again,

Q__ And just so | have an understanding, was it the briefing that you

received from then-Director Comey and Deputy Director McCabe that the

| |


(11:17 a.m.]
MR. SCHIFF: Would you have had that conversation with Director
Brennan, though, before the Russians started to dump the documents?

MS. LYNCH: | just cannot recall with specificity enough to say.

MS. LYNCH:

MR. SCHIFF: (Ts

MS. LYNCH:

MR. SCHIFF:



The Department of Homeland Security was offering assistance. And my
understanding, again from the information he was providing, that sometimes the
States came to DHS for assistance and sometimes this activity was detected, as is
often the case, in cyber reviews during information that DHS was gathering sort of
from its own processes. Much as when the Department of Justice, through the
FBI, sees intrusion activity and notifies a company or an entity or the like.

Initially, Secretary Johnson reported that the States were eager to work with
the Department of Homeland Security in terms of requesting assistance, which
could be forensic or it could be economic to support their own efforts to allow them
to conduct forensic analysis. And over the course of mid-summer, Secretary
Johnson indicated that he wanted to propose designating the national elections
system, Statewide system, as a critical infrastructure, which would allow more
Federal funds to flow and would streamline processes for sharing information
about what was being seen on a State by State basis so that the States could
share that information more easily. And he began to take those steps to try and
craft a proposal to do that. That was something that was discussed at the PCs
also.

MR. SCHIFF: Going back to when you first learned of the Russian actions,
were you aware of the hacking of the DNC or the DCCC prior to knowing that it

might be the Russians that were the actors? In other words, were you made


92

Q Understood. Sitting here today, do you recall any reported leaks of
classified information related to Russian meddling in the election that occurred
while you were Attorney General and were brought to your attention in your role as
AG?

A __ Interms of an investigation or a case? If you can give me a little bit
more context.

Q_ Well, | guess it could have been the publication of an article that
purported to -- contained classified information, referral of that, or a subsequent
investigation or decision on an investigation, but related specifically to Intel on
Russian meddling in our election.

A You know, | don't have a recollection to any degree of specificity as to
that.

Q___ Do you recall any purported leaks of classified information relating to
the findings of the January 2017 Intelligence Community assessment?

A _ Dol recall leaks or do | recall -- again, are you -- just give me a little bit
more context. | am not really sure whether you are asking me if something was
referred to me or if | heard something in general. | am not really sure of the focus
of your question.

Q Just what -- | guess the question is whether you recall being briefed or
otherwise made aware of articles or reports that purported to contain classified
information pertaining to the findings of the ICA, and then if so, whether you took
any action on that information.

A Yeah. | don't recall specific briefings on that topic.

Q_ Are you aware of press reports concerning a purported late December


=

6

committee, but there is one element that may or may not have been part of a

Russian active measures campaign that | wanted to ask you about.

MS. LYNCH: So was briefed, and my recollection is this was around
August of last year of 2016. | received a request for a confidential meeting from
Deputy Director McCabe. And he came to my office at DOJ, and which
we -- which is a SCIF, and he asked for a SCIF meeting, and he was accompanied
by one of the lawyers from the FBI general counsel's office, and he indicated he

needed to give me some information.


MS. STEFANIK: What was the role of Deputy Attorney General Yates in
this process specifically?
MS. LYNCH: When you say this process --

MS. STEFANIK: In the Russia investigation, this Cl investigation.

MS. LYNCH:

i that information was also provided to a principals group within the
National Security Council. At the time, | was the only principal from the
Department of Justice who was attending the meetings or on the secure calls that
we had to have.

| am aware that later in the fall, | believe that Deputy Attorney General
Yates certainly was aware of subsequent developments that occurred after the
election. But she was not involved in the discussions or reviews that | was having
in the spring and summer and early fall. It was a principals only series of
discussions at that time.

MS. STEFANIK: And who were those principals?

MS. LYNCH: They were principals from within the National Security
Council. So the meetings that | was having were -- and | will apologize for not
being able to necessarily recall everyone. Typically, if we had a meeting on the
issue it would have been led by Susan Rice, myself, Jeh Johnson as the Secretary
of Homeland Security, CIA Director Brennan. Then-FBI Director Comey would be
present because he would provide the counterintelligence information from the
FBI's standpoint. And | believe that after the election there were some meetings

when Deputy Director McCabe provided information.


74

social media platforms by Russian-linked entities to affect the public debate
around the elections, the various meetings that have come to light, including
Russian-linked individuals meeting with the son of Donald Trump and high-level
campaign officials, and also another thread that we are looking into, with regard to
an effort by an individual named Peter Smith, who was trying to, based on
information reported publicly and that we are looking into, trying to identity missing
Hillary Clinton emails on the dark web.

Given the discussions you were in at the Principals Committee level with
your Department of Justice and FBI colleagues, and information that has come to
light, are there any lessons learned that you think we should take into account as
we develop our report with regard to how the U.S. Government as a whole, how
the Department, or the FBI in particular, should be approaching developments of
this sort moving forward?

A Well, yes. In my view, and based on the discussions we had at the
Principals meeting, and based on the actions that we did take, | do think that there
are several lessons to be learned.

One of the discussions that we had at the PC level, this would have been
after the election, was whether or not to recommend a bipartisan, 9/11-type
commission to review this issue such that there could be a full and open airing of it
to the extent that things could be discussed publicly, should we recommend that to
either Congress or the incoming administration. And | believe the consensus was
that it would be part of things we would recommend, but | did not see the final
recommendations that went over, so | don't know what happened to that.

| do think that, particularly given the sensitive nature of the information that

supports what we know, the Intelligence Community has to be a part of it going


56

who were talking had proposed a number of modifications to the type of document
that we thought should be generated as to render it generally too vague and not
helpful.

MR. SCHIFF: Let me ask you about that, if! could. | haven't been a
participant in that meeting. I'm very interested in what your understanding was
that was going to take place.

Was it your understanding that what the leadership was going to be asked
to do was to make its own statement of attribution about what the Russians were
doing in a bipartisan way, or was it your understanding that what the leadership
was going to be asked to do was to inform the States that they should take
advantage of the services offered by DHS to protect their computers and engage
in best practices?

MS. LYNCH: As | think back on it, | believe that the latter was part of it, but
my understanding was also that the request was for leadership to have a
statement about the importance of the process and the importance of not letting a
foreign entity gain access to that process.

But again, | wasn't involved in those briefings, and so | can't -- | can only
report what | recall about what was briefed back to me.

MR. SCHIFF: Okay. And the decision to have the statement be a written
statement from two agency heads as opposed to the President talking about it
directly?

MS. LYNCH: Well, | believe that -- my understanding is that after that,
after the larger bipartisan group was not able to come to accord, | believe that two
democratic leaders did issue a statement about the importance of working with the

administration. | believe that happened first.


54

So discussions were about that, and my understanding was that they were
being had within the Intelligence Community outside of the PC meetings, because
the goal was very much to get to a place where there could be a public discussion
about it.

But similarly, with respect to the President's role, | recalled specifically
discussions about having the President, then President Obama directly confront
President Putin.

MR. SCHIFF: Let me ask you about that first point. It was fairly clear in
late July, when the documents started being dumped, that the Russians were both

involved in the hacking and that the information they had stolen was being used to

influence the election.
NN ro vStike had already done a

public analysis, and so why wasn't that addressed earlier?

MS. LYNCH: You know, my recollection was that that certainly was in the
public domain, and | think | do have a recollection that, if not CrowdStrike, that
some entity was working on that.

My recollection of the discussions in August specifically was we had more
information -- we had that information, but | believe our view was we had more
information, and how much more could we say. And the goal was to try and be
as open as possible, but again, protect the law enforcement and Intelligence
Community interests there.

And so the discussions throughout September were about what document
could we produce. Also, in August, though, with respect to public notification, and

| believe that during the -- during a PC in August, Dennis McDonough (ph.), then


a

Q__ Just a couple of questions, a couple of followups, ma'am. You

mentioned previously the summer of 2016 meeting where Director Brennan

A No.
Q__ --did Director Brennan provide you?
A No, and | certainly regret any confusion. The information that Director

Brennan was providing was not about -- to my recollection, was not about the
| don't recall Director Brennan speaking on a connection

Q__ Oh, that was the prior meeting, I'm sorry.

A Yes.

Q_ Thank you for clarifying.

With relation to the conversation with Director Brennan, what specific
information was he providing you at that time that the Russians were looking or

have been interfering with our election?

= «6=—sistii( (yy
ee


64

Q_ And the same line of questioning, ma'am, then for, you know, for
conspiracy and collusion.

A For?

Q_ Forconspiracy and collusion. Did you receive any information, during
your tenure as Attorney General, from anyone or anywhere that would show a
level of conspiracy between the Russian Government and its affiliates and the
Trump campaign or Trump campaign affiliates for President?

A Well, you know, | wouldn't have been drawing those legal conclusions
at that time, in any event, so regardless of what information that | gave, because
you would have to wait.

Q_ Sure.

A __ And sort of look at a whole host of things. And again, | don't recall
that being briefed up to me, which isn't to say -- so | can't say that it existed or not.

Q_ No. Just for your --

A __ Ican't give you that definitive answer.

Q_ Of course, just as far as you knew. | mean, did you ever -- were you
ever called upon or did you ever make a determination or conclusion, based upon
all the information you did receive, that there was some level of conspiracy
between the Russian Government and its affiliates and the Trump campaign for
President?

A __ | was not called upon to give a legal opinion in the PCs as to that. We
were not at that stage yet. But -- so | was not called upon to give that opinion, so
| wouldn't have had that discussion or provided that level of analysis.

Q_ And then the last portion of this line of questioning as it relates to

collusion, which is a term that has been used a lot in the public as it relates to


52

information public, that the issue of whether or not and how Russia was going to
attempt to provide misinformation about Secretary Clinton was something that was
sort of endemic to the political process, that that was -- that that happened in
campaigns and might in fact -- and could come from any source, and that to focus
on that issue would not be the appropriate view of the administration, that we
should be -- we, as an administration, should be concerned about attempts to
influence the process, writ large, about attempts to influence the voting systems,
about attempts to influence the electorate. And the very fact of Russia trying to
reach in, regardless of whom they were trying to help or hurt, was a problem that
needed to be dealt with.

Ultimately, we discussed a number of options and adopted a number of
options. | would say, first and foremost, one of the first options that we adopted
and that did in fact occur was to have the President of the United States speak
directly to President Putin, confront him with knowledge that we were aware of his
efforts on a variety of fronts and that it was unacceptable, and that that discussion
took place during a pull-aside, | believe, at one of the G- either 7 or 20 meetings in
the early fall.

We also discussed -- again, Secretary Johnson is working with the States
on that process, and that continued. But we also discussed notifying the
American people and what format should that take, that the populace could take in
whatever information it took in but that this information that a foreign government
that was not our friend, not an ally, was actually seeking to influence the campaign
should be discussed.

And we talked about how to discuss that without politicizing it, which was a

challenge and a concern because we discussed the fact that we, as an


24

notification? That is to say did other folks make that decision and that decision
occurred?
A Are you referring to the discussion that you just referenced recently

where then-Director Comey spoke to the President-Elect --

Q_ Right.
A --or something else?
Q_ Yes.

A __ Again, that was -- | was not involved in that decision.

Q Okay. You referenced, Madam Attorney General, you referenced the
USAM, the United States Attorneys Manuals. The rules and regulations within
that govern, obviously, national security investigations and processes and
procedures, but those rules are subject to each Attorney General's authorization
and approval of those rules. My question to you is did you adopt those rules
under the USAM in full for National Security Division from your predecessor,
Attorney General Holder, or did you make any material alterations?

A You know, | don't recall whether | made any alterations or not, but
there would be a record of it if | did. So you would have to refer to that record.

Q_ Sure. And the record would be where?

A Within the Department of Justice. You would have to check with
them.

Q__ And you would have signed off on those alterations within the USAM,
and they would contain your signature, obviously?

A __ lf that was required and if it was presented to me, and jf | did that,
those records would be there. But! don't have a recollection right now as to

whether | was presented with alterations or changes. | just don't have that


MS. LYNCH:

MR. SCHIFF:

MS. LYNCH:

MR. SCHIFF: When Director Comey raised this with you, this was by way
of informing you of what the FBI had seen. It was not by way of seeking
authorization to open a counterintelligence investigation?

MS. LYNCH: That is correct.

MR. SCHIFF: And Director Comey testified at our open hearing in March
that he opened a counterintelligence investigation in July.

Did you have any advance knowledge that he would be opening the
investigation in July? Did he seek permission from you to open the -- to do the
formal opening of the counterintelligence investigation?

MS. LYNCH: No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that. It


73

(12:15 p.m]

HE will turn it over to my colleague.
|
Q Hi. Myname is . | am the J for the

minority.

These are mostly cleanup questions just to have your views on the record.

On March 4th, 2017, President Trump issued a series of tweets claiming
that President Obama tapped his phones. On March 20th, 2017, in sworn
testimony before this committee, then-FBI Director James Comey stated that
neither the FBI nor the Justice Department had information to support President
Trump's tweets. And then on September 1st, 2017, the Department of Justice
stated in a motion filed in Federal court that there was no evidence to support
President Trump's claim that President Obama ordered the wiretapping of Trump
Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign.

To your knowledge, during your time in office, are you aware of whether the
Obama administration tapped President Trump's phones during the transition or at
any other time?

A Tomy knowledge, no such wiretapping occurred.

Q_ Thank you.

To the extent that you are able to discuss, it would be helpful for us, in our
review of all the information that we are receiving, whether there are any lessons
learned that you may be willing to share with the committee; in particular, given the
fact that information has come to light, both in the committee privately, but also
much of it publicly, about various developments with regard to Russia's active

measures, efforts, for example, Ranking Member Schiff mentioned the use of


Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

MS. LYNCH: Ido.

HM" also, thank you Madam Attorney General. Please
make sure the microphone button is pressed and the green light is on so the court
reporter can hear all the commentary today.

And | will turn it over to Chairwoman, Ms. Stefanik.

MS. STEFANIK: Thank you, Madam Attorney General, for being here
today. As| mentioned, my name is Elise Stefanik. | represent New York's 21st
district. |! am a member of the majority on the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence. And | thought it would be helpful if we outlined the
scope of this investigation, and then | will start with the questioning.

So the scope of this investigation has four key points agreed to by both the
majority, Chairman Nunes, and Congressman Conaway, who is leading this on
behalf of the majority, and Ranking Member Schiff. Those four questions that we
seek to answer are as follows: What Russian cyber activity and other active
measures were directed against the United States and its allies?

Two, did the Russian active measures include links between Russia and
individuals associated with political campaigns or any other U.S. persons?

Three, what was the U.S. Government's response to these Russian active
measures, and what do we need to do to protect ourselves and our allies in the
future?

And four, what possible leaks of classified information took place related to
the Intelligence Community assessment of these matters? So that is the scope of

this investigation.


76

We have to have vigorous campaigns, that is also part of our democracy,
but we do need to have some sort of independent body, and | do think it should be
bipartisan in terms of participation, but also not just people from the political arena,
we need people from the scientific arena, as well as people who have experience
with intelligence issues to be a neutral arbiter, so to speak, and provide
information so that we can consider these issues going forward and take action.
That, to me, would be very important.

With respect to things that were not discussed greatly in the PCs, but have
been of great discussion most recently, which is the use of social media, and,
again, | just don't recall the level of specificity about that, but certainly there has
been a great deal of discussion about it now. This, to me, needs to be part of a
larger discussion of how we manage social media and privacy issues, free speech
issues and political speech issues here. These are difficult discussions, but |
believe they have to be had as well.

We routinely provide more private information to commercial entities like
social media organizations than the government is ever able to obtain through
warrants or otherwise, and the vulnerabilities are only just now beginning to be
appreciated by individuals, but also our vulnerability to being manipulated and
influenced makes these platforms something that has to be considered as we talk
about how to handle political speech; not to suppress it in any way at all, | do not
believe in that, but | do think we have to have a discussion about how our social
media platforms are going to handle certain types of speech going forward,
whether the broadcast model is appropriate, or whether that model also needs to
be considered and thought through.

Q__ I believe the ranking member has a question.


75

forward, obviously, but | do think that, my view has always been that the American
people deserve information, as much as can be provided to them consistent with
law enforcement and Intelligence Community safeguards; that the view that, you
know, you don't know what people are going to do with information exists, but
does not mandate not trusting them with that; and you can't control how someone
is going to take or receive something, but you do have to trust that they deserve it,
that they deserve to know as much as possible about attacks on our system writ
large, whether that is from Russia or any other country, or whether it is in another
context.

To me, this is consistent with what we have done since 9/11 in trying to
advise people about terrorism; not that we would have terror alerts for Russian
interference, for example, but we talk about it, we provide information about it.

We at the Department of Justice talk about cases in a way, as you saw with

San Bernardino, for example, and Orlando, you know, providing information
beyond what we usually would do, so that people would have as much context for
things. So that is very much my view in general.

| think that we need to think about avoiding the politicization that occurs with
that. | would involve the States in that process.

Based on the information | received, | am very concerned about the safety
of our State election systems both in terms of vulnerability, and just sheer age and
capacity. | think that needs national attention.

| would still support setting up some sort of commission to examine these
issues and look at them, starting in nonelection years, so that this could be part of
political discussion that exists separate and apart from the political campaign

season.


78

a

Q_ Attorney General Lynch, | am |. a staffer for the majority.
And | certainly want to be conscious of your time, we appreciate the time you have
already spent with us, but also if | may, | wanted to follow up on several of the
topics that we have discussed today.

Also, | just want to say, to echo my colleagues, that we certainly appreciate
your long, public service and your willingness to come and sit with Congress for
several hours even after that service has concluded, so thank you for being here
today.

A Thank you.

Q We discussed the Intelligence Community assessment that was
published in early January. Can you briefly describe what, if any, role DOJ had
with respect to that ICA?

A Yes. Atthe PC level, we began discussing producing a more
comprehensive document about the Intelligence Community's assessment of
activities involving Russian efforts to influence the election. Primarily, the DOJ
involvement would have been through the FBI, because for counterintelligence,
the FBI is DOJ's agency that covers those issues. So the information that came
from DOJ would have been provided by the FBI for that.

Q_ Once that ICA was prepared, did you or anyone within DOJ review it at
the sort of draft stage?

A __ {don't recall reviewing a draft, no. | recall receiving the document, but
| just don't recall reviewing the draft.

Q___Do you recall when you received the document or what form it was in

when you received it?


w
a

MR. SCHIFF: Good morning. | want to go through the timeline you have
been discussing with a few more questions, just to see if we can flesh this out any
further. When did you first become aware of what we have been describing as
the Russian active measures campaign, either in the form of the hacking and
dumping operation or social media or other operation or outreach to the Trump
campaign? What was the first you learned that the Russians may be seeking to
influence our electoral process?

MS. LYNCH:

But | was aware that the FBI and DOJ were looking into attempts to hack
into the DNC and that there was a concern that it was coming from Russia.

Again, kept on a separate track, but | was aware of that.


il

Q_ And given that as Attorney General you have a myriad of
investigations going at any one time, since this information was brought to you
during a Presidential election cycle possibly involving Russians attacking our
election system, at that time did this receive any priority in your Department of
Justice as Attorney General for you as something that you wanted to continue to
be briefed on or was it handled in the regular fashion under your stewardship?

A Well what | would say is that every counterintelligence investigation,
the regular fashion for it is to give it priority, is to give it importance, and is to
essentially pursue it with diligence and all due efforts. So the distinction you are

drawing is not one that | would recognize at the outset. | would also say that in


27

again, the investigation would not be presented to the Attorney General for intake

so to speak --
Q_ Okay.
A __ -- and then delegated down to anyone. It would come up through the

usual processes. So again, | want to make sure that | am clearly answering your
question, and | don't want to give you information that isn't responsive to that. So
the construct of your question doesn't really apply to the premise.

Q_ Okay. Fairenough. Let me clarify. And | appreciate your response.
ls it your understanding that the investigation came in through the normal sort of
stovepipes that DOJ has, for lack of a better word, was entered into the National
Security Division, was raised through the Assistant Attorney General, then John
Carlin, then up to the Deputy Attorney General's office, and then finally up to the
Attorney General's office? Is that what happened in this investigation?

A | don't have a recollection of that being the process that would happen
in any event. Again, you know, it wouldn't be presented to me for intake is the
point that | am trying to make. "It would be handled and worked on, and if
something required my attention as Attorney General, it would be brought to my
attention. But it is not the case with any investigation in the Department of Justice
that every step of every investigation be vetted up the chain that you have
described.

Q__ No, of course not. So! am trying to focus it to just this one
investigation. And as you mentioned, maybe intake is not the right word, but were
there certain aspects, as you just said, that might require your notification because
those working for you thought it important enough and timely enough to notify

you? So were there any subjects that were brought to your attention in relation to


23

Q_ And so whose decision is it ultimately in order to provide a defensive
briefing to a candidate for President? Who makes that call?

A __ It would depend upon the facts of the situation. It would depend upon
what the information or what the issue was. And it would be a decision that would
be made in conjunction with the agents who were looking at the matter and their
supervisors, as well as anyone from NSD who would be handling the matter and
their supervisors.

Q In this instance in this investigation who made that decision?

A You know, | don't have specifics on that, and | don't recall -- | don't
recall the result of it. Thatis to say | don't recall if a defensive briefing was given
ornot. | just don't have that recollection now.

Q_ And|am sure as Attorney General and sitting with the Principals
Committees and on the National Security Council, they would have sought your
opinion on the matter. Did you provide one as to whether or not a defensive
briefing should have been given to then-candidate Trump?

A | concurred with the director's view it was something that we should
consider.

Q_ And did you provide an ultimate answer as to yes or no that at some
point in time a defensive briefing --

A We didn't have that question at the principals level thereafter. | don't
recall being asked that question in the context of the discussions we had at the
PCs,

Q_ Sol mean obviously we now know that eventually a defensive briefing

was issued and given to the President-Elect. Was that done without your


And that this was very much a goal of the Soviet Union, and particularly a

goal of Putin.

And certainly it was being

reviewed with a view towards the fact that it was likely part of the overall Russian

campaign to influence the election.

That is to say if in fact the election went a different route and Secretary

Clinton became the President, that it would still be considered a victory if people
did not have faith in the democratic process, if they did not trust the veracity of the
results. And also if they could undermine Secretary Clinton's future Presidency if

she were to attain that office.


18

am just not able to --

Q No, and | think you hit it right on the head, there is absolutely not one
way to do that sort of work. And what! am trying make the connection specifically
is how this relates to the Russia investigation and this committee's open
investigation on that.

Because Director Comey testified in an open hearing that
counterintelligence investigations that he starts within the FBI under his leadership
as director could only go to a certain point, unlike counterterrorism investigations,
which could go past that point, without the express permission of the Department
of Justice. So what we would like to know is who obtained or who issued that
express permission to Director Comey and his FBI to continue the investigation
into the Russia hacking?

A __ | think you have to speak to then-Director Comey and the people who
were working on the case at that time. That type of -- because again, it is a
multi-layered system and process, as in the National Security Division has a
number of outstanding lawyers there. That type of managerial issue would not
have come to my attention.

Q Okay. So in this instance, and | think that is what we are trying to get
to, in this instance that fact that the investigation was started, however it started in
the FBI under then-Director Comey, in regards to the Russia investigation, would
not have been brought to your attention for authorization to continue the
investigation as then-Director Comey stated was necessary pursuant to the USAM
and the FBI manual?

A __ Thatis correct. For this matter as well as for counterintelligence

matters in general, they would not need to come to the Attorney General for that.


90

me, as many cases are, as something that we were investigating, and the focus
was on the substance of what the investigation was finding.

Late in 2016, there were some media reports and | had been receiving
questions during press interviews about the DNC's response at the time of the
initiation of the investigation, which is not something that would ordinarily be
brought to my attention before something is involved, but | did ask for a briefing on
that, because there were numerous press reports about that.

And | did receive a briefing from the FBI that outlined their outreach to the
DNC at the time and the first outreach, the second outreach, | believe there might
have been a third outreach to the DNC, the ultimate responses and then the
information they received from the DNC about the DNC having hired their own
forensic analysis company to work with them to try and ameliorate the problem
and deal with it.

Q___Do you happen to recall when that briefing was?

A __ The briefing would have been, | believe it was late in 2016, but | don't
have the specific date. | would need to see something.

Q__ Either at that time or any time during your tenure, what was your
understanding as to whether the DNC had physically turned over its servers to the
FBI?

A You know, that type of investigative technique wouldn't necessarily be
briefed to the Attorney General. | was made aware in the briefing that | did
receive that when the FBI initially offered an analytic review, which would require
giving access to the Bureau of the computer systems, that the DNC, like a lot of
companies, declined that, and that they did hire an outside company, but with

respect to working with them on a go-forward basis, | wasn't briefed on the


77

MR. SCHIFF: | just have one other question going back to your days as a
U.S. Attorney.

One of the persons of interest to our committee is Felix Sater. Were you
involved in your capacity as U.S. Attorney in any investigation involving Mr. Sater?
Is there anything you can tell us about him that would be pertinent to our
investigation?

MS. LYNCH: So Mr. Sater was a defendant in the Eastern District of
New York, but the investigation and conclusion of his case occurred before |
returned to the Office as U.S. Attorney in 2010.

When | returned to the U.S. Attorney's Office in 2010, he had already been
sentenced pursuant to a cooperation agreement. The issues that arose about
Mr. Sater during my tenure as U.S. Attorney were about ancillary civil lawsuits, the
nature of which | don't really recall right now, but | was briefed on at the time, and
attempts by either him or other people to make his cooperation public.

So the litigation that we were involved in was involving the nature and
extent of public disclosure of his cooperation and documents about his
cooperation. | wasn't involved in the initial investigation about Mr. Sater, didn't
supervise it, and don't recall the specifics of that.

MR. SCHIFF: Was your office involved in any allegations concerning
Russian entities laundering money through the Trump organization?

MS. LYNCH: Not to my recollection. My former office does and did have
an active practice working with the FBI's New York office looking at Russian
organized crime and cyber entities, but | don't recall those having a connection to

the Trump organization or Trump entities.

HS think we will pass. | yield back. Thank you.


A Well, just the information that | provided you.

Q__ Right, but nothing -- nothing more than that. Is there any other

A __ | just don't have that recollection right now. And it's not something

that | would have any documents or information to use to look back on, so | don't
have that recollection.

Q Okay. And was there any information, albeit from Director Brennan,
Director Comey -- then Director Comey, Deputy Director McCabe, or any other
individuals in the IC that you spoke with that had or showed specific information
that Putin and Russia had a connection or relationship with anyone in the Trump
campaign or Trump affiliates?

A Well, other than the information | provided?

Q_ Right.

A You know, | don't have a recollection of that being briefed up to me,
but -- so | would say | don't have that recollection.

Q_ Fair enough. And | think, ma'am, one of the -- to sort of close the loop
on this part of the questioning. One of the things that we're charged with
investigating and trying to write a report on is whether or not there was any actual
collusion, conspiracy, or coordination between the Russian Government and the
Trump campaign or the Trump affiliates at any time, and as former prosecutors,
those words may or may not have different meanings for you. If they do, please

clarify or just let me know during the following line of questioning.


10

to 2016, when you were the Attorney General, was there a notification process in
place? Again, how does that typically work in terms of notifying Congress when a
Cl investigation is opened?

MS. LYNCH: You know, again, | don't have the specifics of that, so |
wouldn't want to misspeak.

MS. STEFANIK: So as Attorney General you are not aware of what the
process is to notify Congress of a counterintelligence investigation? Or is it
delegated?

MS. LYNCH: If | were still in the position and the question were put to me,
| would have someone research that so | could give you an accurate answer.

MS. STEFANIK: Okay. Let's talk about specifically the
counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia. How was that opened?
When did that begin?

MS. LYNCH: | am not able to give you a specific date as to when that
began. I can give you my recollection of when | was informed of certain issues
that were included within it. But! am not able to give you the actual date when it
would have been opened, for example, you know, when was a file opened in the
computer. | don't have that information, so | wouldn't be able to give that to you.

MS. STEFANIK: When were you made aware to your recollection?
MS. LYNCH:

a
HE | was informed by then-Director Comey and Deputy Director

McCabe that the Counterintelligence Division had essentially uncovered some

information or received information involving Russian intelligence operatives.


33
|

ee, ee
That during Secretary Clinton's time as Secretary, the interaction there had

led Viadimir Putin to have negative views of her and the United States. It was of

the entire country.

We again received information primarily from Director Brennan -- | don't
believe he had anyone else doing the briefings for him -- this was still at the
principals level at this time -- that --

MS. STEFANIK: This is late summer again?

MS. LYNCH: Early summer.

MS. STEFANIK: Early summer. PC meeting in early summer. Okay.

MS. LYNCH: This is Late spring, early summer. This is over the course

of the summer.

MS. STEFANIK: Okay.

MS. LYNCH:

NE) 470 | int get the

specifics of for example what someone was supposed to say, but it was that


69

on inserting negative information or misinformation about Secretary Clinton into
the political bloodstream.

At the time you were in office, were you informed that one of the vehicles
they would use for this would be social media?

MS. LYNCH: At the time that | was in office, | don't recall social media
being part of the discussion?

MR. SCHIFF: In January, the Intelligence Community assessment
included their use of social media, the use of their paid propaganda, RT and
Sputnik. Had come to your attention during your tenure or was not part of the
discussions that you were present for?

MS. LYNCH: | think it was part of the discussions in a general sense that
there was going to be ~ that as we compiled, for public consumption, this list of
means and methods, for lack of a better term, that there would be a media
component, but | just can't recall the specifics of it, so it may have been, and | just
don't recall.

MR. SCHIFF: But at the time the campaign was ongoing, you personally
didn't become aware of the Russian, use of paid advertising and social media, or
their other tactics on social media?

MS. LYNCH: | don't have that recollection. | just don't recall that being
the main thing. There was a lot of discussion about RT, and again | just don't
recall. I'd have to go back and look at the IC document actually.

MR. SCHIFF: Okay. I'll pass it off to my counsel now.

EXAMINATION:

|

Q_ Madam Attorney General, | just have a few questions, and then I'll turn


71

Q__ Did you believe it appropriate for Attorney General Sessions to recuse
himself?

A Well, | wasn't involved in the review, so | wasn't involved -- | didn't
have the information that his team reviewed. I'd have to defer to their analysis.

Q On May 9 of this year, President Trump fired Director Comey, and
then on May 17, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein announced the appointment
of former FBI director Robert Mueller to serve as special counsel. Did you believe
it appropriate to appoint someone to take over that investigation?

A Well, again, | wasn't involved in the decisionmaking process there. |
certainly think -- | certainly felt it was appropriate that the continuity of the
investigation be considered and that the Department take steps to ensure that
work that had been done was not lost, that work that needed to be done could be
carried out going forward, and certainly thought that that was appropriate and
responsible for the Department to consider, but | don't have the information that
they were using when they made their decisions.

Q_ And if you could tell us why the independence of the FBI and also the
special counsel is important?

A Well, as a general matter, as | noted, the FBI is part of the Department
of Justice but with a great deal of independence built in. There are -- as with
other law enforcement components, they do have reporting lines to the Hill, both to
this committee and its Senate counterpart, as well as Appropriations and Judiciary
and the like. They do have separate budget issues that come before Congress.

And the underlying view as to why the FBI should be independent, as well
as the Department of Justice in the work that it does in every arena is that it should

be free of political influence or any type of influence that might either actually affect


72

the case or give the perception that a case or investigation was impacted.
That could be political, it could be economic, it could be a perception issue
or the like, and so the independence of the entire Department, including the FBI, is

very important.


30

being briefed on that.

Q_ Okay. Did you, as your time as Attorney General, ever request sort of
in your position which you may or may not have chosen to do, request out, down
the chain of command so to say, for lack of a better expression, | would like more
information on the Russia investigation on this component or on Fusion GPS and
on this component or anything like that? Was that request ever made by you as
Attorney General to those working for you?

A No, | did not make that request because | was receiving regular
briefings as part of the PCs on the information both from the FBI and from the CIA
as to the larger issue of Russian attempts to interfere with the election. So | was
receiving briefings on a fairly regular basis. And | did not have the need to
request further briefings on that.

Q_ And those were occurring at the Principals Committees meetings that
you referenced. Is that correct?

A Yes, they were. They were either meetings, and sometimes they
were secure either video or phone calls, depending upon where people were
located.

Q_ Fairenough. And can you tell us, as it relates to this subject matter,
approximately how many or how frequently those were occurring?

A No. | would have to refer you to the notes of the NSC. | am sure
they have a record and a calendar of that. They were certainly fairly frequent, but
| don't want to misspeak and say it was once a month or once every 6 weeks,
because as | sit here now, | am just not able to recall with enough specificity there.
But | will say that my recollection is that the briefings were frequent throughout the

late spring and throughout the summer and into the fall. And so to say that they


A __ Itis impossible to speculate, and | -- | don't speculate, so | am not able
to provide you with a response there.

| can say that all information would be relevant when you are making a
determination like that.

Q___ Beyond that initial briefing, what additional briefings, if any, do you

recall

A You know, | recall the Director briefing the principals group about the
same information he gave to me, and | just don't recall with any specificity further

briefings that involved Mr. Page.

|

A __ |don't have a recollection to that, so | am just not able to say with
specificity.

Q_ Thank you. Changing topics, in response earlier to questions from
Ranking Member Schiff, you discussed a meeting in the summer with Deputy
Director McCabe that sort of took the nature of a defensive briefing that you were
given. And | don't want to be redundant of those questions, but | just want to
make sure | have everything clear, since there are a lot of kind of pieces to the

potential players involved in this kind of chain of events.


Similar to other investigations also, it could take several forms.
Investigations in the counterintelligence community are typically, however, covert.
That differs greatly from other investigations say in the criminal arena, where they
are covert or overt depending upon whether it is financial fraud or the like. But in
the counterintelligence world, they are typically covert. They are typically long
term because they will involve transmitting information sometimes from foreign
countries, sometimes from individuals who are cooperating with the Intelligence
Community who may be living overseas or may have contacts there. There is just
really a variety of ways.

So | don't want to give the impression that there is one straight linear path
to how a counterintelligence investigation in general would begin. Typically, the
counterintelligence investigations are handled by agents in the counterintelligence
and counterespionage section for the Department of Justice. It would be within
the FBI. And that is really one of the few times where you will have a lot of
activity for the FBI that may be at the outset coming from overseas. The FBI does
a lot of international work, as does the entire Department of Justice, but
counterintelligence often has that component depending, again, upon the types of
investigative techniques that are determined to be necessary, whether it is human
sources, whether it is documents, whether it is electronic surveillance.

Again, there would be an agent or a group of agents really assigned to work
with that. Depending upon how far the information comes, depending upon the
nature of it and what might be needed in terms of process, attorneys from the
National Security Division who work on counterespionage matters are often
assigned to work with agents, again speaking from the DOu's perspective, from

the FBI. And they would assist with preparing legal process as needed. There


| wanted to start off with a very broad question. As Attorney General, can
you outline the counterintelligence investigation process from start to finish? How
you would open an investigation? Who that would be delegated to? Justso we
have an understanding for follow-up questions as to specifics.

MS. LYNCH: Well, thank you and good morning. With respect to the
initiation of a counterintelligence investigation, | don't know if | am actually the best
person to start that process with you, because it is multi-layered. And |am
drawing on my experience both as Attorney General and as a former United
States attorney who had contact with intelligence investigations in connection with
terrorism cases.

My understanding is that counterintelligence investigations can be initiated
any number of ways. Sometimes we learn information from already established
intercepts. Sometimes information is brought to the attention of the Intelligence
Community. It is really very similar to the initiation and predication for other types
of investigations as well. There is no one way to say how information would come
to the attention of the Intelligence Community that would lead it to feel that it
sufficient predication to start an investigation.

Some situations there are long term sources in place. Some situations
people walk in with information that has to be vetted and determine whether or not
it is valid. So it is really difficult for me to really say that there is one straight path
to beginning a counterintelligence investigation. But what | would say is that
similar to any other investigation, information would come to the Intelligence
Community's attention by any number of sources, means, or methods. And
based upon the information that was given and whether or not the initial reviewing

person thought there was sufficient predication, an investigation would begin.


19

That would be dealt with at a different level.

Q_ Okay. And because of the nature of the subject, while there is
numerous Cl investigations that the Department and the FBI are working on on
any given day, because of the nature of this subject and the timeliness of this
subject, that it involved Russia, that it involved our elections during an ongoing
Presidential election cycle, you are saying that it was still not brought to your
attention for authorization?

Not for authorization purposes. But as | mentioned before, the

was discussed with me relative to the nature of the discussions, the information
the FBI had about the nature of those discussions, and ultimately was expanded to
the National Security Council, with that same information.

And then discussions were had involving both the «rich

was focused on what they were learning from the sources they were using, and
Q_ Thank you. And you made reference to a communication in the
beginning of your answer that was brought to your attention. What do you recall

were the specifics of that communication that the FBI director relayed to you?

A So my recollection is, as | indicated, i And


in terms of notifying Congress of any counterintelligence investigation?

MS. LYNCH: Well certainly there are notification procedures for a variety
of the investigative techniques that we use. There is an annual notification to
Congress about FISA warrants, for example, the number requested, granted, initial
as well as renewal. That is something that the Attorney General signs every year.
| signed it on at least two occasions when | was in office. Again, within the FBI |
would have to refer you to the specific procedures there for the steps that are
taken to open something literally within the Bureau's computers. | wouldn't want
to misstate that.

MS. STEFANIK: Again, just to provide context around this line of
questioning, when Director Comey testified in the open hearing, so this was widely
reported in the media, he, quote, said, "| have been authorized by the Department
of Justice to confirm that the FBI as part of our counterintelligence mission is
investigating the Russian Government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential
election."

How did that authorization work? Did that come from you directly? _Is that
atypical in terms of how you notify Congress of the existence of that
counterintelligence investigation.

MS. LYNCH: So my recollection of the public reporting that you are
referring to was that it occurred in | believe in the spring of this year, 2017. | was
no longer the Attorney General at that time, so | wasn't involved in any discussion
or decision as to what the director would be saying before Congress. So | can't
speak to that.

MS. STEFANIK: Going back to when the counterintelligence investigation

was opened, because it wasn't opened in spring of this year, we have to look back


91

particulars of how they worked together and whether or not servers were actually
exchanged.

Q_ Thank you. The very last topic | wanted to ask about, which is within
the scope of our investigation, is purportedly sort of classified information, now,
that DOJ has a sort of mandate in investigating and, as appropriate, prosecuting
leaks of classified information. Is that correct?

A Yes, it does.

Q__ Similar to the other topics we have discussed, what are the
circumstances under which those leak investigations or prosecutions would have
been sort of raised to your level as attorney general?

A _ Well, one circumstance, due to a protocol that was put in place shortly
before | became the Attorney General, would be if a leak investigation involved a
journalist. Because of cases that had been handled, again, before | became the
Attorney General, the Department had regular discussions with a journalist
committee about educating them and also getting input from the journalism
community about how journalists would be regarded and viewed in the context of
leak investigations.

And so, part of that protocol for really almost any investigation touching on
journalistic activity would involve it being brought to, if not me, then to the Deputy
Attorney General if the Attorney General was not available, but there is a group
that looks at those matters. So that will be one way in which a leak investigation
would come to the attention of the Attorney General.

Whether they have kept that protocol, | do not know. So that would -- but,

again, that is because of the specific First Amendment issues raised there.


+
oO


87

Hh ank you very much, ma'am, for your time today. | will

turn it over to my colleagues from the majority.
oY

Q__ [have just a few further follow-up questions, but, again, recognizing
you have spent quite a bit of time with us, | want to move through them as quickly
as possible.

Can you briefly describe the DOuJ's role, and particularly the AG's role, in
compliance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act?

A Well, you have asked -- do you want me to talk about DOJ's role or
specifically just the Attorney General's role? The Department administers that.

Q_ Right.

A __ Itis done through various offices. And, again, it does not come to the
Attorney General, you know, for the vetting and the review.

Q Understood. So the average FARA enforcement action or
investigation would not necessarily come to your attention. Is that correct?

A __ It would just depend upon the investigation.

Q__ Do you recall any FARA complaints or investigations that did come to
your attention during the time you served as Attorney General?

A _ That is -- that is very broad, and | don't want to misspeak, and so |

would -- | would not be able to really give you an answer.

A __ Again, it is -- | would have to be shown something. |

just -- without really seeing something, | am not able to say whether or not that


25

recollection.

Q_ Sure. Right. Thatis what! am asking. You don't remember now
whether the USAM was changed in any way, shape, or form as it relates to
National Security Division investigations in Cl matters?

A You would have to check with those records. And that would
essentially follow the path of any changes that were made.

Q_ Okay. | would like to turn your attention, Madam Attorney General,
over to what we commonly refer to as FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act. Within the Department of Justice, | think you mentioned this, there
are -- correct me if | am wrong -- only three individuals that can authorize a FISA:
That is the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, and the Senate-confirmed
Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division. 1s that correct?

A Well, to authorize the request of a FISA. It is the FISA court that
actually authorizes the surveillance.

Q_ Right. Thank you. And are there any other individuals at DOJ who
can make that authorization to the FISC?

A No.

Q_ No.

A Well, attorneys present it to the FISC after --

Q_ Sure, sure. No,no,!understand. But they can't go in there before
your say so?

A Correct.

Q In this instance, let's keep it on scope here, we now know that there
was information briefed to you by the FBI regarding Russian entities, Carter Page

and contacts and whatnot. When do you recall was the first presentation of a


EXECUTIVE SESSION

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERVIEW OF: LORETTA LYNCH

Friday, October 20, 2017

Washington, D.C.

The interview in the above matter was held in Room HVC-304, the Capitol,

commencing at 10:14 a.m.

Present: Representatives Stefanik, and Schiff.


838

was ever briefed up to me.
Q_. Turning to the briefings that you have described that you received from
then-ClA Director Brennan at the Principals Committee, you talked about Russian

sort of misinformation campaign that was sort of authorized or approved at the

highest vets. |S

f

A __ I just can't recall with specificity. | just can't recall with specificity, no.

Q Understood. You did sort of specify, | think very helpfully, some very
particular areas in which, rs Russia was attempting to
spread misinformation regarding Secretary Clinton, namely with respect

| believe you described it.

During the course of your discussions through the summer and fall,
understanding that was the Russian intent, was the Principals Committee made
aware of actual examples of this misinformation being disseminated, or put into
the media stream, as you referred to it?

A You know, it is - | am not able to really answer with specificity,
because those allegations did come into the media stream, and so | just don't -- |
am not able to really separate, you know, what | heard in the media from my

underlying knowledge about Russia's purposes there, and so | am not able to


48

And | believe he said -- he, meaning Deputy Director McCabe. | believe at
that time he indicated that they had spoken with then Deputy AAG Margolis, but |
don't have the strongest recollection of that. But | believe they said they had
spoken with Deputy AAG Margolis, but that the FBI had looked at this determined
that it had no investigative value, and he repeated that. And he also repeated
that we're not recommending that you do anything about this either.

And so with that information, | said: Well, | appreciate the briefing. And
again, this was the type of defensive briefing that sometimes we would provide to
other agency heads or different people that you had intercepted information,
people were saying things about them. And! said: But! do want to inform you
that with respect to what purports to be the substance of this, | know that you've

determined it doesn't have any value, but | do want to assert to you that | don't

And | said: | don't know iit
HE if that helps you in your analysis, and I've never had a
es

| then asked the question, again, relative to the translation issue and the
sourcing issue, and | said: However, as we all know, sometimes there are people
who will speak to someone in your office or someone who knows you and then

make a statement that, oh, the Attorney General will do or has said something,


12

investigation?

MS. LYNCH: As the Attorney General, that is not my role. That is
accurate.

MS. STEFANIK: And you were notified after the fact when the
investigation was opened? ,

MS. LYNCH: | just want to be specific in terms of what was said tome. |

don't want to give you a misimpression as to what was said to me. PF

But the nature of the discussions | would have at that level would not be about the

specifics of the opening and timing of that.

MS. STEFANIK: In terms of they informed you (iii

MS. LYNCH: | wouldn't be aware of that, because | don't recall Ji
fF And | don't think | was given the

that.

MS. STEFANIK: Is that an authority that -- | mean is that something that is
delegated to the Deputy Attorney General, to the National Security Division within
the Department of Justice? Who is that delegated to?

MS. LYNCH: Within the Department of Justice, the authority to sign FISA
warrants rests within the Attorney General, and it is delegated to -- or delegable,

and has been delegated to the Deputy Attorney General and to the head of the


MS. STEFANIK: Based upon your recollection, it sounds like you did not
make the decision to authorize and open the counterintelligence investigation, that
you were being briefed on the fact that it already had been opened. |!s that

correct?

Ms. LH I
EE =< did not discuss the timing or the opening of

the investigation per se. So | would say that is not correct.

MS. STEFANIK: Who opened the investigation?

MS. LYNCH: Again, | would refer you to the FBI's procedures on that,
because | wouldn't want to give you a speculative answer on that.

MS. STEFANIK: So you weren't made aware when the investigation was
opened?

MS. LYNCH: | was made aware of the information that | just relayed to
you, but | wouldn't be able to give you a date relative to that as to when the exact

investigation was opened.
MS. STEFANIK: Okay. But just to clarify, you didn't open the

investigation. As Attorney General you didn't make the decision to open the


And | recall there were some other things. | just can't call them to mind
right now. I'm sorry.

Q_ No, fair enough.

Was it your understanding or was it the -- Director Brennan provided you
with examples that that was occurring or how it was occurring, how the Russians

were can getting into media markets, how they were going to supposedly portray

Secretary Clinton with, as you say SMM or the like, was there very

specifics on that?

A __ During that summer, | don't recall, in those PCs, getting specifics on
how they were going to gain access to the media markets. It wasn't discussion
about media buys or other avenues or anything like that. So not to that level of
specificity.

Q__ Did you ever learn any specifics on that? Not just the media markets,
but just the whole approach of with suggesting that Secretary Clinton might have
GEE when she doesn't and things like that, did you ever learn of the specifics
of how that was executed by the Russians?

A __ {don't recall discussions about those specifics, no.

Q Okay. And circling back with your clarification of your meeting then


there -- | just don't have a specific recollection.

Do you recall getting any information from Director Brennan on the issue
Director Comey had raised, that is, information that had come to his attention
indicating a link between the Russian effort and the campaign?

MS. LYNCH: No. | don't recall that coming from Director Brennan, no.

MR. SCHIFF: You mentioned a couple of occasions where you discussed
having a defensive briefing or giving a defensive briefing at the campaign. And if!
recall your testimony correctly, during those discussions, there was no ultimate
decision made to provide a defensive briefing.

What was the nature of the discussion, as you recall it, in terms of the pros
or cons of providing a briefing?

MS. LYNCH: Initially, when I was in the room with just myself, then
Director Comey, and Deputy Director McCabe, when they first brought the matter
to my attention, we raised the possibility of a defensive briefing to campaign, and |
don't recall the specificity of the language, but we all discussed the fact that it was
so preliminary that while that was certainly an option, we could not make that call
at that time because we didn't have much more to tell them.

And typically, when you provide a defensive briefing, you like to provide as
much context as possible so that people can be really alerted to concerns, and
they may also be able to provide information as well.

When the issue was raised again at the PC level later in the spring and

early summer, at the time it was director -- then Director Comey briefing the group,


85

information. So | can't tell you how long they had it.

Q__ So your response was to offer to allow the FBI to interview other
people in your office to see if they had made these representations on your behalf.
Is that correct?

A Well, my first response was to ask further questions about what
Deputy Director McCabe meant about sourcing issues and translation issues,
because it was unclear to me whether or not this was a total fabrication. Although
the information was a fabrication, | did not know whether or not someone had
generated a document that purported to say this. | mean, did a piece of paper
literally exist that purported to say this.

| did not know who the people were involved. The only name that was
familiar to me was Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. So | did not
know if there was -- if there was any connection to the person who purported to be

speaking to me and my office that should be of concern to me and/or the FBI.
ee

| asked questions about the translation, and they said, because it has gone
through, again, | thought one, and possibly two translations, and then Deputy
Director McCabe repeated that they felt the document had no investigative value,
they were not going to take any steps, they did not recommend that | take any

steps.


GE 4 the outset, we had several strands of thought, as | had mentioned.
One was to receive the information. During the course of the summer, Director
Brennan provided more specifics of the information.

MS. STEFANIK: Can you get into what those specifics were?

MS. LYNCH: Surely. But as | said, we had several strands. First was to

So over the course of the summer, we looked at those three main issues.

am sorry the fourth issue, and | am sorry about this, was -- and this is primarily at

So over the course of the

summer we got information about that as well. And that was also part of the
strand of discussion of what action should be taken and how should this
information be made public? How and what format, et cetera. So those were the
main issues that were under discussion at pretty much every PC or phone call that
we had. And sometimes these were longer meetings like over an hour,
sometimes they were shorter if it was just to update someone on -- update the
group on something.

With respect to Director Brennan's information, over the course really of the


and they are relying on someone else.

And | asked if Deputy Director McCabe wanted to either speak to or have
anyone from the Bureau speak to my staff, and | said | will make them available to
you up to and including myself, if that's something that you want to do.

An he said: No, | thank you for that offer, butno. We've determined that it
has no investigative value, and we're not going to be taking any steps with respect

to this. And he said: And we don't recommend that you do either.

MR. SCHIFF:

=
”
_
<
Zz
fe)
=

MR, SCHIFF:

| =
a
<
z
fe)
=


31

would have been every few weeks is my recollection. But! am not going to be
able to give you the dates, unfortunately.

HM, course. Madam Chairwoman?

MS. STEFANIK: Understanding that you can't give the dates, one of my
questions, which our counsel was getting at, you have talked about the briefing
you received in the early spring when you were made aware by Director Comey of
evidence regarding the counterintelligence investigation. You talked about the
Principals Committee in late spring, where it was considered whether a defensive
briefing should be presented to the Trump campaign. What other specific topics
were touched upon? Understanding that you can't get into the specifics of when
those PCs happened, whether they were phone calls or in person, what other
specific subject matters were discussed? Because that is a lot of specificity for
the first two. What was discussed? Summer, early fall? Can you expand upon
that?

MS. LYNCH: Yes. And there were several strands that were discussed
throughout at almost every PC. And my recollection is at the very first PC that we
had, which again | am thinking was late spring -- and again, | apologize for not
having that date -- but in addition to the FBI raising the information that they had
relayed to me, then director of the CIA, Director Brennan raised information,
although not with a great deal of specificity, about information that the CIA had
obtained -- and again without specificity as to how -- that the Russian Government
as an entity was interested in the 2016 Presidential election, or had an interest in
it, and was going to, and likely was already making attempts to try and have some

sort of influence there.


68

investigation and brought it over to the Department of Justice. Did the
Department of Justice ever open up a criminal investigation? Were there charges
brought? Were there entities found that there were responsible directly for that
hack at the DNC?

A Oh, you know, | don't recall if that was resolved before | left or not, with
charges. | just don't recall.

Q_ Okay. Fair enough.

A Let me just clarify. Are you asking did we ever charge anyone with
criminal responsibility for the DNC and DCCC hack; is that your question?

Q_ Yes, ma'am, thank you.

A Okay. | just want to be clear on that.

Q- No.

A __ {don't recall if we brought charges, thinking back to my time, before |
left the Department.

Q Do you recall either you or your designees making consideration or
recommendation of charges? Was that discussion ever had at your level or
below your level that you're aware of?

A Well, if -- it was not had in my level. | can't say whether it was had at
the specific case investigative level, which is where those discussions would have
begun.

Q_ Okay. Thank you, ma'am.

HES"! turn it over to my colleague,

MR. SCHIFF: | just had one or two more questions, and then | want to
pass it over to my staff.

You mentioned that Director Brennan had told you the Russians were intent


might be the need for electronic surveillance. Certainly there would be the need
for legal advice about the parameters of investigations, what is allowed, what is
not allowed. ;

These investigations typically are not part of criminal investigations. The
times when they overlap typically are the terrorism matters that we investigate.
And there | am drawing upon my experience as a United States attorney for the
Eastern District of New York. Because a number of our terrorism investigations
drew upon and received information from the Intelligence Community. There is a
process by which approval is sought to utilize information from the Intelligence
Community in a criminal terrorist investigation.

MS. STEFANIK: So you talk about the approval process. How does that
work in terms of making a decision to open a counterintelligence investigation?
Knowing that no two investigations are alike. But is there a set process and a set
of protocols in terms of is the Attorney General made aware? Is it the Deputy
Attorney General that is made aware? |s it within the National Security Division of
the Department of Justice?

MS. LYNCH: | would have to refer you to the U.S. Attorney's manual that
would speak to that, as well as to the FBI's manual. | wouldn't want to try and
give you chapter and verse without having reviewed those things, which | haven't
done, since that was not what | thought you wanted to focus on. But! do believe
that you would-be able to find within operational manuals those answers. | just
don't want to give you misinformation or inaccurate information.

MS. STEFANIK: Well, the reason | am asking is to tie it to the
counterintelligence investigation which falls under the scope of this regarding

Russia. Before | go to the specific, | want to ask is there a notification procedure


conjunction with the conversation that | had with then-Director Comey and Deputy
Director McCabe, we discussed what, if anything, to do with the information. And
they informed me that they intended to continue to see if further information
developed, but that one of the possibilities the three of us discussed was whether
or not to provide what is called a defensive briefing to the campaign, wherein there
would be a meeting with a senior person within the Trump campaign to alert them

to the fact that someone -- [III

It is not an uncommon thing to do both in intelligence matters as

well as in certain criminal investigation matters as well.

And we again discussed the possibility of a defensive briefing to the

campaign. | do not recall the timing, just because, again, | don't have any

specifics on that --


86

PF So | provided that information, that not only did |

not know the person involved and had not made the representations, if they
wanted to speak to my staff on the off chance that Mr. Renteria knew someone in
my office that had said something that got picked up and got sent through the

system, that they could eliminate that possibility also.

Thank you.
a

Q_ Ma'am, we just have a couple questions related to my colleague's
questions regarding this alleged document.

Did any of the communications alleged take place?
No, none that were attributed to me.

No.
Have you ever spoken with PY
No. [don't know

Q__ Have you ever had conversations remotely similar to what this alleged

> Oo > DO >

memo implied?

A No.

Q__ Did you discuss ever the FBI investigation into Secretary Clinton's
private email use with anyone at the Democratic National Committee?

A No.

Thank you.

MR. SCHIFF. | think we are concluded.


59

leading into the early fall.

MR. SCHIFF: Was there a concern that attribution itself or steps beyond
attribution would cause the Russians to escalate their actions?

MS. LYNCH: There was a discussion about that. But with respect to that,
that was a concern, but one -- but a larger concern and one that we spent a lot of
time talking about was not that it would cause Russia to accelerate its actions, but
if we revealed information or talked about the matter, would that in fact do Russia's
work for it?

You know, sometimes the view, for example, if there is some sort of
pandemic, when do you alert people to advise them but also avoid panic, that sort
of thing, by way of analogy. And so we did have a discussion, at least once,
maybe twice, about would we be actually furthering Russia's goal of sowing
distrust in the system by raising the issue.

But ultimately our view was that notifying the American public was too
important, and that we -- that you have to trust people, that people can sift through
these things, and regardless of what conclusion they come to, they need to have
that information as part of the sifting process.

MR. SCHIFF: I'm going to turn it over to my counsel at this point.

HE, «Vc can go off the record. | think we are actually out of
time.

MR. SCHIFF: Weare. Oh, okay. Would you like to take a break then
before we --

MS. LYNCH: I'mfine. Thank you. If you all do, it's fine, but I'm fine.

HT hank you, ma'am. We will now go to 15-minute rounds,

ma'am.


83

So, just so | have it straight, Deputy Director McCabe briefed you ona

a strat

correct?
A __ | would say yes, that would be accurate.

Q_ And he did not disclose, or you do not recall that he disclosed the

that time.
Q__ Did he disclose, or do you recall him disclosing that the ultimate

mo CC
EE | rt have that ecoiecton
Q_ Sohe just (iis And as far as what the

«00x

Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz and somebody else. Is that correct?

And since | didn't see it, | don't want to, you know, say a it

wasn't.

referencing a communication to which Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a party,

that communication to which she was a party referenced some communication

S's

correct?




89

answer with that degree of specificity.

Q__ So in other words, if | understand you correctly, there were such
allegations that were made, but as far as being able to attribute that, specifically to
this Russian effort, that is not attribution that you or perhaps even you recall
Director Brennan making in your time in office. Is that correct?

A _ Well, | would not be able to make the attribution, because | didn't have
access to the sourcing information, and | can't speak for Director Brennan.

Q_ My colleagues earlier asked about lessons learned, and you sort of
made reference to counterterrorism and, you know, that perhaps we should begin
thinking about counterintelligence and some of the ways that we have begun to
think about counterterrorism after September 11th.

Are there any particular -- beyond the possibility of a commission, are there
any particular structures or protocols that we currently employ in the
counterterrorism space that we ought to employ in the counterintelligence space?

A _ You know, | don't have specifics on that. | think one of the things that
we have done well in the counterterrorism world is to build structures that allow for
the sharing of information from the Intelligence Community on the terrorism issues
with the larger prosecutive community and then oftentimes with the public, and so,
| would look to those structures to see if, as we look at issues about the election,
they could be useful as well.

Q_ We have also talked about the investigation of the sort of cyberattack
on the Democratic National Committee and the regular briefings you received.
Could you characterize, sort of, as it was briefed to you, the degree and level of
cooperation of the DNC with that investigation?

A _ So initially when | first learned of the investigation, it was briefed up to


96

we certainly couldn't say with specificity, having had the vice-President-Elect make
certain representations that we knew not to be accurate was not a situation that
we wanted to place him in, quite frankly, or the incoming administration as they
made whatever choices they made going forward, and that we should devise a
way to provide that information.

| agreed with her decision to speak out, to speak with then Director Comey.
| advised her that if she needed me to make any calls, to let me know. | had
about 6 hours left in office at that time, but | was working until midnight, |
mean -- and everyone knew that. Whether or not she -- you know, we thought we
could, in fact, call someone on the transition team, for example, or someone
in -- incoming in, whether we would do it that night or not, | didn't have the view
that we would likely be making a call that evening, it was the day before the
inauguration, but we definitely had -- she and | definitely had the view that this was
information that the new administration needed soon.

Q__ Did you take any further action on this issue before leaving office
following that conversation?

A No. | asked her to let me know if she needed me to take any action,

and she said that she would. And so | did not hear from her before midnight.

Thank you.
a
Q__Ijust have one follow-up question, ma'am, in relation to a line of
questioning my colleagues from the minority asked about surveillance at Trump
Tower.
During your time as attorney general, was Paul Manaforte ever placed

under electronic surveillance while you were attorney general by the Department?


Q Were there any portions of the IC -- the ICA that you did not agree
with?

A No.

Q Okay. Fair enough.

And then, ma‘am, you raised the hacks of the political organizations, the
DNC hacking and whatnot. Do you recall how that was -- you said that
communique -- or that information was communicated to you about the same time,

and correct me if I'm wrong, as the Russia, quote, unquote, investigation?

|

And then over time, during discussions about that case, just as part of being
briefed about the status of cybersecurity issues in general, being informed that the
forensic view was that Russia was behind that as well.

But as | mentioned, the discussions about that case, while we raised it in
the PC as an issue, we didn't go into specifics at the PC because we keep the
criminal cases separate from the Intel matters.

Q_ Fair enough. And what information -- when you received the
information about the DNC hack, what information was presented to you about it? ,

A Myrecollection is that | was presented information over a series of
brief discussions that the Bureau had evidence that activity had occurred, intrusive
activity had occurred, and an investigation had begun, and they were going to be

looking to see -- looking into it. That's very general, and again, very preliminary.


39

later informed that it was likely attributed to the Russians.

MS. LYNCH: Correct. Yes.

MR. SCHIFF: And at the point you learned that the Russians were
involved in the hacking, was there a sense in those meetings that it was merely
the same kind of information gathering as in the past, or was there, by virtue of
other information coming from Director Brennan, the concern that this may be
different in kind?

MS. LYNCH: You know, | didn't discuss the hacking case with Director
Brennan. So | didn't get his views on it and didn't ask for his views on that.
Initially, | think the review or the investigation was to see what was going on.
What, if anything, had been exfiltrated from the DCCC and the DNC. When
documents began to be leaked, emails that were purporting to be from those
organizations, then | believe the investigation would have expanded to see what, if
anything, we could uncover about that. But again, that wasn't something that |

would have discussed with Director Brennan.

MR. SCHIFF:
|

MS. LYNCH: You know, what I would say is that with respect to the
discussions | had about the DCCC and DNC leak, those were separate from the
Trump campaign. When we discussed it at the PC, we discussed that case as
part of the efforts we were seeing, but we didn't get into specifics at the PC level
because it was being handled on the criminal side. But it was considered as part
of Russia's overall efforts | would say. And that is why it was brought up at the

PC level.


79

A __ | believe that | would have received it in document form as noted as
opposed to electronic, for example. | believe it looked very much like the ultimate
published version, although the published version was unclassified.

Q___Do you recall any differences between what you reviewed and the
version that was either published or briefed to the appropriate officials, not in terms
of classification level, but in terms of changes to the substance?

A __ With the exception of the removal of certain classified materials? Do
you mean anything beyond that?

Q_ Correct.

A | don't recall differences, and would have to have a comparative
review of the documents to be able to say one way or the other.

Q Understood. One thing that is notable about the ICA is how quickly it
was -- the time -- how quickly it was produced from when the review was publicly
announced by then-President Obama.

Did you have any role as a member of the Principals Committee in
determining the timeline for the ICA?

A Only in general discussions about the need to move quickly, because
it was something that -- because it was based upon information that had been
gathered and discussed and reviewed over the course of the summer, even
though information was continuing to come in, that it needed to be provided to the
American people in an expeditious way.

Q_ And with understanding there was a desire for sort of an accelerated
timeline, do you recall any particular discussions about the need to have this
document completed prior to President Obama leaving office on January 20th?

A Well, | wouldn't use the phrase "accelerated timeline," because that


MR. SCHIFF: The conversations you mentioned earlier with Director
Brennan, though, where he first alerted you to the Russians may be interested in
playing a role in the election, would that have taken place before or after the

attribution was made in terms of the DNC hack?

MS. LYNCH: | don't recall in time when it occurred relative to that event. |

just don't. | do remember that it would have been a few weeks after | had been

i | am not able to pin that down with specificity.



55

chief of staff, indicated that there was also a plan to try and get congressional
support and a congressional statement out.

Because the view was that this was certainly something worthy of the
President making an address to. But because it really went beyond just one
administration, just one party, that the best approach would be a bipartisan
statement about the dangers and alerting the American public.

And so | believe, over the course of one, if not two PCs that were very
close -- these were very close together -- we had discussions about, at the time |
believe it was going to be then Director Comey and Lisa Monaco. | don't know if
Jeh Johnson was involved, but having meetings with congressional leadership, the
so-called Gang of Eight, as has been termed, to brief them on what we knew to
date in a classified manner and to discuss -- and so these briefings were going to
be had.

And then | believe that the President was going to have a discussion with
congressional leadership and the ask was going to be a bipartisan document from
both the House and Senate to the American people raising these issues,
discussing it, saying this is a matter of grave concern, and that having it
be -- having it come from joint leadership would help alleviate the politization that
we feared would occur.

And my recollection is that there was a schedule set up. | was not involved
in the briefings, but it was reported to me that the briefings did take place and
that -- this, again, would have been late August, early September, that at the time,
| believe that Leader McConnell did not want to sign onto a draft after discussions
with the briefers and the President, expressed some concerns that even that

approach was a political one coming from the administration and that the staffers


28

this investigation at this time?

A As| described, the information that | received in the spring was
brought to my attention. But again, with respect to investigative techniques, those
were not, and nor would | expect them to be.

Q Okay. Fair enough. Are you aware how many FISAs were
authorized ultimately in relation to this investigation, how many were put before the
FISC? Do you have a ballpark number there?

A No.

Q_ Do you recall if you were briefed on -- because as FISC -- so the FISA
authorities are either 90- or 180-day extensions depending on who the person is
and the subject of the FISA. Do you recall being briefed over the course of those
re-approvals and reauthorizations?

A No. That would have only happened if | had been needed to actually
sign the document. And in instances when either the head of the National
Security Division or the deputy AG was not available, NSD would request time on
my calendar. | would then be briefed on whatever those FISAs were.

Sometimes they were original, sometimes they were renewals. But! don't recall
being briefed on FISAs involving this investigation that we are talking about today.

Q_ Okay. Thank you, | just have two more subject matters, ma'am, and
a few minutes to try to get through them. | am sure you have heard of the
company Fusion GPS either in press reporting or in your time as the Attorney
General. Were you ever briefed by or did you ever learn of the processes in
which by Fusion GPS and its employees and/or relationship with Christopher
Steele, that information they cultivated was utilized in a FISA application on an

American citizen?


58

discussions with specificity. | do know that right after the election, we began to
focus primarily on what should the response be subsequent to the President
speaking to Putin and the IC issuing their statement, and sanctions were
discussed at great detail then and ultimately proposed, | believe.

MR. SCHIFF: Was there a proposal to impose sanctions prior to the
election, and were there reasons why that was ruled out?

MS. LYNCH: I don't recall. | know there was discussion about it, but | just
cannot recall with specificity whether there was an actual proposal made.

MR. SCHIFF: You mentioned the concern that the administration had
about not wanting to be perceived as putting its hand on the scale. Were there
any other considerations that stayed the administration's hand from either making
attribution earlier or the level of response that the administration would take to
what the Russians were doing?

MS. LYNCH: The primary issue with respect to attribution was whether or
not the relevant intelligence agencies that were going to be tasked with signing off
on that all could have enough of a degree of certitude to make the assertion. And
because there was different -- and we discussed this also. Because there was
different sourcing of different information, different agencies would say to their
colleagues, you know, | believe you, but the information that | have would only let
me come to a certain level of certainty, and we all want to be at a higher level of
certainty.

So how do we provide information or have discussions that would allow us
all to have enough of a degree of certitude, | should say, to make the attribution
that it was in fact Russia.

That was a significant part of the discussions in the summer, as well,


67

And then over the course of subsequent weeks, being told that the forensic
analysis indicated that it was likely a Russian actor behind that particular hack.
And again, that case just proceeded at pace.

Q__ Did the Department of Justice, after you were made aware of that
information, they ever open up a criminal investigation, a Cl investigation, or what
have you, on the DNC hack?

A Well, as | mentioned, the investigation of the DNC hack was opened
when -- had been opened when the Bureau informed me that they were
investigating it in conjunction with the Department of Justice in the general sense.
That there had been this hack -- that there had been intrusive activity, | should
say, and that the Bureau and our cyber department were going to be conducting
an investigation. So that was presented tome as: This is what we have begun.

So -- and then later on, again, just as a report, that the forensic analysis
had revealed Russian activity. ,

Q_ And then what did the -- | should narrow my question better for you,
ma'am. What did the Department of Justice, not the FBI, end up doing with that
information and that investigation as it relates to the DNC hack while you were
Attorney General?

A What did the Department of Justice, not the FBI do?

Q What was the decision or the result of the investigation that was
undertaken by the Department of Justice, once the FBI brought that information to
you, that the DNC had been hacked by Russian entities, what was the end result
there?

A Well, the FBI is the Department of Justice.

Q__ That's what I'm trying to delineate. | know they opened the


reporter making a record of these proceedings so we can easily consult a written
compilation of your answers. Because the reporter cannot record gestures, we as
that you answer verbally. If you forget to do this, you might be reminded to do so.
You may also be asked to spell certain terms or unusual phrases.

Consistent with the committee's rules of procedure, you and your counsel,
upon request will have a reasonable opportunity to inspect a transcript of this
interview in order to determine whether your answers were correctly transcribed.
The transcript will remain in the committee's custody. The committee also
reserves the right to request your return for additional questions should need arise.

The process for the interview is as follows: The majority will be given
45 minutes to ask questions. Then the minority will be given 45 minutes to ask
questions. Immediately thereafter, we will take a 5-minute break if you wish, after
which time the majority will be given 15 minutes to ask questions, and the minority
will be given 15 minutes to ask questions. And those rounds will continue until
questioning is complete. However, these time limits for the rounds will be strictly
adhered to by all sides, with no extensions being granted. Time will be kept for
each portion of the interview, with warnings given at the 5- and 1-minute mark
respectively. | willdoso. | apologize in advance for interrupting any question or
answer period, but we just want to stay on time.

To ensure confidentiality, we ask that you do not discuss the interview with
anyone other than your attorney. You are reminded that it is unlawful to
deliberately provide false information to Members of Congress or staff.

Lastly, the record will reflect that you are voluntarily participating in this
interview, which will be under oath.

Madam Attorney General if you would raise your right hand to be sworn.


i


the principals group and saying that we were still considering a defensive briefing.
| think, again, my recollection is that one of the issues that was raised at that time
was trying to determine who would be given that kind of defensive briefing.

And my recollection is it was because at the time staffing at the Trump
campaign was changing a great deal in terms of the leadership of the campaign,
and so it was unclear who would be the person to whom you would give that
briefing, and so that was one of the issues raised, but it wouldn't have been the
only issue under consideration.

MR. SCHIFF: Was there concern, in terms of the defensive briefing, that
individuals that you might give the defensive briefing to might be implicated in the
case, for example, Mr. Manafort, who became the campaign manager?

MS. LYNCH: We did not have that specific discussion about Mr. Manafort,
but that is always a concern with defensive briefings. And so we did not have a
specific discussion along the lines of we're concerned that Mr. Manafort might not
be the person. | don't recall that level of specificity.

But | do recall then Director Comey saying that one of the concerns was to
whom would the briefing be given, and we did not have, at the PC level, at that
time, a lot of discussion about specific people and problems they might impose,

but the concern you raise is always a concern.

MR. SCHIFF: (Ss
MS. LYNCH: Not to my recollection, no.

MR. SCHIFF: The Clinton email investigation is beyond the scope of our


it over to my colleague.

On March 2 of this year -- so this would be after you left the
administration -- Attorney General Sessions recused himself from the FBI
investigation after facing criticism for undisclosed contacts, meetings with the
Russian Ambassador during the election season.

Do you recall his recusal?

A __ |recall the press reports about it.

Q Would Senator Sessions’ meetings with the Russian Ambassador
during the election amount to contacts between a senior Russian official and a
senior adviser to the Trump campaign?

A You know, | don't have enough information to come to that conclusion
in terms of the --

Q__ If those meetings took place, would those conversations be of interest
to the FBI and their investigation?

A Well, when you say "of interest," | think when we look -- when -- let me

back up a minute. I'm sorry for not giving you a complete response.

And so I'm not able to draw that -- draw a conclusion one way or the other
about the nature of those contacts to say -- to describe or characterize them in

response to your question.


15

But before the election, my recollection is it was primarily Director Comey.
And | don't recall the names of -- well, Admiral Rogers from NSA. And if there
was ever anyone who sat in for him, | don't recall the name of that person. And |
also don't recall if this is an exhaustive list.

MS. STEFANIK: So the spring of 2016, was there a process to notify
Congress or congressional leadership or, you know, the ranking member and the
majority chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the Speaker of the House,
the majority leader -- | am sorry, Leader Pelosi? Was there a process to notify
leadership of this counterintelligence investigation?

MS. LYNCH: You know, again, | would have to refer you back to the
procedures that were present within FBI and DOJ at that time. And since | am not
there, | don't have access to those materials, so | wouldn't want to speculate.

MS. STEFANIK: Butdo you recall? | mean at that time you were
Attorney General. Was there a congressional notification process for this
investigation?

MS. LYNCH: Again, | would have to refer you back to the procedures that
were in place at that time. | think that is going to be the most accurate description
of how any information would have been provided.

MS. STEFANIK: And you don't recall those procedures? What are those
typical procedures?

MS. LYNCH: Again, | am not in that capacity right now, so it is not
something that is within my recollection at this time.

MS. STEFANIK: Okay. Turning to the dossier, which has been in the
news quite a bit, were you involved in the decision to brief the President-Elect on

January 6th on the existence of the dossier?


s7

And then with respect to the October statement, we discussed who should
be the source, and we felt that the Intelligence Community, you know, which
comprised a number of agencies, and then also DHS had the information and
would be seen as more objective. There was concern that, again, overtures
directly from -- and | don't want to say the President being him alone, but there
was a concern that -- and | believe this discussion was had at the PC level after
the briefings on the Hill and the response that came back about the view
that -- and in conjunction with Secretary Johnson's report back to us that his desire
to designate State systems as critical infrastructure had been described as some
sort of Federal takeover of the State process.

So it was concerning. That was very concerning. And so | believe that
played into it. | wasn't privy to the discussions with the President about what he
would say to Viadimir Putin or whether or not he would speak publicly, so | don't
have insight into that, beyond that.

MR. SCHIFF: Was there a discussion about whether to impose sanctions
at that time over the Russian activity or take other steps as a deterrent to further
Russian interference?

MS. LYNCH: The discussion about sanctions was an ongoing one
because in response to previous Russian cyber activity, there were a number of
entities that we had been considering imposing sanctions on for some time. That
discussion was primarily led by Treasury Secretary Lu and also Secretary of the
State Kerry, but | was present for some of the those discussions at earlier PCs
unrelated to this.

We did have discussions again prior to the election about whether or not

sanctions would be an appropriate response as well, and | don't recall those


63

But during your time as Attorney General, did you come across any specific
information that would show that the Russian Government and/or its affiliates had
any coordinated activities with any members of the Trump campaign or the Trump
campaign for President?

A Well, certainly the information that | was given in thei
was concerning to me and indicated that there was a goal to have coordinated
activity.

But | do want to be clear that there's certainly -- my view was that that was
the beginning of the inquiry, and so | would not have been making a determination
with finality at that point in time about this is this or the other thing.

But certainly | thought that the information conveyed to me in the
|| was concerning and was troubling and was leaning in that direction.

Q_ Sure. And so that information, you said, sort of outlined the basis that
that was a goal from the sort of -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- from the Russian
perspective of things?

A Yes.

Q__ That their goal was to establish a relationship with folks that may or
may not be involved directly or indirectly with the Trump campaign.

Then my followup question, ma'am, is: During your tenure as AG, going
through the spring and summer of
2016, all the way up until 2017, did you come across any information that would
show an actual coordinated effort between the Russian Government and their
affiliates and the Trump campaign and his affiliates?

A Yeah. | don't recall anything being briefed up to me, and it's just my

recollection at this point is not.


7

A Well, again, | think there would be specific procedures in place. The
process that you have outlined could be one way of doing that. Also, you could
have a situation where information in an ongoing case could reveal something that
could lead to the view that it needed to be reviewed. And it could go the other
way as well.

Q_ And that is fair. So my question is obviously only we want to bookend
it with your time as Attorney General. Could you just give us those dates real
quick, approximate dates that you served as the Nation's number one law
enforcement officer?

A ___| was confirmed in April of 2015, and | served until January -- the end
of the -- | think it was end of January 19th. The inauguration | believe was the
20th.

Q__|understand.

A Yes. 2017, 1am sorry.

Q__ With counterintelligence investigations under your leadership, was it
the practice of the FBI and then-Director Comey to notify the National Security
Division and/or your designees within the Department of Justice that they had
obtained information regarding a matter and that matter needed to be pursued
further?

A Well certainly that would have been one way. | can't tell you -- | can't
cabinet as to the only method in which an investigation would have been begun.

Q_ Okay.

A And again, | am sorry to cut you off, | apologize for that, is | don't want
to give you the impression that there is only one linear way in which things as

diffuse and diverse as counterintelligence matters are handled. And that is why |


HR, ight let's begin. Thanks to all. Good morning. This is
a transcribed interview of Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Thank you for
speaking to us today.

For the record, | am ES IMI for the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence for the majority. Also present are a number of
members and staff who will introduce you as they speak.

Before we begin, | want to state a few things for the record. The
questioning will be conducted by members and staff. During the course of this
interview, members and staff may ask questions during their allotted time period.
Some questions may seem basic, but that is because we need to clearly establish
facts and understand the situation. Please do not assume we know any facts you
have previously disclosed as part of any other investigation or review.

The interview will be conducted at the Top Secret SCI level. During the
course of this interview, we will take any breaks that you desire. We ask that you
give complete and fulsome replies to questions based on your best recollections.
If a question is unclear or you are uncertain in your response, please let us know.
And if you do not know the answer to a question or cannot remember, simply say
so. You are entitled to have counsel present for you for this interview, though you
are not required to do so. | see that you have brought counsel with you.

For the record, would counsel please state their names for the record.

MR. WELLS: Theodore V. Wells, Junior.

MR. TARLOWE: Richard Tarlowe.

MR. LERER: Justin Lerer.

HR, Thank you. The interview will be transcribed. There is a


aware that there had been a break-in and there was an investigation to determine
who was responsible or at the point you found out the attribution had already been

made?

MS. LYNCH:

ee
ee
|

MR. SCHIFF: And at the point that you first learned that it was a Russian
source that was involved in the hacking of the computers, was it the sense of the
principals that this was an information gathering operation or was there a
suspicion that the information might later be dumped or weaponized?

MS. LYNCH: Well, just to be accurate, this wasn't discussed at Principals
Meetings. This would have been discussed within DOJ leadership meetings,
because it was kept separate from the intelligence side of the house, so to speak.
And so my recollection is that initially | was informed of the attempted hacking and
the case that we were opening -- the investigation we were opening into that.

And then later --
MR. SCHIFF: Do you recall when that would have been?
MS. LYNCH: | don't recall with specificity. | am sorry. | do know that it

was And as | think back, | am just not able to peg it to a

specific event. So |! don't have a recollection as to that. And that then -- in fact, |

think it may have been TS but | don't have a

specific recollection.

MR. SCHIFF: So you were initially informed of the break-in. You were


80

implies that there is already a timeline and we changed it. So this was a very
unique sui generis situation. So | wouldn't say accelerated, again, because --

Q__ Understood.

A _ And | just don't want to, you know, mischaracterize it.

Q_ Soletme rephrase: With respect to the desire to produce this
document quickly, do you recall any particular discussions to have it finished prior
to January 20th?

A Notwith specificity. | just don't recall. | can't say whether there were
or there weren't. Certainly for it to have been issued by the Obama
administration, it would have to be, but beyond that, | don't recall with specificity.

Q_ Our understanding is that the ICA was briefed personally to President
Obama on or about January 5th, 2017. Were you present for that briefing?

A __ No, | was not present for that.

Q_ Was DOJ represented at that briefing?

A | donot know. | just don't recall if the FBI would have participated or
not. | just don't have that recollection.

Q__ Did DOJ send any representatives to brief then-President-Elect Trump
on this document on January 6th, 2017?

A __ | just don't have a recollection to any degree of specificity.

Q_ Understood. | wanted to follow up a little bit on Carter Page, who has
been discussed previously.

Going back to the [iis
to Mr. Page [I 0

had mentioned that he was characterized as somehow being affiliated with the

Trump campaign. Do you recall, sort of precisely how he or his role, vis-a-vis the


26

FISA application to the FISC in relation to this subject matter?

A You know, | don't have a recollection of signing that. And again, you
would have to look at whatever documents exist to see whether -- if a FISA
warrant was requested, whether it was signed by myself, the deputy, or the head
of the National Security Division. But as | sit here today, | don't have a
recollection of being briefed and having a presentation to sign that.

Q_ Were you made aware of, at any point in time, because as we now
know there was in fact a FISA issued by the FISC, were you made aware of that
timeline that this was occurring while were you Attorney General, that this
investigation was ongoing? Were you kept up to speed about the ongoings of the
FISA and the FISC orders?

A No. And | typically would not be. In terms of the various
investigative techniques that are done within an investigation, they wouldn't have
to be briefed to the Attorney General.

Q_ Sure. And in this instance, just so we are clear, in this instance with
the Russia investigation, they were not briefed to you as the Attorney General?

A __ | don't have a recollection that they were.

Q_ Okay. Do you have a recollection that once this investigation came in
you delegated it down to then-AAG John Carlin or then-DAG Sally Yates?

A When the investigation came in?

Q_ When the investigation came into the Department of Justice and then
FISA applications were sought and then ultimately presented to the FISC, did you
delegate the authority or the supervision of this investigation from the
Department's perspective to DAG Yates or AAG John Carlin?

A __ Again, | think the construct of your question is a little difficult because,


For the PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE:

FOR LORETTA LYNCH:

THEODORE V. WELLS JR, ESQ.,

RICHARD C. TARLOWE, ESQ.,

JUSTIN D. LERER, ESQ.,

PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON, & GARRISON, LLP
1285 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019


95

A __ It wasn't myself, DAG Yates, and others. It was just myself and
Deputy AG Yates, and she said that she had been having discussions with, |
believe, it was the deputy director of the CIA, but, again, | am not exactly sure
whether it might have been someone else at the CIA, for example, but --

Q_ So deputy director of the CIA, or that person from the CIA wasn't in the
meeting. She was relaying to you --

A That is correct.

Q__ -discussions that she had had with a high ranking official at the CIA?

A Yes. That is correct; about the timing of being able to notify the
incoming administration of the concerns that we had over the information that
Vice-President-Elect Pence had and was stating publicly and the actual facts,
given the specific nature of this.

Because the FBI was looking into General Flynn's contacts with
Ambassador Kislyak, at that time, certainly on the 19th, my understanding was
that the investigation was not over at that time. | do not believe that General
Flynn had been interviewed, and | believe that DAG Yates told me that had not
been interviewed and | think | knew that in general.

And she relayed to me that the FBI had expressed a concern about
essentially alerting General Flynn to the investigation prematurely. And so she
indicated that she was going to call then Director Comey and initiate discussions
about where the investigation was and essentially when could they provide the
information to the incoming administration.

Q__ Did you provide her any feedback or recommendations with respect to
that course of action?

A __ | thought it was the appropriate course of action. | felt that although


MS. LYNCH:

MR. SCHIFF:

MS. LYNCH: Uh-huh.

MR. SCHIFF: Did you ever receive any further information during your

MS. LYNCH: No, I did not receive any information about it.

MR. SCHIFF: | want to turn to the point where you and other members of
the administration began discussing what action to take in response to what the
Russians were doing.

Do you recall when you had the first discussions, and in what form would
that have been?

MS.LYNCH: Those first discussions would have been at the PC level, and
they would be in the | after we had received -- | do recall that they occurred
after we had received at least two briefings from Director Brennan, because the
first briefing from then Director Brennan was more general, and the second one

gave more specifics about the attempts that Russia was planning to start utilizing.


7

And there may have been one other that | can't recall right now in terms of

And my recollection is

that it wa

And while that was mentioned as something that

was being reviewed, it was not part of the PC discussion. However, it is
something that from DOJ's perspective would be considered part of an
investigation into Russian attempts to somehow impact something that was going
on during the campaign. That is why | raised it, so you have that information was
well. But again it wasn't part of the PC's.

MS. STEFANIK: Our time has expired.

MR. SCHIFF: Madam Attorney General, thank you for coming in, and
thank you for your service to the country.

MS. LYNCH: Good morning. Thank you.


43

would not have come to the Attorney General for that.

MR. SCHIFF: Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for
President?

MS. LYNCH: No. And | can't recall if it was discussed or not. | just don't
have a recollection of that in the meetings that | had with him.

MR. SCHIFF: At some point, did you become aware that he had opened
the counterintelligence investigation?

MS. LYNCH: Certainly it was my view that there was one, so it certainly
was not something that | viewed as unusual or even inappropriate. |
thought -- my view certainly was that it warranted -- the information that | had been
given warranted a counterintelligence investigation. So it did not — it would not
have surprised me had that been relayed to me.

| don't have a recollection of it being relayed to me, though.

MR. SCHIFF: Were there other times, during your tenure as AG, after that
initial conversation with Director Comey, where he shared other information that
may have been uncovered in the counterintelligence investigation, other
GE © other evidence that had been uncovered to keep you apprised of
developments in the case?

MS. LYNCH: | can't recall with specificity any further updates from Director
Comey. | do know that from the discussions we were having at the PC level, that
GEE anc | believe they may have been having discussions, but | wouldn't
have been privy to them, and so | don't have any direct knowledge of that in terms
of learning the larger scope of it.

So | don't have a specific recollection of any further briefings, but again,


93

phone call between then National Security Advisor designate Flynn and then
Ambassador to the United States from Russia Kislyak?

A __ Yes, | was aware of those press reports.

Q_ And during your time as AG, were you made aware of information
concerning the call itself?

A __ During my time as AG, toward the very end of my time as AG, | was
made aware of more specifics about the call.

Q___Do you happen to recall --

A | don't recall if there was one call or more than one. | don't recall.

HE S's it okay if | finish on this and then turn it over?

| Please, finish this.
an

Q_ And do you happen to recall when that was?

A Well, | recall having a discussion with Deputy AG Yates on the 19th of
January, and the issue we were discussing -- she had brought to my attention was
that she was going to be reaching out to then Director Comey and initiating a
discussion between Director Comey and | believe the deputy director of the CIA,
but | don't recall with specificity that person's name right now. And the issue we
were discussing was, due to information that had been received in the course of
an investigative nature about these phone calls, that information conflicted
with what then Vice-President-Elect Pence reported about the calls publicly, and
the concern that we had that the incoming administration needed to be aware of
this information so that they could do what they chose with it.

Q Understood. Do you recall whether or not you were made aware of

the calls between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak before or after such


29

A {don't have any information on Fusion GPS, so | would say no.

Q Okay. So during no point in the investigation under your leadership
as Attorney General you had any information on Fusion GPS?

A __ |don't have a recollection of anyone bringing that to me. But again,
this is my recollection as | sit here today, but | don't have a recollection of being
briefed on matters involving Fusion GPS.

Q_ Sure. And would the same answer be for forme
Christopher Steele, who is widely reported to in public reporting to have created
the so-called Trump dossier and the salacious allegations therein? Was any of
that information utilized in a FISA application for an American citizen under your
leadership as Attorney General?

A You know, | don't have any recollection of being briefed on any
matters involved Mr. Steele in terms of things that were brought to my attention.
And so since | did not review and wasn't briefed on the FISA applications that may
or may not have been authorized in this case, | am not able to speak to the
information contained in them.

Q_ Okay. And did then-Director Comey and Deputy Director McCabe or
any other representatives of the United States Government ever brief you or
provide you with information as to the relationship between the United States
Government as a whole and Fusion GPS and/or Christopher Steele?

A __ |don't have a recollection of briefings on Fusion GPS or Mr. Steele.

Q_ So you have no knowledge, as you sit here today, during your time as
Attorney General that the United States Government had a relationship with
Fusion GPS or Christopher Steele?

A | don't have any information on that and | don't have a recollection of


94

calls were referenced in a Washington Post article on or about January 12th of
2017?

A __ | cannot recall when | learned of the calls in terms of them being
mentioned to me in my official capacity relative to that article. | recall the press
about it and | accept that that is the date, and | just can't remember whether it was
shortly before or shortly after. | just don't have that specific a recollection of it.

Q_ And do you remember who first told you about the existence or
content of these calls?

A |donot. | recall the discussion | had with then DAG Yates on the
19th about how to handle the information subsequent to, as | mentioned,
Vice-President-Elect Pence's assertions and just how to handle that within the
Intelligence Community, you know, could the information be disclosed, or were we
ready, you know, in terms of protecting the integrity of any investigations, but
| -- and | had heard of the information prior to that, | had received information
about it, but | can't recall with specificity when. | can place it in January, but
unfortunately, | am just not able to place it with specificity around that article.

Q_ And do you have any idea how the author of that article, David
Ignatius (ph.), learned about these calls?

A No.

Q_ And when you had this discussion with Deputy Attorney General Yates
and others on January 19th, and in light of the comments that Vice-President-Elect
Pence had made, | believe, a few days prior, what was your -- did you offer a
recommendation as to what action you thought should be taken?

A Well, it was just myself and DAG Yates.

Q_ Okay.


13

National Security Division, as long as the head of the National Security Division
has been Senate confirmed.

So if for example there is a situation where the head of the NSD, as we call
it, were to depart, if the person who took over is acting, were not confirmed to that
position, that person would not be signing the FISAs, just by way of example.

MS. STEFANIK: At the beginning you talked about how there are different
processes and procedures for opening a counterintelligence investigation. To
your knowledge, were there any different ways in which the opening of the
counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia differed from other examples
within the Department of Justice?

MS. LYNCH: You know, in my role as Attorney General, those matters
wouldn't have been brought to me, so | am not able to respond to that question.

MS. STEFANIK: Did the FBI request FISA authorization from the
Department of Justice, or is that something that you had delegated to the National
Security Division or the Deputy Attorney General in this particular case regarding
the Russia investigation?

MS. LYNCH: Can you give me some context? When you say did they
request FISA authorization for --

MS. STEFAN(K:
OOOO
FS

MS. LYNCH: (TS
O—SCSCSSSSCs
Es There is a number of ways in

which information is provided. So | don't have that information for you.


possible activities that may or may not have occurred between the Russians and
the Trump campaign for President.

Did you ever receive any specific information as Attorney General to show
that there was a demonstrable level of collusion between the Russian Government
and its affiliates and Trump and Trump candidacy for President?

A You know, | think that -- again, | was not asked to draw that

conclusion, and so | would not have done that level of analysis. fT

But at that time, you know, you would not have been looking to draw a legal
conclusion at that point in time because you were still seeing things happen. Sol
don't think that you would be able to say -- you certainly should not say: My legal
conclusion in the middle of this is X. You certainly may have a view or a concern,
but | would not have drawn that legal conclusion because things were still
occurring.

Q_ And did you ever draw a legal conclusion, taking you up to January 19,
2017, on the matter?

A Well, certainly | agreed with the Intelligence Community assessment.
Based on everything that had been presented to me, | agreed with the assessment
that came out in October, | agreed with the assessment that was released in |
think early January. | agreed with those conclusions, and they were -- they were
based on things that had been presented to me in the PCs, and | thought that they

were well founded conclusions and concerns,


Trump campaign was described to you at that time?

A | don't recall the description. | think | knew from press reports that he
was affiliated with it, but | could not tell you with specificity. 1 would have to defer
you to the campaign, actually.

Q___ But in terms of whether he was characterized as having a senior role
or a junior role or what his portfolio was, or anything along those lines, you don't
recall anything specific that was briefed to you about that?

A __ |don't recall specifics as to that.

Q_ When Mr. Page's name came up, was there any reference made to
any past relationship that he might have had with DOJ or FBI?

A __ | do not recall that being briefed up to me, and | just don't recall with
specificity. And | don't want to let, you know, subsequent press reports influence
my memory. | just want to think about what | remember from that time period.

Q___Do you recall anything specific you were briefed on relating to past FBI
interviews of Mr. Page?

A |don't have a recollection as to that briefing, no.

Q_ Do you have any recollection of being briefed on Mr. Page's
eee
_

A __ | just don't recall if my conversation went into that level of specificity in
the spring.

Q__ If you had known -- well, you mentioned earlier the topic or possibility
of providing a defensive briefing with respect to Mr. Page. If, at the time, you had

been briefed that Mr. Pag:


One of the things we -- so we discussed several things. We discussed
whether or not if we saw cyber activity directed at systems within the U.S., either
political parties or campaigns, we also, as part of the briefings, received
information that cyber activity had been directed against campaigns in previous

presidential years as well, that this was something that the Intelligence Community

was aware of.

But we also considered how and in what format we should make


53
7

administration, did not want to appear to be putting our thumb on the scale for
either candidate, and the concern that actions that we took could be taken in that
light and what's the best way to provide the information so people can take it into
account as objectively as possible.

We talked about, you know, essentially having some sort of document
released on behalf of the administration that would talk about Russian attempts to
influence the election. Ultimately, we did that in October.

There were a lot of discussions about how much information could be

placed in a document for the general public.

MR. SCHIFF: It became pretty clear in na the Russians
were doing this and that -- and this was being ordered by Putin.

What accounted for the delay (NN and the October
attribution? Why wasn't attribution made earlier, and why was a decision made to

put it ina memo rather than have the President speak to the country about it?

MS. LYNCH:

/

But that the agency was working to find ways to -- you know, you look to

find the information in other places.
7



97

A __ | don't have any information, so | am not able to answer with
specificity.

Q__ So you say you don't know if he was or wasn't?

A |donotknow. I donot know. It wouldn't necessarily have come to
my attention.

HS That is it, ma'am. | greatly appreciate your time today. It
was a pleasure speaking with you.

MS. LYNCH: All right. Thank you all.

[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the interview was concluded.]


16

MS. LYNCH: No, | was not involved in that decision.

MS. STEFANIK: Okay. Are you aware of who paid for it, or what role did
the Department of Justice have regarding the decision to pursue the dossier?

MS. LYNCH: To pursue it?

MS. STEFANIK: To either pay for it or -- obviously, this was something
that the FBI Director briefed the President-Elect on. Was the Department of
Justice involved in that decision-making process to either brief the President or
treat it as a piece of intelligence?

MS. LYNCH: | was not involved in the decision, so | am not able to speak
to anyone else that the then-director might have spoken to about it.

EXAMINATION:
oY a

Q_ Good morning, Madam Attorney General. Nice to see you again.

A Good morning.

Q___| would like to just circle back real quick to Chairwoman Stefanik's line
of questioning regarding how counterintelligence investigations are opened.
While | understand that information regarding a counterintelligence investigation
can come from any number of areas or sources or what have you, the FBI picks
up that information and brings it to the attention of the National Security Division of
the Department of Justice. Is that not correct?

A _ Are you referring to the opening of the counterintelligence investigation
within the FBI?

Q No. Once the FBI opens it, in order to connect the FBI with the
Department of Justice and the attorneys of the counterespionage section of the

National Security Division, what is the process by which that bridge is gapped?