During a conversation held Wednesday night on the invite-only Clubhouse app—an audio social network popular with venture capitalists and celebrities—entrepreneur Balaji Srinivasan , several Andreessen Horowitz venture capitalists , and , for some reason , television personality Roland Martin spent at least an hour talking about how journalists have too much power to `` cancel '' people and wondering what they , the titans of Silicon Valley , could do about it .\nThe call shows how Silicon Valley millionaires , who have been coddled by the press and lauded as innovators and disruptors , fundamentally misunderstand the role of journalism the moment it turns a critical eye to their industry . It also suggests they ’ re eager to find new ways to hit back at what they see as unfavorable and unfair press coverage .\nMotherboard obtained a recording of the conversation , which took place on Clubhouse , an app which as of late May had just 1,500 users . The app was valued at $ 100 million after a reported $ 12 million investment from Andreessen Horowitz , and requires an invite to join . In May , New York Times internet culture reporter Taylor Lorenz wrote that the app is `` where venture capitalists have gathered to mingle with one another while they are quarantined in their homes . ''\n`` Sometimes there is a tarot card reader critiquing a member ’ s Instagram account ; sometimes it is a dating advice show ; sometimes bored people sound off about anything that pops into their mind , '' she wrote .\nOn Wednesday night , the topic of conversation was Lorenz herself , who had been listening earlier in the conversation but left partway through . After she left , the participants began discussing whether Lorenz was playing `` the woman card '' when speaking out about her harassment following a Twitter altercation with Srinivasan .\n`` You ca n't fucking hit somebody , attack them and just say , 'Hey , I have ovaries and therefore , you ca n't fight back , ' '' Felicia Horowitz , founder of the Horowitz Family Foundation and wife of Andreessen Horowitz cofounder Ben Horowitz , said .\nIn recent days Lorenz , who criticized luggage startup Away co-CEO Steph Korey on Twitter Wednesday , has been harassed and impersonated on Twitter .\nOn the call , Srinivasan suggested that Lorenz—who earlier in the day had accused him on Twitter of `` constantly trying to destroy my career on the internet and in private '' —was overreacting and that she was perhaps scared of him , and that this was why she left the conversation that night on Clubhouse .\n`` Is Taylor afraid of a brown man on the street ? Then she should n't be afraid of a brown man in Clubhouse , '' Srinivasan said . `` I have literally done nothing other than one previous tweet . Number one , right ? So the whole , you know , talking about tweeting as you know , harassment—completely illegitimate , completely wrong , completely fabricated and just false . ''\nThe audio chat had spiraled wildly out of control from a broader conversation earlier in the call about the state of journalism and what VCs should do to receive better coverage . Srinivasan , formerly a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz , claimed that `` the entire tech press was complicit in covering up the threat of COVID-19 , '' and claimed that relying on the press is `` outsourcing your information supply chain to folks who are disaligned with you , '' comparable to the United States having outsourced its medical supply chain . He proposed that the approaches to truth and accountability offered by GitHub , venture capital funding , and cryptocurrency all offer better models for journalism than `` the East Coast model of 'Respect my authori-tay . ' ''\nWhen asked for comment about the Clubhouse chat , Srinivasan screenshotted our request and tweeted about it .\n`` When it comes to our industry , there ’ s a really , really toxic dynamic that exists right now , '' Nait Jones , an Andreessen Horowitz VC , said on the call while speaking about recent reports about abuse in the tech industry . `` Because those stories were so popular and drove so much traffic , they also created a market for more of those stories . They created a pressure on many reporters to find the next one of those stories inside of a fast growing tech company because those stories play very well on Twitter , especially around protecting vulnerable people . ''\n( In 2020 , the idea that fishing for “ clicks ” to drive ad revenue is a successful or even common business model is a fallacy . Publications that rely exclusively on advertising are failing at an astonishing rate ; financially , many journalistic outlets are increasingly moving away from an ad-based revenue model driven by traffic , and instead focus on live events , subscriptions , optioning their articles to movie studios , and other models that rely on having a dedicated readership that trusts the publication ) .\nThe exclusive users of Clubhouse on the call seemed to conceive of themselves as humble citizens preyed upon by corrupted elites cravenly lusting after money and power ; this reached a bizarre apogee when Srinivasan boasted of standing up for the CEO of a scandal-plagued luggage brand , depicting her as all but powerless because of her relatively low Twitter follower count . The conversation essentially resembled a Gamergate chat , with people obsessing over minute drama and , at times , suggesting that Lorenz had crossed a line on Twitter and must be punished .\n`` How can there be an accountability function that 's implementable across all media that allows for that to happen , that pushback to happen without it being turned around and can become some toxic thing where all types of power dynamics are being used , and people have their weapons out , '' Jones said .\n`` Her employer should be saying , you cross the line with your editorial comments , '' Martin said , adding that `` If I 'm [ Srinivasan ] , the argument that I would make to her bosses is you should be instructing your reporters not to be making editorial judgments about someone . Stick to reporting . ''\n“ Taylor is an excellent reporter doing incredibly relevant reporting for this moment . She , and all reporters , should be able to do their jobs without facing harassment , ” Choire Sicha , editor of the NYTimes Styles desk , told Motherboard in an email .\nClubhouse founders Rothan Seth and Paul Davison did n't respond to a request for comment . Jones did not respond to a request for comment . Andreessen Horowitz declined to comment .\nThe conversation was set off by a series of exhausting , insidery events from the last two weeks . Some in the Silicon Valley set turned their sights on the Times after Scott Alexander , a psychiatrist who ran the philosophy blog SlateStarCodex , deleted the entire blog because he said the Times was going to `` dox '' him by publishing his real name in an upcoming story . ( It is worth noting that Alexander has republished SlateStarCodex blogs in books using his full name . ) This event resurfaced an ongoing and tedious discussion among venture capitalist types about journalism ethics , business models , and publishing incentives .\nWednesday , Korey , the co-CEO of Away , a direct to consumer luggage brand that was the subject of an expose in The Verge last year , published a series of Instagram Story posts in which she suggested that she was unfairly targeted by The Verge in part because she is a woman . She also said that journalists should be easier to sue , and suggested that the main thing driving journalism is `` clicks . '' The Verge story focused on a culture of abuse at Away under Korey 's leadership ; workers there said they were prevented from taking vacation , were banned from emailing each other , and worked extremely long hours .\nWhile Korey ’ s Instagram comments were a supposed critique of the journalism industry , they looked at times a lot more like a claim that The Verge story was unfair or inaccurate in ways she didn ’ t actually address .\nAfter Korey posted her stories on Instagram , a number of journalists commented on them , including Lorenz , who tweeted `` Steph Korey , the disgraced former CEO of Away luggage company , is ranting on IG stories about the media . Her posts are incoherent and it ’ s disappointing to see a woman who ran a luggage brand perpetuate falsehoods like this abt an industry she clearly has 0 understanding of . ''\nLorenz 's tweet was immediately tweeted about by several Silicon Valley venture capitalists , most notably Srinivasan , who eventually made a seven-tweet thread in which he suggested Lorenz , and journalists like her , are `` sociopaths . ''\nThat same day , a self-described Taylor Lorenz `` parody '' Twitter account started retweeting Srinivasan and other tech investors and executives critical of her work . The account 's bio also links to a website , also self-described as parody , which is dedicated to harassing Lorenz . ( Twitter told Motherboard it deleted another account for impersonating Lorenz . )\nYesterday Lorenz called out Srinivasan on Twitter by tagging him and asked his friends , like Andreessen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz , to help end the conflict , which eventually continued on Clubhouse .\nIn Korey 's analysis , exposing the conditions of workers is clickbait designed to attract eyeballs ; she also argued that female founders were more likely to be attacked , especially by young female reporters . The story about Korey ’ s alleged misconduct was written by a young reporter named Zoe Schiffer . Korey added a few minutes later that she ’ d gotten word her comments were filtering through to Twitter , and wrote , in part , “ I believe the overwhelming majority of young female reporters are truly excellent . It has been the case that the female-founder takedowns tend to be written by young women , but I do not think they represent the whole demographic whatsoever . ”\nKorey ’ s avid defenders in the Clubhouse conversation agreed with that analysis .\n“ The coverage seems to be so one-sided around the people running the companies , ” one person on the call whom Motherboard could not immediately identify complained . “ They 're all abusers , they 're all trying to get rich . It 's just down , down , down . It 's almost depressing to watch , as someone who 's an advocate for building things . It 's hard to watch the coverage , it 's almost anti-building things ... The whole entire DNA of Silicon Valley has been optimism from day one . ''\nArticles like the Verge 's investigation into Away do not appear out of thin air . People who work at tech companies—often burdened with non-disclosure agreements—take risks to discuss labor conditions at their company . At the time the Verge article was published , Korey apologized . Wednesday , she was suggesting she 'd been unfairly targeted , and that `` a few who are using the media platform they have access to further their careers by knowingly misrepresenting female founders for clicks & their own profile/fame . ''\n`` I spoke up for her because she had , you know , 8,000 followers , and she was being attacked by a New York Times reporter as a disgraced former CEO and she 's actually still , you know , current co-CEO , '' Srinivasan said . `` I believe in standing up for those people who do n't have a voice , who can not stand up for themselves . ''\nLost in the shuffle are the employees who say this apparently powerless CEO still presides over a broken company . Thursday afternoon , a coalition of Away employees emailed Away 's leadership to say that `` Steph 's Comments Are Hurting Us . ''\nWe “ have been hurt and left deflated by Steph Korey ’ s recent action on Instagram and Twitter , '' they wrote in the email , which was obtained by Motherboard and was acknowledged by Away 's cofounder Jen Rubio . `` We are writing to you as the employees of Away and asking that something is done to address the story that is building around Steph 's Instagram and Twitter comments over the last several days .\nSteph has been largely absent during this health pandemic , the company 's layoffs and the civil unrest surrounding Black Lives Matter . This made sense . She was on mat leave and taking time to focus on her personal life over her professional one . This is why her social media activity over the last few days has been so surprising and frankly hurtful as employees of this company . ''\nKorey and Away 's cofounders did not immediately respond to a request for comment .\nIn response to a request for comment from Motherboard , Away 's ███ president of communications and corporate affairs shared two screenshots . The first was an email from Jen Rubio , Away 's co-founder , president , and Chief Brand Officer , addressed to the employees who had complained about Korey 's comments . ( The email comes from Rubio 's email account ; it 's also cosigned by Stuart Haselden , the company 's co-CEO ) .\nRubio wrote that Korey 's comments `` do not reflect or affect our current company priorities and the deep work we 're doing about diversity , equity and inclusion . '' The email also stated that Stuart Haselden will take on the role of sole CEO at Away in 2020 , and that Korey has updated her social media profiles to state that her views are her own .\nIn her own Slack response , Korey wrote : `` I understand that I have a responsibility as co-founder and co-CEO to commit to using my personal platforms to support our priorities , not distract by them . '' She apologized to `` anyone I hurt by shifting the focus away from these important cultural moments this past week , '' referring to the Black Lives Matter movement and the company 's stated commitment to `` Diversity , Equity and Inclusion , '' as Korey put it . Both statements say Away 's priority is `` becoming an anti-racist company . ''


In Wednesday 's televised impeachment hearing , U.S . Ambassador William Taylor and State Department official George Kent `` did not paint a flattering portrait of our president , and his bootlickers in the House did n't look too good , either , '' Jimmy Kimmel said on Wednesday 's Kimmel Live . `` The president called the hearing a 'joke , ' a 'sham , ' and a 'hoax , ' and he said he did n't watch it . A White House spokesperson said the president was too busy working . Right . They might as well have said he was at a Zumba class . ''\nIn reality , Trump spent the hearing `` tweeting and retweeting all of these things from right-wing Twitter feeds , in between hosting one of his favorite foreign strongmen , Turkish President Erdogan , '' Kimmel said . `` Trump says he 's a big fan of Erdogan , who last month notably slaughtered our allies , the Kurds . ''\n`` Trump got things off to a great start by mispronouncing President Erdogan 's name , '' Stephen Colbert said on The Late Show . He also dismissed Trump 's claim he was too busy to watch the hearings : `` No you 're not ! For Pete 's sake , you live-tweeted Sean Spicer on Dancing with the Stars ! ''\nYes , `` apparently Trump did n't watch , '' Jimmy Fallon said at The Tonight Show . `` Trump wanted to , but he threw his TV remote out the window when he was n't named People Magazine 's Sexiest Man of the Year . '' Taylor 's testimony `` was brutal for Trump , '' Fallon said . `` He clearly outlined how the president tried to get Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for aid . Which means it 's the second time in Trump 's life that his cover-up did n't work . ''\n`` Trump claimed he did not watch the televised impeachment hearings , '' Conan O'Brien said on Conan . `` When asked what he was doing , Trump said , ' I was cleaning out my desk . ' '' On Wednesday , he added , `` new evidence against President Trump was called damning . Some say this could end his presidency . No , wait , I 'm sorry , this joke is from two years ago . ''\n`` Today was the first time in over 20 years that Congress has held a public impeachment hearing , '' Seth Meyers said at Late Night . `` And if this one is anything like the last one , Trump will be impeached , then be acquitted in the Senate , and then in 20 years his wife will lose an election to some idiot . ''


The left is in a veritable state of hysteria as the Federal Communications Commission ( FCC ) moves to vote on Chairman Pai 's deregulatory `` Restoring Internet Freedom '' ( RIF ) order on Dec. 14 . It 's gotten so bad that incensed supporters of so-called `` net neutrality '' have taken to harassing commissioners ' children and even threatening to kill a congressman .\nIt 's a nasty state of affairs , and it 's one unfortunately driven by a lot of false rhetoric and outright fearmongering over how policy is actually changing . Telling people that a policy change will `` end the internet as we know it '' or `` kill the internet '' can agitate troubled people into doing crazy things .\nIn truth , the Obama administration-era `` Open Internet Order '' ( OIO ) that the FCC is overturning has little to with `` net neutrality '' at all . In fact , the OIO would still allow internet service providers ( ISPs ) to block content—to say nothing of the many non-ISP tech companies that can and do openly suppress access to content .\nFurthermore , repealing the OIO does not mean that the principles of `` net neutrality '' will not be upheld , nor that ISPs will be `` unregulated . '' Rather , the RIF will rightly transfer oversight of ISPs to other regulatory bodies in an ex post fashion .\nOne of the biggest misconceptions of the OIO saga is that it achieved `` net neutrality . '' It did n't . While proponents like to spin a lot of rhetoric about `` treating all traffic equally , '' the actual implementation of the Obama administration 's regulations did nothing of the sort .\nAs my Mercatus Center colleague Brent Skorup has tirelessly pointed out , the OIO did not require all internet actors—ranging from ISPs to content platforms to domain name registrars and everything else—to be content-blind and treat all traffic the same . Rather , it erected an awkward permission-and-control regime within the FCC that only affected a small portion of internet technology companies .\nNot even ISPs would be truly content-neutral under the OIO . Because of First Amendment concerns , the FCC could not legally prohibit ISPs from engaging in editorial curation . The U.S. Court of Appeals made this very clear in its 2016 decision upholding the OIO . ISPs that explicitly offer `` 'edited ' services '' to its customers would be virtually free from OIO obligations . It 's a huge loophole , and it massively undercuts any OIO proponent 's claims that they are supporting `` net neutrality . ''\nBut importantly , the OIO still allowed the vast majority of internet companies to filter and block away to their heart 's content . Indeed , one could argue that content aggregators and search engines , like Facebook and Google , have proven to be much more draconian in their censorship of controversial but legal content than the ISPs over which so many agonize . Consider the recent incident where Twitter decided to block the political speech of a pro-life American politician . Most people are far more worried that social media companies will block their content rather than Comcast or Verizon .\nFCC Chairman Ajit Pai made this very point last week at an R Street Institute event on the repeal . Major edge service providers like Google , Facebook , Reddit , and Twitter have made their opposition to OIO deregulation loud and clear to their user base . Some have displayed automatic messages on their front pages , urging visitors to take action and encourage others to do the same . Yet at the same time , these services engage in kinds of content blocking that they say broadband providers could possibly do .\nThis hypocrisy is relevant for more than just ideological inconsistency . It 's about economic power . By encouraging harsh regulation of ISPs that effectively controls the rates that major tech companies can be charged for bandwidth , these companies are engaging in a kind of regulatory capture . ( It should be noted that there is some division within these firms : Google 's Eric Schmidt , for instance , famously discouraged the Obama administration from pursuing these regulations in 2014 . )\nNot only is it unfair , it is absolutely disingenuous to the user bases that they have so inflamed with their rhetoric . These companies are not taking principled stands at all . They are trying to use the force of the state to improve their economic outlook . In Pai 's words , `` they might cloak their advocacy in the public interest , but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy . ''\nThe second biggest misconception about the OIO repeal is that consumers will simply be at the mercy of unscrupulous broadband service providers without recourse or protection . This has never been true , and will not be true under the RIF either .\nOIO supporters imagine a world where ISPs slice and dice internet access into tiered packages , similar to cable subscriptions . This misleading image is a popular one : It shows a hypothetical broadband package where consumers are forced to pay $ 10 for a `` Hollywood '' package including YouTube and Hulu , and a $ 5 `` Playground '' offering access to Steam and World of Warcraft . Of course , no ISP has ever come close to proposing anything like this arrangement , but this scenario has curiously lodged itself as a chief anxiety of many `` net neutrality '' supporters .\nRecently , this hypothetical fear metastasized into a seemingly real threat . None other than Tim Wu himself , the brains behind the concept of `` net neutrality , '' shared a scary story about the dystopian world of Portuguese broadband provision , where ISPs had seemingly started to act more like cable companies . An image shared by Silicon Valley congressman Ro Khanna seemed to confirm this worst-case-scenario , sharing an image of a breakdown of Portuguese telecom packages by category .\nBut there was a huge problem with this story , as an excellent post by Ben Thompson pointed out . That Portuguese telecom provider was not slicing and dicing the 'net for no ███ , but rather was an offer for an extra 10 GB of access to a collection of apps on top of the existing family data plan for €25 a month , or about $ 30 . There are examples from the U.S. , too . In 2010 , then-tiny MetroPCS began offering zero-rated , or discounted , access to YouTube content to be competitive . But net neutrality activists went berserk over this benefit to MetroPCS customers , putting this and similar services in legal jeopardy . Consumers like these kinds of plans because they can be cheaper than all-inclusive data packages while giving them access to the services that they really need .\nThese kinds of unhelpful hoaxes underscore the fears that `` net neutrality '' rhetoric has instilled into the public . Sometimes , as is the case with Portuguese example , an alleged `` violation '' is actually a valued ( and voluntary ! ) option for many consumers . But in general , people believe that the OIO repeal will usher in a world where ISPs can do whatever they want without having to answer to anyone . Of course , this was not true before the OIO was instituted in 2015 , and it will be even less true under the RIF .\nThe debate has never been over `` regulation '' vs. `` no regulation '' of ISPs . Rather , it 's a question of whether it is more appropriate for an oversight body to observe market activities and intervene when foul play is suspected , called `` ex post regulation , '' or whether a beefed-up precautionary regulator should preemptively prohibit new service innovations until private bodies can prove them to be in the public interest , known as `` ex ante regulation . ''\nThe latter approach obviously stems new innovation and investment considerably , and in fact a study from the Phoenix Center found that broadband investment was choked to the tune of some $ 30 billion each year due to the OIO . Furthermore , introducing a Soviet-style ex ante regulator into the mix creates opportunities for regulatory capture and corruption .\nThe RIF will actually provide a more robust regulatory framework that then one that proceeded the OIO . It will transfer oversight of ISPs to the Federal Trade Commission , which has decades of experience ensuring consumer protection , privacy , and security . It will return to transparency rules established by the FCC in 2010 , which would require broadband providers to disclose their network management practices , thereby cutting down on the potential for sneaky behavior . And most importantly , it would achieve these `` neutral network '' goals without erecting a Depression-era system of permission and control that is both costly and susceptible to corruption .\nThe OIO allowed content filtering anyway . The RIF is a far better way to promote a fair and innovative internet that does not bring the many costs of the OIO .\nPeople who maintain that the sky will fall and the internet will forever change for the worse after the FCC votes to ratify the RIF later this month are either misinformed or unfortunately opportunistic . Moving oversight of ISPs from a permissioned ex ante regulatory regime to a permissionless ex post one not only makes plain sense , it is the kind of framework that allowed the internet to develop into the powerhouse of innovation that we enjoy today . The internet is important in our lives , and it is easy to see how people can get upset when they are told that a policy change will ruin it forever . But a brief examination of the facts shows no such threat , and in fact the RIF is what can actually preserve the internet that we all know and love .


Well , it was bound to happen eventually . After near three years of all-out rhetorical war against tech giants , for politically-shifting sins including bigness , too much censorship , not enough censorship , data hoarding , and being too irresistible , policymakers are ready to move beyond cheap talk and start slapping wrists—or more .\nSpecifically , regulators and Congress recently announced new antitrust scrutiny against Silicon Valley . The House Judiciary Committee cheerfully launched a `` bipartisan investigation into competition into digital markets . '' Nothing can bring us all together these days quite like hating the online services we use most . No particular firms have been named , but we can expect the usual suspects are due for a thrashing .\nRegulators , on the other hand , are dividing and conquering . The Department of Justice ( DOJ ) and Federal Trade Commission ( FTC ) sliced up the pig , with DOJ taking on Google and Apple , and the FTC going after Facebook and Amazon . The Wall Street Journal reports that Google and Facebook are the real targets , for now .\nTech companies knew this was coming . How could they not ? Presidential hopefuls compete over who wants to break up tech giants the most . New books like The Curse of Bigness : Antitrust in the New Gilded Age by superstar law professor ( and father of `` net neutrality '' ) Tim Wu warn that lax antitrust enforcement could spawn a new Nazism ( really ) . In February , the FTC set up an antitrust taskforce for the sole purpose of preparing actions against the big guys . It was always a question of when , not if .\nBigness is badness in the minds of most people . But in terms of U.S. law at least , being big is not a crime .\nRather , as an essay by my Mercatus colleagues Adam Thierer and Jennifer Huddleston points out , American antitrust is only intended to be used when `` a firm has the ability to monopolize a sector , or it possesses an 'essential facility ' that can not be replicated . ''\nLaws like the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act give agencies substantial powers to clamp down on monopolies . So antitrust enforcers have developed a robust jurisprudence on what is and is not kosher . Some things , like price fixing , are so `` inherently harmful '' that they are always illegal .\nBut in general , the U.S. antitrust approach places the consumer at the center of the analysis . We do n't punish businesses because they have been exceptional at meeting consumer demand . Rather , the government steps in if a business engages in anti-competitive activities that harm customers , like obliterating the competition with low prices before jacking them up on consumers that have no other option—classic monopolistic behavior .\nDoes n't that just make sense ? Consider the alternative . The government could break up or limit any firm that is simply a great competitor . Consumers are actually served well by this giant . But their competitors of course will grumble for their nemesis to be taken down a few pegs .\nIn this conception of antitrust , the government essentially protects the bottom lines of competitors who ca n't keep up . Before U.S. courts settled on the economics-grounded consumer welfare standard that has guided U.S. antitrust for decades , trust-busting activities were often little more than handouts to interest groups .\nNot only would court cases counterintuitively seek to keep prices high , to the detriment of consumers , judges worked a host of non-antitrust hobbyhorses into their decisions . Maybe one judge had a particular fondness for `` social equality . '' The antitrust decisions he handed down might have aimed for that totally unrelated , arguably impossible outcome .\nThe European approach to antitrust is more like the muddled U.S. approach before it settled on the consumer welfare standard . Some in the U.S. would like our antitrust posture to be more like Europe 's , but at least for now , it is limited to the scribblings of theorists in the land of the free .\nWith that crash course in antitrust theory under our belt , we can now ask : What will the U.S. do about Facebook and Google ?\nSome people would like to see the companies broken up . They propose surgical cuts : Facebook must relinquish WhatsApp and Instagram , while parent company Alphabet could spin off feeder products from advertising-funded search .\nOn what grounds ? We know that bigness per se is no crime . Are these companies `` essential facilities '' that left fewer , more expensive options for consumers ?\nThe problem is that many of these companies ' products cost us nothing , at least in terms of dollars . It does n't look like Facebook or Google have been lowering product quality , either . In general , there 's a lot of competition when it comes to social media platforms and search , even if people choose not to use them very much .\nOnline platforms like Facebook and Google are tricky when it comes to antitrust because they essentially serve two markets : users and advertisers .\nWhen it comes to users , there are plenty of alternatives . Advertisers , too have plenty of alternatives : they can buy spots on television , the radio , billboards , in newspapers , and even via costumed sign-waver on the side of the road .\nBut for online ads , there are basically two games in town : Facebook and Google . My colleague Brent Skorup pointed out to me that recent precedent could indicate that the courts will consider `` the ad market and the social media market as components of a single relevant market . '' If so , Facebook and Google could be looking at serious antitrust enforcement .\nAntitrust actions take a long time , and by the time a remedy—good or bad—is chosen , the market may have already moved on . This is particularly the case in a fast-moving space like tech . Consider the drawn-out cases against IBM and Microsoft . On the other side of the decades-long court cases , the issues that so vexed regulators had long ago become moot . What were the costs to consumers and innovation in the process ?\nThe problem is that regulators have a static mindset . They see a slice of a market in time , deem one actor too powerful , and seek to artificially create `` more competition '' to freeze this market in time . But that 's not how markets progress . As venture capitalist Benedict Evans points out , `` Tech anti-trust too often wants to insert a competitor to the winning monopolist , when it 's too late . Meanwhile , the monopolist is made irrelevant by something that comes from totally outside the entire conversation and owes nothing to any anti-trust interventions . ''\nIn the meantime , antitrust actions are often wasteful , distracting , and can limit consumer choice . We still do n't how this new round of trust-busting will shake out . But it 's a good chance that by the time we 're on the other side , a new class of unassailable giants will have cropped up without regulators noticing . And then we can start the theatrics all over again .\nThis column has been updated to correct Tim Wu 's occupation .


Republicans on Monday blasted Secretary of State John Kerry for suggesting in a letter to his Iranian counterpart that the administration could help the country get around new visa restrictions passed by Congress .\n“ Instead of bending over backwards to try to placate the Iranian regime , the White House needs to be holding it accountable for its recent missile tests , its continued support for terrorism , and its wrongful imprisonment of Americans , ” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce , R-Calif. , said in a statement to FoxNews.com .\nAt issue are tightened security requirements for America ’ s visa waiver program , which allows citizens of 38 countries to travel to the U.S. without visas . Under changes in the newly signed spending bill , people from those countries who have traveled to Iran , Iraq , Syria and Sudan in the past five years must now obtain visas to enter the U.S .\nTop Tehran officials , however , complained the changes violate the terms of the nuclear deal , which says the U.S. and other world powers will refrain from any policy intended to adversely affect normalization of trade and economic relations with Iran .\nKerry responded to these concerns in a Dec. 19 letter to his Iranian counterpart , Mohammad Javad Zarif -- and suggested the administration could simply bypass the rules for Iran .\n“ I am also confident that the recent changes in visa requirements passed in Congress , which the Administration has the authority to waive , will not in any way prevent us from meeting our [ nuclear deal ] commitments , and that we will implement them so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran , ” he said .\nKerry ’ s letter to Zarif assured that the U.S. would “ adhere to the full measure of our commitments. ” As for changes to the visa program , Kerry floated several alternative options for easing any impact on Iran – including waiving the new requirements .\n“ To this end , we have a number of potential tools available to us , including multiple entry ten-year business visas , programs for expediting business visas , and the waiver authority provided under the new legislation , ” he wrote .\nThe legislation indeed includes a provision allowing the Homeland Security secretary to waive the requirements if the secretary determines this “ is in the law enforcement or national security interests of the United States . ”\nBut House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy , R-Calif. , voiced concern on Monday that Kerry was proposing a “ blanket ” waiver to accommodate Iran ’ s complaints . He said that is not Congress ’ intent .\n“ Contrary to what the Secretary of State seems to be saying to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif , it was not and has never been Congress ’ s intent to allow the Administration to grant a blanket waiver to travellers from Iran in order to facilitate the implementation of the Iran deal , ” he said in a statement .\nMcCarthy said the point of the legislation was to strengthen security and “ keep the American people safe from terrorism and from foreign travelers who potentially pose a threat to our homeland . ”\nKerry ’ s assurances also raised concerns that the U.S. may be backing down to Iran ’ s complaints while at the same time reluctant to punish Tehran for its own potential violations .\n“ Instead of undermining Congressional intent regarding the visa waiver program , the White House should instead focus on Iran ’ s repeated violations of the U.N. Security Council 's bans on missile tests , ” McCarthy said . “ Iran ’ s unwillingness to follow these international agreements should be a red flag that the Iran nuclear deal isn ’ t worth the paper it is written on . ”\nOmri Ceren , with the Washington , D.C.-based Israel Project , also told The Washington Free Beacon , “ According to the Obama administration ’ s latest interpretation , the nuclear deal allows Iran to test ballistic missiles in violation of international law , but does not allow Congress to prevent terrorists from coming into the United States . ”\nThe same article noted that the State Department official in charge of implementing the nuclear agreement warned Congress last week that the new visa rules “ could have a very negative impact on the deal . ”\nIndeed , Kerry ’ s letter came as top-ranking Iranian officials accused the U.S. of flouting the nuclear agreement .\nIran ’ s Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Sunday that the change “ contradicts ” the nuclear deal .\n`` Definitely , this law adversely affects economic , cultural , scientific and tourism relations , ” Araghchi was quoted by state TV as saying .\nAsked about Kerry ’ s assurances at Monday ’ s daily briefing , State Department spokesman John Kirby said the secretary made clear they would “ implement this new legislation so as not to interfere with legitimate business interests of Iran . ”\nKirby said the law would be followed , but there are a “ number of potential tools ” to ensure this does not violate the nuclear deal . As for the DHS waiver authority , he said it ’ s too soon to say “ if and when ” that might be used .\nThe Kerry letter initially was obtained and published by the National Iranian American Council .


WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was fired via Twitter after returning from an Africa trip during which he was out of the loop on North Korean talks and contradicted the White House position on Russia 's responsibility for poisoning a former double agent in the United Kingdom .\nIn other words , his last week on the job was like many others in his 405-day tenure as the nation 's top diplomat — the shortest of any secretary of State to begin an administration since Elihu B. Washburne 's 11-day service in 1869 .\nTillerson often found himself on the outer ring of President Trump 's inner circle , trying to interpret the president 's mercurial and contradictory foreign policy to the rest of the world .\nHe reassured NATO allies that the United States remained committed to the alliance after the president threatened to pull out over `` dues '' that Trump said were owed directly to the United States . ( They were n't . )\nHe engaged with North Korea despite the president 's protests — again via Twitter — that he was `` wasting his time trying to negotiate with Little Rocket Man . ”\nAnd he tried to salvage the Iran nuclear deal through a European-brokered fix to the Obama-era agreement rather than having Trump scuttle the deal completely .\nIn explaining his break with Tillerson on Tuesday , Trump specifically cited those differences over the Iran deal : `` I think it 's terrible . I guess he feels it was OK . ''\nBut Trump 's comments give a glimpse into why he 's making this move now .\nTrump is heading into an unprecedented face-to-face meeting with North Korea 's Kim Jong Un over that country 's nuclear program . The timing of Tillerson 's dismissal was designed to allow Trump to put a new team in place before those talks , a White House official said on condition of anonymity to discuss a personnel decision .\nTrump 's nominee to replace Tillerson is CIA Director Mike Pompeo , whose hard-line stances on Iran and North Korea are closer to Trump 's .\nTrump conceded Tuesday that he and Tillerson often were not on the same page . `` I actually got along well with Rex , but really , it was a different mind-set . It was a different thinking .\n`` With Mike Pompeo , '' he said , `` we have a similar thought process . ''\nNorth Korea hawks applauded Pompeo 's nomination . `` No one understands the threat posed by North Korea and Iran better than he does , '' said Sen. Lindsay Graham , R-S.C .\nBut Sen. Ben Cardin , D-Md. , said he feared Trump was stocking his Cabinet with yes men . `` It is disturbing to see such a high-level change in our diplomatic team as negotiations with North Korea move into a new and delicate stage , '' he said .\nWhile Tillerson was in Africa last week , it was Pompeo who explained Trump 's unexpected rapprochement with North Korea on CBS ' Face the Nation Sunday .\nPompeo would not be pinned down on whether he or the secretary of State would lead the preliminary talks before the Trump-Kim summit . His appointment to Tillerson 's post would resolve that conflict and put him unambiguously in charge of getting Trump and Kim to the table .\nThe White House announced the personnel moves through an increasingly common playbook : a leak , a tweet and written statements from those involved . In this case : Trump , Pompeo and CIA nominee Gina Haspel .\nTillerson 's side of the story came from Steve Goldstein , undersecretary of State for public diplomacy .\n`` The secretary had every intention of staying because of critical progress made in national security , '' he said . `` The secretary did not speak to the president and is unaware of the reason . ''\nGoldstein was then fired for contradicting the White House 's account of Tillerson 's dismissal .\nLater , Tillerson appeared in a State Department auditorium to give a statement to reporters . He talked about the hard work it took to get North Korea to the table : ending President Obama 's policy of `` strategic patience '' and replacing it with a maximum-pressure campaign to rally the world to impose punishing sanctions on the North Korean regime .\nHe thanked his diplomats , the military and the American people — but not Trump .


The Obama administration acknowledged Monday that the FBI found at least 14,900 more email messages former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton never turned over to the government , and officials are facing intense pressure to release them ahead of November ’ s election .\nA federal judge ordered the State Department to speed up the process , and the Republican National Committee said the administration should strive to release an initial set of the secret emails within a month , or when the first states conduct early voting .\nThe existence of the emails marks yet more trouble for Mrs. Clinton , the Democratic presidential nominee , who insisted she turned over all of her work-related messages in December 2014 .\nRep. Lamar Smith , Texas Republican and chairman of the House Science , Space and Technology Committee , issued subpoenas Monday demanding answers from three technology companies that helped set up or maintain Mrs. Clinton ’ s unique email arrangement and demanding to know what kind of security she took to prevent hacks .\nAnother part of Mrs. Clinton ’ s email story — that former Secretary Colin L. Powell gave her the idea of using a secret account — also crumbled after Mr. Powell disputed it . He said he sent Mrs. Clinton a memo a year after she took office , meaning she couldn ’ t have been relying on his suggestion .\n“ Her people have been trying to pin it on me , ” Mr. Powell said , according to the New York Post and People magazine , who caught up with him at a social function in New York over the weekend .\nMrs. Clinton refused to use an official State Department email account during her four years in office . Instead , she conducted all of her business , including sending classified emails , from an account tied to a server she kept at her New York home . That arrangement effectively thwarted open-records laws and shielded her communications from the public for more than six years .\nState Department officials said they would try to work through the newly discovered messages as quickly as possible , but their initial timeline meant the first disclosure wouldn ’ t be until the middle of October .\nJudge James E. Boasberg rejected that estimate Monday and ordered a faster schedule , saying the State Department has one month to appraise the first 14,900 emails and must report back by Sept. 23 on how it will release them .\nSome critics fear the Obama administration may try to slow the process and push the release of most of the messages past the November election .\n“ If they wanted the records out quickly , they ’ d be out quickly . If they don ’ t want the records out quickly , they ’ ll let politics intrude on the process and the American people won ’ t see them until Election Day , ” said Tom Fitton , president of Judicial Watch , which sued to get a look at all of Mrs. Clinton ’ s emails .\nState Department spokesman Mark Toner couldn ’ t explain why the nearly 15,000 messages were coming to light now , after Mrs. Clinton assured federal judges that she had turned over all of her work-related messages .\nThe 14,900 messages are on one disk in a set of eight that the FBI turned over to the State Department last month , after the law enforcement agency completed a yearlong probe into Mrs. Clinton ’ s emails .\nAmong the other seven disks are one containing what has been described as “ classified ” material and another containing the 30,000 or so messages Mrs. Clinton did turn back to the Obama administration in December 2014 . The contents of the remaining five disks are unclear , though the Obama administration says the set contains a lot of emails .\n“ There are tens of thousands , ” Lisa A. Olson , a Justice Department lawyer handling the case for the State Department , told Judge Boasberg .\nFor now , the first disk is the focus of Judicial Watch , the State Department and the judge , because all 14,900 of its emails are among those Mrs. Clinton didn ’ t turn over . Some of them may be personal — the messages about her yoga schedule or her daughter ’ s wedding plans — that Mrs. Clinton mentioned last year .\nBut FBI Director James B. Comey also has said thousands are work-related . They were obtained from Mrs. Clinton ’ s server and various email devices she used .\nThe State Department said it will finish “ ingesting ” all eight disks ’ contents this week and then will appraise the contents . After that , it will know the total number of documents and have a general idea of what is on them , and then it must process them , redacting private or protected information and asking other agencies to weigh in on potentially classified material .\nMs. Olson originally said the State Department would have an update in October and begin releasing documents on Oct. 14 , with releases to follow on Oct. 21 , Oct. 28 and Nov. 4 — each of the Fridays preceding the Nov. 8 election . The releases would likely continue well after the election .\nJudge Boasberg , though , said the department can work faster by focusing on the first disk ’ s emails . He said they will set a schedule when they meet next month .\nThe Republican National Committee insisted that the schedule be expedited so the first emails are released as early voting begins in the states near the end of September . It said all of the messages should be released before Election Day .\nIt ’ s unclear what sort of information will be found on the newly discovered emails or whether any of them contain classified information .\nThe FBI concluded that Mrs. Clinton was negligent in handling classified information on her server but doubted a criminal case could be made because the former senator , first lady and top diplomat was not “ sophisticated ” enough to understand the information she was looking at or the risks she was running with the technology .\nMr. Smith , the science committee chairman , issued subpoenas Monday to three tech companies that helped with Mrs. Clinton ’ s email . He said the companies were defying his requests for information .\nThe companies were Datto , Inc. , which handled the backup of Mrs. Clinton ’ s server ; Secnap Network Security Corp. , which sold a threat monitoring application for Mrs. Clinton ’ s server after she left the State Department ; and Platte River Networks , which helped run the server .\nMr. Smith said Secnap and Datto refused to cooperate voluntarily , insisting they needed permission of their client first . Meanwhile the attorney for Platte River ducked attempts to communicate with him , Mr. Smith said .\nRep. Donald S. Beyer Jr. , a Virginia Democrat who serves on the science committee , called the subpoenas “ a wasteful use of taxpayer dollars … for blatantly partisan purposes . ”


President Donald Trump came into office promising to run the federal government like a private business , and , like almost any new chief executive officer , he ’ s looking to restructure .\nConversations with more than a dozen people in and outside of State who are involved in or monitoring the administration 's plans suggest some broad outlines are emerging about State 's future , including from proposed budget cuts accepted by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and from a 2016 Heritage Foundation report that laid out some dramatic ways to reshape the department .\nDeep cuts are expected to hit State ’ s environmental and cultural programs , while divisions that deal with arms control and military affairs may see consolidation . The number of special envoys , who focus on everything from climate change to LGBT issues , will be pared down . The counterterrorism bureau will likely escape unscathed , but diplomats who deal with economics or women ’ s issues may see some changes .\nAlthough it 's still early and much is in flux , anxiety is rife at State . That 's because , unlike in the past , the staffers are expecting not simply reshuffling or additional departments , but rather large cuts and the elimination of entire divisions . Even if Congress rejects the budget cuts proposed by the administration , as several leading lawmakers have indicated it will do , Tillerson is still expected to make major changes .\n“ I think there are some in the administration who are looking at this like a corporate reorganization , but one of the problems with a corporation , a business , is that the bottom line is earnings . But at the State Department , what is your bottom line ? ” asked Ronald Neumann , president of the American Academy of Diplomacy . “ Your bottom line involves the political part of security operations , the possibility of an unknown future crisis . It involves the protection of American citizens abroad and the promotion of American business . It ’ s very difficult to quantify . ”\nThe prospect of reorganization is especially weighing on staffers dealing with issues that do n't seem to be a top priority for the Trump administration , such as human rights . While many career officials said they ’ re not reflexively opposed to restructuring some operations , many are worried about shielding programs that have long been considered core to the U.S. diplomatic mission — and some “ are creatively trying to figure out how to make a case for keeping some of the programs running that they built , '' said a former State official who regularly speaks to current employees .\nEvery new secretary of state wants to make his or her mark on the department , which employs about 75,000 people worldwide . In a 2006 speech , Condoleezza Rice outlined a plan to shift hundreds of diplomatic positions from Europe to countries like China , India and Lebanon . And Hillary Clinton established a number of new positions at the department , including the ambassador-at-large for global women ’ s issues and the Office of Global Youth Issues .\n“ My sense is that Tillerson wants to go big , ” said a State Department official who 's familiar with the discussions . “ In terms of streamlining , he seems to like straight lines , direct lines , clear hierarchies with a small number of people reporting to him . ”\nTrump issued an executive order in mid-March asking Cabinet leaders for proposals by mid-September on how to restructure their agencies . The State Department declined to comment on Tillerson ’ s plans .\nIn the meantime , U.S. diplomats and others in the foreign policy realm are reading up on Trump ’ s budget proposals , looking for clues in administration officials ’ public and private statements and leafing through the Heritage report to game out likely scenarios . In some cases , Trump aides are willing to confirm their guesses .\nA Trump administration official told ███ that the president will not name a special envoy for climate change . The climate envoy helped lead international global warming talks during the Obama administration and played a central role in clinching the nearly 200-nation Paris climate agreement .\nAlready , State ’ s political appointees have largely ceded their work on international climate issues to the White House , according to two people briefed on the arrangement , a move that gives warring factions in the West Wing heavy influence over whether the United States should pull out of the Paris deal .\nThere 's plenty of support across the State Department for scaling back the overall number of special envoys . Depending on how you count such envoys — a category some take to include so-called special representatives , coordinators and other advisers — there are about five dozen . Many of the slots have stayed vacant under Tillerson .\nThe envoys tend to reflect an administration ’ s priorities , so few expect the Trump team to keep the one dedicated to , say , closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay . But Congress may intervene to protect some of the slots : On March 10 , a bipartisan group of about 170 lawmakers wrote to Trump urging him to fill and keep the special envoy position dedicated to combating anti-Semitism , calling it a “ crucial office . ”\nPeople familiar with Trump transition talks told ███ earlier this year that there was a belief that State should focus more on fighting terrorism and less on “ soft power ” subjects such as democracy promotion . And in proposing cutting the State Department ’ s fiscal year 2018 budget by about 30 percent , Trump aides specifically cast it as a “ hard power ” blueprint focused on boosting military might .\nBut former and current State officials say they don ’ t expect the elimination of the Bureau of Democracy , Human Rights and Labor — the very embodiment of “ soft power ” Trump aides dismiss . That ’ s because there ’ s strong support in Congress for that bureau , especially among Republicans worried about the rights of Christians in the Middle East .\n`` You can imagine a very long line of Democratic and Republican members of the Senate that would be very concerned '' if that bureau were axed , said a Senate Democratic aide who 's been in touch with Trump transition and administration officials about reorganization plans .\nMultiple sources pointed to the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations as one ripe for elimination . The bureau was established in 2011 under Clinton with the goal of trying to prevent and defuse conflicts . But critics say its role has never been well-defined , concerns echoed in a 2014 inspector general ’ s report .\nThe administration last month also proposed cutting some $ 2.9 billion from what remains of the current fiscal year ’ s budget for State and related programs . That proposal , which also has met resistance in Congress , includes plans to whack State ’ s educational and cultural programs , its reproductive health initiatives , which affect many women , and its spending on international organizations .\nAlready , Tillerson has made what appear to be permanent changes to State 's top leadership . He has emptied the slots of the department 's deputy secretary for management and its counselor position and has indicated he will not fill those roles .\nTillerson is expected to appoint a policy-focused deputy secretary for the department — the choice is reported to be GOP attorney John J. Sullivan . But Tillerson has left most of the other leadership slots at State vacant , another reason employees suspect he is pondering serious restructuring .\nThe Democratic Senate aide stressed that it ’ s very early days and it ’ s not clear where some of the possibilities bandied about presently stand .\nBut some of the changes that have been discussed include streamlining what ’ s known at State as the “ T ” family , which includes bureaus that deal with arms control , political-military affairs and nuclear nonproliferation , the aide said . Another idea floated is bringing the U.S. Agency for International Development entirely under the purview of State , the aide said .\nThe aide also noted that there 's been talk of rejiggering the State Department bureaus devoted to specific regions of the world to be more aligned with the Department of Defense ’ s Combatant Commands .\nThis is not a new idea unique to the Trump administration , but it could mean major shifts in which desk officers and deputy assistant secretaries report to which division . For example , South America falls under the Pentagon ’ s Southern Command , while Canada and Mexico are under its Northern Command . But at State , the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs includes South America as well as Canada and Mexico .\nSome of the changes , such as making USAID part of State , will likely require authorization from Congress , officials and analysts said . The exact level of congressional involvement will depend in part on whether bureaus or various functions were somehow mandated by legislation .\n“ We ’ re not reflexively or allergically against changes , ” the Democratic Senate aide said . “ But exactly what they propose and the logic for it is something that we need to see . ”\nVarious stakeholders nearly all mentioned the 2016 report by the Heritage Foundation ’ s Brett Schaefer . A former senior State Department official said Trump transition aides were “ enamored ” of the report and took it into meetings .\nThe report has numerous recommendations , including culling the number of special envoys , eliminating the slot of deputy secretary for management and resources , and bringing USAID under the leadership of an undersecretary of state . It also suggests changes to State ’ s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs that include limiting activities that are primarily the responsibility of other U.S. agencies , such as the Treasury Department .\nSchaefer said he talked to a range of people as he prepared his recommendations and found there was a broad consensus that State could be more efficient .\n`` Every administration makes changes , but I suspect there ’ s going to be a little bit more along the way of changes under this administration than in previous ones , '' he said .\nEven if every idea the Trump administration proposes doesn ’ t become a reality , Schaefer added , it ’ s worth simply having the debate . “ Ultimately , in the end this is a healthy process , ” he said .


Trump Picks Heather Nauert , Former Fox News Anchor , As U.N . Ambassador\nFrom Fox & Friends to the State Department , and now likely to the United Nations .\nPresident Trump says he will nominate Heather Nauert , the State Department spokeswoman and a former Fox News host , to become the next ambassador to the U.N .\n`` She 's very talented , very smart , very quick , and I think she 's going to be respected by all , so Heather Nauert will be nominated for the ambassador to the United Nations , '' Trump told reporters Friday .\nIf confirmed by the Senate , Nauert will replace Nikki Haley , who is leaving the post at the end of the year .\nNauert was camera-ready when she came to the State Department in April 2017 , having worked at ABC and Fox . She never traveled with and was not close to her first boss at the department , former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson . With Mike Pompeo in charge of State , Nauert has been on the road much more .\nYet she faced some criticism for a tourist-like Instagram post from Riyadh , Saudi Arabia , on a trip that was meant to focus on the killing of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi .\nThere have been other missteps , including the time when she cited D-Day — the Allied invasion of Normandy against the Nazis — as an example of America 's strong relationship with Germany .\nShe has been a strong defender of Trump 's at the podium , something he has clearly noticed .\n`` She 's excellent , she 's been with us a long time , she 's been a supporter for a long time , '' Trump told reporters on Nov. 1 .\nThe State Department used to hold daily briefings . That has been scaled back to two a week , at most .\nNauert , 48 , has been back and forth between her husband and two sons in New York and her job in Washington , D.C .\nBefore joining the Trump administration , she had no government or foreign policy experience , though she did work on some overseas assignments for ABC , including in Baghdad .


But the American ambassador to the United Nations , Nikki R. Haley , suggested that such a process was doomed as long as Mr. Assad was in power . “ We know there ’ s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime , ” she said on CNN . “ If you look at his actions , if you look at the situation , it ’ s going to be hard to see a government that ’ s peaceful and stable with Assad . ”\nThat statement stood in contrast not only to Mr. Tillerson ’ s comments but also to Ms. Haley ’ s own remarks a week ago — before Mr. Assad carried out his latest chemical weapons attack on civilians — in which she insisted that his departure from office was not a diplomatic priority for the United States .\nStill , the overall tone of suspicion and condemnation of Russia ’ s actions in Syria indicated that Mr. Trump ’ s top national security advisers were nudging him back to a more traditional Russia policy . During his days as the chief executive of Exxon Mobil , Mr. Tillerson received a friendship award from Mr. Putin , and he is aware of the suspicions surrounding those ties and has gone the furthest in the administration in separating himself from the Russian leader .\nThe challenges have only multiplied in recent days . The Russians , angry about the attack on the air base , have threatened to cut off a communication line that the American and Russian militaries have used to notify each other about air operations in Syria . And the attack has forced Mr. Putin into a tighter relationship with Mr. Assad , perhaps tighter than the Russian leader wants .\nMs. Haley , who , like Mr. Tillerson , is new to diplomacy , has also apparently concluded that a hard line toward Russia is the safest course . The contrast between her remarks and Mr. Trump ’ s warm words for Mr. Putin on the campaign trail — as well as his refusal to acknowledge Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election — has been striking .\nThe Trump administration ’ s Syria policy has been difficult to parse . Mr. Tillerson , in his first television appearances since taking office , seemed to describe two different strategic objectives : halting chemical attacks and ultimately negotiating a cease-fire . But he made it clear that he had no intention of backing a military intervention that would overthrow Mr. Assad . That suggested that as long as the dictator used conventional means to kill his own people — barrel bombs instead of sarin gas — the United States would keep its distance .\n“ I think what the United States and our allies want to do is to enable the Syrian people to make that determination ” about Mr. Assad ’ s fate , Mr. Tillerson said on CBS ’ s “ Face the Nation ” — a line that was often used by his predecessor in the Obama administration , John Kerry . “ You know , we ’ ve seen what violent regime change looks like in Libya and the kind of chaos that can be unleashed . ”


Newly released internal FBI emails showed the agency 's highest-ranking officials scrambling to answer to Hillary Clinton 's lawyer in the days prior to the 2016 presidential election , on the same day then-FBI Director James Comey sent a bombshell letter to Congress announcing a new review of hundreds of thousands of potentially classified emails found on former Rep. Anthony Weiner 's laptop .\nThe trove of documents turned over by the FBI , in response to a lawsuit by the transparency group Judicial Watch , also included discussions by former FBI lawyer Lisa Page concerning a potential quid pro quo between the State Department and the FBI -- in which the FBI would agree to effectively hide the fact that a Clinton email was classified in exchange for more legal attache positions that would benefit the FBI abroad , and allow them to send more agents to countries where the FBI 's access is ordinarily restricted .\nThe quid pro quo would have involved the FBI providing some other public reason for withholding the Clinton email from disclosure amid a Freedom of Information Act request , besides its classification level . There are no indications the proposed arrangement ever took place .\nAnd , in the face of mounting criticism aimed at the FBI , the documents revealed that Comey quoted the 19th century poet Ralph Waldo Emerson by assuring his subordinates , `` To be great is to be misunderstood . ''\nThe FBI did not respond to Fox News ' request for comment on the released emails .\nOn Oct. 28 , 2016 , Comey upended the presidential campaign by informing Congress that the FBI would quickly review the Weiner laptop . The Justice Department 's internal watchdog later faulted the FBI for failing to review the Weiner laptop through much of the fall of 2016 , and suggested it was possible that now-fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok may have slow-walked the laptop analysis until other federal prosecutors pressured the FBI to review its contents .\nOn the afternoon of Oct. 28 , Clinton lawyer David Kendall demanded answers from the FBI -- and the agency jumped into action , the emails showed .\nSTRZOK DEMANDED DECLASSIFICATION , OTHER POWERS BEFORE BECOMING NO . 2 ON MUELLER TEAM\nMany of the emails found on the computer were between Clinton and her senior adviser Huma Abedin , Weiner 's now-estranged wife . Despite claims by top FBI officials , including Strzok , several of those emails were determined to contain classified information .\n`` I received the email below from David Kendall and I called him back , '' then-FBI General Counsel James Baker wrote to the agency 's top brass , including Comey , Page and Strzok , in an email . `` Before doing so I alerted DOJ via email that I would do that . ''\nPage and Strzok eventually were revealed to be having an extramarital affair , and Strzok was terminated after a slew of text messages surfaced in which he and Page derided Trump and his supporters using their government-issued phones . Republicans , citing some of those text messages , have accused Strzok and Page of orchestrating a coordinated leak strategy aimed at harming the president .\nGOHMERT UNLOADS ON 'SMIRKING ' STRZOK : 'HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU LOOK SO INNOCENT INTO YOUR WIFE 'S EYES AND LIE ? '\nAlthough a portion of Kendall 's email was redacted , Baker continued : `` He said that our letter was 'tantalizingly ambiguous ' and made statements that were 'inchoate and highly ominous ' such that what we had done was worse than transparency because it allows people to make whatever they want out of the letter to the prejudice of Secretary Clinton . ... I told him that I could not respond to his requests at this time but that I would discuss it with others and get back to him .\n`` To be great is to be misunderstood . '' — Fired FBI Director James Comey , quoting Emerson\n`` I suggest that we have some kind of follow up meeting or phone call with this group either this evening or over the weekend to address this and probably other issues/questions that come up in the next 24 hours , '' Baker concluded . `` Sound reasonable ? ''\nDOJ BLAMES SYSTEM-WIDE SOFTWARE FAILURE FOR MISSING STRZOK-PAGE TEXTS ; STRZOK 'S PHONE TOTALLY WIPED\nIn a partially redacted response , Strzok agreed to spearhead a conference call among the FBI 's top officials the next day .\nOn Nov. 6 -- just two days before Election Day -- Comey sent another letter to Congress stating that agents had concluded their review of `` all of the communications '' to or from Clinton while she was secretary of state that appeared on the laptop , and that the review did not change his assessment that Clinton should not be prosecuted .\nIn an email also sent Nov. 6 and unearthed by Judicial Watch , Strzok wrote to the FBI 's leadership : `` [ Redacted ] , Jon and I completed our review of all of the potential HRC work emails on the [ Anthony Weiner ] laptop . We found no previously unknown , potentially classified emails on the media . ”\nStrzok added that a team was coming in to `` triple-check '' his methodology and conclusions .\nHowever , at least 18 classified emails sent from Abedin 's account were found by the FBI on the Weiner laptop . And , despite Strzok 's apparent claim , FBI officials later conceded they had not manually screened all of the nearly 700,000 emails on the laptop , but instead used computer technology to prioritize which emails to screen as Election Day rapidly approached .\nON FOUR OCCASIONS , FBI INCORRECTLY ASSURED FISA COURT THAT YAHOO ARTICLE WAS INDEPENDENT REASON TO SURVEIL TRUMP AIDE\n“ It is big news that , just days before the presidential election , Hillary Clinton ’ s personal lawyer pressured the top lawyer for the FBI on the infamous Weiner laptop emails , ” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement . “ These documents further underscore that the fix was in for Hillary Clinton . When will the Justice Department and FBI finally do an honest investigation of the Clinton email scandal ? ”\nSeparately , another email from Page , apparently sent in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit , discussed an apparent attempt by the State Department to pressure the FBI to downgrade the classification level of a Clinton email .\n`` Jason Herring will be providing you with three 302s [ witness reports ] of current and former FBI employees who were interviewed during the course of the Clinton investigation , '' Page wrote . `` These 302s are scheduled to be released to Congress in an unredacted form at the end of the week , and produced ( with redactions ) pursuant to FOIA at the beginning of next week .\nPage continued : `` As you will see , they describe a discussion about potential quid pro quo arrangement between then-DAD in IOD [ deputy assistant director in International Operations Division ] and an Undersecretary at the State Department whereby IOD would get more LEGAT [ legal attaché ] positions if the FBI could change the basis of the FOIA withhold re a Clinton email from classified to something else . ''\nFox News has previously reported , citing FBI documents , that a senior State Department official proposed a quid pro quo to convince the FBI to strip the classification on an email from Clinton ’ s server – and repeatedly tried to “ influence ” the bureau ’ s decision when his offer was denied , even taking his plea up the chain of command .\nIn a statement at the time , the FBI acknowleged that an agency official had been in touch with the State Department about overseas positions , but denied that the conversation was tied to the classification of a Clinton email .\n`` Prior to the initiation of the FBI ’ s investigation of former Secretary Clinton ’ s personal email server , the FBI was asked to review and make classification determinations on FBI emails and information which were being produced by the State Department pursuant to FOIA [ a Freedom of Information Act request ] . The FBI determined that one such email was classified at the Secret level . A senior State Department official requested the FBI re-review that email to determine whether it was in fact classified or whether it might be protected from release under a different FOIA exemption , '' the FBI said .\nThe statement continued : `` A now-retired FBI official , who was not part of the subsequent Clinton investigation , told the State Department official that they would look into the matter . Having been previously unsuccessful in attempts to speak with the senior State official , during the same conversation , the FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending , unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad .\n`` Following the call , the FBI official consulted with a senior FBI executive responsible for determining the classification of the material and determined the email was in fact appropriately classified at the Secret level , '' the FBI 's statement continued . `` The FBI official subsequently told the senior State official that the email was appropriately classified at the Secret level and that the FBI would not change the classification of the email . The classification of the email was not changed , and it remains classified today . Although there was never a quid pro quo , these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review. ''\nThrough it all , the trove of documents suggested that top to bottom , FBI brass were convinced they were acting appropriately .\nIn response to a press release from Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley that criticized the FBI for failing to provide unclassified information on its Clinton probe in a timely and thorough manner to Congress , Comey quoted Emerson 's 1841 essay `` Self Reliance . ''\n`` Outstanding . ... I should have added that I 'm proud of the way we have handled this release [ of unclassified information ] , '' Comey wrote to his subordinates , including Strzok , on Sept. 2 , 2016 . `` Thanks for the work on it . Just another reminder that Emerson was right when he said , 'To be great is to be misunderstood . ' Have a great and quiet weekend . ''\nPage forwarded the email along to her colleagues , including Strzok , and added a smiley face .\nTrump fired Comey in 2017 , leading to Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's investigation after Comey leaked a series of memos he recorded while speaking with Trump privately .\nComey acknowledged in closed-door testimony in December that as of July 2016 , investigators `` did n't know whether we had anything '' implicating Trump in improper Russia collusion , and that `` in fact , when I was fired as director [ in May 2017 ] , I still did n't know whether there was anything to it . ''


WASHINGTON — Former FBI director James Comey will soon testify in open session before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , following revelations Friday that President Trump told Russian leaders that Comey is a `` nut job '' who was adding pressure to the high-stakes investigation of possible interference in the 2016 election .\nComey , abruptly fired by Trump last week , has agreed to testify in public sometime after Memorial Day , the committee said in a statement .\n“ I hope that former Director Comey ’ s testimony will help answer some of the questions that have arisen since Director Comey was so suddenly dismissed by the President , '' said Sen. Mark Warner , D-Va. , the committee 's vice chairman . `` I also expect that Director Comey will be able to shed light on issues critical to this Committee ’ s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election . Director Comey served his country with honor for many years , and he deserves an opportunity to tell his story . Moreover , the American people deserve an opportunity to hear it . ”\nA current White House official has drawn the scrutiny of federal investigators in the widening inquiry into Russia 's interference in the 2016 election , a person familiar with the matter said Friday .\nThe person , who is not authorized to comment publicly , declined to identify the White House official . The development was first reported by the Washington Post .\nThe New York Times reported that Trump told Russian officials that Comey is a `` nut job , '' and that dismissing him meant the pressure of the FBI 's Russia probe has been `` taken off . ''\nWhite House officials did not deny either story , but only stressed that Trump and his staff had no collusion with Russia .\n“ As the President has stated before , a thorough investigation will confirm that there was no collusion between the campaign and any foreign entity , '' White House spokesman Sean Spicer said in response to the Post story that a White House official is now ensnared in the probe .\nThe president himself labeled the ongoing FBI probe a `` witch hunt '' this week after the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to oversee it in the wake of Comey 's firing . Earlier this week , revelations that Comey kept memos detailing his conversations with Trump , including one in which the president apparently pressed his former FBI director to drop the inquiry into former national security adviser Michael Flynn , roiled Washington .\nSen. Richard Burr , R-N.C. , chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence , said he hopes Comey 's testimony brings some much-needed clarity .\n“ The Committee looks forward to receiving testimony from the former Director on his role in the development of the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 US elections , and I am hopeful that he will clarify for the American people recent events that have been broadly reported in the media , ” Burr said .\nTrump travels to Saudi Arabia as bombshells multiply in Washington\nCalling impeachment talk 'ridiculous , ' Trump denies pressing Comey to drop Michael Flynn investigation\nAs for the conversation with the Russians about Comey , Spicer essentially put the onus on the ex-FBI director .\n`` The President has always emphasized the importance of making deals with Russia as it relates to Syria , Ukraine , defeating ISIS and other key issues for the benefit and safety of the American people , '' Spicer said . `` By grandstanding and politicizing the investigation into Russia 's actions , James Comey created unnecessary pressure on our ability to engage and negotiate with Russia . ''\nSpicer denied that Trump fired Comey to block the Russia investigation , saying , `` the investigation would have always continued , and obviously , the termination of Comey would not have ended it . The real story is that our national security has been undermined by the leaking of private and highly classified conversations . ''\nOn May 10 , the day after he fired Comey , Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov and the Russian ambassador to the United States , Sergey I. Kislyak , in a meeting that has generated furious controversy .\nThe Times , citing a report on the meeting a source read to them , said that Trump told the Russians : “ I just fired the head of the F.B.I . He was crazy , a real nut job ... I faced great pressure because of Russia . That ’ s taken off. ” The president also reportedly said : “ I ’ m not under investigation . ”\nThe news said the documents that included the president 's comments were based on notes taken from inside the Oval Office and have been circulated as the official account of the May 10 meeting . The report says one official read quotations to The Times , and a second official confirmed the broad outlines of the discussion . Other news reports also said that , during that same meeting , Trump discussed classified counter-terrorism information with the Russians .\nDemocrats said the new stories underscore their belief that Trump fired Comey in order to shut down the Russia probe . `` If there was any question as to why Comey was really fired , @ realDonaldTrump just answered it . As I said , Nixonian , '' said Sen. Bob Casey , D-Pa .\nCNN reported that at one point during the 2016 campaign , Russian officials bragged in conversations that they had cultivated a strong relationship with Flynn and believed they could use him to influence Donald Trump and his team .\nCiting two unidentified sources , CNN also reported that White House lawyers have begun researching impeachment procedures in an effort to prepare for what officials still believe is a distant possibility that Trump could have to fend off attempts to remove him from office .\nWhite House officials believe the President has the backing of Republican allies in Congress and that impeachment is not in the cards , CNN reported . Even Democrats have tried to calm impeachment talk out of concern it is premature . But lawyers in the White House counsel 's office have consulted experts in impeachment during the past week and have begun collecting information on how such proceedings would work , a person briefed on the matter told CNN .\nTrump 's glibness in private - and even public - statements has apparently caused his staff some consternation . The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Trump ’ s aides have been pressing for more restraint by the president on Twitter , and some weeks ago they organized what one official called an “ intervention. ” Aides have been concerned about the president ’ s use of Twitter to push inflammatory claims , notably his unsubstantiated allegation from March that his Democratic predecessor , Barack Obama , had wiretapped his offices , the Journal reported .\nIn that meeting , aides warned Mr. Trump that certain kinds of comments made on Twitter would “ paint him into a corner , ” both in terms of political messaging and legally , an unnamed official told the Journal .\nThe top Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee , Rep. Elijah E. Cummings , D-Md. , called on Republican leaders to obtain the documents related to Trump 's comments to Russian officials about Comey .\n“ This new report that President Trump openly admitted to the Russians that he ‘ faced great pressure ’ from the FBI ’ s criminal investigation that was ‘ taken off ’ when he fired Director Comey is astonishing — and extremely troubling , '' Cummings said in a statement .\n`` If these White House documents in fact exist memorializing the President ’ s statements to the Russians , the Oversight Committee needs to obtain copies immediately , '' he continued . `` Chairman ( Jason ) Chaffetz should request these White House documents today and have his subpoena pen ready— just as he did earlier this week with the memos written by Director Comey . ”


Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified Wednesday that he would not have signed a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant renewal for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page had he known about the since-revealed misconduct surrounding those warrants -- while faulting the FBI for its handling of the documents .\nRosenstein confirmed that he signed a FISA warrant renewal application for Page , during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee where he was the first witness as part of the panel ’ s fresh investigation into the origins of the Russia probe .\n`` If you knew then what you know now , would you have signed the warrant application ? '' committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , asked Rosenstein .\nGRAHAM REQUESTS NAMES OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO 'UNMASK ' TRUMP CAMPAIGN , TRANSITION OFFICIALS\nRosenstein , in his opening statement , defended his own actions related to the FISA warrant , saying that “ every application I approved appeared to be justified based on the facts it alleged. ” Rosenstein implicitly pointed the finger at the FBI for since-revealed problems in that process .\n“ The FBI was supposed to be following protocols to ensure that every fact was verified , ” Rosenstein said , going on to cite Justice Department inspector general findings last year revealing that the FBI actually “ was not following the written protocols , and that ‘ significant errors ’ appeared in applications filed in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane investigation . ”\nRosenstein repeatedly claimed to be unaware of details that have since been used by critics to raise questions about the probe . Rosenstein said he `` obviously didn ’ t know there was exculpatory evidence '' with regard to the origins of the Russia investigation , including details about Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos .\nRosenstein also noted that “ one of the most important matters ” during his time at the Justice Department as deputy attorney general was the “ investigation of Russian election influence schemes . ”\nHe defended his handling of that process , including the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller .\n“ Attorney General Sessions had complied with a legal obligation to recuse himself from that investigation , ” Rosenstein said , referring to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions ’ decision to recuse himself from the probe due to his involvement with the Trump campaign in 2016 . “ As a result of events that followed the departure of the FBI Director , I was concerned that the public would not have confidence in the investigation and that the acting FBI Director was not the right person to lead it. ” Rosenstein had recommended Trump remove James Comey as director , effectively making his deputy , Andrew McCabe , the leader of the bureau .\n“ I decided that appointing a Special Counsel was the best way to complete the investigation appropriately and promote public confidence in its conclusions , ” Rosenstein said , noting that the appointment of Mueller was “ consistent with Department of Justice precedent . ”\nLIST OF OFFICIALS WHO SOUGHT TO UNMASK FLYNN RELEASED : BIDEN , COMEY , OBAMA CHIEF OF STAFF AMONG THEM\n“ I asked the Special Counsel to review each criminal allegation the FBI considered relevant to Russian election influence operations and recommended whether to close the matter ; investigate because it might be relevant to Russian election meddling ; or refer the matter to another prosecutor , ” Rosenstein explained , noting that he ensured that Mueller had to go through a “ supervisory chain of command ” with “ highly qualified ” DOJ attorneys and officials .\n“ Crossfire Hurricane ” is the FBI ’ s internal code name for the bureau ’ s original investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election . That investigation was launched by the FBI in July 2016 . Mueller 's team eventually announced that it found no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination .\nRosenstein also said that “ whenever agents or prosecutors make serious mistakes or engage in misconduct , ” the DOJ “ must take remedial action . ”\n“ Ensuring the integrity of governmental processes is essential to public confidence in the rule of law , ” Rosenstein said .\nRosenstein is the first witness as part of the Senate Judiciary Committee ’ s fresh Russia probe review .\nGraham last month outlined the parameters for that investigation , which included , among other things “ whether Robert Mueller should have ever been appointed as special counsel . ”\nGraham , R-S.C. , during his opening statement Wednesday , acknowledged the importance of allowing Mueller to run his investigation , recalling legislation that he and GOP senators introduced to protect Mueller from firing .\n`` Now it is important to find out what the hell happened , '' Graham said . `` How could it have gotten to be where it wound up being ? ''\nGraham also prompted Rosenstein to acknowledge there was scant collusion evidence in August 2017 .\n`` The whole concept that the campaign was colluding with the Russians , there was no there there in August 2017 . Do you agree with that statement ? '' he asked .\nAugust 2017 is when Rosenstein penned the “ scope memo ” for Mueller ’ s investigation , which outlined the authority of Mueller . Last month , the memo was released in full , and revealed for the first time that Mueller ’ s authority went significantly beyond what was previously known .\nPreviously , it had been revealed that in May 2017 , Rosenstein authorized Mueller to probe `` i ) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump ; ii ) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation ; [ and ] iii ) any other matters within the scope of [ obstruction of justice laws ] . ”\nBut , Rosenstein 's later August 2017 scope memo had remained largely redacted . The newly released version of the document makes clear that Rosenstein did n't hesitate to authorize a probe into the Trump team that extended beyond general Russian interference efforts .\nDECLASSIFIED SUSAN RICE EMAIL SHOWS COMEY SUGGESTED 'SENSITIVE ' INFO ON RUSSIA NOT BE SHARED WITH FLYNN\nThe newly released version of the 2017 scope memo further makes clear that Mueller could look into whether Michael Flynn `` committed a crime or crimes by engaging in conversations with Russian government officials during the period of the Trump transition . ”\nAdditionally , the scope memo stated that Mueller was charged specifically with investigating whether several former Trump officials -- including Carter Page , Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort -- had `` committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government 's efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States . ”\nMeanwhile , Rosenstein ’ s appearance comes just one day before the committee votes on potential subpoenas for documents and testimony from top Obama officials .\nDOJ DROPS CASE AGAINST MICHAEL FLYNN , IN WAKE OF INTERNAL MEMO RELEASE\nThe potential subpoenas would cover documents , communications and witness testimony in a public setting or behind closed doors for any “ current or former executive branch official or employee involved in the 'Crossfire Hurricane ' investigation . ”\nGraham is seeking testimony from former FBI Director James Comey , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , former CIA Director John Brennan , former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and others .\nGraham announced earlier that his investigation would specifically focus on unmasking and abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act . It comes amid swirling controversies surrounding the unmasking of Flynn 's name in intelligence reports , as well as the DOJ 's effort to drop the Flynn case citing problems with the FBI 's handling of it .


Republicans finally got their chance Thursday to publicly question senior FBI agent Peter Strzok about his politically charged text messages with Lisa Page , a former FBI attorney he was personally involved with . It did not go exactly as the lawmakers hoped .\nIf the House GOP ’ s goal in grilling Strzok at length was to distract from the ongoing investigation of Trump campaign ties to Russia and the president ’ s conspicuously pro-Kremlin behavior—including his recent suggestions that the US might withdraw from NATO—then Thursday ’ s hearing was a success . But the showdown also cost Republicans : They were forced to let Strzok openly defend himself for the first time . And their own eagerness to continue a purely partisan attack on special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s investigation was on glaring display .\nAt the joint hearing of the House Judiciary and the Oversight and Government Reform committees , GOP members mostly spent their time leveling accusations of extreme bias against Strzok , who played a key role in the bureau ’ s investigations into Hillary Clinton ’ s use of a email and allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia . They read aloud Strzok ’ s text messages to Page , and forced him to read some aloud too . But those texts have long been public and widely discussed in the media . What was new Wednesday was that Strzok had the chance to explain them , and he made the most of it .\nStrzok was able to explain why he sent the famous text in which he told Page that “ we ’ ll stop ” Trump from becoming president . He said the text was a response to events that included “ Trump insulting the immigrant family of a fallen war hero , and my presumption based on that horrible , disgusting behavior that the American people would not elect someone demonstrating that behavior to be president of the United States. ” ( Strzok was referring to Trump ’ s attacks on Khizr Khan , who famously criticized Trump at the Democratic National Convention in 2016 ; his son , Captain Humayun Khan , was killed in Iraq in 2004 . )\nStrzok continued : “ I can assure you , Mr. Chairman , that at no time in any of these texts did those personal beliefs ever enter into the realm of any action I took . He added that the committee did not need to rely on his word , due the multiple layers agents involved in investigative decisions . “ They would not tolerate any improper behavior in me any more than I would tolerate it in them , ” he said . “ That is who we are as the FBI . ”\nStrozk also told the panels that the “ we ” he ’ d referred to in the text about “ stopping ” Trump was not the FBI , as Republicans have asserted , but American voters . His forceful remarks did not appease his critics , but they served to deflate the anti-Trump partisan narrative about him that his critics constructed over months while he remained silent . His statement in defense of himself and the FBI drew applause from some hearing attendees .\nStrzok had used his opening statement at the hearing to make an obvious but overlooked point : If he wanted to “ stop ” Trump ’ s election , he could have leaked information on the Trump campaign ’ s extensive contacts with Russia . But “ the thought of exposing that information never crossed my mind , ” Strzok said . That made for an interesting contrast : As Democratic lawmakers noted , senior FBI officials in 2016 believed that agents in the FBI ’ s New York bureau were leaking information intended to damage Hillary Clinton ’ s campaign . The Justice Department ’ s Inspector General concluded this year that concerns about leaks from that FBI field office influenced former FBI Director James Comey ’ s possibly fateful decision to make public that the FBI had reopened its investigation of Hillary Clinton ’ s emails just ahead of Election Day .\nStrzok , citing advice from FBI lawyers , declined to detail his work on the Trump-Russia investigation . But he managed to highlight the significance of the Trump campaign ’ s alleged actions . “ If there were people within the campaign who were colluding or working with the government of Russia , then there is very little that is more important for … the FBI [ to ] get to the bottom of , ” he said . Strozk also expressed concern that Russia succeeded in influencing the outcome of the 2016 election by “ putting their finger on the scale ” of American public opinion .\nDemocrats used the hearing to highlight Republican efforts to hinder the investigation into Trump . When Republicans threatened to hold Strzok in contempt of Congress for failing to answer some questions about the Russia probe , Democrats responded by forcing a joint committee vote aimed at subpoenaing former White House advisor Steve Bannon , who earlier this year refused to comply with a subpoena from the House Intelligence Committee . Republicans voted down that effort . Notably , Rep. Trey Gowdy ( R-SC ) appeared less than eager on this front : He said “ pass ” during the roll call vote .\nDemocrats also used the hearing to point out that House Judiciary Committee Chairman Robert Goodlatte and Gowdy previously justified their refusal to look into Trump ’ s ties to Russia by asserting they wanted to avoid interfering with Mueller ’ s investigation .\nRep. Jerry Nadler ( D-NY ) , the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee , noted that Goodlatte said last year that “ until Mr. Mueller ’ s investigation is complete , it is redundant for the House of Representatives to engage in fact-gathering on many of the same issues. ” Goodlatte has also claimed that his committee “ would never intrude on an active criminal investigation , ” Nadler pointed out . But Nadler said that was belied by the fact that the Republicans , during an 11-hour private interview earlier in the week , asked Strzok more than 200 questions about the special counsel ’ s investigation , including about the FBI ’ s use of confidential sources .\n“ Are we no longer going to wait until special counsel Mueller concludes his work , Mr. Chairman ? ” Nadler asked , adding : “ Or perhaps the rules of this joint investigation , such as they are , operate differently now that we are approaching the midterm elections and special counsel Mueller is closing in on the President ’ s close associates . ”