Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 12, 2024 - Stew Peters Show

02:14:11

LIVE COVERAGE: Trump Murder Plot Investigation Panel

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	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.
	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 the 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 file 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 the 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- So the 48,000 is wrong?
	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, the 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 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 is 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 planting 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.
	We appreciate that because— Okay, 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.
	The government is not doing their job.
	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.
	That is the FBI that I see, and I'm very proud to be a part of them.
	Any comment on the other agencies?
	I'm not going to comment on other agencies.
	Appreciate your time, sir.
	Yield back to the chair.
	The gentleman yields back.
	Director, I have just a couple quick questions, but I want to give to the ranking member a chance to say 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 Elliot Ness would be proud of you.
	I don't know about J. Edgar Hoover, but Elliot Ness for sure.
	Let me ask you this.
	In Memphis, you put Memphis and Nashville's FBI together, kind of consolidated, in one office.
	I know you've worked with our U.S. Attorney and others to work on the crime situation there, and it's gotten better.
	But is this change in the FBI relationship there where we're not going to have an office?
	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.
	Right.
	Most of the songs are about people going to Memphis.
	We are...
	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 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 will 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 is 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 that was asked over here was about previous assassination attempts on presidents.
	Obviously, I know you're a lot younger than me, but you probably did.
	Did you ever watch the Untouchables?
	I have watched, yes.
	They had one of the programs on Mayor Cermak.
	You don't know Mayor Cermak?
	I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
	Mayor Cermak, 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 Cermak, C-E-R-M-A-K, 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 Untouchables brought it into my consciousness.
	But 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 counter snipers, the good guys, when did they first get eyes on the bad guy, the would-be assassin,...engaged with the bad guy shooter.
	I don't know the answer to that.
	I will look into that and get back to you.
	I believe we have the answer.
	I just don't know that I have it.
	I want to make sure I answer accurately.
	Because we thought, from the briefings that Mr.
	Abbott gave us, or Bate gave us, excuse me, Abbate 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, to President Trump and some others, former members of our government.
	The reason I want to go back to that 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 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.
	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.
	record without objection the hearing is adjourned.
	The committee will come to order without objection the The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time.
	We welcome everyone to today's hearing on oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
	The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin to lead us all in the Pledge of Allegiance.
	To the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic of which it stands, a nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice, I want to begin today's hearing by recognizing the fact that we
	no longer have one of our great members with us, Sheila Jackson Lee, as we all know, passed away.
	She was a dedicated public servant.
	Her service on this committee spanned nearly three decades and included shepherding through countless pieces of legislation.
	I said yesterday Subcommittee hearing that I don't know that there was any member of Congress who got more out of five minutes than Sheila Jackson Lee did and she was just a pleasant spirit who we all enjoyed and we're thinking about her family we all we all certainly will miss Sheila.
	I yield the ranking member for comments.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Mr.
	Chairman, this room in our hearts feel a little emptier today as we mourn the loss of our dear friend and colleague, Sheila Jackson Lee.
	In the nearly 30 years that I served with Sheila on the Judiciary Committee, I witnessed her boundless energy, her courage, and her character as she lent her voice and her legislative talents to nearly every issue that came before this committee.
	Whether as advocating for just and humane immigration reform, working to protect voting rights and preserve our civil liberties, or delving into the technical details of administrative law and intellectual property, Sheila was always at the forefront of our work.
	Sheila made perhaps her greatest mark serving as the chair and later ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.
	In this role, she worked in a bipartisan fashion to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act and to protect victims of trafficking, among many other successes.
	She was also a leader on such issues as sentencing reform, gun safety, police accountability, and racial justice.
	She'll engage in many spirited debates, but she always had the deepest respect for all of her colleagues, even those to whom she vehemently disagreed.
	She deeply loved the institution of Congress, particularly the Judiciary Committee, because it gave her a platform to make a meaningful impact on the lives of millions of Americans.
	If Sheila took up a cause, she could be relentless in her determination to see it through, whether that meant making one extra phone call, going to one more meeting, offering one more amendment, or making one more speech.
	She would not rest until she thought she had done everything she could to fight for the issues she cared about.
	Through it all, she stayed true to her values and always had the people of Houston close to her heart.
	We are all better for having known her, and the American people are better for having had her in their corner all these years.
	I will deeply miss my friend and colleague.
	May her memory be a blessing.
	I yield back.
	I want to thank the ranking member.
	Well said.
	Now, the Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement.
	July 13th was a terrible day for America.
	We all agree, spirited debate, fighting for what you believe in, are part of what makes this country the greatest nation in the world.
	But the First Amendment and robust political debate are not consistent in any way with violence.
	What happened in Butler, Pennsylvania was a tragedy that took the life of a good man, Cory Compertore.
	Leaving a wife without a husband and two daughters without a father.
	Others were injured, and of course, former President Trump, by the grace of God, survived the assassination attempt.
	There are a lot of unanswered questions about the security failures that day.
	Questions about decisions made before the rally, questions about actions during the rally, and questions about statements made after the event concluded.
	Prior to the rally, why was the President's security detail denied requests for extra resources?
	Why weren't all the buildings secured?
	There were a finite number of buildings that needed to be secured.
	Why wasn't that done?
	Why was the President allowed to walk out on the stage when there was a suspicious person on the property?
	During the rally, what exactly happened between 6.09 and 6.14, those critical five minutes?
	We know from briefings from the Director and the Deputy Director of the FBI, and other information we've gathered, that at 6.09, the shooter was identified on the roof.
	At 6.10, the countersniper was notified, countersniper teams were notified about the shooter.
	6.11, the shooter fired several shots, injuring and killing one person, injuring others.
	At 6.12, the countersniper took down the shooter, and at 6.14, President Trump was escorted off the stage by Secret Service agents.
	We need to know what happened play by play, moment by moment, second by second, the communications that took place, again, during that critical five minutes.
	And then finally, after the rally, why did both the Secret Service and Secretary of Homeland Security, Mayorkas, lie to the American people?
	July 14th, the day after the attack, Secret Service spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said this, quote, the assertion that a member of the former president's security team requested additional security resources that the U.S. Secret Service or the Department of Homeland Security rebuffed is absolutely false.
	The next day, Secretary Mayorkas said, that is an unequivocally false assertion.
	We had not received any requests for additional security measures that were rebuffed.
	But five days later, top officials repeatedly rejected requests from Donald Trump's security detail for more personnel.
	And on the 21st of July, the New York Times, confirming what the Washington Post reported, said, quote, Mr.
	Guglielmi acknowledged that the Secret Service Had turned down requests for additional federal security assets for Mr.
	Trump's detail.
	180-degree change.
	Why did they initially lie to us in the days after the attack in Pennsylvania?
	Finally, we hope to learn more today from Director Wray about the shooter, his use of the drone, the explosives that were in his car, how he got on the roof, and a host of other questions.
	It is our hope that Director Wray's testimony can begin to give answers to the American people about all of these questions and concerns.
	So, Director, we appreciate you being here, and we trust that you're going to be as transparent with the committee and the country as you possibly can.
	And I'm sure you understand that a significant portion of the country has a healthy skepticism regarding the FBI's ability to conduct a fair, honest, open, and transparent investigation.
	And that skepticism is based On what they've witnessed over the past several years.
	The American people have seen a Biden-Harris Justice Department that can't tell us who planted the pipe bombs on January 6th.
	They can't tell us who leaked the Dobbs opinion.
	And they can't tell us who put cocaine at the White House.
	A Biden-Harris Justice Department who raided President Trump's home.
	A Biden-Harris Justice Department who worked with social media companies to censor Americans.
	A Biden-Harris Justice Department who let the country believe that the Hunter Biden laptop was misinformation.
	When they knew, at the time, it was authentic, and maybe most importantly, a Biden-Harris Justice Department who retaliated against whistleblowers, who came to this committee and spoke to us about these issues.
	Last week we sent you 12 questions about what occurred on July 13th.
	We expect you to answer those questions and the others that I've just outlined.
	And again, we thank you for being here today and appreciate your willingness to answer the questions that the committee is going to have.
	And with that, I would yield to the ranking member for an opening statement.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Mr.
	Chairman, two weeks ago our country witnessed the shocking assassination attempt on a presidential candidate.
	Now, I disagree with Donald Trump in almost every policy area imaginable.
	I am frequently shocked and outraged at the plans he has for our country and the words that come out of his mouth.
	And I have dedicated much of the last eight years to fighting his agenda.
	But regardless of my strong feelings about Donald Trump's behavior, I unequivocally and unabashedly condemn with every fiber of my being the attempt against his life.
	This was not just an attack on a man, but an attack on our democracy.
	Political violence erodes the very foundations of our nation.
	The concepts of freedom of speech, of peaceful transitions of power, of a democratic government at its core, these cannot exist if political violence is allowed to fester and to go unchecked.
	And if you think that this one assassin's bullet was a bolt out of the blue and not part of a wave of violence...
	Do you like having a P.O. box but are tired of wasting time and money driving to the post office?
	I've been imploring you to hear for some time.
	Election workers, many of them working for free, face near constant threats of violence.
	In one recent instance, an Indiana man pleaded guilty to threatening to kill an election worker who said that there were no irregularities in a recent election.
	That man said, quote, 10 million plus patriots will surround you when you least expect it and will expletive kill you, close quote.
	That is political violence.
	In another instance, Speaker married a Nancy Pelosi's husband who was bludgeoned over the head with a hammer by an intruder in his home who had been there to capture Ms.
	Pelosi, interrogate her and possibly, quote, break her kneecaps because of her liberal views.
	That is political violence.
	The death threats surging against Vice President Harris, former President Obama, his wife Michelle, and Governor DeSantis, as well as many others, including videos online of individuals holding guns making assassination threats.
	That is political violence.
	The plot to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer and overthrow parts of the state government.
	That is political violence.
	The brutal deadly attack three years ago against this very building.
	With rioters breaking through police barriers to run through these halls chanting, kill Nancy, and hang Mike Pence, and even hanging a noose outside the building.
	These rioters battering Capitol Police officers and forcing members of Congress and their staffs to go into hiding, squattering spaces under desks or in closets.
	That is political violence.
	This assassination attempt, as horrific as it is, should surprise no one.
	And you would think a political party that almost lost their presidential candidate through an act of political violence would have something to say about the way their leaders keep talking about the next election.
	Donald Trump is warned there will be a quote, bloodbath if he loses.
	Republican Ohio State Senator George Lang said just last week at a rally for J.D. Vance that he is quote, afraid that civil war might be necessary if Republicans lose the November election.
	President of the right-wing think tank and Project 2025 leader, the Heritage Foundation, Kevin Roberts, said on Stephen Bannon's podcast, quote, we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be, close quote.
	Republican former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said in August of last year of Trump's indictments, you want us to be in civil war?
	Because that's what's going to happen.
	We're not going to keep putting up with this.
	We do need to rise up and take our country back.
	I could go on, but it's more and more of the same.
	And I hear nothing from the other side of the aisle in this room about these statements.
	You support a bloodbath if you don't get the election outcome you want.
	You justify violence if the left does not agree with you.
	And what exactly has preoccupied this Republican majority while their allies threaten violence to their political enemies, real and imagined?
	We have chased down baseless conspiracy theories designed solely to influence the 2024 election in favor of Donald Trump.
	We have spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours of staff time in more than 100 transcribed interviews chasing false accusations against President Biden Supporting an impeachment effort that seemed designed to fail and hunting for a smoking gun that simply does not exist.
	And instead of admitting that these investigations found no corruption, coercion, or unethical behavior by the Biden administration, Republicans chose to just dig deeper and spend more money.
	Imagine what could have happened if we had spent these thousands of hours of staff time and those millions of taxpayer dollars addressing even one aspect of the political violence That now threatens our country.
	Perhaps, had this Republican majority lifted a finger to help a nation that is awash in guns, the assassin of Butler would not have had such easy access to the weapon he used to fire on that crowd.
	Director Wray, your agency is responsible for addressing some of the most serious issues of our time.
	The Bureau fights gun violence, which claims the lives of 40,000 Americans every year.
	It protects election security from growing threats for maligned foreign actors who are working tirelessly to influence our elections.
	It protects against domestic terrorists and violent extremists who have been a growing threat in recent years and have carried out horrific mass shootings and deadly events around the country.
	And so, so much more.
	I apologize to you, Director, that instead of supporting you in these missions in the 118th Congress, some of my colleagues have instead hindered your work, maligned your agents, and called to abolish and defund your agency, all for political gain.
	It is despicable, especially from the party that claims to, quote, back the blue.
	And I know that you and your many agents and employees have paid the price for these baseless attacks.
	I know you have faced a barrage of threats, distrust, and vitriol from the public as a result of these wild politically driven conspiracies.
	I know it has become even more dangerous and difficult for you to come to work each day.
	I may not agree with you on everything, but I sincerely thank you and every employee in your agency who continues to protect our country.
	The FBI is vital to keeping America safe, and I pray that today we can focus on the real, substantive work of the agency.
	It is the least we owe our country in these times.
	I yield back.
	The gentleman yields back.
	Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record.
	We will now introduce today's witness.
	The Honorable Christopher Wray has been the Director of the FBI since 2017.
	He previously served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, An Associate Deputy Attorney General and as Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia.
	Again, Director Way, you've been here many times.
	We appreciate you being here today.
	Look forward to your testimony and answering our questions.
	We will begin by swearing you in.
	Would you please rise and raise your right hand?
	Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and beliefs?
	So help you God.
	Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
	Thank you, and please be seated.
	We have votes coming in about 10 minutes, but we definitely want to get through your opening statement as far as we can, and this is going to be an interesting day on Capitol Hill with the Prime Minister of Israel here as well.
	So, Director A, you're recognized for your opening statement.
	Good morning, Chairman Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, members of the committee.
	I want to begin by offering my condolences on the passing of Representative Jackson Lee, who served the people of Texas in this body and on this committee for so long.
	Thank you all for your support of our efforts to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution.
	I am proud to be here today representing the 38,000 special agents, intelligence analysts, and professional staff who make up the FBI. Men and women who every day work relentlessly to counter the most complex threat environment I've seen in my tenure as FBI Director, maybe in my entire career In law enforcement.
	Before I go any further, I also want to acknowledge and offer my deepest condolences to the victims of the horrific assassination attempt in Butler County.
	To the friends and family of Cory Comparator, who by all accounts lost his life protecting others from danger.
	To the other victims, two of whom were critically wounded, And of course, of course, to President Trump, former President Trump and his family.
	As I've said from the beginning, the attempted assassination of the former president was an attack on our democracy and our democratic process, and we will not and do not tolerate political violence of any kind, especially a despicable account of this magnitude.
	And I want to assure you and the American people that the men and women of the FBI will continue to work tirelessly to get to the bottom of what happened.
	We are bringing all the resources of the FBI to bear both criminal and national security.
	Now there's a whole lot of work underway and still a lot of work to do, and our understanding of what happened and why will continue to evolve, but we're going to leave no stone unturned.
	The shooter may be deceased, but the FBI's investigation is very much ongoing.
	To that point, I also want to acknowledge that I recognize both the congressional and the public interest in this case and the importance of this investigation to the American people.
	And I understand there are a lot of open questions.
	So while the investigation is very much ongoing and our assessments of the shooter and his actions continue to evolve, my hope here today is to do my best to provide you with all the information I can given where we are at this point.
	I have been saying for some time now that we are living in an elevated threat environment.
	And tragically, The Butler County assassination attempt is another example, a particularly heinous and very public one, of what I've been talking about.
	But it also reinforces our need at the FBI and our ongoing commitment to stay focused on the threats, on the mission, and on the people we do the work with and the people we do the work for.
	All across this country, and indeed around the world, the men and women of the FBI are doing just that, working around the clock to counter the threats we face.
	Just in the last year, for example, in California, the FBI and our partners targeted an organized crime syndicate responsible for trafficking fentanyl, meth, and cocaine all across North America.
	We charged the Mexican-based suppliers who brought the drugs into the United States, a network of Canada-based truck drivers who delivered the drugs, and the distributors in the United States who spread the poison into our communities.
	Staying on threats emanating from the border, I have warned for some time now about the threat that foreign terrorists may seek to exploit our southwest border or some other port of entry to advance a plot against Americans.
	Just last month, for instance, the Bureau and our Joint Terrorism Task Forces worked with ICE in multiple cities across the country as several individuals with suspected international terrorist ties were arrested using ICE's immigration authorities.
	Leading up to those arrests, hundreds of FBI employees dedicated countless hours to understand the threat and identify additional individuals of concern.
	Now, the physical security of the border is of course not in the FBI's lane, but as the threat has escalated, we're working with our partners in law enforcement and the intelligence community to find and stop foreign terrorists who would harm Americans and our interests.
	As concerning as the known or suspected terrorists encountered at the border are, perhaps even more concerning are those...
	I heard that Slumberland is having a really good sale right now.
	They are having an amazing Labor Day sale up to 60% off.
	...in the United States.
	Staying ahead of today's threats demands that we work together.
	And for the FBI, that means doubling down on our partnerships, especially With state and local law enforcement.
	Whether it's working through our hundreds of joint terrorism task forces to build out source networks to identify those who slipped through the cracks, or targeting the worst of the worst responsible for the violence that still plagues far too many communities through our Safe Streets task forces, or taking the fight to the cartels responsible for trafficking the dangerous drugs like fentanyl pouring into our country and claiming countless American lives.
	Staying ahead of the threat also means continuing to disrupt the cyber criminals, ravaging businesses, large and small, and confronting nation-states like China, targeting our innovation and our critical infrastructure.
	At the Bureau, we're proud to work side by side with our brothers and sisters In federal, state, and local law enforcement, our partners in the intelligence community, and others around the world to fulfill our commitment to keep Americans safe.
	On Friday, the FBI will celebrate its 116th anniversary, 116 years of protecting the American people and upholding the Constitution.
	116 years of working with our partners to safeguard the communities we serve.
	116 years of innovating to stay ahead of the complex, evolving, and very real threats out there.
	I am proud of the legacy the men and women of the FBI have built And all they have accomplished for the American people.
	So, if I may, as we approach this week's anniversary, I would just like to say to all those who are part of the FBI family, from our current employees to our formers and to our partners across law enforcement and the intelligence community, thank you.
	Thank you for dedicating your lives to this country and to its people.
	It is both humbling And an honor to serve alongside you, and I look forward to the work we're going to continue to do together.
	And with that, thank you again for having me, and I look forward to our discussion.
	Thank you, Director Wray.
	Excuse me.
	We'll now proceed under the five-minute rule.
	The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Director Wray, I'm way down here, and I appreciate the Chairman giving me this because I've got to Leave.
	But let me ask this question.
	Why doesn't the FBI disclose to the American people all of the investigative detail and evidence that you are gathering as it is gathered?
	Well, we have tried to be transparent with both Congress and the American people as we're going along in the investigation, frankly unusually so for an ongoing investigation given the sheer nature of it.
	We have provided a lot of information.
	I expect to continue to provide information.
	Expect to be able to provide some additional information here today in response to your questions and your colleagues.
	But part of the issue is that, like in any investigation, as we proceed, facts evolve.
	Our understanding of what somebody said turns out to have more context than we didn't have before.
	We have additional leads out there.
	So part of our goal is not just To respect the ongoing investigation process, but also to make sure that we don't prematurely provide information that then, two days later, turns out to be different than what we told people.
	Because that's very much, you know, kind of a natural part of any investigation.
	So, did Crooks fire eight shots?
	We have recovered eight cartridges on the roof.
	Why was Crooks allowed to get off eight shots?
	Well, that I think is something we're still digging into.
	Again, maybe this is a good place for me to make clear the different investigations that are going on.
	So – because certainly I understand the – Well, and I – given that I've only got three minutes left and I know other members – I'm really interested, because I appreciate your invitation.
	You said you're prepared to disclose things as questions are asked.
	So I don't want to waste time, sort of – I just want to get to the questions that might – and as many members as can – ask questions that you'll answer.
	I actually think you – I'd be glad for you to go on soliloquy, frankly, and tell us what you know.
	I think the American people want to know.
	Why was President Trump not kept off the stage?
	We don't know the answer to that, but I want to be clear, and this is important because I think it goes to questions that I can and cannot answer.
	Our investigation, the FBI's mandate, is focused on the shooter and all things related to his attack.
	Now, obviously, I understand very much the intense interest and focus on the Secret Service's performance, actions, decision-making, etc.
	There are two separate After action reviews, the DHS inspector general and the outside independent panel that's been convened that are focused on that.
	Now, our investigation will obviously overlap with that.
	Here's the problem.
	We're out 13 days, and you say we've been disclosing.
	You know, we had the director, the colonel from the Pennsylvania State Police in front of Homeland yesterday.
	He was quite candid.
	He disclosed to us that Butler Emergency Services Unit personnel were posted into the windows on the second floor of the AGR building, that they left there to go pursue the person that they spotted, Crooks, that they texted a photo of Crooks to the PSP representative in the command center.
	That information was relayed to the United States Secret Service.
	They asked that it be texted to someone else.
	That was many minutes before President Trump took the stand.
	What we don't know is why did he not—why were they not keeping him off the stand?
	And to the extent—you know, I know we always hear when there's a criminal investigation, you've got to wait for that to develop.
	But do you have any reason to—do you have any other target of your criminal investigation other than Crooks, who's dead?
	We are investigating the shooter both to determine his motive and his preparations and activities before the shooting, but also to make sure whether or not there are any co-conspirators, accomplices, etc.
	At this point, have you developed any evidence to so suggest that there are any accomplices or cooperators or assisters?
	Not at this time, but again, the investigation is ongoing.
	So here's the thing.
	While we wait, Maybe for months.
	And I hate to say this, I'm not trying to take a pot shot, but the country went for years with the understanding that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, as offered by respected former intel officials, and the whole time the FBI had the laptop and then let that happen in public until finally offering testimony in a case.
	To the degree we wait to hear as a country and as a Congress what has happened in this event, because the FBI is conducting an investigation, it provides quarter for the U.S. Secret Service not, perhaps, to reckon with the problems that are obvious to everyone.
	So let's get a couple in while I've got 13 more seconds.
	One more question, perhaps.
	Senator Grassley says that the records of the day show that there was a counter Unmanned aerial surveillance operator on site.
	Was there?
	And why did that person not prevent Crooks from being able to use a drone?
	So again, questions about the Secret Service's performance are better directed to those other reviews.
	What I can tell you when it comes to drones is that Crooks himself had a drone, and I'm prepared to answer questions here today about the shooter and his use of the drone, for example.
	My time's expired.
	The gentleman yields back.
	The ranking members are recognized for five minutes.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	As I said in my opening statement, political violence is a scourge and entirely unacceptable, no matter the source or the target.
	Last October, far-right conspiracy theorists broke into Nancy Pelosi's home and bludgeoned her husband.
	Permanent Republicans mocked the attack and promoted conspiracy theories about it.
	Last August, an armed Utah man who threatened to kill President Biden Was killed as FBI agents attempted to serve a warrant on him hours before President Biden landed in his state.
	Some on the right claimed that the man was simply a, quote, Second Amendment enthusiast.
	In recent weeks and months, those on the right have repeatedly called for, quote, civil war, with an Ohio State senator saying that if Republicans lose the election, quote, it's going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved.
	The president of the Heritage Foundation likewise said that, quote, we are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be, close quote.
	Director Wray.
	It's obviously important that we respect First Amendment protections, but there is clearly a point at which some violent rhetoric crosses over into threats of violence or leads to actual violence.
	Could you describe how the FBI looks at this relationship between rhetoric and action and what you are seeing around the country?
	So I appreciate the question, and this is an issue that I've been talking about for some time.
	You know, in our view, There is a right way and a wrong way under the First Amendment to express your views no matter how passionate or even angry you are.
	And violence and threats of violence is not the right way.
	And we don't care what you're upset about or who you're upset with.
	When, from the FBI's perspective, when it turns to violence and threats of violence, that's when we have to draw the line.
	That's when we get engaged.
	And there is an alarming phenomenon that we've seen over the last several years of that kind of passion and heated rhetoric turning into actual violence and threats of violence.
	We've seen it against public officials of all sorts.
	We've seen it against law enforcement.
	The number of officers shot and killed in the line of duty in this country is, frankly, outrageous and alarming.
	And I know that because every time an officer is shot and killed anywhere in this country, since the day I started as FBI Director, I personally call the Chief or the Sheriff to express my condolences and to talk to them about the victim's family.
	And the number of those shootings that are ambush related, meaning somebody is targeting law enforcement because they're law enforcement, is particularly alarming.
	I have made around 400 of those phone calls.
	It's almost every five days that a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty.
	And that is an example of the kind of ways in which Passions and heated rhetoric can bubble over into violence.
	Thank you.
	Members of Congress, their families and their staffs have witnessed an alarming rise in threats against them.
	I appreciate the work your agency has done to investigate and address these threats, but I'm concerned that we do not seem to be stemming the tide.
	What is the FBI doing to ensure that members of Congress, their families and their staffs are safe?
	We have a very close relationship with the Capitol Police, and we have members of the Capitol Police, for example, who are on some of our task forces.
	We share intelligence information about things that we're seeing, trends that we're seeing with Capitol Police and others in law enforcement.
	Obviously, if we have specific information about...
	Whatever you do, do it for less at Harbor Freight.
	But those are some of the things that we're doing.
	Thank you.
	Now, Director, your office is leading the investigation to the attempted...
	His office is leading a coup.
	His office is leading a Zionist takeover.
	What impact would defunding or even just limiting your funding have on the FBI's ability to conduct this and other investigations?
	So, I understand that there are heated views, opinions about us, just like there are about every institution in today's America.
	Cutting our funding is incredibly short-sighted, and the people it really hurts, our state and local law enforcement and the American people, we're all sworn to protect.
	Thank you.
	During my remaining time, I want to turn to a different matter.
	In recent days, Republican members of Congress have attacked presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris as a quote DEI candidate, which presumably is code for women and a person of color.
	It's not a new theme for them.
	In May, Chairman Jordan wrote to you claiming that because of DEI initiatives, The FBI is no longer hiring, quote, the best and brightest candidates to fill the position of special agent.
	With my remaining time, Director, can you please answer the following questions?
	Is it true that hiring women and people of color means that FBI is no longer hiring the best and the brightest to serve as law enforcement officers?
	Is there any evidence that women and people of color are less effective in law enforcement roles And what message does it send to prospective applicants when the leaders demean them and make judgments about them based solely on the race agenda?
	Witness may respond.
	Any notion that we have lowered our standards, our hiring standards, is just not accurate.
	In fact, our standards are as competitive and selective as ever.
	We have tens of thousands of people applying, and our selection rate is about 3.1 percent, which is more selective than just about any university in the country.
	And most of our applicants, I think something like 50% of them are coming from military or law enforcement backgrounds.
	About 50% of them also have advanced degrees.
	The average age is around 31, which means they're bringing a wealth of personal and professional experience when they arrive.
	And to suggest that those people, because of efforts related to diversity or anything like that, are less qualified, frankly, is not at all consistent with what I see.
	Having visited all of our field offices and seeing these young people in action, I think, is an insult to those hardworking men and women who have signed up to dedicate their lives for this country.
	Thank you, Director.
	I yield back.
	The gentleman yields back.
	Director, let me go back to where Mr.
	Bishop was.
	Tell me about the drone.
	You act like you wanted to fill us in on that.
	Fill us in.
	So we have recovered a drone that the shooter appears to have used.
	It's being exploited and analyzed by the FBI lab.
	The drone was recovered in his vehicle.
	So at the time of the shooting, the drone was in his vehicle with the controller.
	In addition, our investigation has uncovered...
	Do you know what time of day he flew it and if he flew it on the day of the shot?
	So in addition, it appears that around 3.50 p.m., 4 o'clock in that window, on the day of the shooting, that the shooter was flying the drone around the area.
	About 11 minutes.
	I want to be clear, but when I say the area, not over the stage and that part of the area itself, but I would say about 200 yards, give or take, away from that.
	We think, but we do not know.
	So again, this is one of these things that's qualified because of our ongoing review, that he was live streaming, you know, viewing the footage from that, again, about 11 minutes.
	In around the 3.50, 4 o'clock p.m.
	range.
	Two hours before, he's flying a drone in the vicinity of the route.
	About 200 yards away, yes.
	Okay, that's important information.
	What about the bombs that we've heard about in the shooter's car?
	So again, the FBI lab is exploiting those explosive devices.
	We've recovered three devices, two in his vehicle and one back in his residence.
	Are these what you would call sophisticated operations?
	I mean, I don't know.
	That's what I've been told by people who have some understanding of this area.
	Yeah, I think we've seen more sophisticated and less.
	I would say these are relatively, again, key word, relatively crude devices themselves, but they did have the ability to be detonated remotely.
	And so to that point, In addition to the two devices that we recovered out of his vehicle, there were receivers for those two explosive devices with the devices, and then on the shooter himself, when he was killed by law enforcement, he had a transmitter with him.
	Now, I do want to add one important point here, is at the moment, it looks to us, again, ongoing review, and I can't say that too many times, at a moment, it looks like Because of the on-off position on the receivers, that if he had tried to detonate those devices from the roof, it would not have worked.
	But that doesn't mean the explosives weren't dangerous.
	I'm sure we're going to get into all these subjects a little bit later as well.
	Tell us what you can about the encrypted platforms we've heard about.
	So, one of the things that we're drilling into hard with the shooter in an effort to try to learn more about his state of mind, his motive, his ideology, his context, everything else, is to look at all of his devices, any social media accounts he had, etc.
	And one of the things we've learned in finally getting into his phone, which was also a significant technical challenge from an encryption perspective, In addition, once we got on the phone, it turned out he was using some encrypted messaging applications.
	And again, the same question relative to the bombs.
	Was this pretty sophisticated, or is this kind of the norm you see with folks like, you know, similar situation?
	How would you describe it?
	On this subject, I would say this has unfortunately now become very commonplace, and it's a real challenge for not just the FBI, but state and local law enforcement.
	Tell me exactly the scope.
	Does the scope of your investigation Include what I what I call that critical five minutes from when the 609 when this is based I think on information you've given the Congress 609 when the shooters identified on the roof and 614 when President Trump is ultimately escorted off and all that happens the shots that take place in between there Do you have access to the communications that were going on at the time in that critical five minutes?
	So our investigation, when you say scope, our investigation includes that timeframe, although focused again on the shooter himself.
	I understand.
	He's obviously involved in that timeframe.
	Correct.
	And as part of that, As part of our focus, our investigation of the shooter and the attack, of course we are interviewing law enforcement from the scene because those are some of the most significant witnesses, and we're obviously getting access to their materials and that kind of thing, and the Secret Service has been fully cooperative.
	You have access to the communications that exist there?
	That exact question, as I sit here at the moment, I don't know the exact answer to that question, but I know that Secret Service has been cooperative with us.
	The Congress would like access to those communications as well.
	I mean, not just at five minutes, although I think that's the critical time frame.
	There's lots of communications we'd love to have access to as well.
	I see my time is up.
	I want Benjamin Netanyahu!
	I want Benjamin Netanyahu!
	I want him and his generals!
	I want him and his generals!
	and the fairway got me to do so he had born in hell!
	I am looking for babies but there is no babies left.
	We are looking for babies but there is no babies left.
	Maybe they kill you!
	We'll do whatever we need to do to defend ourselves.
	An investigation is underway into whether Israeli forces rolling up the main drinking water reservoir in Raqqa constitutes as a war crime.
	You cannot tell me to ever feel comfortable with 18,000 children being ruthlessly murdered.
	Let me hear you cheer if you support Israel.
	The Jews are everywhere.
	All of the assistance of Trump, Jews.
	All the assistance of Sleepy Joe, Jews.
	Obama, Jews, everyone around the Reform Jew, Conservative Jews, Habatnik, Diz, Today the Jews rule this world by prophecy.
	They get others to fight and die for them.
	Everyone who bears uttering a word of criticism against Israel is accused of antisemitism.
	When I was very young, I was forced to participate in that, in which I had a sacrifice and then spent.
	The purpose of sacrifice is to what?
	The purpose of sacrifice is to what?
	To bring you what?
	What are you sacrificing for?
	For power.
	Power.
	Power.
	Mamie, Democrats, was it all over the board?
	Can you enlighten us about that?
	Well, this is a place where it's particularly important for me to reiterate the caveat that I've included before, because in this instance in particular, we have a lot of legal process out for additional accounts and things like that that the shooter is associated with.
	So we're hoping to learn more, and we're still exploiting a number of the digital devices.
	I think it's fair to say that we do not yet have a clear picture of his motive, and I think it's important for me to explain because I understand, of course, why everybody wants to know the answers to those questions.
	Often in an investigation from interviewing people that the subject was in close contact with, looking at the individual's social media accounts, messages, often things, physical evidence in the person's residence.
	You might see a manifesto, things like that.
	We're not seeing that yet, but we are digging in hard because this is one of the central questions for us.
	What I can say is that the shooter appears to have done a lot of searches of public figures in general, but so far we're seeing kind of news articles and things like that, and so the images that have been reported about, really what we're talking about there, are when you do a news search of an article, the image appears in the cache.
	As opposed to like a search for that specific individual.
	But again, I really want to be clear that that's a place that we're doing a lot of work right now and some more to come on that.
	Well, I thank you for that clarification.
	We're interested also in the role of access to weapons when it comes to this terrible crime.
	The shooter used a semi-automatic rifle, really a weapon of war, That, sadly, has also been used in mass shootings around the country, including in my own district.
	It seems to me that the assault weapons ban that was once in place has to be a part of the national answer to curbing the epidemic of gun violence in America.
	I wonder if you could, with your help, Director Wray, understand a few aspects of the investigation.
	It's my understanding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Was quickly able to trace the gun, the gun's purchaser, using records from an out-of-business gun store, which had been resisted.
	Can you tell us about how the origin of this gun purchase was discovered and the technology used?
	Well, I guess what I can say is we located a number of firearms associated with the shooter and his family.
	I think it was a total of, I think, 14 in the house.
	The weapon that he used for the attempted assassination was an AR-style rifle that was purchased legally, that he It's my understanding acquired, I think bought actually, from his father who was the one who originally bought it, again, legally.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	My time has expired so I yield back.
	The gentlelady yields back.
	Gentleman from California is recognized.
	Thank you.
	Director, I'll try to ask questions that are answerable too.
	I think that's been done pretty well on both sides.
	You do the advanced threat assessment and deliver that information as to the general threat and then specifics as to protected people to the Secret Service.
	Is that correct?
	Well, sort of.
	The Secret Service does a threat assessment, but they're doing that based on intelligence that they receive from a number of sources, including, of course, the FBI. So we share, whenever we have threat information related to a particular individual or protectee, then we share it with the Secret Service at a number of levels.
	So you're a participant, but ultimately the responsibility for threat assessment as to these individuals belongs to the Secret Service?
	Well, again, the threat assessment for the individual belongs to the Secret Service, but we are an important part of that because we share threat information.
	If we have any, they get threat information from a variety of sources.
	And you get them from that same variety of sources.
	They've got no sources that are excluded from the FBI, do they?
	I'm not aware of any that are excluded from the FBI, but they may receive information that comes directly to them that didn't come to us.
	Sure.
	Okay.
	Director, do you believe that former President Trump was a high-risk threat under your assessment?
	I believe that former President Trump, really, frankly, like any president or former president, is a very high profile figure and attracts a lot of, unfortunately, the kind of rhetoric we've been talking about.
	Not on a scale of one to a million with little nuances, but on a scale of one to ten, President Trump's risk was very similar to a current president, very similar to, because he was the presumptive nominee and leading in the polls and so on, that he was a high risk by any standard.
	Is that correct?
	Certainly, there's a reason why he has so much protection around him.
	Okay.
	Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the son of an assassinated senator and the nephew of an assassinated president, would you say he was also, as a presidential candidate, at significant risk?
	Again, I think any presidential candidate raises some level of risk.
	It might vary from candidate to candidate.
	No, but it's clearly a risk.
	Okay.
	In a nutshell, the day before this attack, President Trump was documented not to have gotten on multiple occasions from the Secret Service what they asked for.
	The day after, it looks like they're getting more.
	The day before, RFK had been denied by the President multiple times, Secret Service protection.
	The day after, he now has it.
	So now my question is, Is the actions of a 20-year-old with a lone gunman on a roof sufficient to change the risk assessment in your mind for President Trump and RFK, or are we just realizing the threat that was always there and being more appropriate in matching it?
	And I know that's a little vague, but you've been at this for a long time.
	Hindsight is 20-20.
	Now that we have hindsight, is it fair to say that giving Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
	security, upping the security, including drones, overhead support for the president, former president, these are all things that in hindsight should have been done the day before.
	Well, let me try to answer your question this way.
	Of course, as I said, you know, the assessments of the level of security to be provided to individual protectors...
	No, no, I understand it's a Secret Service decision.
	But what I would say to you is that, and I've been saying for quite some time, including in front of committees of this Congress, that we are in an elevated threat.
	We have been for some time.
	And that comes from a variety of quarters.
	It is, quite frankly, a dangerous time to be a prominent public official.
	In regards to that, the other side has spent a lot of time talking about what people on the right have said.
	But there was an attempted assassination on a Supreme Court justice.
	We have had the highest ranking senator on the other side of this body Saying that there were actions, that they were accountable.
	We have had multiple members of Congress in both the House and the Senate berating the character of members of the Supreme Court as a result of their decisions made, sometimes 6-3, sometimes unanimous, whatever.
	Are those comments, not any one of them, but are those comments and the generation of that sort of, oh, this guy's bad for democracy, this Supreme Court justice is a threat to democracy, is that the kind of thing that raises the threat level, and would you caution against that?
	Well, I do believe that we've seen an increase in threats of violence, which again, that's the FBI's lane, not rhetoric, no matter how despicable or heated it is, but violence and threats of violence.
	We have seen an uptick in threats towards judges, among other prominent public officials, including, as you say, a case that we helped investigate involving a threat to a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
	An attempt.
	An attempt, correct.
	And I think it's a reflection of a broader phenomenon that we are seeing in this country where people, again, very passionate, I respect that, very angry, I respect that, but there's a right way and a wrong way to express yourself when you're angry.
	And violence and threats of violence just can't be it.
	And that's where we fit in.
	It's not my role as FBI Director to call out particular people's rhetoric.
	There's a place for that, but that's not my role as FBI Director.
	But when it turns to violence and threats of violence, that has to be treated as unacceptable, and that's the way we look at it.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	I yield back.
	Director, when did the FBI learn that Iran was threatening President Trump's life?
	So I want to be a little bit careful here, not to talk about specific classified information, but we have been for quite some time, and I'll stick with what's in the open record, we for some time, and I'll stick with what's in the open record, we for some time, and I in particular
	have been calling out the efforts by the Iranian government God, this guy is just such a fucking liar.
	They're all so corrupt.
	Every single one of these guys.
	Every single one of these guys is corrupt.
	And liars.
	And pedophiles.
	And liars.
	And pedophiles.
	...regime, including right here in the United States, and I expect that we're going to see more of it, and I expect there'll be more coming on that.
	I'm not aware of any threat information related to protectees that wasn't, you know, passed in a timely way, but I can't really get into specifics here.
	It's a minority's time here, but I just felt that was a question the committee need to understand, and it sounds like you've known that for a longer service.
	Any information related to threats against the former president, which again, as we've sort of talked about, happens all too often, is something that we have a whole process that we routinely share with Secret Service on a number of levels in a timely way.
	And to my knowledge, that has consistently been followed.
	The gentleman from Georgia is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Thank you for being here, Director Wray.
	Um, Director Wray, the FBI is the independent law enforcement agency under the Department of Justice, is that correct?
	Yes.
	Oh my God, the questions that these people ask, it's just so, it's all so fake.
	It's just so, it's all so fake.
	Well, you mean in a chain of command reporting structure kind of thing?
	Yes.
	Yeah, so the FBI is part of the Justice Department.
	On the org chart, you would see that the FBI Director, and this has been true for decades, reports to the Deputy Attorney General who reports to the Attorney General.
	Obviously reports in a communication sense, I report to any number of people.
	As opposed to a micromanagement reporting system.
	Correct.
	And you would take issue, would you not, with any proposal that would change or alter that chain of command and place you or place a FBI director in the position of reporting directly to the president, would you not?
	You would oppose that?
	I don't think that would be a wise reporting structure.
	I think the structure that we've had for decades now makes sense.
	I think there's a difference between independence in a sort of organizational structure perspective and independence in terms of the way you do the work.
	Obviously, the FBI is part of the Justice Department.
	Well, reporting directly to the President would eliminate your independence, would it not?
	I don't think it would help.
	And you're familiar with Project 2025, are you not?
	Yep, here we go with this Project 2025 bullshit.
	Yep, here we go with this Project 2025 bullshit.
	Is a game plan for President Trump's first 120 days in office, correct?
	I'm really not familiar with the details.
	I've seen reporting about it.
	It is, and what he proposes to do is to Forced the FBI Director to report directly to him.
	That's what he wants to do within the first 120 days.
	He also wants to eliminate the position of FBI General Counsel.
	That is also set forth in Project 2025.
	Would you recommend that?
	I think the FBI's Office of General Counsel serves an incredibly important role, including in terms of advising our workforce.
	We have 38,000 people.
	The idea of having an organization like ours, an independent law enforcement agency like ours, that doesn't have its own general...
	Building your online business?
	Go to Wix.com and set up your...
	to the president, and then there would be no legal counsel for the director of the FBI.
	That seems like it's an attempt to neuter the FBI and render it accountable.
	Let me put it this way.
	I recognize that the FBI director This FBI Director and every FBI Director before me serves at the pleasure of the President, and that's part of our system.
	I was appointed By President Trump.
	I respect that.
	I think that's a part of our structure.
	But independence in terms of how we do our work is what matters to me.
	And we need to be able to do our work in a way that is free from political interference.
	Well, you wouldn't be able to do that by reporting everything you do to the President and getting his authority and approval before you take action, correct?
	I don't think that would be a wise approach.
	And then there's even a proposal to replace many of those 38,000 dedicated civil servants who work for the FBI, replace them with a MAGA group that has pledged its allegiance to Donald Trump.
	What danger would that bring to the FBI if that were to happen?
	Well, again, I haven't read or reviewed this thing that you're referring to, but the FBI has made up of 38,000 dedicated career law enforcement professionals.
	It has no political appointees of any kind unless you count me as a nominee of the former president.
	You don't want that to change either, do you?
	I don't think that should change.
	I think that is part of how we do our work.
	Being the employees of the FBI. We're coming up on 116 years of the FBI and that's the way it has been for 116 years.
	It would be crazy to take 38,000 MAGA loyalists and put them at the FBI. That's frightening.
	That's what Project 2025 proposes and I'm glad to know that you are not with that program and with that I yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman from Florida is recognized.
	Was the shooter on the FBI's radar in any way prior to the assassination attempt?
	We did not have any information about the shooter.
	He was not in our holdings before the shooting.
	No communication in any chat rooms?
	No CIs or confidential human sources have any interaction?
	No, we've run a thorough search for the subject through all of our holdings and he was not in them anywhere.
	Were there any FBI agents or informants present at the Trump rally in Butler?
	Not to my knowledge.
	Mr.
	Jordan was talking to you about Iran.
	Were law enforcement resources diverted from the protection of President Trump to John Bolton as a consequence of concern that Mr.
	Bolton might have been the target of Iranian malign efforts?
	That's really a Secret Service decision.
	I don't know the answer to that.
	That's really something they would know better.
	What I can tell you is that there are a number of individuals.
	You mentioned one who we've brought a case, a specific criminal case, for the Iranians targeting for assassination.
	Are you going to get that answer to us, whether or not resources were diverted from Trump to Bolton?
	Is that just going to be part of your review?
	I think that's going to be part of the reviews by the Inspector General.
	The Inspector General for DHS, right?
	Of DHS and the outside panel.
	I think that's an important point because the Inspector General for DHS has really fallen out of favor with the administration because he's been pointing out all the problems on the border with Mayorkas and Biden, and we're always kind of worried that they're about to fire him, which would be a really bad idea.
	Now that this role that you've identified is so critical.
	Be a bad idea to fire the IG for DHS during the pendency of this, right, Mr.
	Director?
	I don't think that would be a good idea.
	I'm with you on that.
	So I want to zoom out a little bit.
	How often do you brief President Biden?
	You mean on this specific case?
	No, just general.
	No, in your role as FBI Director.
	I mean, I don't know that I could give you a number.
	Is it like weekly, monthly, daily?
	It's not...
	It's not at a regular cadence.
	There have been times when there have been months at a time when I haven't, and then there have been times when several days apart I have.
	It's always with other people.
	The vice president, is she typically there?
	Often has been.
	Okay, so when did you notice his decline?
	In my interactions, in my role, all my interactions with the current president have been completely professional.
	Right, but I mean the cognitive decline.
	I'm not saying he treated you unprofessionally, just maybe not picking things up as quickly as he used to.
	Again, I don't meet with him very often, but what you're describing is not something that I've observed during my interactions with him.
	I mean, we've had it observed so often that the ranking member and Mr.
	Schiff on this committee have said that he could no longer continue as a candidate.
	And so, since you're the FBI director, I was just sort of wondering, like, who's running the country?
	If something bad happened, you'd have to go brief President Biden about it right now?
	God forbid?
	And on any number of occasions, I have briefed the President, and as I said, those briefings have all been uneventful and unremarkable.
	I can imagine them being uneventful.
	But in the work where the Vice President is also present, you say There's more than half the time there's these briefings, she's there too?
	I don't know if I'd said more than half the time.
	Certainly, there have been times where she's been present.
	There have been other times where she hasn't.
	I take you at your word when you say this is the most complicated threat environment you've ever observed over a long career in law enforcement.
	And I'm just kind of wondering, with this assassination attempt, with the invasion at our border, with all the Hamas that have been let in, that you've talked about and briefed about, is Biden up to it?
	And if he's not up to it, and you're a guy who's been regularly briefing him, like, who's been in on this conspiracy to hide the real Joe Biden from all of us for years?
	It never occurred to you that this guy wasn't up to it in all these briefings you did?
	As I said, my briefings with the president have all been completely fine.
	Were they between 10 a.m.
	and 4 p.m.?
	There hasn't been anything of note in the area that you're talking about.
	Did you ever have to brief him before 10 a.m.
	or after 4 p.m.?
	We hear those are his good hours.
	Certainly times that I have briefed have included outside those hours.
	I think the American people want to know how we got to this point with someone who's so diminished his own party has basically put him out to pasture.
	And since you had close proximity and the Vice President had close proximity, I'm just kind of wondering if you were being straight with all of us about how things were going with him.
	I guess we'll have to figure that out.
	You can counter me to be straight with you, sir.
	We'll see.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
	Thank you.
	Firstly, I'd like to recognize, unfortunately, the fact that our colleague and my colleague's side-by-side mate for many, many years in this committee, Sheila Jackson Lee, is no longer with us.
	She was a great member and a force for America, and her loss has felt great.
	Secondly, I'd like to say to the FBI Director that There were some remarks made when you were introduced, preemptory remarks, saying that people don't have great faith in the FBI, etc., etc., etc.
	I have great faith in the FBI, and I think most of us on this side of the aisle do.
	We appreciate your work and we appreciate your being here.
	Some on the other side of the aisle have cast dispersions upon the FBI and upon law enforcement.
	If they don't want to support law enforcement, that's their business.
	But I support law enforcement and the FBI is the top rank of law enforcement in our country.
	So I thank you and all of your people that work with you.
	Secondly, there's been some questions about the FBI maybe being weaponized.
	Did President Biden ever ask you to get involved in the case in Orlando, Florida, where Kevin McCarthy says that Mr.
	Gates is investigated for some sexual Involvement with a 17-year-old girl.
	Did the President or anybody in the Democratic Party, as Mr.
	McCarthy has suggested, weaponized you and tried to get you involved in that case?
	No, sir.
	Good.
	Thank you.
	I just wanted to make sure of that.
	Butler, Pennsylvania.
	I read something about a ladder.
	He used a ladder to get up on that roof and that the ladder was found somewhere a distance away.
	Is that true?
	So we do know that he purchased a ladder.
	I think if I recall correctly, it was about a five foot tall type of ladder.
	But importantly, we did not find the ladder at the scene.
	So it's not clear that he used the ladder to get on top of the roof.
	We're still digging into all that, things related to the ladder and his access to the roof.
	But he did buy a ladder.
	But the ladder was not found at the scene.
	The ladder didn't have any feet on it.
	It didn't walk off.
	Thank you, sir.
	There have been a lot of threats against public officials.
	We've seen Mr.
	Scalise terribly shot, and we saw Gabby Gifford shot, and other congresspeople, and many of us have had death threats.
	And the FBI has been made aware of those to help protect us, and I appreciate that greatly.
	But we've also had election officials and poll workers threaten.
	What is the FBI doing in consultation with other law enforcement to ensure every eligible voter can safely and confidently cast a ballot this year?
	So when it comes to threats to election workers in particular, we participate in the Election Threats Task Force that DOJ set up.
	We also, and there have been a number, quite a number already, of arrests and convictions under that task force.
	We have got a number of investigations underway that involve all kinds of threats to election workers, ranging from online threats to There was even some mailings that included fentanyl.
	So there's been a number of types of threats to election workers.
	And these are, after all, people who are putting in their own time for the good of the country to try to help us have a functioning democracy.
	And so the idea that they would be targeted with violence It's just outrageous.
	We are sharing information with election officials about things to be on the lookout for.
	We have election crime coordinators in all 50s.
	And you'll be prepared for election day with additional, FBI will be looking out for the election?
	Yes.
	Thank you, thank you.
	Jeffrey Epstein, been in the news a lot lately about involvement with certain people high in politics involved.
	Did the FBI conduct a raid on his townhouse in New York when he was incarcerated in New York?
	There was a raid on his east side townhouse.
	Well, I don't know about a raid.
	I know we executed a number of searches in the course of our fairly extensive investigation related to Mr.
	Epstein.
	Can you tell me, during that search, if you came across and have, within your possession of the FBI, Tapes of him with other individuals that he might have taken in, people in compromising positions.
	Yeah, I don't know that there's anything I can share related to that.
	I can see if there's information we could provide and maybe get back to you on it.
	If there were tapes of people in prominent positions, friends of his he'd post for pictures with, possibly in compromising positions, the public, I think, has a right to see those.
	Well, I mean, how we handle evidence recovered in a criminal investigation has all kinds of rules that apply to it.
	I recognize the intense public interest in the subject, but we have to follow our rules, but I'm happy, like I said, I'm happy to follow up with my team on it.
	Thank you, sir, and I appreciate your service, and thank you for being here today.
	The gentleman yield the last five?
	The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman, and thank you, Director Wray, for being here.
	How many shots did the shooter fire?
	Well, we know that he fired at least eight because we recovered eight cartridges on the roof.
	Okay.
	And are all the cartridges and the unspent bullets, have they been, you know how many there are?
	You've accounted for all of those?
	We believe we have.
	Again, there's lots of work still ongoing, but yes, we believe we have accounted.
	And did the recovered shells, the cartridges, match the shooter's rifle?
	My recollection is yes.
	And you've conducted analysis that confirms that?
	Well, we work with ATF, but yes, some of the work has been divided up.
	And how many shells casings were recovered from the location of the counter snipers?
	I'm sorry, I couldn't hear the last part.
	From the counter snipers location?
	That I don't have the answer, at least here at my fingertips.
	Did the blood and tissue pattern of the shooter, did it match the stories or the witness testimony that you've heard so far?
	I'm not sure I'm following the question.
	Well, I assume you've interviewed the counter snipers, you have that evidence, and other witnesses describing the kill of the shooter.
	And I'm wondering if the The blood and tissue and brain matter is consistent with the testimony that you're receiving.
	In other words, is the physical...
	In terms of the manner of death?
	Exactly.
	Is the physical evidence consistent with where the shot from the counters never took place?
	Yeah.
	So the autopsy is being handled by, as is not unusual, the state authorities.
	My understanding is...
	Thus far, I don't think it's fully complete, which is not, again, not totally unusual.
	But so far, nothing remarkable on that front.
	That's from the body itself, but from actually the scene where the shooter was found, is everything consistent with the testimony, the physical evidence at the scene?
	Is that consistent?
	The only thing consistent here is all the fucking lies they're telling.
	So far, yes.
	Again, ongoing investigation.
	Were you able to determine whether the shooter took the gun up with him when he climbed up to the top of the roof, or was it already placed there somewhere?
	So that is something that we're drilling into right now that we don't know the answer to yet.
	I can tell you, which may be relevant though to your question, that, and I don't think this has been reported yet, that the weapon had a collapsible stock, which could explain Yep, here comes the gun grabs.
	That's what this is all about.
	Gun grabs.
	Here comes the gun grabs.
	That's what this is all about.
	Gun grabs.
	One of the things that we're finding is people have observed him.
	The first people to observe him with the weapon were when he was already on the roof, and we haven't yet found anybody with first-hand observation of him with the weapon walking around beforehand.
	So that doesn't mean he wasn't, obviously, but the collapsible stock is potentially a very significant feature that might be relevant to that.
	Did he have a scope?
	I believe so, but as I sit here right now, I don't remember.
	Okay.
	You mentioned about two hours before the incident that he'd had a drone and he was using a drone.
	Instead of me putting words in your mouth, just tell me how you discovered the drone, how you discovered the time, and if you can describe what he would have been observing with the drone and how you determined that, please.
	So this is something that's very much ongoing right now.
	We're going back and forth with our lab as they continue to do work on it.
	What I would say is the drone was in his car.
	As I said, we've been able to, by exploiting the drone, determine its use 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 path of the drone from the day of the rally, and that's how we know that for about 11 minutes 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 don't 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, we're still doing more work on this.
	I really want to qualify what I'm saying, but 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 say behind him, behind the shooter.
	Correct.
	These mushrooms make you feel better.
	They increase focus and energy while keeping you calm and stress-free.
	Plus, they cut down on what was already set.
	He'd 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, 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 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, a length of a football field or so more, you know, kind of towards the podium.
	Great.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	How many separate times 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 the grounds was, I think, a week before.
	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 if he came back in the afternoon, 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.
	Have you been able to gain access to the shooters, 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?
	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.
	So 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 in this rally.
	Yeah, we're testing the sound here.
	We're just gonna see here real quick.
	If this has been fixed, we're just testing our sound.
	If this has been fixed, we're just testing our sound.
	This is an analysis of a laptop that the investigation tries to the shooter reveals that on July 6th he did a Google search for, quote, how far away was Oswald from Kenyon?
	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.
	And when 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 The images that we've recovered so far from, I can't remember which of his various devices were, 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, etc., Any one of them could be one that would have very indicative, very important information.
	Yeah, no, it's actually me in the chat.
	Yeah, no, it's actually me in the chat.
	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.
	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, there's no pattern from that particular piece of information that is overly remarkable so far.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Chairman.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman 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 not just of a 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.
	I think I got this echo to go away.
	The 19 suicide bombers overstayed 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 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 like that.
	It seems to me that the simplest act of terrorism would be for dozens of gorillas to attack low-security, high-density venues, for example, Every single one of these guys is a corrupt pedophile.
	Every one of them.
	Totally corrupted, totally blackmailed, bribed.
	Israel, AIPAC... Well, what you're describing would require, of course, a lot of coordination.
	They all just want to fuck kids.
	But what I will tell you, and I think you're on to a particularly important point from my perspective, which is that unlike 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 Quds 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, you know, 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 I heard that Slumberland is having a really good sale right now.
	They are having an amazing Labor Day sale up to 60% off.
	Let's go to bed.
	Let's get a couch.
	I need a new coffee table.
	Let's go shopping.
	It's just the perfect time to get your furniture.
	...that aliens with terrorists or criminal gang ties are not being released into the United States.
	Well, it's not really for me to speak to the vetting, but I would tell you is that you have to deal with it once they're released into the United States.
	And one of the concerns that I have, which I touched on briefly in my opening, is there's been a lot of focus on the number of known or suspected terrorists encountered at the border, and that number has increased over the last five or six years, and that should be of concern.
	But frankly, To me, the bigger concern is individuals who either weren't on the watch list at the time they came in because there wasn't information known yet that ties them to terrorism.
	And it's only after they get in that some new piece of information develops somewhere.
	This guy's talking about terrorism.
	He's a terrorist.
	This guy, the FBI, every one of these alphabet agencies, they have openly declared war on the American people.
	This guy is...
	An imminent threat to the future of our country and to our children.
	This guy is a terrorist.
	Every one of these guys is a terrorist.
	They're all pedophiles and kid fuckers and terrorists.
	To, you know, connect them.
	You know, sometimes, I think sometimes, there are people who come in who, because of the nature of the threat information that put somebody on the watch list, there wasn't, you know, fingerprints from the person at the time, because not every piece of intelligence comes with fingerprints.
	So then the guy comes in using fake ID, And there's no reason to connect them to them.
	And of course the two million gotaways you know absolutely nothing about.
	Exactly.
	Well, I don't know about absolutely nothing because we may come across them in other things.
	I mean, one of the key parts of our collective defense here is that we work with 800,000 sworn law enforcement across the country and we train them on the right questions to ask and things like that so that we can build in additional eyes and ears if they, you know, do a traffic stop or whatever happens to be.
	Yes, and faggots.
	...chance of leveraging all that to pick up people who may have slipped through the cracks.
	Gentleman yields back.
	The gentleman from California is recognized.
	Director, we're about 100 days until the election.
	Russia has attacked our democracy in past elections.
	Are they seeking to do it in this one?
	We assess that the Russian government continues to want to influence and in various ways interfere with our democracy, with our electoral process.
	In fact, just in the last few weeks, we announced a significant disruption of a generative AI-enhanced...
	Listen to these clowns talking about how Russia meddles in our elections.
	Russia is controlling us.
	The CCP is a huge threat.
	Yeah, let's check Israel.
	Fictitious profiles of those bots purported to be US persons.
	So they're still at it.
	We've seen that in election cycle after election cycle.
	Do the Russians have a preferred candidate?
	I'm not sure that I could speak to that here, but certainly what I would tell you is it's not just the Russians, and I think that's important for people to know too.
	There's a lot of attention to the Russians, as there should be, but we also know, you may recall, that in 2020 Director Ratcliffe and I announced an effort by the Iranians to try to interfere, and more recently we've had indictments related to China.
	Chinese MPS officers creating fictitious personas posting false information online.
	Just sitting here with Bao.
	Where you at?
	You gotta come over here.
	Just get a little bit closer.
	Can't see you with that black background.
	For example, trashing any suggestion that COVID came from a lab leak, or trashing U.S. law enforcement on the occasion of the anniversary of George Floyd's death.
	And shifting to the attempted assassination on the former president, I want to make it clear, in America, violence has never been the answer.
	Not on a certain day in January or a recent day In July, and I just want to go through the shooting just briefly with you.
	How many armed officers were within the perimeter, just ballpark figure?
	You know, that really goes to the security posture, which is the subject of the DHS Inspector General's review and the outside panel, independent panel.
	Would you say probably more than 100, though?
	I have to believe that number, but again, I don't have that number at my fingertips.
	Our focus is on the shooter and his attack.
	And the shooter was able to get eight shots off before he was killed?
	That's what it would appear, yes.
	The type of weapon used by the shooter was an assault rifle?
	It was an AR-style rifle.
	So that means one trigger pull, one round.
	Is that right?
	Essentially.
	This is that Swalwell.
	Remember, Swalwell is, this is the guy who had bang bang, fang fang.
	He dated, literally dated, a fucking Chinese spy.
	A variety of weapons.
	Had the shooter used a bolt-action rifle, would that have been one trigger pull, one round?
	That's my understanding.
	Would there have been more...
	On an assault rifle, trigger pull, round, trigger pull, round, bolt action, non-assault rifle, what's the difference?
	Is it faster, slower?
	He was able to get more rounds off more quickly than he would have with other kinds of weapons.
	And that's my point, is that we can add additional resources to protect political candidates, and we should.
	The people who went to that rally deserved to be protected from gun violence, just like the students at Parkland deserve to be protected from gun violence, just like the babies at Sandy Hook deserve to be protected from gun violence.
	So we'll devote more resources.
	We've added a presidential candidate who is also now protected.
	But if we're being honest with ourselves, we have armed this country to the teeth.
	And we have allowed the most dangerous people to have access to the most dangerous weapons.
	I say that as a parent of a seven-year-old and a five-year-old and a two-year-old, the two oldest who have done multiple mass shooter drills in their classrooms.
	I say that as a brother to two police officers who...
	Yep, you hear that?
	Here he is.
	He's starting right now with this gun grab shit.
	That's exactly what this is.
	You see, Sandy Hook reference...
	Reminder, Alex Jones, get everybody all worked up.
	That's exactly what this is.
	Don't make anything less of it.
	This is 100% about gun grabs.
	...to officials and can we truly protect, most importantly, our children and the next generation.
	Now yield back.
	Gentleman yields back.
	It is good to have Mr.
	Massey back with us today.
	Some of us had a chance to go to Kentucky over the last few weeks and visit with Thomas and his family and hear all kinds of wonderful stories about Rhonda.
	Amazing.
	Amazing lady, gentle spirit, and we're glad to have Mr.
	Massey back with us.
	And the next five minutes belong to you, Congressman.
	Thank you, Chairman.
	Director Wray, how many counter snipers were present at the rally that day, and which of the counter snipers took the shot that took out the would-be assassin?
	I don't have the number of countersnipers.
	I know it was the Secret Service countersniper who took the shot that eliminated the shooter.
	We've conducted a number of interviews including of him.
	So was it one of the two that we see in the videos on top of the roof, or was it a different location?
	I'm afraid I don't have that at my fingertips here.
	Okay.
	You mentioned that the would-be assassin bought a five-foot ladder.
	You have a credit card evidence of that, but it looks like on the scene there was a larger ladder that he might have used.
	Do you know which ladder he used to get to the roof, and do you have possession of that five-foot ladder and the other ladder, and do you know how the taller ladder got to the scene?
	So this whole business about the ladder is something we're drilling into more.
	We do have possession of the five-foot ladder that he purchased close in time to his attempted assassination that we've Traced the purchase of that ladder from a receipt, a bloodied receipt that he had on him at the time his body was recovered on the roof.
	We do not yet know for sure how exactly he got up on the roof.
	We're looking at, you know, various forensic pieces to try to kind of piece that together.
	So more to come on that.
	Do you know where the five-foot ladder was found or retrieved?
	Was it near the roof or was it still in his vehicle?
	Neither.
	I don't have it in front of me, but I know that it was not on scene, and I know that it was not in his vehicle.
	But we can circle back to you.
	Okay.
	Is there any...
	Six million people recommend the Holocaust Encyclopedia online.
	HolocaustEncyclopedia.com.
	Recommended by six million.
	...plan this event.
	Well, needless to say, that is a question that we're intensely focused on because that would obviously be incredibly meaningful.
	So far, underline, so far, we have not found any evidence of any accomplices or co-conspirators, foreign or domestic.
	And you're using geolocation data to see if his cell phone was near another cell phone, I presume?
	Right.
	We're doing lots of different kinds of cellular analysis, geolocation stuff, looking at his accounts.
	From everything we've seen, which is consistent with what we've learned in interviews, a lot of people describe him as a loner.
	That does kind of fit with what we're seeing in his devices.
	His list of contacts, for example, is very short compared to what you would normally see from most people.
	So it doesn't appear to be a whole lot of interaction between him face-to-face or digital with a lot of people.
	Okay, thank you.
	That doesn't mean there's not any, and that's why we're drilling into it.
	We're trying to talk to anybody who's had any engagement with him whatsoever, digital, you know, in-person, classmates, co-workers, etc.
	Right.
	Appreciate that.
	And now I want to talk about another possible assassination attempt, and I'll start by showing a video of President Biden, and this is from recently.
	This is in the last month, if we can play that.
	Gallows erected to hang the Vice President, Mike Pence.
	I think it's fair to say it's one of the darkest days in the history of America.
	Okay, and he's referring to January 6th.
	Were there gallows erected to hang Mike Pence, as the President says here?
	I'm not aware of any physical gallows.
	I can't remember whether from a demonstration perspective there may not have been some...
	or a symbol of something like that.
	The Biden administration finally agreed to ban Peter Daszak and EcoHealth Alliance from receiving any more funding for gain-of-function research.
	You'll recall EcoHealth Alliance and Peter Daszak were the ones that were funding the research in Wuhan that was erected on January 6th.
	But if the president were correct that these gallows were erected to hang Mike Pence, that would be a very serious allegation, wouldn't it?
	I would take it very seriously, yes.
	Has anybody been arrested or do you have any leads in conjunction with the erection of this gallows?
	We had a picture here on the screen, if you can show it.
	Again, it was just up there.
	There's an individual here who's seen near these gallows.
	Has he been arrested?
	Have you identified this person?
	I don't know that I can speak to this specific person or the gallows that are pictured on the image.
	We have had, I think, 850 people who have pled guilty To federal crimes related to January 6th, and I think another 180, I think it is, convicted at trials.
	So I just can't be sure.
	And some of them merely for going into the Capitol, but here the President suggests that individual intended to hang Vice President Pence Which seems like kind of a wild claim myself, given the construction of those gallows.
	But if we are to take him seriously, or even if we aren't, let me just finish by saying this.
	If you have no leads or you're not sure if anybody who erected those gallows was arrested or is being investigated, You know, were there any confidential human sources involved from the FBI or any other agency in the erection of that prop, those gallows?
	I'm not aware of anything like that.
	All right.
	Thank you.
	I yield back.
	The gentleman yields back.
	A gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Welcome, Director Wray.
	Political violence of any kind is dangerous, unlawful, and totally unacceptable.
	Just as we all watched and then unequivocally condemned the attempted assassination attempt on our former president, I wish that we could all come together to unequivocally condemn the act of political...
	I mean, honestly, the Gallows thing is a great idea.
	These people need to be held to extreme accountability after they're tried and convicted for the crimes against humanity that they have committed.
	These people absolutely, I mean, the death penalty should definitely be on the table.
	They act like there's not a precedent for that.
	Extremists attempted to subvert our democracy in the worst assault on the U.S. Capitol since the War of 1812.
	Many of us were trapped in the gallery that day.
	We feared we would not make it out.
	Insurrectionists were chasing down former Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then Vice President Mike Pence.
	And I myself have been the direct target of political violence when an armed man with a gun Showed up at my door, threatened me and my family, and we actually ended up having to move our home.
	So I understand the increased tenor of political violence that is wracking our country.
	It has been on the rise, fomented by violent and dehumanizing rhetoric from top public officials, including the former president and members of Congress, sadly, and bolstered by the proliferation of easily accessible guns.
	Including assault style weapons.
	All of this violence is unacceptable and I wholeheartedly condemn it.
	I just hope we condemn all of the violence, not just one or two incidents.
	Mr.
	Ray, today I want to focus on the role of the FBI and the need for the Bureau to remain politically neutral and independent.
	The FBI cannot and should not be subject to the whims of any president.
	The majority apparently doesn't think that the FBI needs to be politically neutral and independent.
	They want an FBI subordinate to the president, not accountable to the American people.
	That is one part of a larger plan to undermine our democracy, to remove the checks and balances that have protected us.
	Go brush your teeth with poop.
	That agenda, promulgated by the former president, his loyalists and their mega allies, It's called Project 2025.
	It is publicly available online.
	I encourage everyone who's watching this to Google it.
	It includes plans to undermine every part of our government, including the FBI. Trump's Project 2025 agenda says that the director of the FBI must not be independent of politics, but instead must do whatever the president orders.
	Under Trump's Project 2025, Trump loyalists would undermine the non-political and independent structure of the FBI. Project 2025 openly calls on the next conservative administration to support, quote, a vast expansion of the number of political appointees in every office across the DOJ, especially the FBI. And so Mr.
	Wray, given your extensive experience as a law enforcement professional at DOJ, Across multiple Republican and Democratic administrations, why do you think it's important that the FBI maintain political independence from the president?
	I think the FBI is and needs to stay independent, and that means protecting American people without fear or favor, upholding the Constitution and the rule of law, and it means following the facts wherever they lead, no matter who likes it.
	And I add that last part, Because the essence of independence and objectivity is not that an investigation is going to always yield the result you want.
	Our independence and objectivity can't only be respected when you like the outcome.
	A serious investigation would?
	Objectivity.
	Sometimes you're going to like the result, sometimes you're not going to like the result.
	That applies to everyone, including us.
	Any number of times we're disappointed and frustrated by the results of our investigations.
	But the alternative is an erosion of the rule of law, where the only thing that distinguishes one investigation from another is power.
	And that's what you see in some authoritarian countries around the world.
	So, I'm not familiar with this particular...
	No, I didn't ask you to comment on that.
	Project 2025 thing.
	I don't know anything about it, but what I can tell you is, from my perspective, The FBI needs to be functioning as independent.
	It doesn't mean it's not part of the executive branch.
	It doesn't mean the FBI director doesn't serve at the pleasure of the president.
	But it does mean that the way we do our work has to be independent.
	Thank you.
	I have another question about the role of attorneys at the FBI Office of General Counsel.
	How do we protect that work?
	I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?
	What role do the attorneys at the FBI Office of General Counsel play in ensuring that the Bureau respects the constitutional rights of American citizens?
	How do we protect that work?
	So, in my experience, the lawyers in the Office of General Counsel play an incredibly important role in ensuring that our agents have their questions about how to comply with the law in conducting their work answered, and ensuring that we conduct our work in the right way, which means scrupulously adhering to the laws and the rules that apply to us.
	I just wanted to say before I yield, Mr.
	Chairman, that the Project 2025 also eliminates the FBI's Office of General Counsel in-house lawyers who are responsible for that role.
	I appreciate your indulgence, and I yield back.
	The gentlelady yields back.
	Gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
	Yeah, thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	I think it was when you were here December of last year, Mr.
	Ray, that you said blinking lights were going off in regards to the southern border and what is happening down there.
	Has the border situation improved in terms of your assessment with the security of Americans since you were last here in December?
	Well, I guess a couple things, and I appreciate the question.
	So first, the blinking light comment that I made refers more broadly to the threat environment that I'm seeing as FBI Director across a wide range of threats.
	Contributing to that in a variety of ways are the threats that emanate from the border.
	So it's not a comment just on the border issues, it's the threat environment that we face more broadly, in my experience in law enforcement.
	I am increasingly concerned that foreign terrorists could seek to exploit vulnerabilities at our southwest border or at other ports of entry, Or in other aspects of our immigration system to facilitate an attack here in the United States.
	I think that is something we have to be concerned about.
	There's been a lot of focus on numbers, numbers of this, numbers of that.
	And I understand that.
	But as I think was referenced in an earlier question, it doesn't take very many foreign terrorists to be a real problem.
	We had 19 hijackers responsible for the 9-11 attacks.
	And we just not that long ago had a case, some of the members of the committee will remember, where we charged an individual for trying to smuggle individuals in To assassinate former President Bush.
	Are you concerned that the Border Patrol Chief, former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott, said that he was concerned about very, very minuscule data that they're receiving.
	So there's all this, we are told that illegal aliens are vetted against databases But oftentimes they're doing biometrics as they come into this country, but not looking behind it in their home countries.
	Does that concern you when there's not a review done in the home country?
	Well, we certainly need as much help as we can get from the countries of origin of these people.
	And when I say origin, not just where they come from originally, but countries they've come through.
	And the biometric enrollment piece is, of course, an important one.
	We have situations where even if— Are we doing a thorough enough job of reviewing Well, I mean, we need more help from our foreign partners.
	There's no question about that.
	And I think that's an important part of our domestic partners like the CIA and others that are supposed to protect us.
	So there's been a lot of discussion, of course, over the last several years about the The pivot to what's called the hard targets, right?
	The understandable focus, which I support, of focusing on the threat posed by China and Russia and Iran.
	But with that comes, if you look at, for example, the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we start to lose sources of information about foreign terrorist threats from overseas, and that is a concern to me.
	Yeah, my time's running out.
	Has Vice President Harris met with you in regards to the border?
	Well, I've been in meetings that have included the Vice President that have in different ways touched on border issues.
	Has she specifically asked you for a meeting in regards to the threat that is at the border?
	I'm not going to get into specific meetings, but I can tell you that I've been in meetings that have included, among other people, the Vice President that touch on border security issues.
	Did she ask you questions about what you thought needed to be done in regards to reducing this threat to the American people?
	You know, I really can't get into specific conversations.
	Is support for President Trump a security concern within the FBI? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear it.
	Is support for President Trump a security concern amongst your employees?
	Ghirardelli Chocolate Chips makes cookies a fight better.
	Hi everyone, Mark Barden here at Sandy Hook Promise.
	On December 14th, 2012, Dina Perkins, Jeffrey Ventry were behind it.
	Who was responsible for that and did you know that there was a Trump questionnaire out there?
	So the document you're asking about is an interview outline that we only recently learned about and in my view is completely inappropriate.
	I asked my team to get to the bottom of what happened and to ensure that doesn't happen again and I've learned that it's not an FBI form That its use was isolated, that it was created not by an FBI employee, but by an outside contractor, and that individual is no longer affiliated with the FBI. But we are sending what we have found to the Office of Inspector General, and we'll cooperate, of course, with anything they...
	Mr.
	Chairman, I'll just close with this.
	We keep hearing about these isolated examples, whether it's Richmond Catholics, this instance.
	When is it...
	Isn't it a pattern?
	I yield back.
	Mr.
	Correa.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman and Director Wray.
	Welcome again to this committee and I want to thank you and your agents for the good job you're doing to protect Americans.
	Earlier this week I was part of the group that went out to visit Butler, Pennsylvania Homeland Security members.
	My colleagues have said violence has no part in our democracy.
	And I trust you will investigate the events surrounding July 13th early.
	I'm going to ask you a question.
	I hope you'll keep it in mind as your investigation proceeds, which is, who's in charge?
	Who's in charge at a campaign rally, setting it up?
	Secret Service or a campaign?
	And I ask this question because when I was there, I had a couple of law enforcement individuals Alluding to that question as well.
	They gave me an example.
	He said, if a Secret Service says you need to set up a line of dump trucks behind the stage to serve to protect the candidate, and the campaign says that's bad optics, who ends up winning the debate?
	My question is, who's in charge?
	And as you investigate this crime scene, I hope you asked the locally elected officials.
	I spoke to a county supervisor, local police and sheriff.
	They all had information they wanted us to know, to relay.
	We just didn't have the opportunity to sit down and talk to them.
	There was a lot of concern that they weren't given enough time to prepare for this rally.
	They thought they were Things that could have been done better.
	And ultimately, what I keep thinking, what I keep coming back to is the question, who's in charge at these rallies?
	I think it's an important one because we have an election right around the corner.
	Pennsylvania, Butler, these areas, battleground states around the country will continue to be areas where our candidates, both sides, will show up.
	And the threats will continue to be there.
	So I hope, Director A, that you'll keep that statement in mind as you continue to investigate this crime scene.
	Well, I appreciate the question.
	I will tell you that we've conducted well over 400 interviews, but we have many more still to conduct.
	And as is not unusual in an investigation, I'm sure there will be situations where we have to go back to people.
	We've already interviewed with follow-up questions, and our interviews cover a wide range of people.
	I do think it's important to make sure that the committee and the American people Understand the scope of our investigation versus the scope of others.
	Our investigation is focused on the shooter and his attack.
	There is, of course, and I understand completely why, two separate, there are two separate reviews, one by the DHS Inspector General and the other by this outside independent panel that's been announced that are focused on the security posture The adequacy of the security posture at the rally, Secret Service decision making and actions and things like that.
	And so I certainly understand why there are all those questions.
	But those are those are in scope of those two other reviews and of course whatever you know Congress chooses to do.
	Our investigation though Because of our interviews of people who are on the scene, we'll relate to that in some ways, and we're going to share whatever we learn that's relevant with those other reviews.
	Director A, my last minute that I have, I'm going to flip quickly to your good job resources.
	Earlier this year in the Appropriations Committee, you testified that you were, for 2024, your budget was $500 million below what you needed to sustain your 2023 efforts.
	A few minutes ago you talked about foreign terrorists.
	The last few weeks I know information has emerged.
	That information came from FISA information that was able to be collected overseas on these possible terrorist threats.
	What we have here today is a domestic terrorist, what looks to be a lone wolf.
	Your statements, there's nothing really there that Would have tipped anybody off to this individual.
	Is that what I'm hearing from you?
	Well, I don't know that I'll go quite that far because we're still investigating a lot related to the shooter.
	It does appear so far that we're seeing less in his...
	In my six seconds, I would just say I would ask that you let us know what resources you need to protect the American public and our candidates and our democratic system.
	I appreciate the question.
	I would just say this.
	We are in, as I've said consistently today and for quite some time now, we are in an elevated threat environment covering a wide range of threats, and the FBI is central to protecting American people from those threats.
	And state and local law enforcement, who depend on us every day, Rely on us for all sorts of services, databases, forensic support, training.
	I could go on and on and on.
	And a lot of those departments, unlike the FBI, have had a hard time recruiting.
	And so this is not a time to pull back on our funding because we're going to leave our brothers and sisters in state and local law enforcement twisting in the wind.
	And then, by extension, the American people were all collectively sworn to protect.
	Thank you.
	And Mr.
	Chair, I yield.
	Gentleman yields back.
	Gentleman from Texas recognized.
	Thank you, Chairman.
	Thank you, Director Wray, for being here.
	When did you last speak with President Biden?
	I don't have the exact date, but it's been certainly since the shooting.
	So you have spoken to the President since the assassination attempt on President Trump's life?
	Yes, sir.
	And what was the mental state of the President?
	We had a perfectly professional conversation.
	He keeps saying that.
	He keeps saying professional conversation.
	He doesn't want to talk about it.
	This is 100% about gun grabs.
	I mean, do you agree?
	I mean, this whole...
	Everything about this is 1000% about gun grabs.
	I don't know how people believe this shit.
	I just...
	I can't imagine that they actually think that this hearing is legit and it's not just a part of...
	What you're saying?
	2A. They want guns and then we're all fucked.
	And then these Haitians can eat all of our cats.
	Oh my god.
	These fucking illegals and the cartel can just fucking take over everything.
	It's all horseshit.
	Yeah, that's the whole plan.
	This entire thing is a complete...
	It's a movie.
	We're all watching a movie here.
	All of these three-letter agencies, this guy right here, this Christopher Wray, he is one of the biggest threats to American citizens that we could possibly imagine.
	It's not left or right.
	And how could you have a fucking completely professional conversation with the president after another president just got attempted assassination?
	Yeah.
	How could anybody have a real conversation with Joe Biden, period?
	Yeah.
	You know, I mean, this guy, yeah, he's completely senile.
	Everybody knows it.
	These people, like, literally every one of them, with the exception of Thomas Massey, you know, Thomas Massey is the only real, like, actual human being that I have seen in Congress for a very long time.
	That was the one doing the gallows.
	Yeah, he was talking about the gallows, yeah.
	And you say, well, you know, Well, I don't know anything about that.
	We haven't been able to arrest that guy.
	Really?
	There's pictures of him all over the place.
	Oh, for the same reason why you couldn't find the DNC pipe bomber.
	Yeah, that's crazy.
	They got cameras everywhere up there.
	Yeah.
	There's no way they don't have that footage.
	They found every single...
	Grandma that was praying on the Capitol steps, they found everybody who was taking a police-guided tour through the Capitol.
	If they want to lock that place down, trust me, nobody's getting in.
	It's locked up as tight as a drum.
	The only way people are allowed in the People's Building is if they're invited in, and that's exactly what happened on January 6th.
	They were all invited in.
	Yeah.
	Come on in.
	They literally open the gates.
	And we still don't have the fucking Epstein client list.
	Can you believe that?
	Somebody put that in the comments.
	They're like, we still don't have the Epstein tapes.
	Yeah.
	We have the tapes.
	Fuck the list.
	Where are the tapes?
	Exactly.
	But they have them.
	Ray has them.
	The FBI has them.
	Everybody should be asking Ray about that.
	Fuck yeah.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah.
	We'll never get any straight answers out of these people.
	We will be back live reacting to...
	There's three active shooters today.
	Did you see that?
	There was an active shooter in Kentucky.
	There was an active shooter in Denver.
	And there was an active shooter in Dallas.
	Oh, that's definitely for the guns.
	Yeah.
	That's definitely for our guns.
	They have to keep this going.
	Yes.
	And the only way to do it is to keep setting up these false flags.
	Yeah.
	And so they just continue to talk about things like this.
	Crazy.
	It's all crazy.
	We've got a lot to talk about tonight with these active shooters.

▲