of this memorandum?

WRAY: I will find out if there's more of the -- of the document that can be shared with you. We've tried to be very careful in what we redact and there's always a basis for it. So let me go I can see if there's more that we can provide. But I know my instructions are to be as sparing as possible in the redactions that we provide. [11:35:08]

JORDAN: The gentleman from California is recognized.

REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Director, I think it's quite rich that the guy that has accused you of lawlessness and weaponization is 400 days into violation of his own congressional subpoena over January 6. Quite rich to me that you're hearing all of these allegations from somebody who won't even respond to a lawful subpoena. But I want to talk more about your workforce because that's where you started. A couple of weeks ago at the Bureau, you had a family day. Can you tell us what Family Day is?

WRAY: Family Day is an opportunity for employees from really all over the FBI. It tends to be primarily from the nearby geographies because of the trip that they have to make to employees to bring their families into FBI headquarters so that they can see a little bit about the place their loved ones work, and why mom or dad is spending so much time away from home. And it's a --

SWALWELL: Did you see the little kids at family day?

WRAY: Many, many, many. It's an opportunity for us to say thank you to the families when we talk a lot in law enforcement about sacrifice. But the reality is that law enforcement officers and professionals are sacrificing to do what they love. Our families are sacrificing because of who they love.

SWALWELL: And what would you say in your experience is the number one worry of a little kid about a mom or dad, who was a special agent out in the field?

WRAY: Obviously, they're worried that their mom or dad won't come home at night because they've been killed. And that in fact has happened, unfortunately, all too often.

SWALWELL: Happened in Lauderdale a couple of years ago, is that right?

WRAY: Laura Schwartzenberger and Dan Alfin.0 Two of our agents killed in connection with a child exploitation case down there. It was the single darkest day I've had in this job.

SWALWELL: I want to turn your attention to an organization called Marco Polo. It's run by a former Trump aide named Garrett Ziegler. Over the past couple of weeks, he has docs, the addresses of a former special agent connected to the Hunter Biden case.

He has put up the dates of births and pictures of two current special agents who work for you. He has said the name which I will not say of an Assistant U.S. Attorney who worked in the Hunter Biden case that she will answer for her crimes. He will focus everything on her. Justice will be done. It's out of my hands, but she will answer. The -- do these types of threats and daxing concern you about threats to your workforce and what it could mean?

WRAY: Well, obviously, what we're most concerned about are the actual acts of violence, which themselves have happened, and as we just discussed. But this kind of phenomenon daxing is itself hugely problematic. Because the more information -- personal information about law enforcement professionals that are out on the internet, the more people who may be unstable or inclined to violence that are out there who can choose to act on it. And we're seeing that all too often.

The number of officers across law enforcement killed in the line of duty has been up alarmingly over the last few years. And I know that because one of the things I committed to doing early in my tenure was every time an officer anywhere in the country is shot and killed in the line of duty, I was going to personally call that Sheriff or that chief, and on behalf of the FBI, express our support and condolences and relay that to the family. And I have done that now close to 400 times since I've been in this job.

SWALWELL: Thank you for doing that. And you don't only do that. You send your sacks or your special agents in charge to their funerals as well. And I've seen that.

Chairman, I've counted in this hearing, and we're only about an hour and a half in the use of the word laptop about 20 times. In fact, in the chairman's opening statement, he said that he's upset that he believes the FBI prevented more Americans from learning about a private citizen's laptop. That is bananas to me. You all are bringing up FISA in every single question. You're essentially saying to the American people that you're guardians of personal security and privacy, but the 2020 election was determined --

JORDAN: The gentleman yield?

SWALWELL: -- because the FBI -- note. Because the FBI didn't let more Americans see a private citizen's non-consensual nudes. Is that what we're saying here, that you lost the election not because of your ideas, but because a private citizen's laptop --

JORDAN: Do you want an answer? Will you yield?

SWALWELL: -- wasn't out there? Well, that's --

JORDAN: Will you yield?

[11:40:00]

SWALWELL: That's bananas.

JORDAN: Will you yield?

SWALWELL: Like you should be a party of ideas, not a party of nonconsensual nudes to help you win an election.

JORDAN: Will you yield for an answer?

SWALWELL: And it seems like that is what the objection is here today. And we should be talking about the mass shootings that occurred over the last 10 days on the side of the -- this hearing has turned into absolute chaos. And I yield back.

JORDAN: The time of the gentleman is expired. We bring up FISA because it's up for reauthorization, if the gentleman didn't know, at the end of this year. And it was in -- it was in our witness's opening statement. I didn't bring up the laptop --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Whose time are you speaking -- whose time are you speaking to, Chairman?

JORDAN: The judge last July -- (INAUDIBLE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Point of order. Whose time are you speaking?

JORDAN: I'm speaking on -- I'm not a point of order. And I recognize the gentleman from Arizona.

REP. ANDY BIGGS (R-AZ): Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Director, thanks for being here. Who is Matthew Graves? Who is Matthew Graves?

WRAY: I believe Matthew Graves, at least the person I'm thinking of is I think the U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia.

BIGGS: That's the person I'm thinking of too. Are you aware that he has promised more than one thousand more individuals will be charged or indicted related to January 6?

WRAY: I had not heard that he had said that.

BIGGS: But it seems arbitrary. And there's reports that it's kind of a quasi-quota system that he's put together for January 6 prosecutions. Do you approve of target goal quotas in prosecuting alleged criminal conduct?

WRAY: They're certainly nine quotas. That doesn't make any sense. I mean, goals is a little bit more of an ambiguous term, but --

BIGGS: Certainly not quotas?

WRAY: Certainly not quotas.

BIGGS: Do you know if any of your personnel at the FBI is involved in the -- on the investigations promised that will lead to indictments by the January 6 quota established by U.S. Attorney Graves?

WRAY: That doesn't sound familiar to me.

BIGGS: OK. In June 2021, you told this committee that a small group of people at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 had "all sorts of weapons." Do you remember being here for that committee hearing and testifying that way?

WRAY: In general, yes.

BIGGS: It has been reported that more than 40 FBI personnel agents or contractors were in the crowd on January 6. Is that number accurate?

WRAY: I don't know if that number is accurate.

BIGGS: Former Capitol Police Chief Stephen Sund reportedly asserted that the protest crowd was filled with federal agents. Are you aware of his assertion?

WRAY: I am not.

BIGGS: Would you agree with him that it was filled with federal agents on January 6?

WRAY: I would really have to see more closely exactly what he said and get the full context to be able to evaluate it.

BIGGS: How many agents were actually -- agents or human resources were present at the Capitol complex and vicinity on January 6?

WRAY: Well, again, it's going to get confusing because it depends on when we were deployed and responded to the breach that occurred --

BIGGS: How many -- how many were under --

WRAY: Obviously, there were -- there were federal agents you know coming.

BIGGS: Sure. You're talking -- you -- and you and I both know what we're talking different things here. And please don't distract here because we're focusing on those who were there in an undercover capacity on January 6. How many were there?

WRAY: Again, I'm not sure that I can give you that number as I sit here. I'm not sure there were undercover agents on-scene.

BIGGS: I'm kind -- I find that kind of a remarkable statement, Director. At this point, you don't know whether there were undercover federal agents-- FBI agents in the crowd or in the Capitol on January 6?

WRAY: I say that because I want to be very careful. There have been a number of court filings related to some of these topics. And I want to make sure that I stick with them what's in the --

BIGGS: I understand that. But I just -- I thought I heard you say you didn't know whether there were FBI agents or informants or human sources in the Capitol or in the vicinity on January 6. Did I misunderstand you? I thought that's what you say.

WRAY: I -- well, I referred very specifically to undercover agents.

BIGGS: Yes. And so, are you acknowledging then there were undercover agents?

WRAY: As I sit here, right now, I do not believe there were undercover agents on-scene with FBI agents.

BIGGS: Or any assets. Did you have any assets present that day in the crowd? WRAY: When it comes to what you're calling assets, or what we would call confidential human sources --

BIGGS: Sure.

WRAY: That's a place where again, I want to be careful as much as I said in response to an earlier question. There are court filings that I think speak to this that I'm happy to make sure we get to you assuming they're not under seal. And that can better answer the question than I can as I sit here right now.

BIGGS: In the same January -- excuse me, June 2021 committee hearing, you told us that the FISA court "approved FBI procedures, minimization procedures, collection and procedures, quarrying procedures did not find misconduct." That's what you said. Specifically, said the FISC found no misconduct.

[11:40:01]

Yet three months later, the inspector general found widespread problems in the FBI's FISA applications raising serious questions about the FBI review process of applications, including hundreds of examples of non-compliance with Woods Procedures, for example. And we know that from December 2020 to November 2021, the FBI conducted 3.4 million warrantless searches of U.S. data under FISA. 3.4 million. Up nearly triple the amount of the previous year and it got worse, as you were telling us there was nothing to worry about.

But now, your reforms have produced about a hundred -- reduced it down to 119,000 over 200,000 total. But 119,000 discrete Americans. That just doesn't seem like you've accomplished much there if you have 119,000 illegal searches and queries under FISA. I'll yield back.

JORDAN: The gentleman yields back. The gentleman from California is recognized.

REP. TED LIEU (D-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately, this Chairman ignored a bipartisan Congressional subpoena served upon him. The actions of this Chairman have undermined the credibility of all Congressional committees in seeking information from witnesses and have undermined the rule of law.

Now, Director Wray, thank you for your public service and for the service of the brave FBI agents. I'm going to ask you a series of basic questions to get facts out to the American people about our system of justice. Trump adviser Roger Stone was convicted in a federal court, correct?

WRAY: That's my recollection.

LIEU: Trump donor Elliott Broidy was convicted in a federal court, correct?

WRAY: Also my recollection.

LIEU: The attorney general at the time for those two convictions was Bill Barr. Which president nominated Bill Barr for attorney general?

WRAY: President Trump.

LIEU: Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen was convicted on two separate occasions in a federal court, correct?

WRAY: I believe that's correct.

LIEU: The attorney general at the time for Cohen's second conviction was Matthew Whitaker. Which President appointed Matthew Whitaker as acting Attorney General?

WRAY: President Trump.

LIEU: Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted in federal court, correct?

WRAY: Yes.

LIEU: Trump's former deputy campaign manager, Mr. Gates was convicted in a federal court, correct?

WRAY: That's my recollection.

LIEU: Trump's campaign foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos --

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: We are listening to basically, the FBI director is on the hot seat. He is getting pelted with questions from Republicans on everything from social media censorship to the Hunter Biden investigation to internal memos regarding the Catholics in Richmond. And the FBI's role and why they haven't arrested someone in the January 6 bombing attempts. That -- the Republicans have been asking for more information on that case, although it is ongoing.

So, you're seeing the Republicans asked mostly about things like Hunter Biden. And you're seeing the Democrats talk to him about January 6. And so, it's really interesting to watch this.

The Democrats are being quite kind in their questioning. The Republicans are really going on the attack, especially about the FISA and the warrants there, and whether or not those were legal. And there has been some reporting by the general inspector that there were a lot of problems there.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: The committee hearing on paper is an oversight hearing. This is the job of -- you know of the Judiciary Committee, as you can see. But in reality, you can see a lot of what has played out.

Democrats call it political theater. Republicans say that they're holding the -- Christopher Wray's feet to the fire. But essentially, it's a political brawl is that we have been seeing play out.

SIDNER: Yes. BOLDUAN: The FBI director just facing a barrage of personal and targeted attacks from Republicans, who were very focused on what they perceive as bias amongst the ranks at the FBI.

SIDNER: All right. Joining us now to break all this down. We've got CNN's Sara Murray with us, Alayna Treene, and our Josh Campbell. Can you just give me a sense, Sara, listening to this, what do you make of all this and have we learned anything new here?

SARA MURRAY, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, you know, look. I think what we are trying to see the FBI director do is knock down some of the conspiracy-related claims to the extent that he can and also try to be forthcoming with the committee when the reality is you know they're asking about a lot of ongoing investigations that he's not really in a position to talk about.

I mean, one thing that is interesting that my colleague Evan Perez was flagging is that you know Director Wray did acknowledge that we're creating a new unit internally at the FBI to deal with threats against FBI offices, against FBI personnel in the wake of what we saw after the search at Mar-a-Lago.

[11:50:04]

You know, this is a big area of questioning, it's a big area of concern for Republicans who have called this a raid, you know who believed that the FBI went too far in searching the former president's home. And we saw Chris Wray really defending that and saying, this wasn't a raid. This was a lawfully executed search when we had a search warrant. And in fact, the -- you know, the agents took pains to be more discreet than they would usually be in a situation like this.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. And, Alayna, let me bring you in on this. You've been not only covering this committee but also following this hearing. Not only following the hearing but covering this committee from the jump. This is the first time that Chris Wray is before this committee since Republicans took over the House. And they hit on my list is about eight different topics and investigations that Republicans are trying to charge forward with against the FBI on this committee. What sticks out to you in what you have heard here?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: Well, Kate, I mean, I think it's very clear that Republicans have been eager to grill Wray on a series of topics for months now. And Jim Jordan, the chairman of the committee, has made it clear that FBI leadership is one of his top punching bags, and that he really wants to get into whether the FBI has been overly politicized in recent years. That's what Republicans claim. And also if it's been weaponized against conservatives.

But some of the key things that we heard today is one, about whether Catholics were being labeled as extremists. That's part of that Richmond menu that the FBI later withdrew and is defending -- we heard Wray defend that today. We're also hearing about school boards and whether parents -- conservative parents, in particular, were targeted as part of an FBI strategy around some of their complaints with school boards. And again, as we both pointed out, censorship here. Whether the FBI has played a role in whether the government is censoring speech online, particularly as it related to the story about Hunter Biden's laptop. And these are all things that the committee have been investigating for months now.

Not even just in the majority, which they've had since January, but even last year and last Congress when they were in the minority. They have been pulling together a lot of information. And so, it's all kind of led to this moment today with Wray in front of them. And as you all mentioned, it's become very political.

We've seen a lot of these committee hearings become political in the past, but Director Wray is a top target for Republicans and Jim Jordan, the chairman. And I think we're going to continue to see this become very hostile throughout the rest of the day.

SIDNER: I want to bring in Josh Campbell. You know very well how the FBI operates. And talk about this issue of what they said was a memo that was written by an FBI agent in Richmond, which suggested in their coup -- they "radical traditionalist Catholic ideology."

And there was a language that it seemed they were saying there might put some folks from the FBI in there too to try to figure out what was going on. But that memo was taken down very quickly. Can you give us some sense of how big of a deal if you will, would one FBI agent's memo be to the -- to the entire bureau?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, Sara, there's still a lot we don't know about that specific memo. But the way this process works is that field offices around the country, of 56 FBI field offices, agents, and analysts are responsible for knowing threats in their domain. They're responsible to ensure that if there is a threat that they identify that they counter it, we know since the Oklahoma City bombing, we know since 911, the FBI has been engaged in what's called looking for tripwires, people who are in a particular place that might be able to reach out to the FBI to say look, I see something that is concerning here.

I mean, one case in particular. After the Oklahoma City bombing, the FBI wanted to build contacts in places that sell fertilizer and precursors to explosives. And so, it appears that that memo that the FBI director, by the way, is not defending he's saying that he was appalled by what he read there.

It appeared that this was an effort by an agent or analyst there in the office to set up an inability to recruit sources in the domestic violent extremist space. So, a lot we still don't know. But again, the FBI director saying that look, this is not something I support.

If you look at the larger impact of this hearing that we're seeing today. I mean, you know, I talk to people in the FBI all the time, and they are fearful that the same attacks that they saw in 2016 and obviously in 2020, it's going to be even worse coming up in this 2024 presidential election. Because we're -- there things like that memo that you mentioned, you know, actual real instances where the FBI has done something questionable or you know pure wrongdoing, as indicated by inspector's general, the like.

A lot of this is a political effort to discredit the FBI so that the results of their work specifically as it relates to Donald Trump that raises doubt in the psyche of the American public. One thing we've been hearing throughout this very contentious hearing is Republicans saying, you know, Americans sent a sentiment of the FBI is in the tank.

[11:55:01]

That is true. If you look at polling data, the trust that the American people have in the FBI has been on the downslope, largely that's along political lines. The question is you have to ask yourself, why. What these Republicans are saying when they describe the FBI as some liberal Cabal you know deep state out to get Donald Trump, that is resonating with people. That could be the reason why the sentiment is the way it is, but that doesn't mean it's truthful.

BOLDUAN: Josh Campbell, great perspective as always in context. I appreciate it. Sara Murray and Alayna Treene, thank you, guys, so much as well.

I mean, the lingering question and this is kind of how it stands as we go in this committee hearing continues is what the Republicans want to do about it. There's talk of defunding the FBI. But there's a split amongst Republicans on that.

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: Ken Buck, for one made that very clear. He wants to --

SIDNER: He did not want to defund.

BOLDUAN: -- there sure are reforms needed --

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: -- but he does not want to defund it.

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: This, as we see with Capitol Hill hearings, has many elements of politics throughout.

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: What comes of it? We will see. We'll continue to follow that as well. Before we wrap up today, we do want to make an important note.

Yesterday in a segment about transgender influencer, Dylan Mulvaney, who was featured in Bud Light's recent campaign, she was mistakenly referred to by the wrong pronoun. And CNN aims to honor individuals' ways of identifying themselves. And we apologize for that error. A lot of live news today.

SIDNER: Yes.

BOLDUAN: A lot of events and it does continue. Thank you all so much for being here with us. I'm Kate Bolduan with Sara Sidner. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL. "INSIDE POLITICS" is up next.

SIDNER: Yes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

END