MyronGainesX - FBI Testimony on Trump Assassination & Netanyahu Speech Pt. 2

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 24, 2024 - MyronGainesX

01:54:37

FBI Testimony on Trump Assassination & Netanyahu Speech Pt. 2

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	His delivery.
	And so I think he's clearly coming here to try to appeal to both Democrats and Republicans, which is profoundly important, to touch our muscle memory and say, look, Israel still matters.
	I'm sorry to say this, but it's a sort of a sad comment on the stage of the day to say things like supporting our enemies like Iran's virulent anti-Semitism.
	These things are bad.
	And the United States and Israel matter.
	And Israel matters to the United States that frankly has a lot of challenges around the world to face.
	And he very explicitly said, Israel is your front line of defense in the Middle East, which I think could have a lot of resonance with both Democrats and Republicans.
	Back up on YouTube.
	Sorry about that.
	Because a lot of our other allies don't really say or do things like that.
	He did address the protesters, both the ones that have been on college campuses across the country, but also the ones who are outside hundreds of them outside the Capitol protesting his speech right now.
	There were also protesters that were outside of his hotel where he's been staying, which is over on the Potomac.
	So any surprise that we did see that number sadly, no.
	I wish I could have been pleasantly surprised that there were none, or in an alternate universe, that I could be shocked that there were any protesters at all.
	Unfortunately, I think it's a reflection of a lot of deeper trends, most of which go well beyond Prime Minister Netanyahu himself or even the U.S.-Israel partnership, negative trends about not only Israel's popularity in the United States and frankly, Israel's struggle trying to do and how it supports U.S. interests, which is one of the reasons that Netanyahu was here.
	But I think I've frankly been shocked, and I'm not someone who's easily shocked since October 7th.
	Should still be there.
	The veil has dropped.
	Any pretense of pretending that opposition to Israel is simply anti-Zionism, which in of itself is a very problematic argument.
	But now, you know, the fig leaf is gone.
	It's open season on anti-Semitism.
	And so I think that forms a very important, critical, and, you know, frankly horrifying backdrop to one of the reasons that brought him here to Washington.
	What are your thoughts about the fact that Kamala Harris, vice president, was not there?
	Now, she is campaigning, so to speak, over in Indianapolis.
	So that was a pre-planned trip.
	But obviously, she is not there during the speech.
	What does that say to you?
	And is it significant in any way as she is likely to be the Democratic candidate for president?
	Are we up on Rumble?
	I think on a substance level, it's not that important.
	But ironically, the optics of it are bad.
	And that's more important.
	As I mentioned, any perceptions of daylight in the U.S.-Israel partnership negatively impact both the United States and Israel and our shared interests in the Middle East.
	And there's plenty of blame to go around since October 7th, both here and in Israel, about people who've inserted that daylight needlessly into the partnership.
	And so I would fault Vice President Harris for needlessly inserting more daylight into this, especially when you have both Biden and Trump meeting with Bibi.
	We know that Netanyahu did touch on a variety of topics there.
	He spoke for nearly an hour.
	Is there anything that you hope maybe you hear that you didn't hear from him?
	Certainly.
	There were a couple of things.
	So again, I thought he did great on the big picture stuff.
	I was hoping for a little more substance on some of the key issues that he did touch upon in various ways, namely, what does the day after look like in Gaza?
	He has said a demilitarized and de-radicalized Gaza Strip, which he has been saying ever since shortly after October 7th, which is a perfectly sound goal, one that earnestly should be pursued.
	But I didn't hear him say anything new about that, guys.
	From where we are today to that day after, because there's a long way to go.
	It's a very complex issue in terms of an actual plan on the ground.
	I think that's still missing.
	It's certainly a complex issue to have to wade through, but one that's all the more important because of that.
	Separately, his mention of a multilateral alliance of Abraham Accords partners in the Middle East.
	Well, I think that's also a long road to have to walk down.
	I think it's much to be commended.
	And it's a reflection of the fact that there's a lot of things going on just under the surface in the Middle East that have a lot of positive potential, both for the United States and Israel, that would center around hopefully getting Israel-Saudi normalization through.
	Because if you have that, then you have top cover for all the things regionwide alliance against an Iran-led threat that is, I think, a lot greater than people in America really even realize at this moment.
	And we are looking at a picture.
	This is a live image coming in from Washington, D.C. This is a ways away from the Capitol, but we were seeing what appeared to be smoke.
	And we are told that several people have climbed a statue.
	Others are taken into custody.
	One question I do want to ask you, though.
	We know that the assassination attempt against former President Trump earlier this month is something that Bibi did comment on during his speech.
	Did that lead to any concerns about his travel here to the U.S.?
	I think I wouldn't be surprised if it did, if there's a little more logistical effort going into security these days.
	Sorry, Iran has made quite clear that they have put a price on the heads of a lot of people they deem responsible for the killing of General Qasim Soleimani, the IRGC leader in Baghdad in 2020.
	And certainly I wouldn't be surprised if that has come into play in an area like this.
	But also, that's a top-down problem.
	I think what we're seeing on the screen right now is a different type of problem from the bottom up, but which is frankly no less worrisome, which is again, this sort of openly breaking protesting, which the protest in itself is not the problem.
	It's a healthy part of democracy.
	It's the intimidation, the militarization, and the open anti-Semitism of the protests, which bleeds over, again, as Prime Minister Netanyahu mentioned in his speech.
	This is all being encouraged by an Iranian regime that not only wants to de-legitimize Israel and U.S. support for Israel, but also sow dissension here in America's democracy.
	That's all fixed.
	One thing that's interesting that we did mention is that Biden will meet with Netanyahu tomorrow and then Trump on Friday.
	My question is, I know initially there was going to be a conversation and a meeting between Biden and Netanyahu.
	I believe it was initially scheduled for today, but was pushed back.
	And then we had word that he was going to meet with Trump tomorrow.
	And then that was pushed to Friday because Biden had said, I want to meet with him Thursday.
	So my question for you, is there any way to know if Netanyahu was going to meet with Biden if he hadn't met with Trump?
	It's a great question.
	I worry any answer I give would be mostly speculation.
	I do know that at least the Biden team is saying they want the president to be fully clear of his COVID diagnosis before meeting with Netanyahu.
	But I think the fact that the Biden and Trump meetings are on that schedule, even if that schedule is a lot of moving parts, I think that's the critically important part because I think when Netanyahu came here in 2015, to say the right thing, which was to criticize the Iranian freedom deal, which was then in the works, I still think there was some political collateral damage, some partisan collateral damage here in America, the way that speech was perceived.
	Because as we say at my organization, Israel has long been a bipartisan issue and it must remain one.
	And so I think the fact that now that Bibi is going to meet with both Biden and Trump, I think that is more important than anything else.
	That's the message that needs to be gotten across is that his visit here is part of a strengthening of the bipartisan bilateral relationship with Israel.
	I did want to ask, because we know that the people of Israel do know who President Biden is.
	They know who former President Trump is.
	Now Kamala Harris is believed to be the frontrunner.
	Oh, there are a lot of Democratic nominations there.
	Are the people of Israel familiar with Kamala Harris?
	Our mission.
	That's a U.S. national mission.
	I think they're becoming familiar with her given events of the past week or so.
	Acronym.
	My organization has done a lot of work on the importance, arguing for the importance of maintaining U.S. military assistance to Israel for all the benefits it brings to U.S. national security interests.
	Before she was vice president, Kamala Harris was a strong advocate for that and for the bilateral relationship.
	I think, like President Biden himself, who I certainly matters.
	Let's go back to the inquiry that we're at with the FBI.
	I think we're good on Twitter.
	Oh, shit.
	Hold on.
	FBI congressional hearing.
	Boom.
	Go back.
	Okay.
	By exploiting the drone, determining the abuse and flight paths.
	There were no pictures or videos on the drone of the day of the rally, for example.
	But we have been able to reverse engineer the flight.
	This is where we left off, right around the day of the rally.
	And that's how we know that for about 11 minutes.
	On the drone from, I think it's around 3.50 p.m. to 4 p.m., somewhere in that range, he was flying the drone, and we have the flight path.
	It's about 200 yards away from where former President Trump would ultimately be speaking.
	And so that would have primarily given him a vantage point.
	I'm trying to think how to describe this.
	If the former president's podium is that way, the drone would be over here looking, you know, say 200 yards again off this way, looking back.
	So it would have shown the shooter, we think.
	Again, this we're still doing more work on this.
	I really want to qualify what I'm saying.
	I'm trying to be transparent and lean in here.
	We think it would have shown him kind of what would have been behind him.
	When you said behind him, behind the shooter.
	Correct.
	Like in other words, almost like giving him a rearview mirror of the scene behind him.
	Except again, he wasn't flying it overhead while he was later back for the stage, I assume, it was already said he would have been able to assess that angle with rooftop as well.
	Forward and backward, I assume.
	Well, certainly going towards the podium.
	Again, we're still trying to figure out exactly what he saw because we're having to, in effect, because there's no recording of what he saw during those 11 minutes.
	You know, our hypothesis at this point, the experts think he would have been live streaming it.
	And so we're trying to, in effect, say, okay, well, if this was the flight pattern, given these capabilities of the drone, what would you have seen?
	What could you have seen for those 11 minutes?
	And again, it wasn't over the stage or the kind of the hub of the rally.
	It was about 200 yards away, but it looks like it would have been looking, let's say, you know, length of a football field or so, more kind of towards the podium.
	Great.
	Thank you, Mr. How many separate times.
	And real quick, just so you guys know, a lot of the stuff, just to give you guys my quick little take on the whole Netanyahu thing, bro, I knew who's going to do that.
	Come in.
	We need money.
	We need support.
	We're your best partners in the Middle East.
	These guys are terrorists, blah, blah, blah.
	We want a two-state solution, which is a lie, by the way.
	And I got proof of it right here.
	This comes from Johnny Harris.
	This is a pretty good video that he made on how Benjamin Netanyahu relies on Hamas.
	Hold on Benjamin Netanyahu talking to some settlers in the West Bank.
	The cameraman does turn off the camera for a moment, but then turns it back on moments later.
	Boom.
	Why does this matter?
	Because at that moment, I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.
	He is admitting to sabotaging the peace accords that the Israeli government had signed with the Palestinians.
	That because he disagreed with them, he wanted to sabotage them because he was so against a Palestinian state or any form of Palestinian autonomy.
	He claims he wants it, but it's a lie, guys.
	And then he goes on to explain what his real thinking is on the situation.
	The main thing is, first and foremost, to hit them hard.
	The price is not unbearable now.
	A total assault on the Palestinian Authority, which, guys, that's the PLO.
	That's the guys out there in the West Bank.
	Netyahu is a fantastic politician and statesman, and he's able to sort of cover up a lot of these policies in the name of security.
	But here we see he's a good speaker, too.
	He had these guys clap it from what 81 times, guys?
	What he really thinks as he's talking to these settlers, thinking he's not being recorded.
	So, unsurprisingly, the appetite for peace breaks down on both sides.
	Palestinian.
	And that recording, obviously, not a lot of people will talk about it.
	I couldn't even find it on YouTube unless on this video, which is for obvious reasons.
	But guys, it's all fucking cap, man.
	It's all cap.
	And the Oslo Accords, real quick.
	And it's important to notice that this is Yasser Arafat, right?
	The leader of the Palestinian movement, the PLO.
	This is Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was Prime Minister before Netanyahu, which explains why he wanted to sabotage it because he's not the one that actually put it into effect.
	Oslo Accords are a pair of interim agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Libyan Organization, PLO, signed at Washington, D.C. in 1993 with Clinton, obviously, and the Oslo II Accord signed in Taba Egypt in 1995.
	They marked the start of the Oslo peace process aimed at achieving a peace treaty based on Resolution 242 and Resolution 338 of the United States Nation Security Council.
	The Oslo process began after secret negotiations to Oslo Norway, resulting in both the recognition of Israel by the PLO and the recognition by Israel of the PLO as a representative.
	And Yitzhak Rabin, just so you guys know, right?
	He is still alive?
	I think he got killed, if I'm not mistaken.
	Still alive?
	He was the Yitzhak Rabin, March 1st, 1922, 1995.
	Was an Israeli politician, statesman and general.
	He was the fifth prime minister of Israel, serving two terms in office, 1974, 1977, from 1992 until his assassination in 1995.
	I wonder who was behind his assassination, guys.
	There's a lot of talk that Netanyahu and his people were behind it because this guy pushed for a lot of peace of the Middle East.
	And Netanyahu does not have similar views.
	So, yeah.
	Was the shooter on the premises?
	So, again, with the caveat that we're continuing to do work on it, we believe that the first time he traveled to back to the FBI director's testimony.
	To the grounds was, I think, a week before, and he spent roughly 20 minutes there.
	Then he went to the grounds again on the morning of the event, it appears, for about 70 minutes, I think.
	But again, I qualify that.
	I'd have to go back and look to be sure of that part.
	And then he came back in the afternoon.
	So that would be, I guess, a third time for good.
	But that included things like this drone activity we just talked about.
	Gentleman from California is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Director, thank you for appearing.
	Thank you for the extraordinary job that you're doing.
	Please convey our thanks to the men and women at the Bureau for their incredible work.
	I've worked with them since I was an assistant U.S. attorney more than 30 years ago.
	Let me start with a threshold question I'm curious about.
	When I applied to be an assistant U.S. attorney, I had to go through a background check.
	Do candidates for the FBI have to go through background checks?
	Yes.
	Would someone with dozens of felony convictions survive a background check for the Bureau?
	No.
	So they would never be hired by the Bureau.
	No.
	Well, clearly the Bureau has, you don't have to comment on this.
	I know you won't, but clearly the Bureau has higher standards for their hiring than one of America's great political parties.
	Let me turn to the events of the tragic shooting.
	I knew he was going to do it.
	He had to take a shot at Trump.
	Have you been able to gain access to the electronic communications, social media, and with the caveats that you mentioned that the investigation is still early?
	Have you been able to make any deductions or are there any indications of the shooter's motivation from those electronic holdings?
	All right, now he's asking a real question besides taking these fucking shots at Trump.
	So in terms of our ability to access it, we have been able to get into and exploit a number of electronic devices, digital devices, but not all of them yet.
	And then within his various accounts, we've been able to get access to some of them, but some of them we're still waiting on.
	Some of them we may never get access to because of the encryption issue that it presents an increasingly vexing barrier for law enforcement, not just the FBI, but for law enforcement all over the country.
	But we're still drilling into that.
	We have some information.
	Some places we've been able to look, some places we will be able to look, some places we may never be able to see, no matter how good our legal process is.
	But that's what we're looking at right now.
	In terms of what we've been able to find so far, a lot of the usual repositories of information have not yielded anything notable in terms of motive or like ideology.
	Having said that, it does appear fairly clear that he was interested in public figures kind of more broadly.
	And, and I think this is important, that starting somewhere around July 6th or so, he became very focused on former President Trump and this rally.
	And so one of the things that I can share here today that has not been shared yet is that we've just in the last couple of days found that from our review, to your point about devices, analysis of a laptop that the investigation ties to the shooter reveals that on July 6th, he did a Google search for, quote, how far away was Oswald from Kennedy.
	What the fuck?
	That's unique.
	Okay?
	He's over here Googling, and just so you guys know, some of you guys might not know who that is.
	Let's have some fun with this once again.
	Who is Harry Lee Oswald?
	Lee Harvey Oswald, excuse me.
	I always fucking mess this up.
	This is the guy that allegedly shot Kennedy.
	But if you guys know better, you already know who really killed Kennedy.
	And I went over this on Rumble.
	Right?
	You just go ahead and type in JFK, Fresh and Fit.
	Right here.
	Who killed Kennedy?
	The biggest cover-up.
	Watch this.
	It's a four-hour long plus podcast.
	I did it with Corey Hughes.
	But we went over everything, guys, who the real shooters were.
	We went over a bunch of stuff, man.
	One of my favorite podcasts we've done, we identify the shooters by fucking name and go over a lot of historical content.
	So please go check that out after.
	I'll put the link in here in the chat for y'all, ninjas, because we actually know who was involved in Kennedy's death.
	Put that in here for y'all.
	Watch it after this stream, please.
	Boom.
	Put it in the chat for you, Ninjas.
	But let's keep going.
	Back to Ray's thing.
	And so that's a search that obviously is significant in terms of his state of mind.
	That is the same day that it appears that he registered for the Butler rally.
	Same day.
	You say that his electronic holdings indicated an interest in different public figures without revealing anything you're not comfortable revealing about those public figures.
	Can you tell us anything generally about them, either the offices they hold, their political party, or was it simply people of a high profile?
	Well, a couple things.
	First, the images that we've recovered so far from, I can't remember which of his various devices appear to be what we call cached images from searches of news articles.
	So if you do a news article search, of course, if there are photos on it, those photos get stored automatically in your cache, as opposed to me searching or him searching for a specific person and getting up images of that person.
	As far as the pictures that are like that, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of rhyme or reason to it so far, other than these are all prominent public people.
	But they cover both parties.
	They cover both U.S. people and even some foreign public officials.
	So that part doesn't appear to, that one repository of information doesn't appear to be overly indicative of motive other than interest in public figures, but that could be just because he was reading news stories.
	So we're still trying to drill into that.
	That's why all of these outstanding legal process returns that we're waiting on for various accounts, platforms, et cetera, you know, any one of them could be one that would have very indicative, very important information.
	If I can be permitted one very short additional question, Chairman.
	From that, any indication of any other particular target, that is someone who was not just sort of generically the subject of the searches you described, but for which there was more of an interest than others.
	The information I just described at the moment does not appear particularly indicative of targeting in its own right.
	But again, that dot, once we get other information, could connect in a way that might be more meaningful.
	But I really, I'm sharing that piece of information with this committee and with the American public, but I think it's important that we put down a qualification.
	This does not appear to be some kind of target list or something like that.
	This is cached images from running searches of news stories.
	And again, there's nothing at the moment that there's no pattern from that particular piece of information that is overly remarkable so far.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Chairman.
	John Yields back.
	Gentlemen from California is recognized.
	Mr. Director, you previously told us that you consider the situation on the southern border to be a massive security threat to our country.
	Is that still your assessment?
	I stand by my prior testimony.
	And in fact, just in the last month or so, we've conducted a significant series of arrests.
	I say we, our Joint Terrorism Task Force, is working with ICE of a number of individuals with suspected international terrorism ties.
	And I have also been very vocal about the fact that since, and this is really since the last time I appeared before you, that we are increasingly concerned about the possibility of a foreign terror.
	One sec, one sec.
	What's that, ninjas?
	He's trying to kill me.
	Foreign terrorist-inspired attack, which is very much, very much a concern, but even the potential for a coordinated foreign terrorist attack, perhaps like what we've seen against the concert hall in Russia, for example, but just here in the United States.
	Well, the 19 suicide bombers overstate visas were responsible for 3,000 American deaths on 9-11.
	What's your best estimate of the number of foreign terrorists who are now in our country?
	I mean, I don't know that I could give you that number.
	What I can tell you is we have lots of foreign terrorism-related investigations, but that doesn't mean that all of them came in illegally or anything, anything like that.
	It seems to me that the simplest act of terrorism would be for dozens of guerrillas to attack low-security, high-density venues, for example, Friday night high school football games all across the country at the same hour.
	Sorry, guys, I ordered some food, and it's fucking taking forever to get up here, so that's what it was.
	Someone said, Myron Duanco, bro, shut the fuck up, man.
	Like, guys, I've never done a drug in my life.
	I've never smoked weed in my life, and I never will fucking do a drug in my life.
	Shut the fuck up.
	This shit pisses me off when people say that dumb shit.
	I will never ever do a drug in my fucking life, bro.
	That's just for losers.
	I tell you guys that shit all the time.
	I don't even fucking drink over here saying, I'm fucking sick doing this stream right now, and you're dumbass over here saying that dumb shit.
	Fuck you.
	With bombs and automatic weapons, that would produce thousands of casualties from coast to coast in a manner.
	I'm sniffing because I'm fucking sick, and I've been sick for a few days, but we still stream.
	The show goes on board.
	What you're describing would require, of course, a lot of coordination.
	But what I will tell you, and I think you're on to a particularly important point from my perspective, which is that those were fun like the 9-11 attacks, which, again, I was in FBI headquarters on the day of 9-11, and so I remember it vividly.
	And I've spent plenty of time in the period after that in my prior positions engaged with the families and the victims.
	But what we're seeing more and more with the foreign terrorist threat, and frankly, also the domestic terrorism threat, is a focus on kind of like what you're talking about, what I would call soft targets, which is really for the American people's benefit, just intelligence communities speak for where everyday people live their everyday lives.
	What terrorist groups have now infiltrated our country that you're tracking?
	Well, I don't know that I would say infiltrated.
	We have investigations as we speak that relate to ISIS and its affiliates.
	We have investigations as we speak that relate to al-Qaeda.
	We have investigations as we speak that relate to al-Shabaab.
	We have investigations as we speak that relate to the Iranian proxies, Hezbollah, and frankly, even the IRGC Cuts Force itself.
	What foreign criminal gangs are now in our country that you're most concerned with?
	Well, foreign criminal gangs.
	I mean, we obviously have investigations, a lot of investigations into gangs like MS-13, for example, and some of its counterparts.
	Although I think if you were to talk to most chiefs and sheriffs like I'm doing every week, we shouldn't underestimate how prevalent neighborhood gangs are, really.
	It's a lot of the gang violence that I'm concerned about though.
	It looks like they're back.
	Let's see here.
	Let's bring it up to speed.
	To those foreign actors.
	The most recent example with the Russians, for example, is axiom.
	Now we're live.
	Generative AI social media bot farm where they were posing as, among others, U.S. persons and not, in fact, U.S. persons, and trying to, again, sow various narratives.
	In that case, very heavily focused on the issue they picked there was the war in Ukraine.
	And again, trying to kind of get everybody turned against each other.
	We've also seen that, though, from China and Iran.
	I mentioned China before.
	We've had a case where we charged, I think it was 34 Chinese Ministry of Public Security MPS officers for much the same kind of behavior, creating false personas, pretending to be Americans, and then trying to kind of sow narratives.
	In that case, in the Chinese case, their narratives were trying to, for example, undermine any suggestion that COVID was the product of a lab leak or attacking U.S. law enforcement at the anniversary of George Floyd's death, for example.
	And then Iran in 2020, we saw them undertake similar kinds of efforts that were disrupted in October of 2020.
	Thank you, and I yield back.
	General Lay yields back.
	Gentlemen from Virginia's recognized feminines.
	Director A, thank you for being here and thank you for the information that you've provided today.
	I greatly appreciate it.
	This event that occurred, the attempted assassination of President Trump on July 13th in Butler, Pennsylvania, was a level five alarm alert to this country that our elected officials, our leaders, the president, the former president, are not safe and we need to reevaluate from the ground up exactly how we are to go about providing that protection.
	The information you provided dealing with eight cartridges from the roof, the drone, the fact that two explosive devices were found in the car, one at home, that was a remote detonation device that he had on him.
	The fact that his phone was using encrypted platforms, he only had one phone, correct?
	Sorry.
	Yeah, he had one phone, although we've identified other phones that he may have used that may not have been his phone.
	So, for example, we think in certain instances he might have used his dad's phone.
	Again, not necessarily related to the attack, but we're trying to make sure that we process and exploit every device he could have used.
	And we keep, which is part of why I keep making this point, which I know you all are probably tired of me making about this being an ongoing investigation, because we keep identifying new pieces of equipment, new accounts, what have you.
	The fact that you are in real time informing us about what you are finding as you are performing this investigation is very helpful and clarifying the fact that he went to the range a day before and shot an AR.
	Now, my understanding is that the AR he used on the 13th was his father's.
	Is that correct?
	Well, yes and no.
	It was originally, his father bought it legally, but then our understanding so far is that his father then conveyed it to him, sold it, in fact, to his son.
	So originally his father's, at the time of the shooting, the shooters.
	Okay, so that's new information.
	Was that provided to you by the father?
	I think it was partly from that.
	I think we also saw some documentation to support it.
	Okay.
	Investigators also have said that the shooter posted, quote, July 13th will be my premiere.
	Watch it as it unfolds on an online gaming platform sometime before he tried to assassinate President Trump.
	Can you confirm that and how much time elapsed between this posting and the attempt on July 13th?
	So I'm really glad you asked about that because that is a situation where, again, in our effort to give real-time information, since we provided that information, we have since learned that that July 13th premier profile page on the gaming platform,
	it turns out it was not the shooter, that it was some other individual as part of some sick joke who after the shooting created a profile page pretending to be the shooter.
	Wow.
	And so, of course, we've now, that person is now admitted to it.
	And, you know, we've brought his own.
	Among the other challenges that we as investigators have, you have people who create accounts in today's world, create accounts pretending to be somebody that they're, you know, and it's not the actual person.
	That's troubling, obviously, and it makes our jobs even harder as investigators.
	Thank you for clarifying that.
	Did he have an online gaming account?
	We do believe he was a gamer and that he had different kinds of gaming accounts.
	So you pay him a visit.
	Not yet, but again, some of those are some of those legal process returns I'm still waiting on.
	Now, during the attempted assassination, Crooks was wearing a T-shirt from a popular YouTube channel.
	Have you been able to access his selection of YouTube videos that he's watched?
	I believe we have seen some of his search history, but I think we've got a ways to go on that.
	I know there's some manual work that we're doing on that.
	I think the most notable thing that we've found recently, which I don't think has been shared until today, is that on a laptop that the investigation ties to him, that on July 6th, it revealed a Google search and his search, if it was him.
	Again, it's a laptop tied to him.
	We obviously believe it's him, but we'll continue to investigate.
	His Google search was how far away was Oswald from Kennedy?
	Right.
	Horrifying.
	Yes, absolutely.
	Can you clarify that you have in your possession all the video that was taken on that day at the scene?
	we've collected mountains of video uh part of the reason i commit to providing us with that well Well, we're going to work with the committee and share information as best we can.
	Part of the reason I hedged on whether we have it all is as you can appreciate in today's world, everybody with a phone has the ability to take footage.
	And so we're finding things kind of left and right.
	We have all the law enforcement video.
	I believe we have all the law enforcement video, but we're still 65 feet, guys.
	And I hope you would provide that to us and to the American people.
	Thank you.
	I yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Director, just to be clear, the photo and the message on the online gaming account, I think your testimony was to Mr. Klein that that was somebody else posing as the shooter.
	Is that right?
	Correct.
	Somebody after July 13th created this profile, pretending to be the shooter and sent us down a rabbit trail, which we've now tied off.
	That's important information.
	You might get charged with Pennsylvania's recognized.
	I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Thank you, Director Wray, for being here.
	And I want to add my voice to the chorus of folks who are just devastated by the illness and passing of Sheila Jackson Lee.
	What a champion.
	What a role model.
	I always called her the hardest working member of Congress.
	She was everywhere on every issue.
	She'll be greatly missed.
	Director Wray, I thank you for what you said earlier, which is leaning in.
	This is such an extraordinary set of events.
	The attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the stealing of the life of a father, a firefighter, somebody who protected lives, Corey Comperator, serious injuries to two others.
	It's amazing to me how they only have five minutes to ask questions and they yap the first minute or two and then they start rushing at the end.
	Stupid.
	Did the shooter also investigate other high-profile folks?
	We had heard some reporting around that early on.
	Well, you say investigate other folks.
	I think this is a place where we still have a lot more work to do.
	Part of what we did find was a bunch of cached images of a variety of public figures.
	But again, cached images are those images that you get when you, like you pull up a news story from any number of news sites.
	If they're photographs in the article, those images are automatically put into the cache on your computer.
	So it doesn't necessarily mean that you were searching for that person's image.
	We do have the fact that starting around, at the least around the period early July, so this search that I just mentioned related to Oswald and Kennedy, that's about July 6th, which is the same day we believe that he registered for the rally.
	And the day before, he traveled to the grounds for the first time.
	And so I think there is a certain amount of related to former President Trump that during that period we're seeing consistent with some kind of planning or reconnaissance, if you want to call it that, in advance of the rally.
	But that's sort of confined to that or concentrated, maybe is a better word, in that July period, you know, after the announcement of the rally and before the shooting.
	Can you speak to the conveyance of the gun?
	So this is a 20-year-old young man.
	His father owned the gun originally, AR-15, am I correct?
	AR-style, yeah, 15-star 15.
	20-year-old man.
	When did the father sell the gun to him?
	And what documents do you have?
	How much money transferred to the money?
	Yeah, I don't, I don't, I do know that, I had to say I know, we believe, based on what we've seen, that his father, after purchasing the gun legally, sold the gun to his son.
	I don't know that I have the date of that transfer or the amount of the transfer, although we may be able to get that to you as a follow.
	I just don't have it in front of me.
	Do you know when the father bought it?
	We know.
	I don't, as I'm sitting here testifying in front of you, I don't have that in front of me, so I don't have it my phone.
	I'm just wondering if it's proximate to this event.
	I do not believe that the gun was purchased, that is the gun that was used.
	I do not believe it was purchased particularly close in time to the shooting.
	Okay.
	But how far in advance?
	It may have been a year before, give or take.
	But again, we'll go back and double check that on you.
	It was bought well before the event.
	On the day of the shooting, at about 1:30 p.m., he bought 50 rounds of ammunition.
	So if you think about the day of, or if you back up a little bit, so the day before he goes to the shooting range, the day of, he goes to the grounds the morning of the event for, I think, around an hour.
	He buys the ammunition at around 1:30.
	At around 3.50 is when he's back on the grounds of the rally, and that's when he used the drone that I've talked about already today.
	And then, of course, fast forward till just after 6 o'clock when the worst happened.
	And we had thought maybe over the weekend there was a conversation around classified briefing for members.
	I hope that will happen as soon as it's feasible for you and for the other agencies involved.
	And he got off eight shots, and the reporting is that that was in under six seconds.
	He got off eight shots, fatal to one.
	My question that I'll leave you with, and I know I'm over time, Mr. Chairman, is we all decry political violence.
	We decry any violence, but we decry the rise in political violence.
	What can you tell us that we could do better?
	What do you need for you to be able to help this country reduce the political violence tendencies?
	I think this is a moment where in the most stark way possible, all of us as Americans can see how out of control political violence is in this country.
	And it's an opportunity for everybody to come together and to try to show that this is not the kind of thing we're going to tolerate in this country.
	The FBI's role is to focus on violence and threats of violence.
	But there is a role for others in the public square to address how people communicate in this country.
	And every day in our jobs, we see in social media in terms of threats that people are, we get thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of tips reported to us.
	the language that's out there uh is just mind-bogglingly hateful uh and and violent sounding uh people sometimes shout to top shake He goes, let's help Myron Sickness.
	Other than that, it's not adding up.
	There are missing components of this.
	These guys should be pros.
	What are your thoughts, Myron?
	Could they do better?
	Don't demonstrate.
	Let's hear all the full testimony and then I'll definitely give my take.
	It says figures of speech use expressions that are very violent expressions.
	And so that is a part of it.
	We can all do better in kind of being a little more thoughtful and measured in our language.
	But again, the FBI's, we've got to stay in our lane.
	Our lane is the violence and the threats of violence.
	There's a role for everybody as Americans to try to see if we can take the temperature down.
	Agreed.
	Thank you.
	And thank you for the extra time.
	I yield back.
	The gentleman from North Dakota is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	And I really appreciate you correcting the gaming thing about this is my coming out party because we're asking you to do something.
	And we've had acrimonious, you and I have actually had acrimonious, but we're not here for a got you moment.
	We're just not, not on this.
	And we're asking you to give us information before the investigation is complete.
	My only recommendation or suggestion would be when that happens, don't necessarily wait till you ask, because don't wait for us to ask.
	And I'll go through why in a second.
	I appreciate you coming in.
	I appreciate you telling us things.
	I appreciate you guys going against essentially your normal policy of waiting until the investigation is done because the American people need to know it.
	But here's why.
	There's a guy with a rangefinder walking around that everybody noticed and then couldn't find.
	You know, he scaled to the top of a roof within 150 yards out of sight to the presidential, Republican former presidential candidate by climbing a drain pipe.
	And then you said some equipment.
	He was being pointed out by rallygoers.
	So now we know it's not a ladder.
	Nobody could find it.
	There's maybe supposed to be local law enforcement in the building, either upstairs or downstairs.
	And all of this is going on.
	And I was talking to a colleague of mine yesterday on the floor.
	And it's like, I hate the conspiracy theories that come out.
	But this is, and this is not the FBI's purview.
	This is the Secret Service's preview.
	This is so comically inept to the average North Dakota citizen is just they look at this and they're like, how could this possibly happen?
	And so when we, by you giving us information in a really meaningful way, even though we know the investigation is ongoing and things can change, that at least helps us to deal with that and figure out where we're at.
	And so, I mean, and you're doing all this.
	This guy had no combat training, no counter surveillance training that you're aware of, right?
	I'm sorry, I couldn't quite hear that.
	No combat training.
	Oh, no, not, I don't think any, certainly know what we would call, what you and I would call combat training.
	Obviously, he was a fairly active recreational shooter, so he did plenty of a lot of guys.
	No, not, I don't think any, certainly know what we would call what you and I would call combat training.
	Obviously, he was a fairly active recreational shooter, so he did plenty of a lot of guys in Western North Dakota, right?
	I mean, all of those different things.
	And somehow we came within under of an inch of a presidential candidate being shot and killed within 100 days out from an election.
	And when you look at it, so just I just want to be really clear because there is a lot of this.
	There is no evidence of another shooter, right?
	I mean, another shooter.
	Yeah.
	I mean, there's the counter sniper who took out the shooter.
	Right away.
	But you're talking about like an.
	Else.
	And you're looking at his online and seeing all that, but there's no evidence he had any other accomplices on scene that day, correct?
	Correct.
	Not that we've seen yet, certainly.
	And you said, and we oversights had a hearing, DHS had a hearing, we're having a hearing now.
	The Inspector General is going to investigate.
	We're probably announcing a bipartisan outside panel.
	But there's another investigation, too, right?
	Because somebody has to clear the shooter.
	Like, even though it is a Secret Service officer deploying his, I mean, when an FBI, when an FBI agent kills somebody in the line of duty, what's the process?
	So we have what we call an agent-involved shooting, is I think what you're getting at.
	We have a whole process.
	So you get put on leave, paid leave, get a lawyer, depending on how it is, right?
	Well, some of those things depend, but we have our inspection division does a shoot review of each time when there's one of these situations.
	And they sometimes have to coordinate with local prosecutors who are also doing some kind of review.
	But so, yes, Secret Service would have a similar kind of process for the countershoot.
	I mean, because you have to actually establish one of, I mean, one of the defenses to homicide.
	Just like, I mean, you don't do it in a court system the same way everybody else does, but you have to justify that that shooting was justified.
	So when the FBI does that, do they conduct that all internally?
	Most of the time, yes.
	Every once in a while, there's a situation where the Inspector General gets involved.
	Do you know how the Secret Service does it?
	I don't.
	And I just think that's important.
	Just so you guys know, every agency is fairly similar with that, by the way.
	There's going to be an independent investigation done by Internal Affairs.
	The state and local agency is going to investigate it for potential murder, et cetera.
	And once the state and locals clear you, nine out of ten times are going to be cleared by your agency as well, assuming you didn't put any props or modifications on your service weapon.
	Because when we're talking about how this works, and I don't think anybody is arguing it wasn't, anybody who's seen it knows what happens, but it's just knowing it and making sure that the process is handled correctly.
	And I just want to shift gears with my last 30 seconds really quickly, because we had a hearing on the northern border in Grand Forks, and you were talking about specific threats from Iran, but also generally.
	And we've diverted an exceptional amount of resources at the southern border, our interactions, 114% increase in apprehensions.
	And the one specific thing, with all due respects to my friends and my neighbors from Canada, it's a lot easier to get into Canada for some of these countries where we have these real issues with terrorist threats than it is to the United States, particularly Iran.
	And are you guys monitoring that and making sure whatever coordination you have with Canada that we're paying attention to that as well?
	We have an excellent relationship, we, the FBI, with our Canadian counterparts, both RCMP, you know, the Mounties, as some people euphemistically call them, and CSIS.
	My intelligence service counterparts.
	We have great relationships with them, and terrorism is, I find, probably the number one thing we talk about.
	They're understaffed and overworked on the northern border, and they can use all the help you get with that.
	I yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentlemen from Maryland is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Director, thank you for today.
	I think I greatly appreciate your candor.
	I know it's highly unusual to go into this level of detail during an active investigation.
	And I know it's a special and unique circumstance given the nature of what happened that day.
	I'll ask my colleagues that we not try and take advantage of this in other circumstances.
	I think we need to be careful about that.
	Oh, finally, yes.
	He finally says it.
	Shut the fuck up and stop trying to put your policies on.
	We got a rare situation where we can ask the FBI director questions about an active investigation on a very sensitive topic, and we don't give a fuck about your gun control policies or my views on this.
	XYZ is being nice about it.
	Pressuring our investigators to disclose information in the middle of an investigation in a casual or routine way.
	But thank you for what you've done here today.
	I do want to mention this, too.
	Like Congressman Correa, I went up to Butler with Homeland Security Committee and had a chance to meet with a number of the people there, including people who were there at the rally.
	And, you know, several of them were elected officials.
	In fact, one of them that spoke with me a lot was sitting directly behind Mr. Trump when he was shot.
	And she had video that she'd taken, and she'd love to share it with you all.
	But she mentioned a couple of things, too, that I hope you all will have a chance to have conversations about.
	And I know some of it's going to be in the Secret Service lane, some's going to be in the FBI lane.
	But one of the things she talked about was the fact that the day before the shooting, she and other officials in the town and people who just wanted to prepare the stage showed up and started working on putting the bunning up and decorating it.
	But the point she noted was that none of them had been vetted.
	There was nobody there to keep an eye on them and make sure that everything that was being done was appropriate.
	And she actually sort of thought in this in the context of hearing that a gun was found, or a gun was perhaps hidden at the site before the shooter was able to get it and use it.
	I don't know those details, but those are some of the things that came up that day.
	She also mentioned that there was sort of the outer perimeters.
	She had a perimeter around the stage that the Secret Service had set up.
	Beyond that, you had a field, and then you had the building where the company was, and the shooter got on the roof.
	Apparently, there was a sort of a second level of a perimeter there that wasn't particularly restricted from an access standpoint, as with the street that was just beyond that.
	So she raised, and another elected official raised as well, issues about security that may actually kind of get into what you're talking about, whether the ladder was there, how the guy got on the roof.
	There are all sorts of issues with respect to that.
	And there were a lot of people, as you said, that had videotape.
	I talked to three that were showing me videos while I was standing out there in the grounds.
	But I had a couple of questions to ask of you briefly.
	Apparently, there was no Secret Service recordation of communications during that day.
	You know, there's no radio runs, we call them, but there's no tapes.
	Do you know if there are any recorded conversations among law enforcement from that day?
	I don't know the details of that.
	I believe there may be some, but I don't have in front of me exactly what we've seen or heard.
	Okay.
	And then with respect to email communications, there were a lot of issues about, you know, because my personal view having gone to the site was that they just shouldn't have had the rally there.
	It should not have been permitted.
	I thought there were just too many roofs.
	You know, he picked one, but there was like a half dozen others that he could have picked on the other side of the field.
	And as Eli Crane, a congressman, who was a sniper for the U.S. military, said, there was a water tower that actually would have been a better site, probably that Secret Service should have used, but could have been used as well.
	But the lead up to that decision, and Congressman Correa raised this, who made this decision about how to pick the site?
	And apparently there was back and forth between local law enforcement, Secret Service, and the campaign.
	And I was kind of curious as to whether that's something that your investigation is going into or not.
	So I think that primarily falls within the scope of the two other reviews, that is the DHS Inspector General review and the outside panel, independent panel that's been announced.
	Certainly we are interviewing law enforcement personnel, but the security preparations, the adequacy of the security preparations, only got 15 seconds left.
	Quick question for you with probably not a quick answer.
	But this scenario is kind of the worst case scenario from a couple of standpoints.
	Got a lone wolf shooter with no red flags that we've heard of so far.
	You know, nobody should have known that this was coming, didn't have a criminal record and that sort of thing.
	Easy access to an assault weapon.
	I had a discussion like this with, I think, Congressman Roy and Congressman Bishop several months ago.
	What is it we can do to try and preempt those kinds of scenarios?
	We've got gun violence all over the country, including in my district.
	This is one example.
	But, you know, this scenario is the worst possible that I can think of from the standpoint of no intervention prevention efforts that can be put in place to try and address it.
	But I'm kind of curious if you have any thoughts to the contrary on that.
	I don't know that I have any magic solution to the problem.
	I certainly don't want to be proposing legislative ideas.
	That's not really my role.
	Certainly, dangerous weapons, especially high-powered weapons, in the hands of the wrong person represent a real concern for law enforcement, including to law enforcement, sometimes as the victims, as we saw very tragically down near Miami with two of our agents killed.
	That's probably all I can say on that.
	I do, while we're on the subject of firearms, Mr. Chairman, I do have an answer to Congresswoman Dean's question.
	I might as well go ahead and give it now, which is about the purchase of the firearm.
	I'm told that the father purchased the firearm in 2013, so quite a while ago, and then he sold it to his son in October of 2023.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I yield back, and thank you, Mr. Director, for your great work.
	I'd ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record a statement from Representative Kelly and some questions for the Bureau.
	Representative Kelly represents Butler.
	Actually, that's his hometown.
	So without objection, those will be entered into the record, and we'll make sure you get those, Director.
	The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Before I begin, and this is not directly with you, actually, I just wanted to straighten something out.
	I know my colleagues, the gentlemen and the gentleladies from Georgia, Washington, California, Pennsylvania, they all mentioned Project 2025.
	Well, I don't know how they expect you to know about that, number one.
	I'm pretty damn involved.
	I don't really know a whole lot about it.
	But President Trump has made it clear, and we're going to say it again.
	Will say it over and over again that there are some things he disagreed with, some things he agreed with that he wasn't that familiar with.
	It was from the Heritage Foundation, and that was just raw politics, to be honest with you.
	It was just because 2025 has some things that are found American people, and it very well may.
	And so they want to pin it on the presidential candidate.
	He didn't author it.
	He didn't condone it.
	He didn't put his seal of approval on it.
	It's getting old.
	It really is.
	We do this with, just like in this committee, when anything goes wrong, anything, somehow Donald Trump's name has to be brought into it.
	And it gets tiring.
	It's politics over reality.
	Second thing about picking the site, I was intimately involved in the Wildwood rally, the biggest rally President Trump's ever had, biggest political rally in the state of New Jersey.
	I had spoken to the president about it, and he wanted to do it on the beach because we had over 100,000 people.
	And let me tell you, we had everybody out there because they were concerned: the Secret Service and the local police and the county police and just about every entity could be.
	And so they had behind it was that iconic setting.
	They had the ferris wheels on the pier and all the stuff.
	They had agents up in there.
	They had agents in the ocean, in the water, in boats.
	They had people coordinating, working with each other, and talking with each other because they knew it was a risk.
	So we chose a site that was difficult.
	The president did, and I thought it was a great site.
	But nevertheless, the law enforcement responded properly.
	Something went wrong here.
	You can't blame this on Donald Trump as well.
	The site was chosen.
	It's the responsibility of those who serve in law enforcement to make sure that he was safe, period.
	And I'm sure you'll find out why.
	On another tangent here, you know, I've got to wonder how many qualified people were passed in order for Director Cheadle to get her 30% quota.
	That's a lousy way to run an agency, especially when it's dealing with law enforcement, to say we've got to have 30% of anything.
	And I worry about these practices because it's policy over protection.
	And Director Wray, I know that some things were left to you.
	I understand that.
	But one of your early acts on the Biden presidency was hiring the FBI's very first chief diversity officer.
	And since that time, and even before your time, but I disagree with me, but respectfully, I'm going to disagree with you.
	Recruitment standards under your lead has resulted in deterioration in many areas, including physical fitness, illicit drug use, financial irregularities, mental health issues, full-time work experience, and integrity.
	And I know you dismiss them, but in October 2023, they are a prestigious group of retired FBI special agents and analysts both expressed concern regarding the FBI's willingness to recruit agents that, quote, I'm not saying this, they said it, not me, can't even pass the new relaxed standards for fitness who are illiterate in some cases and need lessons, educational lessons, don't want to work weekends or after hours.
	They're words and have serious disabilities or mental health issues, which is not the place for them.
	Most of your agents are great people.
	I love them.
	I love them for what they do.
	I'm not criticizing most.
	But these new standards, don't you think this is a hindrance and reduces the morale of the vast majority of good people that you have in the FBI?
	And I ask you for a quick answer because I have a few other things.
	So I respect our retired agents.
	Many of them come to our graduations now.
	And I can tell you emphatically that they are mistaken.
	Those who think we have lowered our standards, whether it's on physical fitness or anything else, are mistaken.
	And you can prove that.
	The facts back me up on that.
	The standards are the same today as they were a decade ago.
	They've changed in some ways.
	In fact, the physical fitness standards depends on how far back you go, but the physical fitness standards that our current graduates have to have to graduate from Quantico actually exceed some of the physical fitness standards that were in place if you go back far enough with some of our retirees.
	But what I would tell you, I think part of the reason there's confusion, and again, I accept that these folks are raising their concerns in good faith.
	Because FBI finished.
	We have actually access to the facts.
	And part of the reason I think there's confusion, just take the physical fitness thing as an example.
	I got on screen for you guys.
	Is that before you had to pass the physical fitness test?
	Before you showed up to Quantico, now you have to pass it in order to get a badge at Quantum.
	The standard hasn't changed.
	You still have to pass the same test, the same 12-point standard, et cetera.
	All that stuff applies.
	The only difference is you can pass it while you're at Quantico.
	But if you don't pass that same test that's been in place for a long time now, you don't get a badge.
	And we will dismiss people from Quantico, and we do.
	We don't pass it.
	I know I have to wrap this up on every previous.
	It's actually the biggest thing that makes them lose agents is the fitness test.
	They actually have a compared to other law enforcement agencies, they do have a fair test.
	I think DEA has the hardest fitness test and the Marshalls, but they do have a pretty good fitness test.
	I ain't gonna lie, I've done it before.
	You do have to be fairly fit to pass it.
	Appreciate that.
	If you, I mean, it was a joke for me.
	Come on.
	This is what I do.
	But, you know, for a general person, I can see how they would struggle with it.
	Could get us information that's substantial.
	And Ninjas, do me a favor, please go ahead.
	And if you're watching this on Rumble, we already got almost 2,000 y'all plus watching on Rumble.
	Do me a favor, guys.
	Open up a tab on YouTube.
	I'll drop the link in the Rumble chat and watch it on YouTube as well so we can get more viewers on YouTube so this thing can go out there and hit the algorithm a little bit harder because fucking the older stream went down which pissed me off because OBS crashed on me.
	So I'll put the link in here for you guys.
	So please go ahead and share this thing on Rumble.
	Open up another tab.
	Watch it on Rumble still because Rumble's the home base but please open up a YouTube tab.
	Help us hit the algorithm a bit harder because we're doing this on FedReacts.
	And she told me to say that should be easy enough to do to the whole committee.
	I'd appreciate it.
	You know, feelings in this administration are more important than functionality.
	It's resulted in a border crisis.
	We don't have time to talk about that.
	You've spoken out about it.
	I appreciate that you've spoken out about it.
	I think it's also resulted in shortages in our nation's law enforcement and our military and I think it makes us less safe.
	So I look forward to seeing those statistics in that proof because I have people talking to my ear that tell me otherwise and I yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman from Alabama.
	This is open up tab for me guys here.
	I'm dropping the link in here.
	Director Ray, I appreciate you being here today and I certainly appreciate your forthcomingness and the information that I think that the American people want.
	And, you know, to me, it's you have a very difficult job right now.
	In the past and under Comey, certainly, the Russian collusion narrative got out pretty heavily and that came out of the FBI with the FISA warrants and that sort of stuff spot on General Flynn.
	And then the laptop issue, the Hunter Biden laptop issue, which the FBI actually had in their possession.
	So, I have 800,000 people thereabouts that I represent and our job is to restore trust.
	And so, in a lot of the hearings we've had this week, they say, well, the FBI is investigating that.
	Every answer was the FBI is investigating this.
	They are.
	So, in some ways, it kind of landed in your lap and I appreciate you being here.
	But, you know, it's just, for me, the question of how does a 20-year-old acting along get a long gun, a range finder, we know he bought a ladder, or I guess he reconned here and realized he didn't need the ladder to get on top of the building so he left it at the house, get on a roof with 150 yards of the most, one of the most famous people in the world, I guess, now and a former president.
	How does that happen?
	And how do we restore trust in the American people that the FBI and the DHS, who is under Mayorkas' directorate now, how do we verify and get trust back to the American people that these agencies are really working to protect the president?
	And I'm not trying to place blame specifically, but I never thought that we'd raid his house.
	I never dreamed that they'd raid a former president's house.
	I certainly never imagined that they would actually indict him.
	And I felt, well, they'll never find him guilty.
	And now we've had a threat on his life, so how do we restore trust in the government of this country and the agencies that are here that we pay and provide $3 billion a year to the Secret Service to protect some of the leading political candidates in America?
	That's a lot.
	I'm sorry.
	That's a lot of questions, but I'm just going to give a little room to talk.
	Right.
	No, no.
	Listen, obviously you included a lot, as you said, in your question.
	question and as you might imagine I disagree fairly strongly with a number of parts of it but sensitive to the time I guess what I would say this I can speak to my approach to running the FBI again the FBI was not involved in the physical security of the rally that's you know we come in as the investigators Investigators afterwards.
	And as I've said before, our investigation is an investigation of the shooter.
	I love how he's had to say this 10 different times to these congresspeople because they're stupid.
	He's literally said this like 10 times.
	And those, I think, will be important.
	I've said this a million times now.
	Trust and confidence, if you will, in Secret Service.
	But from the FBI perspective, we can't promise that everybody's going to like the results of what we do, right?
	What we can promise is that we're going to do our best to do the work in the right way.
	That's all we can do.
	And so I keep telling our folks every day on this and on everything else, our focus has to be: we've got to do the work in the right way.
	We've got to make sure we do the work in the right way.
	And then, no matter who likes it, because everything we do, somebody doesn't like it.
	And it's a credibility issue at this point.
	Do the American people trust what the FBI and the DOJ is going to tell them?
	And, you know, that's the thing with this.
	When I was early on, and I've only been here about three and a half, four years now, but the American people was in fear of the weaponization of government.
	So now we have this issue.
	Tucker Carlson asked the president, he said, Are you afraid they'll kill you?
	And I remember that interview, and I thought, well, I can't believe he went there, but here we are.
	And so as we work through this process, I think it's so important.
	And I think the chairman hit on this: is the audio of the shooter.
	You've interviewed the sniper, the Secret Service sniper that took out the target.
	Was he waiting on a green light?
	What was going on?
	And why did Mr. Crooks have a chance to get off eight rounds?
	And we knew he was on the right.
	Okay.
	Now we got a real question.
	But we know he was a marked target.
	So was he trying to get the green light and was somebody not giving it to him?
	So again, the performance, the adequacy of the performance of Secret Service will be the subject of the Inspector General investigation and this outside independent panel.
	What I can tell you, and I'm glad you asked the question because this goes to something that we was part of an earlier exchange.
	The first time that anybody from law enforcement saw the subject on the roof was a few minutes ago.
	Now that I think about it, FBI probably didn't get a chance to talk to the Secret Service agent that took the shot because when you get in a shooting, guys, they tell you don't talk to anyone for like 72 hours and have your rep there with you a lot of the times or your lawyer.
	So he probably hasn't given a statement to the FBI yet.
	He might, he's probably talked to OIG at this point in an OPR, but he probably is going to talk to FBI last.
	So he won't have that answer.
	That's why he said OIG now that I think about it.
	Even though it would be pertinent for the FBI to interview obviously the Secret Service agent that shot the guy, but yeah.
	Before the shooting, not with a gun.
	At that point, they didn't.
	Local law enforcement, a few minutes before, saw him on the roof and started raiding.
	Did he have a backpack going up the roof?
	Did they?
	Well, nobody is, we haven't found anybody yet who saw him climbing up the roof.
	The reason why I've talked about how we think he got on the roof is that's based on forensic, our evidence response and forensic analysis that were, you know, without getting into all the details, footprints and things like that, that we can, you know, fingerprints, et cetera, that we can see how he got on.
	But we don't have an eyewitness at the moment who saw him climbing up.
	So a few minutes before the shooting, local law enforcement saw him on the roof.
	Again, no weapon identified at that point.
	A few seconds before the shooting is when the law enforcement officer that I've talked about already saw is the one who was assisted by another officer who saw up on the roof, saw the shooter in a prone shooting position with the gun.
	He turns.
	How long did that happen before?
	That was that sighting, that is the first time, to my knowledge, the first time anybody from law enforcement saw him with a weapon.
	That is seconds before he shot at President Trump.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I yield back.
	So did the counter sniper not see the bad guy, the shooter, until after he fired a shot?
	Good question.
	You mean until after the subject fired a shot?
	Until after?
	Yeah, I don't know the answer to that.
	It's possible we've already determined that, but as I sit here right now, I don't have that.
	But I can, yeah.
	I think that's the logical next question with where the gentleman from Alabama's question was going.
	The gentleman from California is recognized for five minutes.
	Director A, to the best of your understanding, how close did the assassin's bullet come to killing President Trump?
	My understanding is that either it or some shrapnel is what grazed his ears.
	So I don't know that I have the actual distance.
	What's that?
	Very, very close, you would agree.
	Yes.
	Is this the biggest security failure that you've seen in your career?
	Well, certainly I think former director Cheadle has already, I think, acknowledged that this was a significant, at the very least, a significant operational failure.
	I forgot her exact words, but I will defer on that.
	Well, we really haven't seen anything like this in at least decades in this country, right?
	The attempted assassination of a president, current or former, is a historic event.
	Was this a sophisticated plot that Thomas Crooks carried out?
	Well, I think it probably depends on your definition of sophisticated, right?
	So on the one hand, he's a 20-year-old, seems from what we've seen so far, loner, you know, without a lot of elaborate criminal history, without any criminal history or anything like that.
	On the other hand, he did clearly do some level of planning and recon.
	When did the planning start, to the best of your knowledge?
	When did the planning start?
	Well, we're still drilling into that, but we know we assess that on July 6th.
	So a week in advance.
	For example, it seems to be that he seems to become focused on it because that's when, as I've testified today, that's when the laptop that we've tied to him has the Google search.
	How far away was Oswald from Kennedy?
	I mean, that seems like an indication of a total amateur, right?
	Someone who's searching for that, and he's doing it a week in advance.
	Again, I don't want to characterize him.
	I frankly don't want to give him the credit of characterizing him as amateur or professional.
	But what I will say is that there are some things he did that involve a certain amount of planning and preparation.
	On the other hand, if you're telling me, do I think this is the most sophisticated ever?
	Of course not.
	We deal with much more sophisticated adversaries all the time.
	You probably prepare for more sophisticated plans to target high-level officials.
	You probably prepare for more sophisticated plans to target high-level officials, correct?
	Well, we don't do physical security, but yes, obviously we're investigating much more sophisticated attacks all the time.
	How about the encrypted applications on his phone?
	Were those there for a while, or did he download them in the days or weeks leading up to the assassination attempt?
	I don't have the answer to that sitting here right now.
	I think it may vary from platform to platform because he had a number of encrypted messaging apps on it.
	And again, as I've said, we're trying to get access to that content.
	And that's important.
	I think it's important for everybody on this committee to understand that this is a real problem for law enforcement.
	That these companies, let's be clear here, these companies are designing their platforms in a way to, no matter how heinous the crime, no matter how rock solid the legal process is for the next question.
	At this moment, high-level protectees, presidents, former presidents, are well protected.
	It's not really for me to say.
	I have a lot of respect for the men and women of the Secret Service who provide protection, just as I do for their counterparts at other agencies.
	He had a good question with the encryption stuff and interrupted it to ask a Secret Service question.
	Bro.
	I'm not an expert on protective details and physical security.
	What I would tell you is that...
	Wrong guy to ask!
	Let him talk about the encryption software and tell you guys, what do you want to tell about that?
	But you want to ask a question about security, which isn't his fucking forte.
	Who are literally willing to take a bullet for their protectee.
	You mentioned a thwarted assassination attempt against former President Bush.
	Were there any other thwarted assassination attempts against current or former presidents that you could discuss?
	Not that immediately come to mind, but, you know, I'd have to go back and think about that.
	I mean, obviously we've been around for a while, and current and former presidents are high-profile targets who are attractive to all kinds of bad guys.
	There's also been reports that the shooter's parents called a local law enforcement to say he was missing on the day of the shooting.
	Is that correct?
	And If so, is that something that you would see as a sort of a natural thing for them to do?
	It seems like a 20-year-old who's been missing for a few hours, maybe his parents don't, first thing they do, call the police.
	What was going on with that situation?
	So my recollection, I don't have this in front of me, my recollection is they did call concerned that he was missing.
	My recollection, though, is that they didn't call until this was after the, I think this was after the event.
	I see.
	But I'm not certain of that, so I want to hedge on that slightly because I have to get back to you to confirm that.
	I believe that part of the issue was that when he last saw his father, he, I think, indicated to his father that he was going to shoot at the range.
	And then, of course, he didn't go to the range and he didn't come back from that.
	And so I think that may have added to the level of concern.
	Thank you.
	I yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentlelady from Wyoming is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Director Wray, I'm going to go a little bit different route with my questioning.
	In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in December of last year, you stated that the FBI is, quote, especially concerned about the possibility of Hamas supporters engaging in violence on the group's behalf, end quote, and that the threat from a quote terrorist organization who may exploit the attacks in Israel as a tool to mobilize their followers around the world, end quote.
	We've seen a lot of conduct today that I think is concerning to many people in terms of Hamas terrorists and their sympathizers.
	Reports have surfaced alleging that many of the groups intimidating and violating the civil rights of Jewish American students, like the Students for Justice for Palestine, received guidance and financial support from American Muslims for Palestine, and that AMP's directors allegedly have links to groups which fundraise for Hamas.
	Director Wright is the Bureau aware of or investigating whether these groups violating the civil liberties of Jewish Americans are connected to or affiliated with Hamas or other terrorist organizations.
	So we are investigating a lot of attacks and threats against the Jewish community.
	I've been very vocal on how big a concern that is, and certainly that was already heightened even before October 7th and since October 7th went to a whole nother level.
	We are actively engaged with Jewish community both locally and nationally.
	When it comes to foreign terrorist organizations and their role or foreign adversaries and their role, we are looking hard to see if we can find linkage, you know, for example, you know, funding or things like that.
	Nothing that I can report at this time, but it's something it is the kind of thing that we're looking for, absolutely, because we know that there's an interest on their part to foment we're watching it in real time today.
	Yes.
	There are other reports that Mayor Bittard, National Security Council Coordinator for Intelligence and Defense Policy and deputy assistant to the president, was an active member in Students for Justice in Palestine at Georgetown University, which is one of the groups alleged to have ties to Hamas.
	Is the Bureau investigating whether the Biden-Harris administration is compromised by pro-Hamas groups and organizations?
	What does that have to do with the assassination?
	I have quite a number of Hamas-related investigations.
	I'm asking specifically about...
	Bro, what the fuck does this have to do with the assassination, bitch?
	Like, what the fuck, man?
	Has been compromised by pro-Hamas groups.
	There's nothing along those lines that I can think of to report.
	I also want to talk to you a bit about the FBI's investigation and involvement with the Russia collusion hoax.
	And the FBI was involved with that because of its potential relationship to election interference.
	Is that correct?
	The FBI's involvement in investigating the Russia collusion hoax.
	That was because there was concern about election interference.
	Is that correct?
	Well, the FBI was involved and staffed as investigators the Special Counsel Mueller investigation into efforts by the Russian government to influence and interfere.
	With the election, correct?
	Yes.
	All right.
	So is the FBI investigating what just happened with Joe Biden being forced out of the race after winning the Democrat primary as election interference?
	Is the FBI investigating that right now?
	I'm not aware of any investigation along those lines.
	Okay.
	Director Wray, it was reported in March that the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force resumed communication with social media companies.
	And an FBI spokesman has stated that, quote, in coordination with the Department of Justice, the FBI recently implemented procedures to facilitate sharing information about foreign malign influence with social media companies in a way that reinforces that private companies are free to decide on their own whether and how to take action on the information, end quote.
	Director Wray, what specifically is the FBI doing to reinforce that such decisions are in fact for the private companies to make and not the administration?
	So I think the best way to summarize it is that the guidance makes all kinds of additional steps to underscore that the FBI has no interest in participating in any way whatsoever in the company's decision making, that companies are completely free to take any actions on their own, that we are simply passing information on to them for them to do whatever it is they want to do independently.
	Consistent with, I should say, I very much appreciate the Supreme Court's finding that no evidence that the FBI coerced platforms to take content down.
	Well, I don't believe that that's what the Supreme Court found.
	What the Supreme Court found was that the parties involved didn't have standing, but I think there's a whole body of evidence and legal analysis demonstrating that, in fact, this administration was violating the First Amendment rights of folks through social media companies.
	I'm just going to ask one final very quick question.
	If the FBI was involved in the removal or restriction of speech of Americans, do you agree that this would be a violation of the First Amendment?
	Well, again, I'm not going to engage in hypotheticals.
	My understanding and my strong view from everything I've seen is that we did not violate the First Amendment.
	Joe Lady Yellow's back.
	Gentlemen from Texas is recognized.
	Thank you, Director.
	I've just got two easy questions for you.
	Ask anything about the assassination.
	What the fuck, bro?
	In February, Donald Trump Jr. received a letter containing a white suspicious powder that read, quote, Lee Harvey Oswald's grandson must complete his contract, end quote.
	The United States Secret Service and the FBI said they would investigate the matter, and five months later, no more information has been released.
	I've also visited with Mr. Trump, and he has not received any information either.
	Why is that?
	So as I sit here right now, I'm not familiar with the specific investigation, but I do know that we have had, unfortunately, quite a few investigations of threatening mailings and white powder letters and things like that.
	So I'm happy to drill into it and have us circle back to and see if there's more information we can share about it.
	Thank you.
	And would you maybe circle back to Mr. Trump, Donald Jr.?
	I think they'd like an update as well.
	Sure.
	Let me, again, I don't, like I said, I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I'm happy to have us look at it.
	You brought up a random case as if the director is going to know about next year.
	We're going to know about Pittsburgh Field Office now handling the assassination attempt investigation.
	Is that right?
	Well, there's several.
	Pittsburgh Field Office is the lead office.
	We obviously have lots of half, maybe over half of the FBI's field offices are working on this, including almost every headquarters division.
	So we have lots and lots and lots, several hundreds of employees working on it.
	Pittsburgh's the lead.
	Okay.
	This is the same office that botched the Hunter Biden laptop case.
	And they, in my view, and my constituents and many Americans, displayed a clear reluctance.
	That's a quote, reluctance to really do any tasking, quote, effectively failing to investigate, according to the U.S. Attorney on the case.
	My question is: how can we trust this office and why does it keep reappearing in critical election-related investigations, or is that just dumb luck?
	So I want to be a little bit careful in what I can say here, because some of what you're talking about relates to an ongoing investigation being led by the special counsel, Mr. Weiss.
	But what I can tell you is that the Pittsburgh Field Office's involvement in the matter you're talking about was the choice by the Attorney General, Attorney General Barr, to have the U.S. Attorney and the FBI Field Office at Pittsburgh handle that particular matter.
	As to your summary or characterization of what U.S. Attorney, now former U.S. Attorney Brady, actually said, I'd have to see the whole context.
	I'm not quite sure that's what he said, but I think as to your overall question about confidence, what I would tell you is we have, that's the point I'm trying to make about the sheer breadth of our investigation.
	Yes, the Pittsburgh Field Office is the office on the ground.
	That's where the attempted assassination happened.
	But we are using the full might of the FBI, criminal and national security.
	That's why I'm pointing out that multiple field offices, over half of our field offices, almost every headquarters division, several hundreds of employees.
	These are people who are working around the clock to deal with this historic attack.
	And I have the utmost confidence in those hundreds of employees, agents, analysts, and professional staff, and the American people should too.
	I yield to Mr. Jordan.
	I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
	Director, I guess I'm not clear exactly where all you said there were HL casings on the roof, so eight bullets were fired.
	We obviously know that Mr. Compatori lost his life.
	Two other rallygoers were injured, seriously injured, and then the one that hit President Trump.
	Does that account for some of these individuals hit multiple times?
	Where did all eight bullets go?
	Is I guess my question?
	I don't have that in front of me.
	I'm happy to circle back and get that to you.
	It's assuming we have that information yet.
	As I said, I think with respect to former President Trump, there's some question about whether or not it's a bullet or shrapnel that hit his ear.
	So it's conceivable, although as I sit here right now, I don't know whether that bullet, in addition to causing the grazing, could have also landed somewhere else.
	But I believe.
	Where's the fucking case agent, man?
	Like, yo, see, with stuff like this, the case agent is going to know all this stuff.
	And I'm surprised he's not sitting here behind them right now.
	Like, he should be the ones.
	You see these guys?
	These three dudes behind the director?
	One of these should be the fucking case agents so he could answer the question, tell him, hey, actually, it's XYZ, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	I believe we've accounted for all of the shots in the cartridges.
	So let us, if that is.
	It's my understanding that the very first one was the one that hit the president.
	Is that the very first shot, or is that not accurate?
	I don't, as I sit here right now, I don't know the answer to that.
	I believe we know the answer to that.
	I just don't have it in front of me.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	Is there any chance this, this, I mean, it seems to me that this bad guy, this shooter, was focused on President Trump.
	But you indicated that he purchased 50 rounds of ammunition, I believe, earlier that day.
	Do you have any indication thus far in your investigation that in addition to going after and trying to assassinate the former president, he was also looking to do a lot more damage to other individuals?
	That's a hard question to answer.
	What I would say is I agree with you that his preparatory activity is what we've seen so far, the limited information that has been relevant and interesting about his preparatory activity does seem to be that he had settled on former President Trump as a target and this rally as his moment to try to take a shot.
	But in addition to the 50 rounds, of course, you have the issue of these explosive devices.
	And so what else he may have had in mind is something that I think is very much of an open question.
	On the one hand, you have these explosive devices, including the one still back in his home that wasn't in quite the same stage as the one in the vehicle, vehicles, ones in the vehicle.
	But he clearly had those explosive devices for some reason.
	And so we're trying to figure that out.
	As I've said before, sometimes in these kind of situations, you find like a manifesto or something like that.
	It's frustrating to us, and I'm sure frustrating to you and the American people that we haven't found anything quite like that.
	We'd love to have a roadmap that tells us exactly what he was thinking.
	We haven't found that yet.
	Doesn't mean we won't.
	We're looking all over the place, and we're going to leave no stone unturned.
	Thank you.
	A gentleman from Texas is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	Thank you, Director, for being here today.
	I know it's been a very long day, busy day on Capitol Hill, and also I want to apologize in advance if there's any repetitive questions from me.
	But I have to ask, given that our sitting president resigned from the campaign on Sunday and the Secret Service Director resigned yesterday, you don't plan on resigning anytime soon, do you, sir?
	No, sir.
	Good to go.
	Earlier today, you told this committee that you recovered eight bullet cartridges from the roof next to the shooter.
	And given that testimony, I have two questions for you.
	How many shots were fired at President Trump and how many shots were fired in total of the entire day?
	I know I keep hearing eight, but were there any more that were unaccounted for?
	The best information I have right now is eight shots.
	As to the sequence, I'm not sure I have that sitting here right now.
	As I said to the chairman, I'm going to go back to my team and see if we've got that nailed down yet.
	And if we have, I'm happy to share it with you and the rest of the committee.
	Please do, sir.
	Thank you very much for that.
	You also mentioned that the shooter used encrypted messages to communicate.
	Specifically, do you know what apps or what apps he used to communicate?
	And can you confirm if he was communicating with any foreign nationals through the encrypted messages?
	So as to the names of the apps, I don't have that right here in front of me.
	As far as communicating with any foreign actors, I'll say two things.
	One, we haven't, as I think I've testified before, we have not at the moment at least identified any accomplices or co-conspirators, foreign or domestic.
	So that as to foreign contacts, of course, that's part of why we want to get access to the encrypted messages because that might tell us whether he'd been in contact with somebody.
	Thank you.
	Let's talk about motivation.
	Wait, they should have access to that when they have his phone.
	You should be able to see all that.
	It's a little weird.
	I know the FBI has taken a lead role in investigating the assassination.
	See, this is the problem.
	These congressmen are idiots.
	I would counter that and I'd say, okay, but you have the phone.
	You got into it at Quantico.
	You have the live feed.
	You actually have the hard messages of who he's communicating with.
	Have you guys looked at that?
	See, this is a problem when you have congressmen that aren't law enforcement and don't understand this shit.
	On President Trump, your team has searched the shooter's phone, conducted countless interviews, done extensive research into his motives.
	As of today, July 24th, 2024, do you and your team know the motive of the shooter or have any idea on what could have driven it?
	Well, no, and have any idea are two very different things.
	We do not know the motive.
	That is obviously one of the central questions in our investigation.
	And it's been very frustrating to us that a lot of the usual kind of low-hanging fruit places that we would find at have not yielded significant clues about his motive.
	Having said that, we have seen indications that he was interested in public figures and that in the period around July 6th, leading up to July 13th, he does seem to have become very focused on this particular rally and former President Trump.
	But exactly what his thought process was in doing that, that's something that's still very much under investigation.
	I want to make something clear to the American people to try to help out what motive could be.
	And again, it's not my job to steer it, but here are some of my thoughts.
	I'm not sure about motive either, specifically, but I can tell you that after.
	What the fuck is this shit?
	American fascism, NBC analyst Trump re-raising U.S. flags.
	And I guess every significant neo-Nazi movie, the Hill Biden says Trump uses Hitler's language, not America's After Truth Social Video Goes Viral.
	It's not wrong to compare Trump's America to what?
	His assassination attempt, people on both sides have said that both parties need to tone down the rhetoric.
	But recently, just on Monday, in fact, President Biden called into the Harris campaign event and said that President Trump was a threat to democracy.
	Just take a look behind me at these photos.
	This is a magazine cover of the New Republic from June 2024, published just one month before the assassination attempt on President Trump.
	In a tweet explaining the cover, the New Republic said this.
	Today, we at the New Republic think we can spend this election year in one of two ways.
	We could spend it debating whether Trump meets the nine or 17 points that define fascism, or we could spend it saying he's damn close enough and we'd better fight.
	We unreservedly choose the latter course.
	Now, sir, I know you said that the FBI doesn't have your clear motive yet, and you've explained that, but in your professional experience as an investigator, do you think that language like this could radicalize someone to engage in political violence?
	Okay, I see what he means now.
	I certainly understand the point of the question.
	What I would tell you is that, respectfully, I don't think it's appropriate for me as FBI director to be characterizing or engaging in public commentary on specific people's rhetoric.
	And that's because it's not that I don't understand why you're raising the question, but I'm saying that in my role, I have to be very careful to make sure we speak through our work.
	And we speak through our cases and our intelligence products, not the FBI director chiming in in the public square on different people's public, you know, political commentary.
	For the record.
	Yeah, he gave the politically correct answer there.
	In other words, we got to let the investigation play out and find out why he really wanted to.
	We can't speculate.
	There was an assassination attempt on an American president, and I would be asking these same questions even if it were President Biden.
	And my message to the American people is that we need to do better.
	I give back the rest of my time.
	And thank you for being here, sir.
	I know it's been a very long day.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman from South Carolina is recognized.
	Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Director, for being here.
	Actually, it's refreshing.
	I was in the oversight hearing earlier this week, and although we don't have an idea on everything, your ability to come in here and actually give way more than Director Cheadle ever did is somewhat refreshing.
	Well, that's because they're running the investigation, bro.
	Like, don't be disingenuous here.
	The reason why Cheadle couldn't say anything is because she's not running the case.
	This dude's agency is running the case, therefore, he's giving way more answers.
	Like I told you guys on X a couple of days ago.
	You saw some pretty bipartisan frustrations exhibited in that particular hearing.
	I'm sure you've seen part of it.
	I want to follow up on a couple of lines of questions that I had with Director Cheadle that she actually answered, which was remarkable.
	One, she had indicated that Secret Service at the Trump rally did not have any radio recordings.
	Is that, in your investigation, is that accurate?
	I'm not sure I know the answer to that.
	I believe we have there may be some recordings on the local law enforcement side as to whether or not we have recordings on the Secret Service side.
	I'd have to drill back into that.
	And the reason I'm, you might say, well, how the heck can you not know?
	Well, we certainly have interviewed lots of Secret Service employees.
	So what we know from the interviews versus some other source, as I sit here right now, I don't know.
	So on this particular case, but in your experience, and again, it's a different agency, but she had indicated, Director Cheadle had indicated that recordings sometimes are done from radio recordings, I guess, of what happens at a Trump rally or any other thing that they're engaged in.
	Is that your experience as well, that sometimes there are audio recordings of communications between law enforcement officials?
	Just speaking very broadly, certainly there are times when there are recordings, but it'd be hard for me to be more precise than that.
	And I know that you can't answer whether they were here in this instance or not, but what would cause recordings to not exist for the Trump rally as a hypothetical?
	What would be the reason that that would happen?
	I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that.
	I mean, if they didn't record, there may be situations where they just don't record in the first place.
	And why that would be, though, I'm not sure I can answer that.
	Thank you.
	Let me ask you this, and this is another line of questioning.
	Director Cheadle had indicated that seconds before the assassin, the would-be assassin fired the shot is roughly seconds is when he became a person of suspicion to an actual threat.
	Would you agree with that assessment from Director Cheadle?
	Well, let me try it this way.
	I think there are sort of three, in my mind, there's sort of three, let's say, three significant moments on this continuum that you're kind of getting at.
	There is roughly an hour before the shooting when local law enforcement observes the individual, the shooter, at that point, as somebody that was a person of concern.
	I forgot the exact phrasing, and that was based on seeing him with this range finder, no observation of a weapon, but there was something odd and off about them that caught local law enforcement's attention.
	So that's the first moment.
	Then there's a second moment, which is, you know, I think just minutes before the shooting, where local law enforcement observed him on the roof, but didn't see a weapon, is my understanding at that point.
	And at that point, their level of concern obviously was even higher.
	And then there's the third moment, which is that moment when local law enforcement saw him, you know, the officer who climbed up with the assistance of his colleague and saw the shooter in the prone position with the weapon, and that's seconds before the event.
	And so, you know, terminology.
	So that right there, now we know that the cops that tried to intervene and got the gun pointed at them and stopped literally like seconds or maybe a minute or two before the shots were shot at Trump.
	That's why the guy probably missed.
	He was nervous as fuck because he knew the cops were onto him at that point.
	You know, I'm not sure, but it seems to me there's an evolution of concern over that time period.
	Correct, an escalating concern.
	At what point, and this again, I just don't know, so I'm curious, at what point is, say, the sniper who killed Mr. Crooks, at what point is he able to fire a shot?
	And does he have to have authorization in which to do that?
	I don't know that I know Secret Service's rules of engagement in that situation.
	It's possible that our interview of the countersniper has uncovered that.
	Again, our focus has been, I certainly understand why you're asking the question, but our focus has been on the shooter himself and his actions and the attack.
	These two other reviews, the DHS Inspector General and the outside independent panel, are both looking at the performance of the Secret Service, which would I'm confident include the question that you're talking about.
	Thank you.
	And I actually think, you know, from a legislative purpose and what this body will probably ultimately do, it's of great importance that we break down barriers of communication and that we allow officers to do their job without so that this doesn't happen again.
	And I appreciate you being here.
	Thank you, Director.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
	Well, once again, as Congressman Fry said, we want to thank you for your time and a lot more information today than Monday.
	So thank you for that.
	I just have a handful of questions.
	I would love to have just a simple yes or no so we could get done with this.
	So on day one, President Biden issued an executive order mandating DEI programs in the executive branch.
	You responded by hiring FBI's first ever chief diversity officer.
	You're even on the Bureau's website quoting saying that diversity and inclusion of the workforce is something I care deeply about because the success of our efforts impacts our operations, our culture, and our future.
	End of quote.
	So Director, just a simple yes or no.
	Do you still find DEI hiring practices to be central to the FBI's operations, cultures, and future?
	I believe that diversity is an important part, is a core value of a high-performing organization.
	Do you have any concerns that our Homeland Security efforts will be hampered if the FBI continues to use DEI as a primary hiring measure?
	I don't believe that we use DEI as a primary hiring metric.
	I would say that we have not lowered our standards.
	Yes, I feel.
	Let me, if I could finish, it's not a yes or no question.
	We have not lowered our standards, and the facts back that up.
	Are you aware of a 112-page report compiled by senior agents and analysts which stated, quote, if the current trajectory of the FBI special agent recruitment and selection continues, using DEI as the primary and sole measure of our Homeland Security efforts will be significantly hampered?
	Do you know about that 112-page report?
	I'm aware of a report from a number of anonymous former employees.
	Thank you.
	Do you agree that protecting a former president falls under the umbrella of Homeland Security?
	Well, protecting the former president, the physical security, the protective detail on the former president, is the province of the Secret Service, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
	It is my understanding that historically the FBI had 100,000 applications for special agents on foul at any given time of the year.
	So talking about slipping recruitment, are you aware that on February of 2024, a letter from the FBI's Assistant Director for Training Division, which reported that FBI only received an estimated 48,000 applications over a two-year period?
	I don't know if we're comparing Apple to Apple.
	What I can tell you is that in the time that I've been FBI director, the number of Americans applying to be special agents has gone up dramatically to the tune of, in some cases, double or triple the pace of 48,000.
	If I could finish, sir, if I could finish, please, to a rate that is higher, you'd have to go back about a decade or so to find the number of Americans applying to be special agents that are currently applying.
	Okay, so for the record, that 48,000 is probably wrong then in your eyes?
	I don't know.
	I don't have the letter in front of me, but what I'm not sure of is that we're comparing Apple to Apple in terms of time periods and everything else.
	In advance of the Trump shooting, United States Secret Service Special Agent in Charge, Tim Burke, reportedly told law enforcement partners that NATO's summit in Washington, D.C. limited his resources available to the Trump rally.
	The service has similar DEI hiring aims and failed their zero-fail mission to protect President Trump.
	Director Cheadle has since stepped down.
	Could the hyperfixation on hitting Biden administration's imposed DEI rules by causing the FBI and the federal law enforcement agencies to not only miss their prime candidates, but also potential threats?
	Well, I can't speak to Secret Service's hiring practice.
	What I can tell you is that in my view, diversity, like everything else, is something that has to be done in the right way.
	Just like everything else, there's a right way and a wrong way to achieve it.
	I think we can and have achieved improvements in diversity and at the same time not lowered our standards.
	And I think part of the reason we've been able to do that is because of the encouraging increase, increase in the number of Americans applying to be specialized.
	The investigation to the planning of pipe bombs at the RNC and DNC headquarters has been going on for over three and a half years and will soon have lasted longer than the Biden presidency.
	I look forward to you proving yourselves because we haven't received any update right now on the Trump shooting since July 15th and the people really need that.
	Can the public expect a more transparent and timely investigation into the attempted assassination of former President Trump?
	I've been testifying here all day about the investigation into former attempted assassination of former President Trump and we've done multiple briefings and I've answered multiple questions.
	And we appreciate that because that's what you were asking.
	Well, it just seems like there hasn't been a press conference to the people to go through all the different details that were already presented today.
	And I'll just leave you with one final question.
	Why would that be government?
	Do you feel as the director that perhaps not only the FBI but the Secret Service needs to have a complete reconstruction?
	Do you think it's still put together the way that could best do its job?
	The FBI that I see every single day, having visited all 56 of our field offices at least twice, many of them three times, the FBI that I see engaging with state and local law enforcement from all 50 states that I hear about from prosecutors, judges, business leaders, community leaders, foreign partners, is an FBI that is respected, trusted, appreciated, and that is there for people when they need them the most.
	And that is the FBI that I see, and I'm very proud to be a part of them.
	Any comment on the other agencies?
	No, I'm not going to comment on other agencies.
	Appreciate your time, sir.
	Yield back to the chair.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Director, I have just a couple quick questions, but I want to give to the ranking member a chance to save some remarks or questions, and then we'll be done.
	Thank you, Mr. Chair.
	First, I'd like to say, as somebody, when I grew up, I watched The Untouchables, and I think Elliott Ness would be proud of you.
	I don't know about J. Edgar Hoover, but Elliott Ness for sure.
	Let me ask you this.
	In Memphis, you've put Memphis and Nashville's FBI together, kind of consolidated and in one office.
	And we have, I know you've worked with our U.S. Attorney and others to work on our crime situation there, and it's gotten better.
	But it's this change in the FBI relationship there.
	We're not going to have an office necessary.
	Tell me how that's going to affect Memphis.
	So I want to be very clear.
	We're not leaving.
	We're not leaving Memphis.
	What we are doing is...
	Nobody should leave Memphis.
	In fact, most of the songs are about people going to Memphis.
	They leave Nashville.
	They go to Memphis.
	Recognizing population growth and the threat environment, we have instead taken, if you look across the state, instead of having two field offices in Knoxville and Memphis, we're creating a Tennessee division headquartered in the middle in Nashville.
	But we are keeping, we are keeping the offices in Knoxville and Memphis.
	And in fact, when it comes to Memphis specifically, not only will it not result in any decrease in the number of agents there to work, actually, strange as it might sound, it's going to allow us to increase the number of agents who will be assigned to the Memphis office, including to tackle things like violent crime, which I know is of huge concern.
	And the reason for that is really the effect of this reorganization is to be able to reduce administrative roles that will be more consolidated in the middle in Nashville.
	But it'll allow us to increase the operational roles, the agent roles, the number of them in Memphis.
	So I think not only are we not leaving Memphis, we're actually increasing our investigative presence in Memphis as part of this, and we're going to be able to continue to collaborate closely with our great partners there without skipping a beat.
	Thank you.
	That's reassuring.
	One of the questions was asked over here was about previous assassination attempts on presidents.
	And obviously, I know you're a lot younger than me, but you probably did.
	Do you ever watch The Untouchables?
	I have watched it.
	One of the programs was on Mayor Cermack.
	You don't know Mayor Cermack.
	I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
	Mayor Cermack, do you know who he was?
	I do not.
	He was the mayor of Chicago.
	And in February of 1933, there was an assassination attempt on Franklin Roosevelt in Miami, Florida.
	And Mayor Cermack, CER, MAK, was killed and said, I'm glad it was me and not you.
	Allegedly, he said that.
	But anyway, that was an attempt, and it failed.
	And that was Untouchables brought it into my consciousness.
	Allegedly, he said.
	Thank you for your work.
	I appreciate it very much.
	And I appreciate you're not looking into changing our Democratic nominee.
	That's something we normally do.
	Thank you.
	Director, I'm still not clear in my mind.
	When did the Keller snipers brought up this?
	Good guys.
	When did they first get eyes on the bad guy, the would-be assassin, on the roof of the AGR building?
	I'm not certain, but I'll take my best effort here.
	I guess if I'm sorry to interrupt, but did they have eyes on him before the local law enforcement was looking up on the roof and engaged with the bad guy shooter?
	I don't know the answer to that.
	I will look into that and get back.
	Case agent would know that.
	I believe we have the answer.
	I just don't know that I have it.
	They definitely know it.
	It's just that he's not going to know because he's so far up as the director.
	And I've told you guys this before.
	Directors, a lot of the times, in this case, this guy's not even an 1811 guys.
	He's not even technically a special agent.
	He's a director.
	He's never carried a gun in his life.
	He's a former AUSA.
	So this is why it's so important to have the case agent there.
	He should be the one sitting here behind.
	You can see that these guys are all FBI, very obvious from their pins and shit like that.
	But yeah.
	I'm sure I answer accurately.
	Because we thought from the briefings that Mr. Abbott gave us, or Abate gave us, and the briefings you gave to Congress that they did, but it wasn't clear from your testimony.
	So if you can get that answer to us, that would be helpful.
	I want to circle back just a third time, if I could, to the Iranian threat to President Trump and some others, former leadership.
	Of course.
	The reason I want to go back to that is because we now know that the Secret Service and Homeland Security denied resources to President Trump's detail that they had asked for.
	And it seems to me if that all happened after you guys knew about the Iran threat and had briefed the Secret Service on that real threat, that's an even bigger problem.
	And that's why I was trying to get that timeline down when you knew about it and when you briefed the Secret Service on the Iranians' threat to kill President Trump.
	So again, I really want to be careful to both be accurate, but also not to kind of stray into any kind of classified information or confirm the existence of classified information.
	So let me see if there's a way for us to get back to you on that question.
	I understand why you're asking.
	I knew that was coming.
	It may be easier to answer than I think, but at the moment in an open hearing, I'm not sure if I can see the right way to do that.
	Fair enough.
	We'll expect answers to both of those questions and you can get back to this.
	That'd be great.
	Finally, anything else you want to tell us that we didn't ask?
	You came today and you told us some things that weren't even prompted by questions.
	And I just want to make sure if there's anything else you want to tell us regarding July 13th and what you've discovered, you know, now's the time.
	Well, again, we're going to continue to engage with the Congress.
	I think we've covered a lot of the points that I really wanted to make sure that I got across just as I'm looking at my list in one way or another through the course of today's questioning.
	I think we've gotten through most of it.
	That concludes today's hearing.
	We thank our witness for appearing before the committee today.
	Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record.
	Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
	Boom.
	All right.
	So you answered quite a bit of questions, guys.
	We got some new facts.
	Obviously, the Oswald thing still didn't have answers for a lot of things.
	Obviously, the investigation is active, guys.
	I mean, it's kind of crazy that we're not even barely two weeks in, and they're answering questions on the case.
	And you got hundreds of agents involved.
	So that's what it is.
	It's what, 5 o'clock now?
	We got a show.
	Fresh and fit coming on later tonight.
	We got after ours as well.
	I think we got something.
	I think it's fresh match tonight, guys.
	We will see who's tomorrow.
	I'm going to go ahead and hit the gym here soon.
	But yeah.
	But I got y'all, man.
	I hope you guys enjoyed this stuff.
	Big announcement coming very soon as well, guys, that you guys are really going to enjoy.
	I got a trailer that I'm going to play for you guys, working with some people on it.
	We covered two things.
	We covered the FBI testimony, but we also covered the Netanyahu speech.
	Sorry, guys, if the stream went down, if you guys go look, and I'll show you guys kind of how it's organized on the channel.
	I have a part one and a part two, okay?
	So you go here, boom, you'll see, we're still live, obviously, on this one, but you're going to see a part one and a part two, right?
	So just go ahead and check it out.
	I'm going to get stamps for both of them for you guys as well.
	On Rumble, though, right, you literally have it all in one.
	And go follow my, my Fed Reacts channel is doing crazy numbers.
	It just doesn't have, only got 21.8k followers, guys.
	Follow me on FedReacts on Rumble because I go live.
	Whenever I go live on FedReacts, I go live on YouTube and on Rumble.
	We got almost 3,000 people watching on Rumble.
	But yeah, it's all in one stream, one shot here.
	So you might want to watch it on Rumble, to be honest with y'all.
	So go check it out, guys.
	There's a minor interruption while I was fixing everything.
	But yeah, and then also CastleClub.tv, we were back up on there.
	Guys, if you really want to support, castleclub.tv is the place to do it, man.
	Okay, guys.
	As you guys know, we're demonetized on YouTube for being some real ninjas.
	And, you know, Casclub is how we are able to do what we do and stay free.
	So guys, check us out over there, please.
	I gave y'all two streams, by the way, just so you guys know.
	Even though I was sick on Sunday, I made up for it.
	Gave you guys two different streams.
	I streamed yesterday and I streamed today.
	So, you know, obviously some breaking stuff.
	We covered the state police, Pennsylvania State Police testimony from yesterday and Cheetah, right?
	So that was yesterday.
	So yeah, man, go make sure to support over there, ninjas.
	We go hard in the paint.
	So the Cheetah one is on the Fresh of Fit one.
	I did everything today on Fed Reacts, just so you guys don't get confused.
	Destiny debate is going to be tomorrow, 8 p.m., between Andrew Wilson and Destiny.
	So I will be hosting that as well.
	I'll be monitoring that one.
	It's going to be a good one.
	And yeah, I'll catch you guys back here in a few hours from Fresh of Fit, man.
	Okay, tune in.
	We're going to be live on Rumble and on YouTube, as you guys know.
	I'll end the stream here so that I can go ahead and hit the gym.
	Love y'all, ninjas.
	Peace.
	Time stamps are going to be up soon.

▲