Return to Transcripts main page

WOLF

Continuing Coverage of FBI Director Confirmation Hearing. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired July 12, 2017 - 13:00   ET

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


SEN. BEN SASSE, R-NEBRASKA: -- employees at the Bureau, is that right?

[13:00:00]

WRAY: I think it's about that.

SASSE: Some really thoughtful, selfless public servants who do toil, often at great financial cost, compared to what they can earn in the private sector, without a lot of recognition, oftentimes in danger and at threats of life and limb and time away from home, and thank you for representing them in the way you talk about the mission and the culture of the Bureau.

Obviously, there have been some dark times at the Bureau in the past. We've spoken a little bit today about Director Hoover and the ways that he mismanaged that agency, 45, 50 years ago. But also, there was politicization of the Bureau by White Houses and Administrations across both parties. The Kennedy Administration, the Johnson Administration and the Nixon Administration all regularly tried to politicize and weaponize the FBI against civil rights activists and against lots of other people who weren't able to fight back against that big and overreaching state.

And I think one of the reasons why you've heard so much support for the way you conceive of this mission and this calling today is because of the ways you've made clear how you think this calling and this oath obligate you to work for the Constitution -- in defense of the Constitution on behalf of the American people, not on behalf of either political party -- and as you've reiterated again and again, your willingness to resign if ever forced to politicize an investigation, and I think that's why you hear so much bipartisan support for your confirmation today.

Would you also pledge to this committee that if ever directed by the White House to shut down or curtail an investigation, that you would report that back to this committee? Not necessarily in a public setting, but at the very least in a classified setting -- will you commit today that any White House direction that you would curtail or end an investigation is something that you would report back to this committee and this Senate?

WRAY: Well, I would certainly report it wherever it is appropriate. I would need to make sure that I was compliant with all my legal obligations in doing so, but if I can appropriately do it, I would want to make sure that I could bring it to the appropriate committee's attention in the appropriate way.

SASSE: And I appreciate all the complicated chain of command issues inside an agency like yours, and main justice where the Bureau reports in a little more at the DAG (ph) level than at the AG level -- I recognize that that's complicated. But wouldn't you also agree with us that the Senate's constitutional obligations to oversight mean that we are one of the destinations to which you should be reporting, not just the Executive Department's chain of command? WRAY: Well, I would certainly agree that this -- this committee and other committees with oversight responsibility over the FBI have an enormously critical role. It's part of our system, and I think it needs to be respected in all the appropriate ways. And I would make every effort, within the chain of command that you referred to, Senator, to urge that we be as forthcoming as we legally and appropriately can be, with all the right members of the Senate and the House.

SASSE: This is obviously a very politicized time in American life, and a politicized time in the Congress, but I'm filling in right now for a chairman, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who has lots of bipartisan respect around this place because people know that when he does oversight he's doing it as an Article One branch of Article Two of the Constitution, he's not doing it as a Republican of an administration that he's either -- either is or isn't aligned with his own party affiliation.

This is a constitutional separation of powers issue, and so I think I can probably say, on behalf of the chairman, that there's a lot of robust support around here for you making sure that you recognize that this a committee that would like to hear those details when you are ever pushed to politicize.

Your predecessor, assuming your confirmation -- famously referred to WikiLeaks as intelligence port, as opposed to journalism. And he said that the bedrock of our democracy requires public trust, and that WikiLeaks is regularly acting on behalf of other governments, against the interests of the US public. Can you briefly explain to this committee and the American people, how you believe that WikiLeaks came to be an outlet of foreign -- and specifically Russian -- propaganda?

WRAY: Senator, I don't have access to that information, so I don't know how that came to occur. I certainly share Former Director Comey's concern about that, and I have no reason to doubt his description, but that is something that I would have to learn more about, once I had access -- once again -- to classified information. But WikiLeaks was -- was not a thing when I was in government before, so my observations of it have been solely through -- like any American -- watching the news media in bits and pieces.

SASSE: I recognize that you've been in the private sector, so you're not up to speed on all of these issues yet, but is it your sense, as you're arriving to lead a critical agency that is a part of the intelligence community, it's a broadly law enforcement agency but obviously has the National Security Division, and you have lots of other IC relationships. Is it your view that we are currently adequately investing in the cyber challenges of our time? WRAY: Well, Senator, I don't think I know enough to be able to make a really responsible evaluation of the resources. What I can tell you is that my sense is that as much as everybody is talking about the threats of the sort that you're describing, I have the sense that we are just scratching the surface of how grave the threats really are, or at least how grave the threats are about to be before we blink and wake up.

Now, that's really based on just what limited information I've -- conversations I've had with people. But my sense is that one of the biggest changes I've seen from being in law enforcement for a number of years and then being out and now starting to get reintroduced again, is -- whereas cyber was a sort of discreet topic back in say 2005 that had a lot of attention -- now, in 2017, cyber, in many ways, permeates every aspect of national security, of the intelligence community, of every type of criminal conduct we deal with. It's become part of the fabric, both of our security but also of the threats to our security. And I -- it's hard for me to imagine that we're doing nearly enough. I think we can always do better.

SASSE: When you are in the skiff, when you're in a classified bunker, getting briefings on these topics -- I'm one of five people on the US Senate who's never been a politician before, so I've been here for about 30 months, and in my time interviewing people, it is fairly stunning how, when you ask direct questions about not just our cyber operations and our implementation, but cyber doctrine -- offensive and defensive doctrine. When you ask who's responsible for cyber doctrine inside the Executive branch, in the last administration and in the current administration, the main thing that happens is people start looking sideways and trying to figure out who's thinking point two.

How do you conceive of the FBI's responsibilities in the larger institutional framework of cyber responsibilities across the US government? What is the FBI's role?

WRAY: Well, I think the FBI probably has multiple roles. It has a criminal investigative role when there are ways in which the criminal investigative tools can be used to prevent, detect, disrupt threats, but then it also has an intelligence role, where it partners with our partners in the intelligence community and our overseas partners in trying to defend our systems and our infrastructure from attacks, which is a slightly different kind of role. And the two things work hand in hand.

And I would think that there's an analogy that could be drawn to the terrorism arena, in terms of awareness. I remember listening to a prominent counterterrorism expert in a room full of prosecutors from all around the world, and it was a very jovial meeting until this guy got up and spoke. And he said, "There are two types of countries. There are those who have been hit by a terrorist attack and get it, and there are those who have not yet." And then you could have heard a pin drop, because it certainly cut a lot of the joy out of the room.

And I think there is a degree to which the cyber threats that we face, the same kind of statement could be made there. My strong suspicion is that there are countries that have been hit and have started to wake up. There are companies that have been hit and have started to wake up. And then there are many who haven't realized it yet -- the key word being "yet" -- because it's coming.

SASSE: Assuming that you're confirmed, can you tell us a little bit about your first 90 days or first 100-day plan for how you will assess issues like our cyber capabilities and our cyber threats, and obviously in the counterterrorism space, a place that you've worked a lot more, trying to get back up to speed with where we may be under- investing and how you risk rank and prioritize among those? What's your arrival plan?

WRAY: Well, I think one of the first things I need to do is sit down with the senior management of the Bureau and start getting briefed up on all of the areas that the FBI is responsible for. I would be largely following off of the priorities that the FBI has in its strategy, which prioritizes counterterrorism, counterespionage and cyber -- at the top.

But since my guess is I'm probably furthest behind in some ways, just because of the advance in technology on the cyber front, I would want to prioritize in particular, spending more time on some of those issues early on -- just because my own learning curve -- as is true of anybody who's been out of that part of it, with the breakneck pace and advance of technology -- would be impacted. So that would be, those would be some of the things I would prioritize early on.

SASSE: Thank you. I have a number of cyber questions that you and I started discussing in my office that I look forward to following up with you on and trying to support you on when you have this important new calling. I'm going to turn the gavel back to the chairman, but if Senator Flake is ready to go, we will turn the questioning over to him.

WRAY: Thank you, Mr. (INAUDIBLE).

FLAKE: Thank you for being here, and thanks for the visit to my office as well -- enjoyed the discussion.

And just following up on some of that, I know these questions have been asked a lot of times already, but the obligatory -- do you feel that you can exhibit independence there as Director of the FBI, that's necessary for that position?

WRAY: Senator, I am my own man, and I intend to be governed by the Constitution, by the laws and by the rules, and to do things by the book, strictly independently, without fear or favor and certainly without regard to partisan politics. That's the only way I think you can do this job.

FLAKE: Thank you. We discussed in my office, some of the challenges that are coming up for the FBI. We mentioned technology and cyber, obviously. But with regards to technology, it seems that you know, in this committee, we try to balance obviously security and privacy. As soon as we arrive at a solution, technology changes and we're at square one once again. Can you talk about that process for the FBI and how -- how you're going to work with this committee and the Congress to ensure that we have the proper balance between privacy and security?

WRAY: Well certainly, as you say, Senator, there needs to be a balance. And that's not just a privacy interest but a -- a protection of infrastructure. But I do believe very strongly that technology in the private sector is advancing at such a rapid pace, and government, historically -- federal government, state and local government, foreign governments are historically not as nimble in change.

And somehow we, as a country, have to figure out a way to get to be one step ahead of the bad guys and those who would do us harm and the way they would use technology against us -- as opposed to constantly chasing the last technological advance. And so I think it's got to be a high priority to work both with the Congress -- but also to reach out to industry and see if we can secure better cooperation in that effort.

FLAKE: Thank you. Turning to an issue that's important to Arizona as a border state -- eliminating public corruption on the Southern Border has traditionally been a priority for the FBI, and in the past the Bureau has investigated public corruption and identified key trends in the type and frequency of these activities. Do you agree that this remains an issue, especially for border states like Arizona?

WRAY: Well, Senator, I strongly agree that public corruption is an important priority for the FBI all throughout the country. My experience with public corruption investigations goes all the way back to my time as a line prosecutor. And some of the most meaningful cases that I worked on were public corruption cases. And then as Assistant Attorney General, of course the public integrity section reported up to me. And that section played an incredibly important role.

As to the FBI, my experience historically has been that some of the very, very best agents in the FBI gravitate to the public corruption squads, and that's because the skill level and sophistication of the very best FBI agents is, in my view, without parallel. And public corruption cases are extremely difficult to pursue, and it requires some of the best and brightest agents, and it's -- watching a good public corruption FBI agent work a public corruption case is really a sight to behold, and it would inspire any American, as it did me when I saw it.

FLAKE: All right, thank you. As you may or may not know, all applicants for law enforcements positions at the US Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, are congressionally mandated to pass a polygraph test as a condition of employment. The problem that we're having is that CBP -- CBP experiences significantly higher failure rates -- around 65 percent -- than any other federal law enforcement agency. These high failure rates have prevented CBP from hiring enough officers to adequately staff our ports of entry, for example, and I think it's problematic for CBP to be turning away qualified applicants with distinguished military and law enforcement service records, just because of a potentially flawed polygraph.

What we're finding is, a lot of people are reluctant to submit themselves because they've heard of false positives out there and fear that it might impact their ability to land in another federal or state or local law enforcement job in the future. Given FBI's success administering its own polygraph -- and I've asked this of Mr. Comey as well -- will you commit to provide guidance or share best practices with CBP and DHS to better conduct their polygraph examination? WRAY: Well, Senator, that's not an issue that I'm especially familiar with at this stage, but something I would look forward to learning more about and seeing how we at the Bureau could be helpful to CBP in that regard.

FLAKE: That would be helpful. The FBI, we understand, has a much better program there, and it is a significant problem on our border to hire -- just to you know, deal with attrition, let alone hire the number of officers as border patrol agents or port officials that we need.

Now, over the last -- past few years, we've witnessed several high profile data breaches at federal government agencies, including OMB. Data breaches are often caused by a technological vulnerability or human vulnerability or both. I asked your predecessor about this, but I want to hear your thoughts as well. Given the amount of sensitive data held by the FBI and DOJ generally, what steps will you take at the Bureau to ensure that its data is secure -- both from technological weaknesses and by human hackers?

WRAY: Well, Senator, I -- at the moment I don't know much about the FBI's security status, in terms of its cyber security, but that's something I would need to focus on early on. I'd want to get briefed by the right experts to understand not only what we've done but what they see as the threats and how they can be confident that they've correctly identified the threats. What kind of -- of pressure testing and reality checking they've done to make sure that our systems aren't more vulnerable than they might appreciate.

FLAKE: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(UNKNOWN): (INAUDIBLE)

HIRONO: Yeah, I'd like to defer to my colleague, Senator Blumenthal.

BLUMENTHAL: Thank you -- thanks, Senator Hirono, for permitting me to go first. Good afternoon Mr. Wray, thank you for your willingness to serve and your family's. I want to ask you a couple questions and hope that you can give me answers that are as straightforward as you can, given the limitations of your position.

In your view, is obstruction of justice a serious crime?

WRAY: Absolutely.

BLUMENTHAL: Is your view that lying to the FBI is a serious crime?

WRAY: Absolutely.

BLUMENTHAL: And both should be investigated vigorously if there's evidence that they occurred? WRAY: Yes. BLUMENTHAL: To your knowledge, is there evidence that there has been perjury or obstruction of justice in connection with the investigation into Russian interference in our elections 2016?

WRAY: I don't have knowledge to that effect, Senator, but I think Special Counsel Mueller would have jurisdiction over that.

BLUMENTHAL: And the reason that he's investigating is because there is sufficient evidence to warrant a Special Counsel, as I advocated at the very beginning of Rod Rosenstein's appointment and ultimately he agreed to do. So I view this investigation with the utmost seriousness, because it does involve obstruction of justice and perjury and potential defrauding the government of its lawful services, conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and other violations of law, and you and I have talked about the need for the FBI to be as independent and immune from political interference as possible, because I foresee a firestorm brewing that will threaten the FBI, and I'm going to support you because I do believe that you will provide the kind of independence and integrity that the FBI needs, based on your record and your experience and expertise.

And I am trusting, as I think members of this body will, trust you to take that most solemn and historically significant obligation as seriously as you do the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice. Those kinds of crimes betray the rule of law because they impede vigorous and independent investigation. And we will be counting on you to protect the FBI, which is an institution of such professional excellence and integrity that it is worth any person's career to defend. I hope you agree.

WRAY: I do agree, Senator.

BLUMENTHAL: If you foresee a threat to that independence and integrity that rises to the level of political interference, will you commit to taking appropriate action, which may include resigning from office?

WRAY: Yes, Senator. As we discussed when we met, one of the lessons I got from both Former Attorney General Griffin Bell and Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson is that you cannot take on a position like this without resolving in advance that you have to be willing to quit or be fired at a moment's notice in order to stand up for what you think is right. And that would be my commitment -- to stand firm to that maxim.

BLUMENTHAL: And you also told me that you'd try to -- you'd try to persuade whoever might be taking an inappropriate or illegal action, whether it's the President of the United States or anyone else, endeavor to persuade that official to change course, correct?

WRAY: That's correct, Senator. I -- my whole career, both public and private, and consisted of an awful lot of times telling people things they don't want to hear and talking people out of bad ideas.

BLUMENTHAL: In my view, the firing of your predecessor warrants investigation as a potential obstruction of justice. We have not yet proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we have nothing like it, and we're short of evidence necessary to charge anyone. But if that kind of crime has been committed, you would investigate it seriously and diligently, correct?

WRAY: Well, as to the particular investigation, Special Counsel Mueller is conducting that investigation and I would view the FBI's role as providing whatever appropriate support is needed so that he can do a thorough investigation. If it were to occur in some other context then absolutely the FBI, I think, and I take obstruction justice, perjury, false statements, offenses like that -- deathly seriously because they go to the integrity of the process. And as I said, I think in response to questions from some of your colleagues like Senator Klobuchar, that it's the integrity of the process -- is what gives the American people confidence that the outcome of the investigation is the right one.

BLUMENTHAL: And you're -- you're a partner in that investigation, and I believe that you told me when we met privately that you would provide whatever resources are needed by Bob Mueller to do that investigation.

WRAY: I would -- I would provide all appropriate resources to him. My experience with -- with Director Mueller, when we worked together before, was always terrific. And I feel confident that he would be professional and only make appropriate requests.

BLUMENTHAL: Will you commit to report to this committee any attempts to deny him and that investigation resources and other support that are needed, by others in the administration?

WRAY: Senator, if there was an inappropriate request to deny him appropriate resources, I would try to evaluate the circumstances and take all appropriate action.

BLUMENTHAL: Will you be making records of your conversations, as Jim Comey did? As you recall, Director Comey contemporaneously made memoranda to reflect his conversations with the President and others. Would you do the same?

WRAY: I think it would depend on the situation, Senator. I -- I can commit that I would be listening very intently to any conversation I had, with anybody of consequence. To me that's the most important thing. If a conversation that I had suggested to me that I ought to create some record, I wouldn't hesitate to do it. And I've done that before, at various stages of my private practice, for example. But I would evaluate each situation on its own merit and circumstances.

BLUMENTHAL: A conversation with the president of the United States probably would be a significant conversation, correct?

WRAY: Well, it depends on what the conversation would be about. I mean, I think if the president said "how's your family, are they doing" -- I mean, I'm not sure I would create a record of something like that.

BLUMENTHAL: Correct. But if he said, "I want a pledge of loyalty from you, Christopher Wray," that would be significant. WRAY: I would consider that significant. As I said to some of your colleagues, I was not asked to take any kind of loyalty oath, and I would have refused to take any kind of loyalty oath.

BLUMENTHAL: And I heard your testimony about that in the past, and I respect and believe that you're being truthful in that regard. But going future -- going into the future, I take it that if he asked for a pledge of loyalty or asked you to shut down an investigation or go lightly on someone, that would be a conversation worth recording, and in fact worth reporting to this committee, I hope.

WRAY: Well, I would -- I would -- a conversation like that is something that I would take very seriously and want to make sure that all the right people knew.

BLUMENTHAL: Let me ask one last question on this line. You've been asked about the e-mails from Donald Trump, Jr., that have been in public light recently. In your view, as a former prosecutor, could those e-mails under some circumstances be evidence of criminal intent?

WRAY: Senator, as I think I might have said to one of your colleagues, I actually haven't read the e-mails. I haven't even had a chance to read any of the newspaper coverage about the e-mails because it's all happened while I was going up and down from one Senate building to another meeting with all of your colleagues. So I'm really not up to speed on it, so I can't responsively answer that question.

BLUMENTHAL: Let me switch to a different topic. You've mentioned the scourge of gun violence in this country. Would you support common sense measures to stop gun violence? As you know, I have championed a number of them, along with others on this committee and in the Senate, including universal background checks. Would you support that kind of measure?

WRAY: Well, I would want to take a look at any specific legislative proposal and get back to you once I had evaluated any specific piece of legislation. But I do support efforts to deal with gun violence aggressively and effectively. And I think my record both as a line prosecutor and in the leadership of the department is consistent with that.

BLUMENTHAL: In principle, you would support such measures. You'd want to see the details, but for example, on universal background checks, you would not rule out supporting a measure?

WRAY: I wouldn't rule out any common sense gun reform legislation without having a chance to review it. I would have to review it and make an assessment based on the circumstances. But I can commit to you that being tough on gun violence is something that I would want to be as director of the FBI.

BLUMENTHAL: And one last question. Between 1977 and 2015, there have been hundreds of crimes committed against reproductive health care facilities, clinics and other offices, abortion providers, reproductive health care centers, including 11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 185 arsons, and so forth.

In 1998, Attorney General Janet Reno created the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Providers to coordinate investigation and prosecution of such incidents. As FBI director, I hope you will continue to support the FBI's participation in that effort.

WRAY: Well, Senator, I gather there is a specific statute that's in place that the FBI has investigative jurisdiction to enforce. And then we would zealously investigate all criminal violations, including the ones under that statute.

BLUMENTHAL: There are criminal statutes, and I appreciate your commitment. Thank you.

KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.

Senator Hirono, finally.

HIRONO: I feel like you've saved the best for last or something like that.

(LAUGHTER)

Thank you very much for your patience, and it's good to see you again.

WRAY: Thank you, Senator.

HIRONO: I certainly strongly support Ranking Member Feinstein's efforts to work with Chairman Grassley to assert the committee's jurisdiction over the investigation into Russia's interference with our election. And in light of recent news, it is even more important that we hear from Attorney General Sessions and others to get a public accounting.

This committee has an important role to play, as I think you have acknowledged, to ensure that law enforcement investigations are done independently and free from political influence.

So, clearly there's been a lot of

[13:30:00]

emphasis and concern on the part of this committee --