Watch live: Michael Horowitz testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee


TRUMP’S 2016 CAMPAIGN. IT ALSO FOUND THAT THE AGENCY WAS JUSTIFIED TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. >>MOLLY HOOPER JOINS US NOW. GOOD TO SEE YOU. HELP OUR VIEWERS UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS REPORT MEANS. DID THE INSPECTOR GENERAL GIVE A REASON WHY THE FBI WAS JUSTIFIED INTO OPENING ITS PROBE? >>IT DID WORK THIS WHOLE INVESTIGATION WAS STARTED AND BASED ON THE CHRISTOPHER IS STILL DOSSIER. THE IDEA IS THAT, THAT IS NOT WHAT PROMPTED IT. WHAT PROMPTED IT WAS A MEETING IN 2016. A FRIENDLY ALLY THAT CAME TO THE UNITED STATES SAYING GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, A POLICY ADVISOR, TOLD US THAT IT IS SUGGESTED THAT RUSSIA HAD INFORMATION THAT AFFLICT ANONYMOUSLY, COULD HURT HILLARY CLINTON. SO THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED IT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT AND YOU KEEP GOING, WHAT THE FBI BASED A LOT OF THEIR INITIAL FISA APPLICATION ON, A LOT OF THAT WAS BASED ON THIS STEEL DOSSIER SO THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY APPLY FOR THE APPLICATION TO LISTEN IN AND SEVILLE MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN UNTIL THEY HAD THIS CHRISTOPHER IS STILL DOSSIER IN HAND THAT IS NOT WHAT PROMPTED THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION. THE FISA APPLICATION WAS MERELY TO LISTEN IN ON US CITIZENS. >>IT AS THEY MOVE FORWARD, YOU HAVE TO KEEP GETTING IT RENEWED BECAUSE IT IS A BIG DEAL TO SURVEY ALL AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. AS THEY MOVED FORWARD, THE REPORT BALANCE AREAS PERFORMANCE FAILURES. THEY GET THEIR HANDS ON THIS DEAL WHICH PROMPTS THEM TO KEEP INVESTIGATING BUT AS THEY KEEP INVESTIGATING AND KEEP RENEWING THE FISA WARRANT, THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE APPLICATIONS. >>IF YOU LOOK AT THIS REPORT, THIS 430 PAGE REPORT, IT IS ALMOST PAGE AFTER PAGE OF HOW MUCH THE FBI DID DEPEND ON WHAT WAS IN THIS CHRISTOPHER STEEL DOSSIER THAT HAD AND CRIMINAL UNFOUNDED AFTER THE FIRST APPLICATION BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SUPPLIED CHRISTOPHER IS STILL WITH ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, THAT PERSON DOES ABOUT IT AND THE FI KNEW THAT SO BEFORE THEY HAD TO REAPPLY TO KEEP THE SURVEILLANCE GOING, THEY KNEW THAT THIS GUY WAS TOTALLY DISCREDITED BUT THEY DID NOT TELL THE COURT THAT. THEY LET THE COURT THINK THAT THE REASON THEY NEEDED THE APPLICATION AND SURVEILLANCE WARRANT WAS BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID WAS INCREDIBLE FINDINGS BUT THEY KNEW IT WASN’T. >>IT SUPPORTED THE APPLICATION BUT NOT THE INFORMATION? >>EXACTLY. >>YOU SAW THE INTERVIEW THAT KATHERINE GRAHAM HAD WITH THE SENATE JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN, LINDSEY GRAHAM, CALLING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN A, QUOTE, CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE. AT ONE OF THE RALLIES, CALLING THE FBI INVESTIGATORS COME. THAT IS A QUOTE. IN MY WILDEST DREAMS, I WOULD HAVE NEVER EXPECTED A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO CALL MEMBERS OF THE FBI SCUM BUT IF YOU GET LINDSEY GRAHAM THING THIS IS A CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE, ALL OF THIS STUFF IS BEING REINFORCED. >>LET ME BACK IT UP AND TELL YOU WHAT WE WILL LIKELY HEAR FROM LINDSEY GRAHAM TODAY. HE SAID THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION WAS PROBABLY WARRANTED BUT KEEPING IT GOING WAS NOT BECAUSE HE SAYS THIS OMISSION OF INFORMATION FROM THE FBI, ESSENTIALLY THE PERSON THEY ARE BASING THE WARRANT ON WAS DISAVOWED AND HE SAYS THAT IS LIKE GETTING LAB RESULTS FROM THE LAB ABOUT A TEXTUAL CRIMINAL, DNA EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THE INDIVIDUAL WAS INNOCENT. LETTING THE COURT BELIEVED THAT THE DNA EVIDENCE AND FINGERPRINTS ARE PROVEN NOT TO BE THERE. THAT’S WHY HE IS SAYING. SPYING ON AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, THAT IS A VERY BIG DEAL AND IT’S KEPT GOING AND GOING. THIS IS ON CARTER PAGE IN PARTICULAR. HE SAID THAT IS WHERE THE CRIMINAL ABUSE CAME FROM BECAUSE THEY ALLOW THIS TO KEEP GOING EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD EVIDENCE OR THE OMITTED INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY GIVEN THE COURT REASONED TO NOT ALLOW THE WORLD TO GO FORWARD. >>CHRISTOPHER WRAY HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORT AND HAS SAID THAT HE IS GOING TO PUT INTO PLACE CORRECTIVE MEASURES AND THAT THERE MAY BE CRIMINAL CHARGES. BUT IT IS THE USE OF THIS LANGUAGE THAT EVEN DURING THE NIXON YEARS WHEN WE KNEW THE FBI WAS ACTUALLY SPYING ON AMERICAN CITIZENS. THE USE OF THE WORDS COME, REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATS. >>VERY QUICKLY, THIS IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE REPORT AND THIS IS THE MOTIVATION. BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING IN THIS REPORT FOR BOTH SIDES. THIS IS FOR THE DEMOCRATS. >>THEY CANNOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE ON THE PART OF THE INVESTIGATORS, INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN TARGETED BY TRUMP, LINDSEY GRAHAM AND WHATNOT BUT HE ALSO NOTED THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS NO LONGER WITH THE BUREAU AND HOROWITZ WHICH YOU WILL HEAR REPUBLICANS SAY WAS LIMITED TO THE INDIVIDUALS CURRENTLY WORKING. SO WHEN YOU HEAR SOMEONE LIKE DURHAM, BULL DURHAM, HIS REPORT OR THE STATEMENT WE SAW THE OTHER DAY WAS KIND OF INDICATING THAT HIS INVESTIGATION COULD GO BEYOND THE DOJ. SO WE WILL SEE BUT YOU ARE RIGHT . IT IS LIKE THE MEULLER REPORT. NO COLLUSION. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT PARTY YOU ARE IN. >>>BEFORE WE TURN TO OUR POLITICAL STRATEGIST, WE ARE FOLLOWING NEWS IN CORPUS CHRISTI AND THE SHELTER IN PLACE HAS BEEN LIFTED. THAT TWEET THAT WE SAW EARLIER WAS CORRECT. THAT THEY HAD CAUGHT THE SHOOTER BUT THE SHOULDER IN PLACE HAS BEEN LIFTED AND THIS IS THE NEW BUT ALL PERSONNEL ARE ADVISED TO REMAIN CLEAR. BUT WE HAVE SEEN IT BEFORE. SO LET US BRING IN OUR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTORS. LESLIE SANCHEZ IS JOINING US ONSET. ANTOINE IS IN WASHINGTON AND I AM GOING TO START WITH YOU. I THINK WE WILL SPRINGBOARD OFF OF WHAT VLADIMIR BROUGHT UP. SLAMMING THE FBI, SLAMMING THE AGENTS AND I THINK SCUM, I THINK USED MORE INFLAMMATORY WORDS THAN WE HAVE HEARD BEFORE.>>I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT BECAUSE I AM FROM CORPUS CHRISTI AND THIS IS THE THIRD ATTACK. A WEEK AND A HALF. THAT IS A CONCERN TO A LOT OF PEOPLE. IN THE PRESIDENT’S CAUSTIC LINE , WE KNOW HE IS SO OUTLANDISH BUT I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF MERIT HERE IN THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT THE IG SLAPS THE FBI FOR ITS OVER ABUSE AND IF ANYTHING, IT VINDICATES DAVID NUNEZ WHO WAS REALLY THE WHISTLEBLOWER TO BEGIN WITH. SO THAT IS THE CORE OF IT AND I THOUGHT MOLLY DID A VERY GOOD JOB. THERE’S A LITTLE BIT FOR EVERYBODY BUT BASICALLY CONTINUING ON THIS FALSE PREMISE WITHOUT DISCLOSING WHAT THEY HAD DISCOVERED IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS OVERSIGHT AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE TAKEAWAYS. >>THERE WERE SO I GUESS, WHAT YOU POINTED OUT, WE RECALL 2 YEARS AGO WHEN DEVON NUNEZ CAME OUT WITH A TWEET AND WITH A STATEMENT IN FRONT OF THE CAMERAS THAT WHAT HE HAD JUST DISCOVERED WITH REGARDS TO THE FISA DOCUMENT, IT WAS GOING TO BLOW MINDS. >>ABSOLUTELY TRUE. 17 COUNTS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT, THE REPORT IS SO DENSE THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. BUT IT SLAPS THE F VI FOR SUPPOSEDLY USING A BASELINE BRIEFING, SURVEILLANCE OF ELECTIONS. AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE FLYNN. THEY WERE DOING ADDITIONAL EXERCISES. AND THEY BRING UP ADAM SCHIFF WITH THIS OR I WOULD SAY THAT REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN QUICK TO POINT OUT THAT ADAM SCHIFF WAS QUICK TO SAY THERE WAS NO ABUSE OF THE COURTS OF THE DOSSIER WAS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ELEMENT WHEN IT PROVED TO BE THE CATALYST. THAT IS WHY THERE IS SO MUCH CONCERN, AMERICANS SHOULD BE SO CONCERNED BECAUSE IT IS SO HIGHLY POLITICIZED AND THE POINT MOLLY MADE HIS WILL, MANY INDIVIDUALS ARE NOT THERE TO, AT THE DOJ AND FBI TO FIND OUT THE NEXUS OF THIS. >>THERE IS NOT A TON OF TIME BECAUSE THE HEARING WILL START, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS LITTLE BIT FOR BOTH PARTIES INCLUDING NO PROOF OF POLITICAL BIAS. >>SEVERAL THINGS, REPUBLICANS ARE GOING TO USE THIS TO TRY TO MAKE A VICTORY LAP TO PROVE THE THEORY THAT THE FBI IS CORRUPT AND THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT IS AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, WHICH WE KNOW IS FALSE, BECAUSE IT REPORT VALIDATES WHAT I THINK WE KNEW. AND IF YOU NOTICE WHAT THE STRATEGY WAS TO THIS POINT, IT WAS TO MAKE THIS REPORT A WIN OF DISTRACTION TO BLOW AWAY OTHER INVESTIGATIONS GOING ON AROUND TRUMP INCLUDING THE HEARINGS THAT WE BEEN THROUGH THE PAST SEVERAL WEEKS. NUMBER THREE, CALLING BALLS AND STRIKES AS UMPIRES WOULD, WE CANNOT IGNORE THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS IN THE REPORT AND THE DIRECTOR SAID HE WOULD DEAL WITH THEM, THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT ANY PRESIDENT HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL LEADERS SCUM AND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT DONALD TRUMP USED LAST NIGHT, AND AGAIN, WE CAN SAY IT’S JUST DONALD TRUMP, WE SHOULD GET INTO THE WEEDS OF WHAT HE SAYS, BUT WORDS MATTER. WHEN YOU HAVE THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD, THE MOST POWERFUL VOICE IN THE STATES IN THE WORLD USE A LANGUAGE LIKE THAT, IT SENDS A MESSAGE TO OUR ADVERSARIES AND OUR FRIENDS AROUND THE WORLD ABOUT WHAT WE THINK OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SERVING US EVERY DAY. IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE FBI, A LOT OF THINGS WOULD GO ON IN THIS COUNTRY THAT COULD BE VERY DAMAGING FOR GENERATIONS. SO I’M A BIG FAN OF CALLING úBA THEM. >>WHAT I SAY ABOUT THAT, THIS IS UNLIKE REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT. THIS IS AN ISSUE WHERE YOU HAVE THE DOJ WITH EXTENSIVE COMPLIANCE FAILURES THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT, AND THAT FAILURE TO DISCLOSE, AND WAS BUILT ON THE PRECIPICE OF THE DOSSIER, WHICH WE KNOW IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND NOT TO COME BACK, NOT TO COME BACK AND DISCLOSE THAT THAT WAS PROVEN TO BE INCORRECT AND THEN THEY ARE STILL BASING THEIR FISA APPLICATION ON THAT IS REALLY A FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM. >> I THINK THERE ARE TWO CONVERSATIONS TO BE HAD. >>MULTIPLE. >>ONE CONVERSATION AND IT IS A SERIOUS CONVERSATION THAT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SHOULD TUNE INTO HAS TO DO WITH HOW THESE FISA APPLICATION THE PROCESS. WE ALMOST NEVER GET TO FIND OUT WHAT IS IN A FISA APPLICATION AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE SEE. >>WAS PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT IT WAS, NOW THERE ARE MULTIPLE ERRORS. BUT THEN THERE’S THE OTHER CONVERSATION OF THE WAY THE PRESIDENT IS CHARACTERIZING THIS, THAT THIS WAS SORT OF A DELIBERATE BIAS ATTACK BECAUSE THE FBI HATES HIM. >>I THINK THE POINT, WHAT IS INTERESTING IS THAT THERE ARE SERIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN THE WAY THAT THIS WAS CONDUCTED. BUT ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT A POLITICAL BIAS INTO THE INVESTIGATION PROVEN NOT TO BE TRUE ACCORDING TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. THE FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS POLITICIZING THE DEPARTMENT, POLITICIZING THE FBI, POLITICIZING THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AM EVEN GOING AFTER HIS OWN FBI DIRECTOR THAT HE APPOINTED AND SANG THE CURRENT FBI DIRECTOR WHICH IS A SIGNAL FOR ANYONE THAT EVER WORKED FOR THE PRISON, I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE ARE IN UNCHARTED TERRITORY. >>BECAUSE YOU ARE RIGHT. THOSE PFIZER ABUSES WERE ABUSES. THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A REPUBLIC WHERE YOU WILL SEE, RIGHT NOW, PLAYING OUT ON LIVE TV, DEMOCRACY IN ACTION, THE ELECTED MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ARE GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL AS TO WHAT WENT WRONG AND HOW DO THEY FIX IT. THAT IS GOOD. >>THIS IS GOOD. THIS IS THE SAME AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL IG REPORTS ON AFGHANISTAN RECONSTRUCTION, IG REPORTS ON IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION WHEN YOU FOUND MULTIPLE ABUSES ALL ACROSS THE SCALE, BUT HOW DO YOU REMEDY THAT. HOW DO YOU ADJUST THAT? AND I AGREE. I THINK IT IS AN OVERREACH FOR THE PRESENT TO SAY THIS IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. IT IS A BRUISE TO THE EGO AND HE LIKES THIS LINE OF ATTACK. >>ISN’T QUITE DAMAGING? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>THERE ARE AGENTS IN JERSEY CITY RIGHT NOW INVESTIGATING WHAT HAPPENED IN JERSEY CITY. >>THAT IS MY POINT. >>GO, WE’VE BEEN TALKING OVER YOU. >>THAT IS MY POINT. YOU CRITICIZE THE VERY PEOPLE WHO KEEP US SAFE EVERY SINGLE DAY AND THAT IS WHERE IT GETS DANGEROUS, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THE PRESIDENT HAS A VERY LOYAL FOLLOWING, AND WHATEVER HE SAYS BLEEDS DOWN TO THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF EVERYDAY PEOPLE AND THAT’S WHERE IT BECOMES WEAKER THAN DONALD TRUMP AND BIGGER THAN REPUBLICAN VERSUS DEMOCRAT AND THAT IS MY FEAR. THE SECOND POINT, I THINK IN THE REPORT IT SAYS THAT THE STEEL DOSSIER WAS NOT THE FOUNDATION FOR WHICH ALL OF THESE THINGS STEM FROM. AND SO I JUST THINK THAT WHEN COMES TO THE DOSSIER, WHILE THAT HAS BEEN A DISTRACTION WORD AND SOMETHING USED BY THE PRESIDENT, I DON’T KNOW THAT THAT WAS THE OVERALL BASIS FOR HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT. >>WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE DOSSIER WAS AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THE APPLICATION. AND THAT IS THE PART THAT IS DISCONCERTING. SO I AGREE WITH YOU. THE MEN AND WOMEN OF THE FBI ARE HARD-WORKING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND WE NEED THEM, AND WE NEED MORE PEOPLE LIKE THEM TO WORK IN THIS AGENCY, THE QUESTION IS, WHEN YOU HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF POWER SUCH THAT YOU CAN GET WITH THESE FIVE APPLICATIONS TO SERVE A ON PRIVATE CITIZENS, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A LEVEL THAT IS CHECKS AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE IT ISN’T ABUSED AND IN THIS CASE, IT WAS. >>WE WILL DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT THIS AFTER WE GET A PAUSE IN THE HEARING, BECAUSE THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE, LINDSEY GRAHAM, IS SPEAKING. >>I’M DYING TO HEAR FROM YOU, BUT I BET I HAVEN’T MADE 20 MINUTES OF OPENING STATEMENTS IN A YEAR. I WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER. TO TRY TO LAY OUT WHAT I THINK IS BEFORE US AS A NATION. A CROSSFIRE HURRICANE WAS PROBABLY THE BEST NAME EVER GIVEN TO AN INVESTIGATION IN THE HISTORY OF INVESTIGATIONS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT’S WHAT WE WOUND UP WITH, A CROSSFIRE IN A HURRICANE. THERE’S BEEN A LOT OF MEDIA REPORTS ABOUT YOUR REPORT BEFORE IT WAS ISSUED. AND I REMEMBER READING ALL OF THESE HEADLINES, LAWFUL INVESTIGATION WITH A FEW IRREGULARITIES. EVERYTHING OKAY, LOW LEVEL PEOPLE KIND OF GOT OFF TRACK. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU GET OUT OF THIS REPORT, YOU CLEARLY DIDN’T READ IT. IF THAT IS YOUR TAKE AWAY THAT THIS THING WAS LAWFULLY PREDICATED AND THAT’S THE MAIN POINT, YOU MISSED THE ENTIRE REPORT. HOW DO YOU GET A HEADLINE LIKE THAT? THAT IS WHAT YOU WANTED TO BE. YOU WANT IT TO BE THAT AND NOTHING MORE. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU IF THIS HAD BEEN A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT GOING THROUGH WHAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAD GONE THROUGH, THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE HEADLINE. THE HEADLINE WOULD BE THE FBI TAKES LAW INTO ITS OWN HANDS, BIASED AGENTS CUT CORNERS, LIGHT TO COURT. IGNORE EXONERATION. SO THE FIRST THING I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS HOW THE CAKE IS BAKED HERE. AND MY GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE, WHEN THIS IS OVER WHETHER YOU LIKE TRUMP OR HATE TRUMP, DON’T CARE ABOUT TRUMP, YOU LOOK AT THIS AS MORE THAN A FEW IRREGULARITIES. BECAUSE IF THIS BECOMES A FEW IRREGULARITIES IN AMERICA, THEN GOD HELP US ALL. NOW, THE PEOPLE THAT WERE IN CHARGE IN THIS INVESTIGATION WERE HAND-PICKED. BY MR. McCABE. WHO IS NOW A CNN ANALYST, HIGH UP IN THE FBI, THE NUMBER TWO GUY. THE FIRST QUESTION I WILL ASK IN A BIT IS IS THIS THE BEST OF THE BEST? ARE THESE PEOPLE NORMAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI? I HOPE YOU WILL SAY NO. BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT TO BE NO. AND IF I BELIEVED OTHERWISE, I WOULD BE INCREDIBLY DEPRESSED. SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I’M GOING TO ASSUME SOMETHING FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT. THAT THERE WAS A LAWFUL PREDICATE TO OPEN UP A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW, THE STANDARD TO OPEN ONE UP IS ABOUT LIKE THAT. AND I ALSO WANT YOU TO KNOW A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION IS NOT A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. THEY’RE NOT TRYING TO SOLVE A CRIME. THEY’RE TRYING TO STOP FOREIGN POWERS FROM INTERFERING IN AMERICA. THAT A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FOREIGN INFLUENCE. I WANT THE PEOPLE TO KNOW THERE WAS AN EFFORT TO AFFECT HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN BY FOREIGN ACTORS. THE FBI PICKED UP THAT EFFORT, THEY BRIEFED HER ABOUT IT, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO STOP IT. WE WILL BE RECEIVING A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING TOMORROW AS A COMMITTEE. FROM THE FBI. TO TELL US ALL ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD BE WATCHING FOR. AND THEY MAY BE SOME SPECIFIC THREATS AGAINST US, I DON’T KNOW. BUT I KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BRIEF US TO PROTECT US. NOT TO SURVEILLANCE. AND HERE IS WHAT I WANT EVERY AMERICAN TO KNOW, FROM THE TIME THEY OPENED UP CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TO THIS DEBACLE WAS OVER, THEY NEVER MADE ANY EFFORT TO BRIEF DONALD TRUMP ABOUT SUSPECTED PROBLEMS WITHIN HIS CAMPAIGN. THEY HAD ONE BRIEFING TALKING ABOUT THE RUSSIANS ARE OUT THERE , YOU BETTER BEWARE. NOTHING ABOUT CARTER PAGE, NOTHING ABOUT GEORGE úPAPADOPOU OTHER PEOPLE. THAT THEY THOUGHT MIGHT BE WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS. WHY DID THEY NOT TELL HIM THAT? I HOPE YOU CAN GIVE US AN ANSWER. BOTTOM LINE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION IS A GOOD THING UNTIL IT BECOMES A BAD THING. BECAUSE IT DOESN’T TAKE MUCH TO OPEN ONE, AND THE WORST THING CAN HAPPEN, FOR PEOPLE TO OPEN ONE UP WHOSE REAL PURPOSE IS NOT TO PROTECT AN AMERICAN, BUT TO SURVEILLED THEM. SENATOR FEINSTEIN FOUND YOURSELF IN A SITUATION ALL OF US MAY ONE DAY FIND OURSELVES IN. A LONGTIME EMPLOYEE WAS SUSPECTED OF HAVING TIES TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. THEY INFORMED HER AND SHE TOOK APPROPRIATE ACTION. HOW EASY WOULD IT BE FOR SOMEBODY TO COME INTO OUR CAMPAIGN AS A VEILED TEAR, AS A VOLUNTEER, YOU JUST APPRECITE ANY HOPE YOU CAN GET AS IT WOULD BE FOR ALL OF US TO GET CAUGHT UP IN THIS SCENARIO. I HOPE ALL OF US WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THERE IS SOMEONE IN MY CAMPAIGN WORKING WITH A FOREIGN POWER, PLEASE TELL ME. SO I CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. WHY DIDN’T THEY TELL TRUMP? WE WILL FIGURE THAT OUT LATER. BUT I THINK IT’S A QUESTION THAT NEEDS TO BE ASKED. SO FOR A MOMENT, LET’S ASSUME THAT THERE WAS A LAWFUL PREDICATE TO OPEN UP A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION. WHAT IS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A FEW IRREGULARITIES BECOMES A MASSIVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OVER TIME TO DEFRAUD THE COURT AND ILLEGALLY SURVEILLED AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND KEEP AN OPERATION OPEN AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIOLATING EVERY NORM KNOWN TO THE RULE OF LAW. MANY OF YOU ARE PROSECUTORS, MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN U.S. ATTORNEYS. MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. TRUMP’S TIME WILL COME AND GO, BUT I HOPE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE CAN NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS NOT A FEW IRREGULARITIES. WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THE SYSTEM FAILED, PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF OUR GOVERNMENT TOOK THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS, AND WHEN I SAY DEFRAUD THE FISA COURT, I MEAN IT. TO YOUR TEAM, YOU WERE ABLE TO UNCOVER AND DISCOVER ABUSE OF POWER I NEVER BELIEVED WOULD ACTUALLY EXIST IN 2019. HOW BAD IS IT? IT IS AS IF J EDGAR HOOVER CAME BACK TO LIFE. THE OLD FBI. THE FBI THAT HAD A CHIP ON ITS SHOULDER AND WANTED TO INTIMIDATE PEOPLE AND FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON IN YOUR LIFE AND THE LAW BE . MARTIN LUTHER KING AND JUST FILL IN THE NAMES. SO WHO RAN THIS THING? THE PEOPLE WERE HAND-PICKED BY McCABE. THE NUMBER TWO GUY AT THE FBI. THE SUPERVISORY AGENT, THE DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, PETER STRUCK, A BIG PLAYER IN ALL THINGS CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. LISA PAGE, YOU MAY HAVE HEARD OF HER, WHO IS SHE? SHE WAS AN FBI LAWYER WORKING FOR McCABE. THESE ARE TWO CENTRAL CHARACTERS IN THIS DEBACLE. LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE AND WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM. THANKS TO A LOT OF HARD WORK BY PEOPLE FOR MR. HOROWITZ IN THE FBI AND OTHERS. HERE IS WHAT WE KNOW. STRUCK, THE FRONT LINE SUPERVISOR FEBRUARY 12, 2016. OH HE, TRUMP IS ABYSMAL. I KEEP HOPING THE CHARADE WILL AND AND PEOPLE WILL JUST DUMP HIM. THE PROBLEM THEN IS THAT RUBIO WILL LIKELY LOSE TO CRUISE. I NEVER QUITE MADE IT AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD NOT CONSIDER ME A SERIOUS CANDIDATE. THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS UTTER SHAMBLES. WHEN WAS THE LAST COMPETITIVE TICKET THEY OFFERED? MARCH 3, 2016. PAGE, GOD, TRUMP IS A LOATHSOME HUMAN. PETER STRUCK. OH, MY GOD, HE IS AN IDIOT. AND IN NEWSROOMS, PEOPLE ARE NODDING. THIS REPRESENTS THE ATTITUDE OF A LOT OF PEOPLE IN AMERICA, BUT YOU CAN AGREE WITH THAT, BUT YOU CAN BE IN THE JOURNALS AND OR FBI. IF YOU WERE IN THE MILITARY AND YOU DID SAY ANYTHING LIKE THIS ABOUT A COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, YOU WOULD BE CHARGED WITH A CRIME. REMEMBER THE DEBACLE WHEN A BARROOM SCUFFLE WITH REPORTER. WHAT WAS THE TAKE AWAY, GO, DON’T GO ROLLING STONE REPORTER. THEY TALK ABOUT HOW THEY DON’T LIKE JOE BIDEN AND I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE TO SAY THAT IS OUT OF BOUNDS. YOU CAN HAVE ALL OF THE POLITICAL OPINIONS THAT YOU WANT BUT IF YOU ARE AN OFFICER IN THE MILITARY, YOU WILL DEPART THOSE OPINIONS AND YOU WILL NOT SPEAK ILL OF THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF. BUT THAT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT A RULE AT THE FBI AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. MARCH 16 OF 2016, I CANNOT BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP IS LIKELY TO BE AN ACTUAL SERIOUS CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. JULY 16, WE ARE GETTING CLOSER TO WHEN THIS OPENS. AND WHILE DONNA AND TRUMP, AND WHILE DONALD TRUMP IS AN AND YOU WILL MISS –. THE FIRST THING OUT OF HIS MOUTH WAS WE ARE GOING TO WIN SO BIG. IT IS LIKE LIVING IN A BAD DREAM, JULY 19th. TRUMP IS A DISASTER, I’VE NO IDEA HOW DESTABILIZING HIS PRESIDENCY WOULD BE. AND A LOT OF PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT BE AN INVESTIGATOR. JULY 30. THE INVESTIGATION IS OPEN. AND , THIS FEELS MOMENTOUS ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION, BECAUSE THIS MATTERS. THE OTHER ONE DID ALSO, BUT THAT WAS TO ENSURE WE DIDN’T F SOMETHING UP. THIS MATTERS BECAUSE THIS MATTERS. SO SUPER GLAD TO BE ON THIS VOYAGE WITH YOU. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS VOYAGE WAS ABOUT. AUGUST 8 OF 2016. THREE DAYS BEFORE PETER STRZOK WAS NAMED THE SUPERVISOR. >>HE IS NOT EVER GOING TO BECOME PRESIDENT, PAGE TO PETER STRZOK. NO, HE WON’T. WE WILL STOP IT. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE. AUGUST 15 OF 2016. I WANT TO BELIEVE THE PATH YOU THROUGHOUT FOR CONSIDERATION IN ANDY’S OFFICE THAT THERE IS NO WAY HE GETS ELECTED. BUT I’M AFRAID WE CAN’T TAKE THAT RISK THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL PICK THE PRESIDENT IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. IT IS LIKE AN INSURANCE POLICY IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT YOU DIE BEFORE YOU ARE 40. AUGUST 26 OF 2016. JUST WENT TO, JUST WENT TO SOUTHERN VIRGINIA WALMART. I COULD SMELL THE TRUMP SUPPORT.>>THESE ARE PEOPLE IN CHARGE. OCTOBER 11 THE 2016. CURRENTLY FIGHTING WITH STU FOR THE FISA. STU WAS A LAWYER WHO THOUGHT THIS THING WAS NOT ON THE UP AND UP. HE STOOD HIS GROUND UNTIL HE COULDN’T STAND IT ANYMORE. EVENTUALLY GOT RUN OVER. OCTOBER 19. I AM ALL RILED UP, TRUMP IS AN IDIOT AND UNABLE TO PROVIDE A COHERENT ANSWER. THE NEW YORK TIMES PROBABILITY NUMBERS ARE DROPPING EVERY DAY. I’M SCARED FOR OUR ORGANIZATION. NOVEMBER 3, 2016. OH, MY GOD, THIS IS TERRIFYING. REFERENCING AN ARTICLE ENTITLED A VICTORY BY TRUMP REMAINS POSSIBLE. NOVEMBER 9 2016. ARE YOU EVER GOING TO GIVE OUT YOUR CALENDARS? SOME KIND OF DEPRESSING. MAYBE IT SHOULD BE THE FIRST MEETING OF THE SECRET SOCIETY. NOVEMBER 13. I’D BOUGHT ALL OF THE PRESIDENT’S MEN. I FIGURED I NEEDED TO BRUSH UP ON WATERGATE. NOVEMBER 13, 2016. FINALLY TWO PAGES AWAY FROM FINISHING ALL OF THE PRESIDENT’S MEN. DID YOU KNOW THE PRESIDENT RESIGNS AT THE END? PETER STRZOK, WHAT, THAT WOULD BE SO LUCKY. MAY 18 2017. THE DATE PAGE ACCEPTED A POSITION ON THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S TEAM. >>FOR ME, IN THIS CASE, I PERSONALLY HAVE A SENSE OF UNFINISHED BUSINESS. >>UNLEASHED WITH NY E FOR WHATEVER THAT MEANS, NOW I NEED TO FIX IT AND FINISH IT. PETER STRZOK, WHO GIVES AN F? ONE MORE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OR WHOEVER. AN INVESTIGATION LEADING TO IMPEACHMENT. MAY 2017. YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THE ODDS ARE NOTHING. IF I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKELY, I WOULD BE THERE, I WOULD BE THERE, NO QUESTION. I HESITATE IN PART JUST BECAUSE MY GUT SENSE CONCERNED THERE IS NO BIG THERE THERE. TALK ABOUT — >>MAY 22, 2017. >>I’M TORN. I THINK, NO, I AM MORE REPLACEABLE THAN YOU ARE IN THIS. I’M THE BEST FOR IT, BUT THERE ARE OTHERS WHO CAN DO IT OKAY. YOU ARE DIFFERENT AND MORE UNIQUE. THIS IS YOURS. TALKING TO PAIGE. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE FRONT LINE SUPERVISOR AND THE LAWYER TO McCABE. THERE IS A GUY NAMED KLEINSMITH. WHO EVENTUALLY ALTERS AN EMAIL FROM THE CIA THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI. AND MR. HOROWITZ AND THE TEAM FOUND THIS OUT AND HOW THEY DID IT, I WILL NEVER KNOW. I’M JUMPING AHEAD HERE. BUT WHEN YOU READ THE REPORT, WHAT THEY FIND IS THAT A LAWYER , SUPERVISING THE PFIZER PROCESS AT THE FBI ACCORDING TO MR. HOROWITZ DOCTORED AN EMAIL FROM THE CIA TO THE FBI, AND HE WILL BE REFERRED FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? CARTER PAGE, WHO HAS BEEN ON THE RECEIVING END OF ALL OF THIS , THE FOUNDATION TO BELIEVE HE WAS A FOREIGN AGENT COMES FROM A DOSSIER THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE. AND IN THAT DOSSIER, PROVIDED BY CHRISTOPHER STEELE AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT HIM IN A MINUTE, THE CLAIM THAT CARTER PAGE MEETS WITH THREE PEOPLE KNOWN TO BE RUSSIANS. RUSSIAN AGENTS. PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH RUSSIA. CARTER PAGE, WHILE BEING WIRETAPPED BY HIS GOVERNMENT SAYS, I DON’T KNOW TWO OF THESE PEOPLE AND TO THIS DAY, THERE IS NO PROOF THAT HE EVER MET TWO OF THOSE THREE PEOPLE. THE THIRD PERSON HE SAYS YEAH, I MET HIM, I TOLD THE CIA ABOUT MY MEETING BECAUSE I WAS A SOURCE FOR THE CIA. SO THEY WOULD HAVE YOU BELIEVE THAT CARTER PAGE IS WORKING AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT. NOT WITH OUR GOVERNMENT. SO CARTER PAGE IN THE SUMMER OF 2017 IS TRYING TO TELL ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY, I WAS WORKING WITH THE CIA, I REPORTED MY CONTACT WITH THIS PERSON, AND NOBODY BELIEVED IT. >>THE CIA HAD TOLD THE FBI IT WAS TRUE EARLIER. BUT IT NEVER MADE IT THROUGH THE SYSTEM. SOMEBODY GOT SO RATTLED AT THE FBI, THEY ASKED MR. KLEINSMITH TO CHECK IT OUT. HE CHECKS IT OUT. HE COMMUNICATES WITH THE CIA. IS CARTER PAGE A SOURCE FOR YOU? AND IN AN EMAIL EXCHANGE, THEY SAY YES, HE IS. WHAT DOES MR. KLEINSMITH DO? HE ALTERS THE EMAIL TO SAY NO, HE IS NOT. AND YOU CAUGHT HIM. I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU CAUGHT HIM, BECAUSE YOU’VE GOT TO DIG INTO THIS EMAIL CHAIN. IT WOULD BE LIKE GETTING A LAB REPORT FROM THE FBI, THE FINGERPRINTS DON’T MATCH, AND THE AGENT SAYS THEY DO. THAT IS HOW BAD THIS IS. SO NOW LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MR. KLEINSMITH IF I CAN FIND IT. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS THE LAWYER, SUPERVISING THE PFIZER WARRANT PROCESS, THE GUY THAT ALTERS THIS CIA EMAIL BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT THE COURT TO KNOW THAT CARTER PAGE ACTUALLY WAS THE SOURCE AND WHY DOES THAT MATTER? BECAUSE IF THE COURT HAD KNOWN THEN THERE IS A LAWFUL REASON FOR MR. PAIGE TO BE TALKING TO THE RUSSIAN GUY. HE WASN’T WORKING AGAINST HIS COUNTRY, HE WAS WORKING WITH HIS COUNTRY. WHICH UNDERCUTS THE IDEA HE IS A FOREIGN AGENT. THAT IS WHY HE LIED, BECAUSE HE DIDN’T WANT TO STOP THE INVESTIGATION. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS AFTER THE ELECTION. I AM SO STRESSED ABOUT WHAT I COULD’VE DONE DIFFERENTLY. THE DAY AFTER THE ELECTION. >>I AM JUST DEVASTATED. I CAN’T WAIT UNTIL I CAN LEAVE TODAY AND JUST SHUT OFF THE WORLD FOR THE NEXT FOUR DAYS. I’M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE FELT THAT WAY AFTER TRUMP GOT ELECTED. MAYBE THEY STILL FEEL THAT WAY, BUT YOU SHOULDN’T BE IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISING ANYTHING ABOUT DONALD TRUMP IF YOU FEEL THAT WAY. >>I JUST CAN’T IMAGINE THE SYSTEMATIC DISASSEMBLY OF THE PROGRESS WE’VE MADE OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS. THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. THE CRAZIES WON FINALLY. THIS IS THE LAWYER THAT THEY PUT IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISING THE WORK PROCESS. THIS IS THE TEA PARTY ON STEROIDS. >>AND I’M SURE THAT THERE ARE NEWSROOMS ALL OVER AMERICA SAYING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? ALSO, MIKE PENCE IS STUPID. WHATEVER. THIS IS WHAT THE GUY IS SAYING. RIGHT AFTER THE ELECTION. AND THAT IS JUST HARD NOT TO FEEL LIKE THE FBI CAUSED SOME OF THIS. IT WAS A RAZOR THIN IN SOME STATES. PLUS MY NAME IS ALL OVER THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS INVESTIGATING TRUMPS STAFF. >>AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT GETS ME THE MOST. NOVEMBER 22. SHORTLY AFTER THE ELECTION OF DONALD J TRUMP, THE FBI LAWYER IN CHARGE OF SUPERVISING THE FISA PROCESS TWEETS OUT TO FRIENDS VIVA LA RESISTANCE. WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT THIS GUY MIGHT DO SOMETHING WRONG. WHEN YOU HAVE TO BE PART OF A RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY TO PREDICTING THE FUTURE MAYBE THIS GUY WILL GET OFF SCRIPT? FOLKS, IF THESE ARE A FEW IRREGULARITIES, THE RULE OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY IS DEAD. AND HERE’S THE GOOD NEWS. THESE ARE NOT A FEW IRREGULARITIES, THESE ARE A FEW BAD PEOPLE. THEY COULDN’T BELIEVE DONALD TRUMP WON THAT IN ONE OF THE WHEN AND WHEN HE DID WIN, THEY CAN TOLERATE THE FACT THAT HE WON. AND ALL OF THESE SMELLY PEOPLE ELECTED HIM. THIS IS BAD STUFF. SO IF YOU GET OUT OF THIS REPORT LAWFUL INVESTIGATION WITH A FEW IRREGULARITIES, IT SAYS MORE ABOUT YOU THAN MR. HORWITZ. HOW DID THIS WHOLE THING START? WHAT GOT US HERE TODAY? THEY OPEN UP A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION IN JULY. WE KNOW THE RUSSIANS ARE MESSING IN OUR ELECTION. AND IT WAS THE RUSSIANS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHO STOLE THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE EMAILS, PODESTA’S EMAILS AND SCREWED AROUND WITH HILLARY CLINTON. IT WASN’T THE UKRAINIANS. IT WAS THE RUSSIANS. AND THEY ARE COMING AFTER US AGAIN. SO TO BE CONCERNED THAT THE RUSSIANS ARE MESSING WITH PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS WAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN. SO THEY LOOKED AROUND AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THEY SAID WELL, LET’S SEE IF WE CAN PROTECT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. CARTER PAGE WENT TO MOSCOW A LOT AND MADE SPEECHES. HEAVY, IF YOU EVER MET CARTER PAGE, ONE THING YOU WOULD NOT ACCUSE HIM OF IS BEING JAMES BOND. >>THIS POOR GUY, GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS, PICKED BY SAM CLOVIS TO BE PART OF TRUMP’S NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM. THIS NATIONAL SECURITY TEAM WAS LITERALLY PICKED UP OFF THE STREET. IF YOU HAD A PHOTO WITH DONALD TRUMP, YOU SPENT MORE TIME WITH HIM THEN GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS AND PAGE. THEY ARE NOT PAID, THEY ARE VOLUNTEERS, BUT THE FBI THINKS WE NEED TO WATCH THESE GUYS WITH PAUL MANAFORT AS WELL AS, WHO IS THE OTHER ONE? >>FLYNN. GENERAL FLYNN. SO THE OPEN OF A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION. LET’S ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT THE SMALL PREDICATE YOU NEED HAS BEEN MET. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THEY OPEN IT UP? WHAT DID THEY FIND? WERE THE SUSPICIONS VALIDATED? DID THEY FIND AT EVERY TURN, IT IS REALLY NOT TRUE AND THEY IGNORED IT? SO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY TRIED TO DO WAS TO GET A WARRANT UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT TO FOLLOW CARTER PAGE, A VOLUNTEER FOR THE CAMPAIGN AND AMERICAN CITIZENS. THEY APPLIED FOR THE WARRANT INTERNALLY IN AUGUST OF 2016 AND THE LAWYERS SAY YOU DON’T HAVE ENOUGH. WHY, BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING. MAYBE THIS REASONABLE ARTICULATION IS THIS SMALL, BUT TO GET A WARRANT FROM A COURT, YOU NEED PROBABLE CAUSE. SO THE LAWYER IS SAYING YOU DON’T HAVE IT. EVERYBODY IS NOW FRUSTRATED. THAT IS NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER. SO McCABE SUGGESTS, THE NUMBER TWO GUY AT THE FBI, LET’S GO LOOK AT THIS STEEL DOSSIER. MAYBE THAT WILL GET US OVER THE HUMP. STAY TUNED, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MOMENT. >>SO SEPTEMBER 19 FOR THE FIRST TIME, THEY INTRODUCE IT INTO THE WARRANT APPLICATION PROCESS. IT WORKED. SEPTEMBER 21, THEY GET A SIGNOFF, LET’S GO GET A WARRANT. THE DOSSIER GOT THEM WHERE THEY WANTED TO GO. AS YOU SAY, IT WAS CENTRAL AND BASICALLY OUTCOME DETERMINATE. WITHOUT THIS DOSSIER, THE GO NOWHERE, AND WITH IT, THEY ARE OFF TO THE RACES. WHO IS CHRISTOPHER STEELE? YOU THOUGHT THESE OTHER PEOPLE ABOUT THIS GUY. CHRISTOPHER STEELE WAS A FORMER MI SIX, IS THAT RIGHT? SIX, FIVE, WHATEVER IT IS, HE WAS A BRITISH AGENT. , RETIRED. HE HAD A NEW LINE OF BUSINESS. HE WAS HIRED BY A COMPANY CALLED FUSION GPS TO INVESTIGATE DONALD TRUMP. OKAY. YOU WANT TO LOOK AT FOREIGN INFLUENCE, YOU ARE ABOUT TO FIND IT. FUSION GPS IS ON THE PAYROLL OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PARTY. CHRISTOPHER STEELE IS WORKING FOR COMPANY TO FIND DIRT ON TRUMP AND THE MONEY COMES FROM THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. DID THEY TELL THE COURT THIS? NO. WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN UNNERVING? IT WOULD BE TO ME. SO CHRISTOPHER STEELE IS ON THE PAYROLL OF THE COMPANY FOUNDED BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HERE IS WHAT BRUCE OR TELLS THE FBI ABOUT CHRISTOPHER STEELE. HE WAS DESPERATE THAT DONALD TRUMP NOT GET ELECTED. AND HE WAS PASSIONATE ABOUT HIM NOT BEING THE U.S. PRESIDENT. THIS IS THE GUY THAT GAVE THEM THE WORK PRODUCT TO GET A WARRANT. HE TOLD OR THAT IF TRUMP WON THE ELECTIONS, HIS SOURCE NETWORK MAY BE IN JEOPARDY BY A NEW FBI DIRECTOR AND AGENCY HEAD SUPPORTED BY TRUMP THAT WOULD HAVE A HIGHER DEGREE OF LOYALTY TO THE NEW PRESIDENT AND COULD DECIDE TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST HIM AND HIS SOURCE NETWORK. LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT CHRISTOPHER STEELE. HE WAS RIGHT. HE WAS ON A MISSION TO GET DONALD TRUMP. NOT ONLY DID HE PROVIDE THE DOSSIER THAT MADE THE DIFFERENCE IN GETTING A WARRANT, HIS BIASES WERE WELL KNOWN. HE WAS SHOPPING THE DOSSIER, DO I HAVE IT? TO ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY IN THE MEDIA AND IN POLITICS TO SEE IF THEY WOULD PRINT IT. THE REASON THE FBI CUT HIM LOOSE WAS BECAUSE THEY FOUND OUT HE WAS SHOPPING THIS THING AROUND TO MEDIA OUTLETS RATHER THAN BEING A VALID SOURCE. BUT AFTER THEY KNEW HE WAS SHOPPING AROUND, THEY KEPT THEM AROUND ANYWAY BECAUSE MR. ORR KEPT TALKING TO THEM. AND YOU THINK THAT’S BAD, BRUCE OR HIS WIFE WORKED WITH úCHRIST SHE WAS EMPLOYED BY FUSION GPS. THE WIFE OF THE NUMBER FOUR GUY AT THE FBI. CHRISTOPHER STEELE WENT ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES TRYING TO GET MEDIA OUTLETS TO PUBLISH THIS GARBAGE. THE FIRST THING IS ABOUT THE GOLDEN SHOWER. ABOUT THE SEXUAL ENCOUNTER THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP SUPPOSEDLY HAD IN A RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL IN RUSSIA. LET ME TELL YOU HOW I’VE COME TO FIND OUT ABOUT CHRISTOPHER STEELE’S WORK PRODUCT, IN DECEMBER OF 2016, JOHN McCAIN GOES TO NATIONAL SECURITY CONFERENCE IN CANADA AND SOMEBODY TELLS THEM ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER AND IT IS BAD AND YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT. AND IT GETS TO JOHN McCAIN. JOHN McCAIN PUTS IT IN A SAFE AND GIVES IT TO ME AND I READ. THE FIRST THING I THOUGHT OF WAS OH, MY GOD. ONE OF TWO THINGS, THIS COULD BE RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION, OR THEY MAY HAVE SOMETHING ON TRUMP. IF YOU READ THIS DOCUMENT, THE FIRST THING YOU THINK OF IS THEY’VE GOT SOMETHING ON DONALD TRUMP. IT IS STUNNING, IT IS DAMNING, IT IS SALACIOUS. AND IT IS A BUNCH OF CRAP. THEY FINALLY FIND THE GUY THAT PREPARED ALL THE INFORMATION. BUT A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER. IN 2015, THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE SERVICE SAID YOU NEED TO WATCH THIS GUY, HE IS NOT RELIABLE. THEY TAKE TIME TO GO TO LONDON TO CHECK HIM OUT. AND THEY ARE TOLD HE DEMONSTRATES LACK OF SELF- AWARENESS AND POOR JUDGMENT, CAME TO HELP, BUT UNDERPINNED BY POOR JUDGMENT. JUDGMENT FOR PUTTING PEOPLE AT POLITICAL RISK BUT NO INTEL VALUE. IF YOU HAD SPENT 30 MINUTES LOOKING AT CHRISTOPHER STEELE, YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THIS GUY IS BIASED AND HE’S GOT AND ASK TO GRIND. HE’S ON THE PAYROLL OF THE OPPOSING PARTY, TAKE ANYTHING HE SAYS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. AND IN JANUARY IF 2017, THE FBI FIGURES OUT WHO THE SUB SOURCE OF THE STEELE DOSSIER IS, WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW, THIS IS NOT WHAT STEEL FOUND, HIMSELF, THIS IS WHAT HE GATHERED FROM ONE PERSON. THEY FINALLY FOUND OUT WHO THIS ONE PERSON IS. THEY GO TALK TO HIM IN JANUARY 2017. FIVE PEOPLE INTERVIEW THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE, THE GUY THAT PROVIDED HIM WITH EVERYTHING. AND THEY SHOWED HIM THE DOSSIER. READ PAGES 186 TO 190. WHAT DOES THE RUSSIAN GUY TELL THE FBI ABOUT THE DOSSIER? THAT HE MISSED DATED OR EXAGGERATED THE PRIME SUB SOURCE STATEMENTS AND THAT TRUMPS ALLEGED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES AT THE RITZ-CARLTON HOTEL IN MOSCOW WAS A RUMOR AND SPECULATION AND HE WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE HEARD IT AT A BAR, AND IN THE REPORT, IT SUGGESTS THAT A WESTERN EMPLOYEE OF THE RITZ-CARLTON CONFIRMED THIS ESCAPADE BY THEN PRIVATE CITIZEN TRUMP. WHEN HE READS IT, HE SAYS THAT’S NOT TRUE, I NEVER TOLD STEELE THAT SOMEONE WORKING FOR THE RITZ-CARLTON CONFIRMED THIS. I HEARD IT AT A BAR. THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE STATED THAT HE NEVER EXPECTED HIM TO WITH THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE STATEMENTS AND REPORTS AND PRESENT THEM AS FACTS. THEY WERE WORD-OF-MOUTH AND HEARSAY. CONVERSATIONS HAD WITH FRIENDS OVER BEERS OR STATEMENTS MADE IN JUST THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. SO IN JANUARY 2017, THE PERSON WHO DID ALL OF THE ASSEMBLING OF THE INFORMATION FOR THE NOW FAMOUS STEELE DOSSIER TELLS THE FBI, I DISAVOW EVERYTHING IN THEIR. NOW WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN, TIMEOUT? LET’S REASSESS? MAYBE WE’VE GOT THIS WRONG? WHAT WOULD YOU HOPE TO HAPPEN? THAT THE FBI WOULD SLOW DOWN BECAUSE THIS IS THE OUTCOME DETERMINATE DOCUMENT THAT IS JUST HAD A HOLE BLOWN THROUGH IT? THEY DON’T SLOW DOWN. THEY USE THE DOCUMENT THAT IS NOW KNOWN TO BE A BUNCH OF GARBAGE TWICE MORE TO GET A WARRANT AGAINST CARTER PAGE. I HOPE CARTER PAGE GETS A LAWYER AND SUES THE OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE EI. TWO MORE WARRANTS WERE OBTAINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI AFTER BEING TOLD IN JANUARY BY THE RUSSIAN GUYS IT WAS ALL A BUNCH OF BULL. BUT IT GETS WORSE. HERE’S HOW THEY DESCRIBE THE INTERVIEW TO THE COURT. THE FBI FOUND THAT THE RUSSIAN BASED SUB SOURCE TO BE TRUTHFUL AND COOPERATIVE. NOTHING ABOUT, AND OH, BY THE WAY, HE SAID EVERYTHING IN HERE IS A BUNCH OF BULL. YOU KNEW IN JANUARY 2017 IF THERE WAS NO DOUBT BEFORE, YOU KNOW BY THE GUY WHO PREPARED IT THAT HE DISAVOWED EVERYTHING AND IT IS NOT TRUE AND IT’S A GRAIN OF SALT, YOU SHOULD, I DIDN’T SAY ALL THESE THINGS, INSTEAD OF STOPPING, THEY KEEP GOING. INSTEAD OF TELLING THE TRUTH OF WHAT TO DO, THEY LIE TO THE COURT. A FEW IRREGULARITIES. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN IN YOUR LIFE. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THIS TO OUR PEOPLE IN THE NEWS BUSINESS. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THIS TO BE YOUR NEWS ORGANIZATION? IN JANUARY 2017, THERE IS NO BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO BE GIVEN. THE FIVE PEOPLE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE ONE GUY WHO DID ALL OF THE WORK IT IS A BUNCH OF GARBAGE. AND THE QUESTION IS, HOW FAR UP THE SYSTEM DID IT GO? WHY DID THEY APPLY FOR WARRANTS TWICE MORE? WHY DIDN’T THEY STOP? EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW, WAS THERE ANY BIAS HERE? WHAT MOTIVATED THESE PEOPLE? WHY DO YOU THINK THEY KEPT GOING? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY WERE ON A MISSION NOT TO PROTECT TRUMP, BUT TO PROTECT US FROM TRUMP. THAT IS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO. PROTECT ALL OF US SMELLY PEOPLE FROM DONALD TRUMP. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I BELIEVE IT. AND YOU KNOW IT, IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU ALL NEXT TIME. THERE ARE SOME PRETTY PASSIONATE PEOPLE ON OUR SIDE THAT I WOULDN’T WANT TO BE INVESTIGATING ANY OF YOU. SO WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THEY GET A WARRANT TWICE MORE WHEN THEY KNOW ABOUT THE GARBAGE, THEY LIE TO THE COURT ABOUT THE INTERVIEW, I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE CAVE AND CALL ME NEW, BUT I’M DYING TO FIND OUT AND SHOULD THEY HAVE KNOWN. JUNE 2016, 2017, THIS IS THE NEXT TIME THEY TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. MR. KLEINSMITH, SIX MONTHS AFTER BEING TOLD THE DOSSIER IS A BUNCH OF GARBAGE. KLEINSMITH ALSO, ALTERS AN EMAIL FROM THE CIA TO CHANGE IT FROM HE IS TO HE’S NOT BECAUSE IF THEY TOLD THE COURT THAT PAIGE WAS WORKING FOR THE CIA, IT EXPLAINS THE CONTACT IN THE DOSSIER. MR. KLEINSMITH HAD A CHANCE IN HIS MIND TO MAKE THINGS RIGHT AND HE TOOK IT. WHY DID HE TAKE THE LAW IN HIS OWN HANDS? WHY DID HE DOCTOR THE EMAIL? DID IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WAY HE SEES DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY? YOU KNOW WHAT, IT REALLY DOESN’T MATTER WHAT HE WAS THINKING. IT MATTERS. AND I’M GLAD YOU FOUND OUT WHAT HE DID. I’M GLAD YOU TOLD THE COUNTRY WHAT HE DID, BECAUSE I’M HOPING THAT NOBODY WILL EVER DO IT AGAIN. SO MR. HORWITZ, THE 17 IRREGULARITIES THAT YOU FOUND, SOME OF THEM ARE EARTH SHATTERING AND SOME OF THEM SHOULD SCARE THE OUT OF ALL OF US . I JUST WANT TO AND SORT OF WHERE I BEGAN. THIS IS NOT NORMAL. DON’T JUDGE THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY THESE CHARACTERS. WE ARE BETTER THAN THIS, LIKE MANY OF YOU, I’VE WORKED WITH THE FBI, A LOT OF MY TIME IN GOVERNMENT. I HAVE A GREAT RESPECT FOR IT. DIRECTOR RAY, YOU’VE GOT A PROBLEM. AND FOR THIS HEARING TO MEAN ANYTHING, WE’VE GOT TO FIX IT. AND THE WAY WE FIX IT IS LISTEN TO MR. HORWITZ. AND GET THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI IN HERE TO TRY TO FIND OUT A WAY TO MAKE SURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN TO ANY POLITICIAN IN THIS COUNTRY. IF IT IS TRUMP TODAY, IT COULD BE YOU OR ME TOMORROW. AND IMAGINE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF THEY CAN DO THIS TO THE CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHAT CAN THEY DO TO YOU? SO THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY WILL COME TO AN END IN ONE YEAR OR 5 YEARS, I DON’T KNOW WHEN. I HOPE HE GETS REELECTED, BUT WE CAN’T WRITE THIS OFF AS BEING JUST ABOUT ONE MAN OR ONE EVENT, WE GOT TO UNDERSTAND HOW OFF THE RAILS THE SYSTEM GOT. AND I BELIEVE WITH SOME OPTIMISM HERE. I THINK DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE WILLING TO MAKE SURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. AND THAT IF YOU OPEN UP A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION ON A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN IN THE FUTURE, THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE CHECKS AND BALANCES. I WANT YOU TO AUDIT THE PFIZER PROCESS, THE FISA PROCESS. SENATOR LEAHY AND MY CLEAR PROBABLY TO STANDARD BARRIERS FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES, TED CRUZ AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, WE ALL CARE CAN BUT ISN’T THE TO THE COSTLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEBODY IS WATCHING THOSE WHO WATCH US. THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT METADATA. WHILE I MAY NOT AGREE WITH ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS OR ALL OF YOUR SOLUTIONS, I RESPECT THE FACT THAT YOU CARE. I HOPE YOU WON’T TREAT THIS REPORT AS FINDING A LAWFUL INVESTIGATION WITH A FEW IRREGULARITIES. I’M A PRETTY HAWKISH GUY, BUT AT , IF THE COURT DOESN’T TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT BEING MANIPULATED AND LIED TO, YOU WILL LOSE MY SUPPORT. I KNOW A LOT ABOUT WHAT’S GOING ON OUT THERE TO HURT US. AND THERE ARE REAL THREATS AND THERE ARE REAL AGENTS, AND THERE ARE REALLY BAD ACTORS OUT THERE. I WOULD HATE TO LOSE THE ABILITY OF THE FISA COURT TO OPERATE AT A TIME WHEN WE PROBABLY NEED IT THE MOST, BUT AFTER THE REPORT, I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE FISA COURT CAN’T CONTINUE UNLESS THERE IS REFORM. AFTER THE REPORT, I THINK WE NEED TO REWRITE THE RULES OF HOW YOU START A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION AND THE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT WE NEED. MR. HORWITZ, FOR US TO DO JUSTICE TO YOUR REPORT, WE HAVE TO DO MORE THAN TRY TO SHADE THIS REPORT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER . WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM. OF A SYSTEM IN THE HANDS OF A FEW BAD PEOPLE CAN DO A LOT OF DAMAGE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I ASSUME THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT ? >>TAKE ALL THE TIME YOU NEED. >>WELL, I WON’T TAKE A LONG TIME, I’VE BEEN READING THIS REPORTS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN NOW FOR 25 YEARS. AND I HAVE GREAT APPRECIATION FOR THIS INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THOSE PERSONAL REMARKS, THIS IS A TOUGH ARENA. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE VERY TOUGH PEOPLE , PART OF THAT ARENA. BUT TO HAVE IT, TO HAVE AN INSPECTOR GENERAL WHO TELLS IT AS THEY SEE IT AND DOES THIS YEAR AFTER YEAR IS A SAVING GRACE, AND I HOPE PEOPLE WILL GET THIS REPORT. IF I HAVE A GRIEVANCE, IT IS THAT THE PRINT WAS TOO SMALL. AND IT IS HEAVY TO CARRY AROUND. BUT LAST YEAR, THIS INSPECTOR GENERAL PLEDGED TO CONGRESS THAT HE WOULD EXAMINE WHETHER POLITICAL BIAS PLAYED A ROLE IN THE FBI’S DECISION TO INVESTIGATE TIES BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL KEPT HIS PROMISE. HIS OFFICE CONDUCTED A 19 MONTH INVESTIGATION. THEY INTERVIEWED MORE THAN 100 WITNESSES, REVIEWED MORE THAN 1 MILLION DOCUMENTS, AND ISSUED THIS 434 PAGE REPORT THAT CONTAINED SEVERAL IMPORTANT FINDINGS. FIRST, ON THE QUESTION OF BIAS, INSPECTOR GENERAL HORWITZ FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL OR ANTI-TRUMP BIAS WAS AT PLAY. ACCORDING TO THE IG REPORT, THE FBI COMPLIED WITH EXISTING DEPARTMENT AND FBI POLICIES IN OPENING THE INVESTIGATION AND THE IG QUOTE DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION INFLUENCED THIS DECISION,”, OR ANY SPECIFIC INVESTIGATIVE STEPS TAKEN BY THE FBI, THAT IS THE FINDING. AND THIS IS IMPORTANT. WHY? IN PUBLIC STATEMENTS, BEGINNING LAST SPRING, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPRESSED HIS BELIEF THAT SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS MAY HAVE PUT EIGHTH HIM ON THE SCALE,”, BECAUSE OF POLITICAL BIAS AGAINST TRUMP. HIS COMMENTS ECHOED THE PRESIDENT, WHO HAS REPEATEDLY ALLEGED THAT THERE IS A DEEP STATE WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT AGAINST HIM. HE HAS USED THIS TO DISMISS THE ENTIRE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION AS A WITCHHUNT AND A HOAX. THE IG REPORT CONCLUSIVELY REFUTES THESE CLAIMS. THIS WAS NOT A POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION. THERE IS NO DEEP STATE. SIMPLY PUT, THE FBI INVESTIGATION WAS MOTIVATED BY FACTS, NOT BIAS. SECONDLY, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIRMED THAT THERE WAS AN ADEQUATE PREDICATE MEANING A LEGITIMATE FACTUAL AND LEGAL BASIS TO INVESTIGATE. THE BASIS WAS NOT AS SOME CLAIMED THE SO- CALLED STEELE DOSSIER. IN FACT, REPORTING FOR MR. STEELE PLAYED NO ROLE IN OPENING THE INVESTIGATION. INSTEAD, THIS REPORT CONFIRMS THAT THE FBI OPENED THE INVESTIGATION AFTER BEING TOLD BY AUSTRALIA, A TRUSTED FOREIGN ALLY, THAT TRUMP ADVISOR GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS HAD LEARNED IN 2016 , THE MONTH OF APRIL, THAT RUSSIA HAD AND WAS WILLING TO RELEASE, QUOTE, INFORMATION DURING THE CAMPAIGN THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO CANDIDATE CLINTON”. THE IG REPORT FOUND THAT THIS INFORMATION PROVIDED THE F VI WITH A FACTUAL BASIS THAT IF TRUE, QUOTE, INDICATED ACTIVITY CONSTITUTING EITHER A FEDERAL CRIME OR A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY OR BOTH MAY BE OCCURRING OR OCCURRED. THE IG ALSO FOUND THAT WHEN THE FBI LEARNED THAT IN LATE JULY 2016, THE BUREAU WAS AWARE OF RUSSIAN EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTIONS. INCLUDING RUSSIAN HACKING OF DEMOCRATIC CAMPAIGN COMPUTERS. MATERIALS STOLEN BY RUSSIA HAD BEEN RELEASED ONLINE INCLUDING BY WIKILEAKS IN THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE ASSESSED IN AUGUST OF 2016 THAT QUOTE RUSSIA WAS CONSIDERING FURTHER INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS TO IMPACT AND DISRUPT ELECTIONS,”. AGAINST THIS BACKDROP, THE FBI WAS OBLIGATED TO INVESTIGATE POSSIBLE TIES TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. ACCORDING TO BUILD PRECEPT, THE FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR WHO AUTHORIZED OPENING THE INVESTIGATION, OTHER OFFICIALS CONVEYED A SIMILAR OBLIGATION. AND A SENSE OF URGENCY TO INVESTIGATE. DAVID LOUGHMAN, A NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION CHIEF SAID IT WOULD’VE BEEN, AND I QUOTE, A DERELICTION OF DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER NOT TO COMMIT THE APPROPRIATE RESOURCES AS URGENTLY AS POSSIBLE TO RUN THESE FACTS TO THE GROUND AND FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON,”. THE DECISION TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION WAS UNANIMOUS. NOT A SINGLE OFFICIAL DISAGREED. AS A RESULT, AMERICA ULTIMATELY LEARNED EXTENSIVE DETAILS ABOUT RUSSIA’S SWEEPING AND SYSTEMIC ATTACK ON THE 2016 ELECTION. INCLUDING THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN KNEW ABOUT, WELCOMED AND QUOTE EXPECTED IT WOULD BENEFIT ELECTORALLY” FROM RUSSIA’S EFFORTS. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT ALSO IDENTIFIES SEVERAL ERRORS MADE BY FBI AND JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LINE PERSONNEL WHEN SEEKING WARRANTS FOR SURVEILLANCE ON CARTER PAGE FROM THE FISA COURT. >>THE FBI DIRECTOR RAY SUBMITTED A WRITTEN RESPONSE ACCEPTING THE IG’S FINDINGS INCLUDING THE KEY FINDING THAT THE FBI HAD SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN TIES TO RUSSIA. DIRECTOR RAY ALSO SAID THAT THE IG’S FINDINGS OF FISA ERRORS, ARE AND I QUOTE, CONSTRUCTIVE ú STRONGER AS AN ORGANIZATION AND THAT HE HAS ALREADY TAKEN ACTION TO ADDRESS THE IG’S RECOMMENDATIONS. BY CONTRAST, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR ISSUED A PRESS RELEASE THAT CONTINUES TO CRITICIZE THE FBI FOR INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IT IS REALLY EXTRAORDINARY THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONTINUES TO MAKE UNSUPPORTED ATTACKS ON THE AGENCY THAT HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LEADING. I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT IT IS TIME TO MOVE ON FROM THE FALSE CLAIMS OF POLITICAL BIAS, AND THOSE WHO SHOW GREAT INTEREST IN THE QUESTION OF POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD SHOW THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS REQUESTED BY THE PRESIDENT OR HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL. INSPECTOR GENERAL, I WANT TO THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THIS SIDE AND YOUR STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK . WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING FROM YOU. >>THANK YOU. >>CHAIRMAN GRAHAM, SENATOR FEINSTEIN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THANK YOU FOR INVITING ME TO TESTIFY TODAY. THE REPORT THAT MY OFFICE RELEASED THIS WEEK IS THE PRODUCT OF A COMPREHENSIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE REVIEW CONDUCTED OVER THE PAST 19 MONTHS BY AN OIG TEAM THAT EXAMINED MORE THAN 1 MILLION DOCUMENTS IN THE DEPARTMENT AND FBI’S POSSESSION INCLUDING DOCUMENTS OTHER U.S. AND FOREIGN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES HAD PROVIDED TO THE FBI. OUR TEAM CONDUCTED OVER 170 INTERVIEWS INVOLVING MORE THAN 100 WITNESSES, AND WE DOCUMENTED ALL OF OUR FINDINGS IN THE 434 PAGE REPORT THAT WE ISSUED THIS WEEK. I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO READ THE REPORT, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND 400+ PAGE REPORTS CAN BE HARD TO GET THROUGH. WE DO HAVE A PITHY, I WILL CALL IT, A 19 PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHICH I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO READ AT A MINIMUM. I WANT TO COMMEND ALSO THE TIRELESS EFFORTS OF THE OUTSTANDING REVIEW TEAM FOR CONDUCTING SUCH RIGOROUS AND EFFECTIVE INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT. IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO AS INSPECTORS GENERAL. THE FBI INVESTIGATION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT CROSSFIRE HURRICANE WAS OPEN ON JULY 31, 2016. DAYS AFTER THE FBI RECEIVED REPORTING FROM A FRIEND THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. THE REPORTING STATED THAT IN UMEA 2016 MEETING WITH THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, TRUMP CAMPAIGN POLICY ADVISOR GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS SUGGESTED, QUOTE SUGGESTED THE TRUMP TEAM HAD RECEIVED SOME KIND OF A SUGGESTION,” FROM RUSSIA THAT IT COULD ASSIST IN THE ELECTION PROCESS WITH THE ANONYMOUS RELEASE OF INFORMATION DURING THE CAMPAIGN THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO CANDIDATE CLINTON AND THEN PRESIDENT OBAMA. FOLLOWING RECEIPT OF THAT INFORMATION, THE FBI OPENED CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. GIVEN THE NATURE AND SENSITIVITY OF SUCH AN INVESTIGATION, WE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED FBI PERSONNEL TO FAITHFULLY ADHERE TO THE FBI DETAILED POLICIES AND PRACTICES AND NORMS. THE FBI HAS DEVELOPED AN EARNED A REPUTATION AS ONE OF THE WORLD’S FROM YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND SIGNIFICANT PART BECAUSE OF ITS ADHERENCE TO THE POLICIES AND ITS TRADITION OF PROFESSIONALISM , IMPARTIALITY, AND NONPOLITICAL ENFORCEMENT . >>>WE DETERMINED THE DECISION TO OPEN CROSSFIRE HURRICANE HIS DECISION REFLECTED A CONSENSUS REACHED AFTER MULTIPLE DAYS OF DISCUSSIONS AND MEETINGS AMONG SENIOR FBI OFFICIALS. WE REVIEWED DEPARTMENT AND FBI POLICIES, AND CONCLUDED THAT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR’S EXERCISE IF DISCREPANCY IN OPENING AN INVESTIGATION WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE POLICIES. WE REVIEWED, AS DETAILED IN THE REPORT, THE E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION, AND WE DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT INDICATED POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION, INFLUENCING HIS DECISION TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION. WHILE THE INFORMATION IN THE FBI’S POSSESSION AT THE TIME WAS LIMITED, IN LATE OF THE LOW THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED BY DEPARTMENT AND PRED CATION POLICY, WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT, WE FOUND THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE WAS OPENED FOR AN AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSE AND WITH SUFFICIENT FACTUAL PRED CATION. THIS DECISION TO OPEN CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, WHICH INVOLVED THE ACTIVITIES OF INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH A NATIONAL, MAJOR PARTY CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT WAS UNDER DEPARTMENT AND FBI POLICY A DISCRETIONARY JUDGMENT LEFT TO THE FBI. AS WE POINT OUT IN OUR REPORT, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT THAT DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BE CONSULTED OR EVEN NOTIFIED OF THAT DECISION PRIOR TO THE FBI MAKING THAT DECISION. CONSISTENT WITH THIS POLICY, THE FBI ADVISED SUPERVISORS IN THE DEPARTMENT’S NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION OF THE INVESTIGATION DAYS AFTER IT HAD BEEN OPENED. AS WE DETAIL IN OUR REPORT, HIGH LEVEL DEPARTMENT NOTICE AND APPROVAL IS REQUIRED IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITY COULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPACT CERTAIN CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND THAT NOTICE ALLOWS SENIOR DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TO CONSIDER THE POTENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL AND PRUDENTIAL IMPLICATIONS IN ADVANCE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES. WE CONTINUE INCLUDED THAT SIMILAR NOTICE SHOULD BE REQUIRED IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE PRESENT HERE. SHORTLY AFTER THE FBI OPENED THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE INVESTIGATION, THE FBI CONDUCTED SEVERAL RECORDED MEETINGS BETWEEN FBI CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES, WHICH WE’LL REFER TO AS CHS, AND INDIVIDUALS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, INCLUDING A HIGH LEVEL LEVEL WHO IS NOT A SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. WE FOUND THE CHS OPERATIONS RECEIVED THE NECESSARY APPROVALS UNDER FBI POLICY. THAT AN FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MR. PRE STEP, KNEW ABOUT AND APPROVED OF OPERATION EACH IN FIRST LEVEL AGENT APPROVAL, AND THAT THE OPERATIONS WERE PERMITTED UNDER DEPARTMENT AND FBI POLICY BECAUSE THEIR USE WAS NOT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR THE LAWFUL EXERCISE OF OTHER RIGHTS, SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. WE DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION INFLUENCED THE FBI DECISION TO CONDUCT THOSE CHS OPERATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THE FBI ATTEMPTED TO PLACE CHS WITHIN OR UPON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR RECRUIT MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AS A CHS. HOWEVER WE WERE CONCERNED UNDER APPLICABLE DEPARTMENT POLICY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR A FIRST LEVEL FBI SUPERVISOR TO AUTHORIZE SENSITIVE DOMESTIC INVESTIGATIONS UNDER OPERATION HURRICANE AND THERE IS APPLICABLE POLICY REQUIRING THE FBI TO NOTIFY DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS OF A DECISION TO TASK A CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE TO CONSENSUALLY MONITOR A CAMPAIGN. IN TERMS OF THAT IT IS WORTH NOTING HAD IN THE MID-YEAR INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION OR IN THIS INVESTIGATION, THE FBI COULD HAVE, AT THE SUPERVISORY AGENT LEVEL, ONE LEVEL REMOVED FROM A LANE AGENT, AUTHORIZED AN UNDERCOVER OR AUTHORIZED A CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE TO HAVE A CONSENSUALLY MONITORED CONVERSATION WITH EITHER OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WITH NO NOTICE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR ANY LAWYER IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. CROSS FIRE HURRICANE WE FOUND IN EVIDENCE THE FBI CONSULTED WITH DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS BEFORE CONDUCTING THOSE OPERATIONS AND NO POLICY, AS I JUST NOTED, REQUIRING THEM TO DO SO. WE CONTINUE INCLUDED THE CURRENT DEPARTMENT FBI POLICIES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN SUCH OPERATIONS POTENTIALLY IMPLICATE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITY AND REQUIRING DEPARTMENT CONSULTATION AT A MINIMUM WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THAT EFFECT. ONE INVESTIGATIVE TOOL FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE FBI POLICY DOES EXPRESSLY REQUIRE EXPRESS ADVANCE APPROVAL BY A SENIOR DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL IS THE SEEKING OF A COURT ORDER UNDER FISA. WHEN THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM FIRST PROPOSED SEEKING A FISA ORDER TARGETING CARTER PAGE IN MID AUGUST, 2016, FBI ATTORNEYS ASSISTING THE INVESTIGATION CONSIDERED IT A QUOTE CLOSE CALL” AND THE FISA ORDER WAS NOT REQUESTED AT THE TIME. HOWEVER, IN SEPTEMBER 2016, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM RECEIVED REPORTING FROM CHRISTOPHER STEELE CONCERNING PAGE’S RECENT ACTIVITIES WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, FBI ATTORNEYS ADVISED THE DEPARTMENT IT WAS READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A REQUEST TO OBTAIN FISA AUTHORITY TO SURVEIL PAGE. FBI AND DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS TOLD US THE CHRISTOPHER STEELE REPORTING PLAYED A CENTRAL AND ESSENTIAL ROLE IN THE DECISION TO SEEK A FISA ORDER. FBI LEADERSHIP SUPPORTED RELYING ON CHRISTOPHER STEELE’S REPORTING TO SEEK A FISA ORDER AFTER CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY A DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY THAT HE MAY HAVE BEEN HIRED BY SOMEONE ASSOCIATED WITH A RIVAL CANDIDATE OR CAMPAIGN. SURVEILLANCE AUTHORITY UNDER FISA CAN SIGNIFICANTLY ASSIST THE GOVERNMENT’S EFFORTS TO COMBAT TERRORISM, CLANDESTINE ACTIVITY AND OTHER THREATS TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY. AT THE SAME TIME, THE USE OF THIS AUTHORITY UNAVOIDABLY RAISES CIVIL LIBERTIES CONCERNS. FISA ORDERS CAN BE USED TO SURVEIL U.S. PERSONS, AND IN SOME CASES, THE SURVEILLANCE WILL FORESEEABLY COLLECT INFORMATION ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL’S CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS CARTER PAGE’S LEGITIMATE ACTIVITIES ON BEHALF OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. MOREOVER, PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT, WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR RULING ON APPLICATIONS FOR FISA ORDERS, ARE EX PARTE, MEANING THAT, UNLIKE MOST COURT PROCEEDINGS, THE GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY PARTY PRESENT FOR THE PROCEEDINGS AND FISA ORDERS HAVE NOT BEEN SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY THROUGH SUBSEQUENT ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS LIKE COURT AUTHORIZED SEARCH WARRANTS AND WIRE TAP APPLICATIONS ARE POTENTIALLY THROUGH THE CRIMINAL PROCESS. IN LIGHT OF THESE CONCERNS THE FBI POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HAVE ESTABLISHED CERTAIN SAFEGUARD TO PROTECT THE PROCESS OF IRREGULARITIES AND ABUSE. AMONG THE MOST IMPORTANT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS IN FBI POLICY THAT EVERY FISA APPLICATION MUST CONTAIN A QUOTE FULL AND ACCURATE, CLOSE QUOTE, PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS. AND THAT AGENTS MUST ENSURE THAT ALL FACTUAL STATEMENTS IN FISA APPLICATIONS ARE QUOTE SCRUPULOUSLY ACCURATE. CLOSE QUOTE. THESE ARE THE STANDARDS FOR ALL FISA APPLICATIONS, REGARDLESS OF THE INVESTIGATION SENSITIVITY, AND IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE FBI TO MEET THEM IN EVERY APPLICATION. NEVERTHELESS, WE FOUND THAT INVESTIGATORS FAILED TO MEET THEIR BASIC OBLIGATIONS OF ENSURING THAT THE FISA APPLICATIONS WERE SCRUPULOUSLY ACCURATE. WE IDENTIFIED SIGNIFICANT INACCURACIES AND OMISSIONS IN EACH OF THE FOUR APPLICATIONS. SEVEN IN THE FIRST APPLICATION, AND A TOTAL OF 17 BY THE FINAL RENEWAL APPLICATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM STEELE’S PRIMARY SUB SOURCE IN JANUARY 2017 THAT RAISED SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF THE STEEL REPORTING. THIS WAS PARTICULARLY NOTEWORTHY BECAUSE THE FISA APPLICATIONS RELIED ENTIRELY ON THIS THAT PAGE WAS COORDINATING THE POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES. HOWEVER THE FBI DID NOT SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS AND IT WAS THEREFORE OMITTED FROM THE LAST TWO RENEWAL APPLICATIONS. ALL THEIR APPLICATIONS ALSO ADMITTED INFORMATION THAT THE FBI HAD OBTAINED IN AUGUST 2016 FROM ANOTHER U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY, DETAILING ITS PRIOR RELATIONSHIP WITH CARTER PAGE, INCLUDING THAT CARTER PAGE HAD BEEN APPROVED AS AN OPERATIONAL CONTACT FOR THAT OTHER AGENCY FROM 2008 TO 2013, THAT PAGE PROVIDED INFORMATION TO THE OTHER AGENCY CONCERNING HIS PRIOR CONTACTS WITH CERTAIN RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AND THAT AN EMPLOYEE OF THAT OTHER AGENCY ASSESSED THAT CARTER PAGE HAD BEEN CANDID WITH THEM. THE FBI NEVER FOLLOWED UP ON THAT INFORMATION. AS A RESULT OF THESE SEVEN SIGNIFICANT INACCURACIES AND OMISSIONS, RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS NOT SHARED WITH AND CONSEQUENTLY CONSIDERED BY DEPARTMENT LAWYERS AND THE FISA COURT. AND THE FISA APPLICATIONS MADE IT APPEAR AS THOUGH THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING PROBABLE CAUSE WAS STRONGER THAN WAS ACTUALLY THE CASE. WE ALSOFOUND BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL AND SERIOUS ERRORS DURING THE COMPLETION OF THE FBI’S FACTUAL ACCURACY REVIEWS, KNOWN AS THE WOODS PROCEDURES, WHICH ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE FISA APPLICATIONS CONTAIN A FULL AND ACCURATE PRESENTATION OF THE FACTS. DEPARTMENT LAWYERS AND THE COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN COMPLETE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION SO THEY COULD HAVE MEANINGFULLY EVALUATED PROBABLE CAUSE BEFORE AUTHORIZING THE SURVEILLANCE OF A U.S. PERSON ASSOCIATED WITH A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. THAT DID NOT OCCUR. AND AS A RESULT, THE SURVEILLANCE OF CARTER PAGE CONTINUED, EVEN AS THE FBI GATHERED INFORMATION THAT WEAKENED THE ASSESSMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE, AND MADE THE FISA APPLICATIONS LESS ACCURATE. WE CONTINUE INCLUDED THAT INVESTIGATORS DID NOT GIVE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION OR ATTENTION TO FACTS THAT CUT AGAINST PROBABLE CAUSE, AND THAT AS THE INVESTIGATION PROGRESSED AND MORE INFORMATION TENDED TO UNDERMINE OR WEAKEN THE ASSERTIONS IN THE FEIS APPLICATIONS, INVESTIGATORS DID NOT REASSESS THE INFORMATION SUPPORTING PROBABLE CAUSE. FURTHER, THE AGENTS AND SUPERVISORY AGENTS DID NOT FOLLOW OR EVEN APPEAR TO KNOW CERTAIN BASIC REQUIREMENTS IN THE WOODS PROCEDURES. ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT, WE ALSO DID NOT RECEIVE SATISFY EXPLANATIONS FOR ANY OF THE ERRORS OR OMISSIONS WE IDENTIFIED. WE FOUND, AND AS WE OUTLINE HERE, ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED THAT SOME OF THE BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS WERE MADE BY THREE SEPARATE HANDPICKED INVESTIGATIVE TEAMS ON ONE OF THE MOST SENSITIVE FBI INVESTIGATIONS AFTER THE MATTER HAD BEEN BRIEFED TO THE HIGHEST LEVELS WITHIN THE FBI, EVEN THOUGH THE INFORMATION SOUGHT THROUGH THE USE OF FISA AUTHORITY RELATED SO CLOSELY ON AN ONGOING PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND EVEN THOUGH THOSE INVOLVED WITH THE INVESTIGATION KNEW THEIR ACTIONS WOULD LIKELY BE SUBJECTED TO CLOSE SCRUTINY. THE CIRCUMSTANCES REFLECT A FAILURE, AS WE OUTLINED IN THE REPORT, NOT JUST BY THOSE WHO PREPARED THE APPLICATIONS, BUT ALSO BY THE MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS IN THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE CHAIN OF COMMAND, INCLUDING FBI SENIOR OFFICIALS WHO WERE BRIEFED AS THE INVESTIGATION PROGRESSED. WE BELIEVE THAT IN THE FBI’S MOST SENSITIVE AND HIGH PRIORITY MATTERS, AND ESPECIALLY WHEN SEEKING COURT PERMISSION TO USE AN INTRUSIVE TOOL SUCH AS A FISA ORDER, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF COMMAND AT THE ORGANIZATION, INCLUDING SENIOR OFFICIALS, TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTING AND POTENTIALLY UNDERMINING A FISA APPLICATION, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT, CONSISTENT WITH THEIR LEVEL OF SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITY. SUCH OVERSIGHT REQUIRES GREATER FAMILIARITY WITH THE FACTS THAN WE SAW IN THIS REVIEW, WHERE, TIME AND AGAIN, DURING OUR INTERVIEWS, FBI MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS AND SENIOR OFFICIALS DISPLAYED A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OR AWARENESS OF IMPORTANT INFORMATION CONCERNING MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE IDENTIFIED. THAT IS WHY, AS YOU WILL SEE IN THE REPORT, OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REFER THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF COMMAND THAT WE OUTLINE HERE TO THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOW TO ASSESS AND ADDRESS THEIR PERFORMANCE FAILURES. ADDITIONALLY, IN LIGHT OF THE CONCERNS WE IDENTIFIED, THEY ARE REVIEWING WOODS PROCEDURES AND NOT ANAL IN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS BUT IN COUNTERTERRORISM INVESTIGATIONS. THE REPORT MADE A NUMBER OF OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FBI. WE BELIEVE IMPLEMENTATION OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE THAT SEEK INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE FAILURES IDENTIFIED IN OUR REPORT, WILL IMPROVE THE FBI’S ABILITY TO MORE CAREFULLY AND EFFECTIVELY UTILIZE ITS IMPORTANT NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORITIES LIKE FISA, WHILE ALSO STRIVING TO SAFEGUARD THE CIVIL LIBERTIES AND PRIVACY OF IMPACTED U.S. PERSONS. THE OIG WILL CONDUCT TO CONDUCT RIGOROUS OVERSIGHT OF THESE MATTERS IN THE MONTHS AND YEARS AHEAD, INCLUDING THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE IN THIS REPORT. THAT CONCLUDES MY STATEMENT AND I WOULD BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH AGAIN TO YOUR TEAM THANK YOU FOR THE SERVICE YOU HAVE DONE TO THE COUNTRY HERE. FORMER FNE DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY SAID THIS WEEK YOUR REPORT VINDICATES HIM. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT OF YOUR REPORT? >>YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ACTIVITIES WE FOUND HERE DON’T VINDICATE ANYBODY WHO TOUCHED THIS. >>THIS IS WHAT COMEY SAID IN 2018. LET’S RUN A CLIP HERE. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE SOUND. DO WE HAVE SOUND? NEVER MIND. I’LL READ IT. DIRECTOR COMEY, THE REPORTERS HAVE LASKING HIM, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON FISA ABUSE. IT IS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR THE REPUBLICANS. DO YOU HAVE TOTAL CONFIDENCE IN THE DOSSIER WHEN YOU USED IT TO SECURE A SURVEILLANCE WARRANT AND ALSO IN THE SUBSEQUENT RENEWALS? THIS WAS ASKED DECEMBER 2018. COMEY I HAVE TOTAL CONFIDENCE THAT THE FISA PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED, THAT THE ENTIRE CASE WAS HANDLED IN A THOUGHTFUL, RESPONSIBLE WAY BY DOJ AND THE FBI. I THINK THE NOTION THAT FISA WAS ABUSED HERE IS NONSENSE. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT YOU TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT STATEMENT? >>CERTAINLY OUR FINDINGS WERE THAT THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS. >>SO WHEN COMEY SPEAKS ABOUT FISA, YOU SHOULDN’T LISTEN? >>YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO MR. HOROWITZ. HE IS NOT VINDICATED. AND TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FISA WARRANT PROCESS IS NOT NONSENSE. CHRISTOPHER STEELE. IS IT FAIR TO SAY HE HAD A POLITICAL BIAS AGAINST DONALD TRUMP? >>GIVEN WHO HE WAS PAID FOR, THERE WAS A BIAS THAT NEEDED TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE COURT. >>DOES IT SEEM THAT HE PERSONALLY HAD A BIAS, NOT JUST BECAUSE HE WAS ON THE PAYROLL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY? >>WELL WE FOUND IN THE PORTION OF THIS HEARD FROM MR. ORE ABOUT THE COMMENT HE WAS DESPERATE TO PREVENT MR. TRUMP’S ELECTION. >>AGAIN THIS IS THE GUY THAT PROVIDES THE DOSSIER THAT GIVES THE WARRANT OVER THE TOP AGAINST CARTER PAGE? HE IS PAID FOR BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, AND HE PERSONALLY BELIEVES IT IS BAD FOR DONALD TRUMP TO WIN. HE IS MARKETING THE DOSSIER, WHICH IS A BUNCH OF GARBAGE TO ANYBODY AND EVERYBODY. TO ME THAT IS IMPORTANT. IS THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU? >>ANY EVIDENCE OF BIAS IS SUPPOSED TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE COURT AND TO THE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS. >>OKAY. SO LET’S PLAY THIS OUT. IN JANUARY 2017, WHEN THEY FIGURE OUT THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE AND THEY TALK TO THE RUSSIAN GUY THAT PROVIDED STEELE ALL THE INFORMATION, WHAT SHOULD THE FBI HAVE DONE AT THAT MOMENT? >>TWO THINGS. RECONSIDERED INTERNALLY WHERE THINGS STOOD, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, TOLD THE LAWYERS AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WHO THEY WERE ASKING TO HELP THEM GET A FISA. >>AND THERE ARE FIVE PEOPLE IN INTERVIEW, RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>OKAY. ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE SURE THOSE FIVE PEOPLE ARE KNOWN TO THE HIGHER UPS? >>THEY ARE ALL PART OF THE REFERRAL I MENTIONED EARLIER. >>OKAY. DID THEY HAVE A DUTY TO REPORT TO THEIR SUPERVISORS AND EVENTUALLY TO THE COURT EXCULPATORY INFORMATION? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>THEY DID NOT? >>THEY DID NOT. >>WHY? >>THAT IS THE QUESTION I CAN’T SPECIFICALLY ANSWER FOR YOU. >>>CAN YOU SAY IT WASN’T BECAUSE OF POLITICAL BIAS? >>ON DECISIONS REGARDING THOSE FISA MATTERS I DO NOT KNOW THEIR STATE OF MIND. >>SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ACTIONS NOW AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD MOTOR AWE STRAIGHT PEOPLE. DO YOU THINK COMEY AND MCCABE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN? >>THAT IS A CHALLENGING QUESTION AS WE EXPLAIN IN THE REPORT. THERE WERE MULTIPLE BRIEFINGS UP THE CHAIN, INCLUDING THE DIRECTOR AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR. WE DON’T HAVE A CLEAR RECORD OF WHAT, PRECISELY THEY WERE TOLD. AND AS YOU KNOW. >>>WOULD YOU BE SURPRISED IF IT DIDN’T MAKE IT UP THE SYSTEM. SOMETHING THIS EARTH SHATTERING? >>I’M NOT TO SPECULATE. >>>DID PETER STRZOK KNOW? >>PETER STRZOK TRANSITIONS OFF THIS MATTER IN JANUARY OF 2017. I MATE HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK. >>IN FEBRUARY HE MENTIONS THAT STEELE CAN’T VERIFY. >>CORRECT. >>PRETTY CLEAR TO ME IT GOT UP. SO THE COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD THERE WERE NOT? >>CORRECT. >>>HOW DID THEY DESCRIBE THIS MEETING TO THE COURT IN THE WARRANT APPLICATION? >>SO IN THE SECOND THIRD RENEWALS, THE LAST TWO APPLICATIONS, THEY TOLD THE COURT THEY HAD INTERVIEWED STEELE’S PRIMARILY SUB SOURCE, UPON WHOM STEELE RELIED IN WRITING THE REPORTING AND THAT THEY FOUND THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE TO BE CREDIBLE. THEY DID NOT TELL THE COURTNEY OF THE INFORMATION TO KNOW IF YOU FOUND THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE CREDIBLE YOU COULD NOT HAVE FOUND THE STEELE REPORT CREDIBLE. >>DID THEY MISLEAD THE COURT? >>THAT WAS MISS LEADING TO THE COURT AND THE DEPARTMENT. >>>SO TWO THINGS IN JANUARY 2017. THEY FAILED TO REPORT OBVIOUSLY EXCULPATORY INFORMATION. AND WHEN THEY DID REPORT TO THE COURT ABOUT THE INTERVIEW THEY LIED ABOUT IT? >>BUT LET ME ADD, ALSO. >>OKAY. >>THAT A YEAR LATER IN JUNE OF 2018, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT SENT A RULE 13 LETTER TO THE COURT INFORMING THEM OF OTHER INFORMATION THAT HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COURT, THE DEPARTMENT STILL DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE INFORMATION. SO WHEN THE DEPARTMENT, IN ITS LETTER, SAID IT STILL STOOD BEHIND THE FISA APPLICATIONS. >>INTERESTING. >>THEY REFERENCED THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE AGAIN AND THE FACT THE FBI FOUND THAT PERSON CREDIBLE. >>SO ARE THESE THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST WE HAVE? >>WELL CERTAINLY THE FBI THE ACTIONS OF THE FBI AGENTS ON THIS WERE NOT. >>SO MCCABE HAND PICKS THESE PEOPLE. ARE THEY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT AS A WHOLE IN YOUR VIEW? >>I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT IS NOT THE WAY OTHERS ARE FOLLOWING THESE PRACTICES. >>YEAH. ME TOO. OKAY. SO LET’S FAST FORWARD NOW TO JUNE OF 2016. MR.KLEIN SMITH, WHO IS HE? >>I’M GOING TO DEFER ON SPEAKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WE DON’T NAME SPECIFICALLY IN THE REPORT. >>OKAY. WHO IS THE GUY THAT, TELL ME ABOUT THE GUY THAT ALTERED THE E-MAIL FROM THE CIA. >>SO THERE WAS A LAWYER IN THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE FBI WHO WAS THE LINE ATTORNEY WORKING WITH THE AGENTS AND COUNTERPARTS AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION ON THE FISA. AND THAT INDIVIDUAL, IN JUNE OF 2017, AS THE LAST APPLICATION WAS BEING PREPARED, AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING MR. PAGE, CARTER PAGE GOING TO NEWS OUTLETS AFTER WORD OF THE FISAS HIT THE NEWS MEDIA AND SAID TO THE NEWS MEDIA, I WAS SOMEONE WHO WORKED WITH U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, NOT SOMEONE WHO WORKED AGAINST THEM, LAWYERS AND AGENTS WENT AND SAID WE’VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE STORY. IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED? THE LAWYER THE O.G. C, ATTORNEY FOR THE FBI REACHED OUT TO THE OTHER LIAISON AT THE OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY AT ISSUE, ASKED THE QUESTION WAS MR. PAGE A SOURCE OR CONTACT OF SOME SORT FOR YOUR ORGANIZATION? TE REPORT BACK IN THE E-MAIL REFERENCED THE AUGUST 2016 MEMORANDUM THAT THAT AGENCY HAD PROVIDED TO THE FBI THAT I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING STATEMENT THE FBI DID NO FOLLOW- UP ON. AND SAID WHAT THAT LIAISON’S GENERAL RECOLLECTION WAS, THAT MR. PAGE WAS OR IS SOMEONE WHO STILL, WHO HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ENTITY, WITH THE OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY, BUT THAT THE LAWYER SHOULD GO LOOK AT THE REPORT. FOR CONFIRMATION. THE LAWYER THEN HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE FBI AGENT WHO WAS GOING TO BE THE AFFIANT, THE PERSON WHO SWORE OUT THAT FINAL FISA APPLICATION. THE AGENT TOLD US, WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HE HAD LEARNED ABOUT WHAT PAGE SAID PUBLICLY AND WANTED A DEFINITIVE ANSWER, AS HE PUT IT, AS TO WHETHER PAGE WAS. >>THE AGENT, IF CARTER PAGE WAS ACTUALLY TELLING THE TRUTH, IT CHANGES ONE OF THE CONSIDERING HIM A FOREIGN AGENT. >>THAT WAS THE CONCERN OF THE AGENT. >>IF TRUE, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO MR. PAGE. >>IF TRUE, IT CERTAINLY COULD HAVE AND MAY WELL HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL TO MR. PAGE. >>OKAY. >>BUT AT A MINIMUM, WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED UP ON. >>>WHAT DID THIS LAWYER DO? >>WHEN THE LAWYER HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH THE AGENT AND THE AGENT SAID I WANT TO SEE IT, DO YOU HAVE IT IN WRITING THE LAWYER SAID HE DID AND HE FORWARDED THE LIAISON’S E-MAIL, BUT ALTERED IT TO INSERT THE WORDS AND NOT A SOURCE INTO THE E-MAIL. >>SO HE DOCTORED IT. >>HE DOCTORED THE ORIGINAL E- MAIL. >>THAT MADE IT LOOK LIKE THE CIA DENIED KNOWING MR. PAGE? >>IT FLATLY STATED HE WAS NOT A SOURCE. >>JUST IMAGINE, FOLKS. YOU ARE REPRESENTING SOMEBODY AS A DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND THEY DO THIS TO ONE OF YOUR CLIENTS. I HOPE SOMEBODY PAYS A PRICE FOR THIS WHETHER YOU LIKE TRUMP OR NOT. SO WHY DID MR. KLEIN SMITH, I’LL SAY IT YOU DON’T HAVE TO SAY IT. WHAT MOTIVATED HIM TO DO THAT? >>IT IS UNKNOWN AS TO PRECISELY WHY HE DID IT. >>THIS IS THE VIVA RESISTANCE GUY. >>I WAS GOING TO MENTION WE REFERENCE HERE THE TEXT MESSAGES YOU MENTION. AND WE HAVE NOT MADE A DETERMINATION. BUT RATHER AS WE NOTE IN HERE WHEN WE LEARNED THIS, WE NOTIFIED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE FBI DIRECTOR. >>YOU DID A GREAT JOB. THE OLD ADAGE IS IF YOU WAKE UP AND THE LAWN IS WET YOU CAN ASSUME IT RAINED. IF YOU HAVE GOT A GUY WHO HATES TRUMP’S GUTS FROM DAY ONE, THINKS PENCE IS STUPID AND EVERYTHING WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP IS AN IDIOT AND YOU GIVE HIM POWER OVER TRUMP, MAYBE YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE. OR AGAIN, MAYBE ALL THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD THESE BIASES DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. MAYBE. MAYBE NOT. IT DOESN’T REALLY MATTER, WE KNOW WHAT THEY DID. IS IT FAIR TO SAY AFTER JANUARY 2017 WHEN THE GUY WHO GAVE STEELE ALL THE INFORMATION DISAVOWS THE DOSSIER, THAT NOT ONLY THEY SHOULD HAVE TOLD THE COURT, THEY SHOULD HAVE SLOWED DOWN. DO YOU THINK THE SECOND AND THIRD PARENTS HAD A LEGAL BASIS AFTER THAT POINT? >>YOU KNOW, WE DON’T REACH THAT CONCLUSION AND I’M NOT GOING TO HERE. >>WOULD YOU HAVE SUBMITTED A WARRANT APPLICATION AS A LAWYER? >>LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. I WOULD NOT HAVE SUBMITTED THE ONE THEY PUT IN. >>OKAY. >>NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. IT HAD NO BUSINESS GOING IN WITH THAT. >>WHAT I WANT YOU TO KNOW IS IN JANUARY OF 2017 THE WHOLE FOUNDATION FOR SURVEILLING CARTER PAGE COLLAPSES, EXCULPATORY INFORMATION IS IGNORED, THEY LIE TO THE COURT ABOUT WHAT THE INTERVIEW WAS ALL ABOUT. IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY SO FAR? ABOUT THE JANUARY 2017? >>I’LL THEY CERTAINLY MISLED, IT WAS MISLEADING TO THE COURT. >>>FAIR ENOUGH. AND IN JANUARY, ABOUT SIX MONTHS LATER WHEN THEY FIND MORE INFORMATION THAT COULD BE HELPFUL TO MR. PAGE, THEY LIE ABOUT IT? DO YOU FEEL LIKE MR. PAGE WAS TREATED FAIRLY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI? >>I DON’T THINK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FAIRLY TREATED THESE FISAS AND HE WAS ON THE RECEIVING END. >>YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO BE ON THE RECEIVING END OF THIS, WOULD YOU? >>I WOULD NOT WANT AGENTS OR ANYBODY FAILING TO PUT FORWARD ALL THE INFORMATION THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO TELL THE COURT ON. I WAS IN AUSA I HAVE SEEN WHAT CAN HAPPEN. >>I WOULD BE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH YOU INVESTIGATING ANYBODY. BECAUSE I THINK YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GETTING SOMEBODY AND TRYING TO FIND THE TRUTH. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. >>>THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? >>IT IS TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL THREATS TO THE NATION. >>OKAY. THIS WAS OPENED UP AS A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION, RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>AND WE KNOW THE RUSSIANS WERE SCREWING AROUND WITH THE DEMOCRATS, RIGHT? >>CORRECT. >>THAT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS. IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO HACKED IN THE DNC. IT IS OKAY FOR EVERYBODY TO BE CONCERNED. WHAT ARE THE RUSSIANS UP TO? I GET THAT. IT IS OKAY TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THE STANDARD TO START ONE OF THESE THINGS. >>>THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS. BOTH OF THEM HAVE RELATIVELY LOW THRESHOLDS AS WE POINT OUT HERE FOR PRED CREATION. >>LET’S ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT RELATIVELY LOW THRESHOLD WAS MET. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY IF YOU STOP THERE, IN LOOKING AT YOUR REPORT, YOU ARE MAKING A MISTAKE? >>YOU WOULD BE MAKING A MISTAKE. THERE IS, THERE IS 400 PAGES HERE FOR A REASON. >>THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF MISCONDUCT. PLEASE DON’T IGNORE IT. SO MY POINT IS, IF THIS IS A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION, WHO ARE THEY TRYING TO PROTECT? WHO SHOULD THEY BE TRYING TO PROTECT? >>WELL, IF IT IS THE THREAT OUTLINED IN THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING TO PROTECT THE ELECTION PROCESS. >>RIGHT. >>WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE CAMPAIGN, THE CANDIDATE AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >>OKAY. SO DID THEY EVER BRIEF HILLARY CLINTON ABOUT EFFORTS TO, FOREIGN INFLUENCES INVOLVING HER CAMPAIGN? DO YOU KNOW? >>I HAVE HEARD THAT. BUT I DON’T KNOW FOR A FACT. >>THEY DID. GOOD FOR THEM. AND THEY STOPPED IT. WAS THERE EVER A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING GIVEN BY THE FBI TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO DONALD TRUMP ABOUT THE CONCERNS? >>THERE WAS NOT. >>WHAT WOULD YOU CALL A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION THAT NEVER HAD A PROTECTIVE ELEMENT? >>I’M NOT SURE, SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>IF WITHOUT EVENTUALLY TRYING TO PROTECT THE ENTITY, BEING INFLUENCED, IS IT LEGITIMATE? HERE’S WHAT I’M TRYING TO SAY. IF YOU OPEN UP A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION TO PROTECT SOMEBODY YOU SHOULD DO IT. DID THEY EVER TRY TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP FROM FOREIGN INFLUENCE? >>THEY DID NOT BRIEF HIM. >>>AS A MATTER OF FACT WHEN THEY WENT IN AND GAVE A VANILLA BRIEFING THE RUSSIANS ARE OUT THERE, YOU BETTER BEWARE, DIDN’T THEY HAVE AN FBI AGENT DO A 302 ON THE DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS ITSELF. >>THEY SENT ONE OF THE SUPERVISORY AGENTS FROM THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM TO THE BRIEFING AND THAT AGENT PREPARED A REPORT TO THE FILE OF THE BRIEFING. >>ABOUT WHAT TRUMP SAID? >>ABOUT WHAT MR. TRUMP SAID AND ABOUT WHAT MR. FLYNN SAID. >>SO WHEN WE GET DEFENSIVELY BRIEFED TOMORROW, WOULD IT BE OKAY FOR FBI AGENTS TO OPEN UP 302S ON WHAT WE SAID? >>WE HAVE VERY SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THAT AND I WOULD NOTE THAT IN DIRECT TORE WRAY’S RESPONSE. >>UNDER THE GUISE OF PROTECTING THE CAMPAIGN FROM RUSSIAN INFLUENCE, THEY NEVER LIFT A FINGER TO PROTECT THE CAMPAIGN IT WENT THE OTHER WAY AND THEY KEPT GOING. WHEN THEY DID GENERICALLY BRIEF CANDIDATE TRUMP, THEY SENT AN FBI AGENT IN TO DO A 302. IF THIS DOESN’T BOTHER YOU, YOU HATE TRUMP WAY TOO MUCH. WAS THAT FBI AGENT SPYING ON DONALD TRUMP WHEN HE WENT IN THERE? >>IT WAS A PRETEXT MEETING THAT I’M NOT GOING TO, THE PROCESS BY WHICH THEY HAVE TO DO THESE MEETINGS. >>IF YOU DON’T HAVE A FOUNDATION FOR A WARRANT AND YOU CONTINUE. >>I’M SORRY. GO AHEAD. DO YOU NEED TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE. >>I’M SORRY. THE INCIDENT, THE EVENT, THE MEETING, WAS A BRIEFING. AND THE FBI CONSIDERED AND DECIDED TO SEND THAT AGENT THERE TO DO THE BRIEFING. SO THE AGENT WAS ACTUALLY DOING THE BRIEFING, BUT ALSO USING IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION. >>OKAY. I HOPE THAT DOESN’T HAPPEN TO US TOMORROW. I’LL BE REALLY MAD IF IT DOES. SO LET’S PLAY THIS OUT. THEY NEVER TOLD TRUMP ABOUT THE CONCERNS. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THERE CAME A POINT TO WHERE SURVEILLING CARTER PAGE BECAME UNLAWFUL? I WILLET THE COURT DECIDE THAT. THE COURT HAS THIS REPORT AND WILL MAKE THAT DECISION. >>LET’S PUT IT THIS WAY. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A LEGAL FOUNDATION TO SURVEIL SOMEBODY AND YOU KEEP DOING IT, IS THAT BAD? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>IS THAT SPYING? >>IT IS ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE. IT IS NOT COURT AUTHORIZED SURVEILLANCE. >>WHATEVER ILLEGAL SURVEILLANCE MEANS, THEY DID IT. SO ALL THIS STUFF THAT THEY DIDN’T ILLEGALLY SURVEIL TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN, THEY DID. BECAUSE THEY HAD NO LEGAL BASIS AFTER THE JANUARY 2017 DATA DUMP BY THE RUSSIAN GUY TO BELIEVE THAT THE DOSSIER WAS RELIABLE, THEY ALTER EXCULPATORY INFORMATION IN JUNE OF 2017 THAT WOULD HAVE FURTHER PROVEN THAT CARTER PAGE IS NOT A RUSSIAN AGENT AND HE WAS ACTUALLY WORKING FOR THE CIA. LET ME ASK YOU DIRECTLY. DO YOU BELIEVE CARTER PAGE IS OR EVER WAS AN AGENT OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO DO HARM TO HIS COUNTRY? >>I’M GOING TO REFER TO THE EVIDENCE WE FOUND HERE, WHICH IS THAT THE FBI AT THE END OF THESE FISAS TOLD US THEY HAD FOUND NO EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE STEELE DOSSIER RELATED TO HIM. >>IT IS NOT THAT CLEAN, FOLKS. THEY KNEW AND THEY IGNORED IT. AND THEY CONTINUED TO SURVEIL HIM. WHY? WHY DID THEY DOCTOR THE E-MAIL? THE PEOPLE WHO CONDITION GETTING WARRANTS AFTER THEY KNEW IT WASN’T LEGITIMATE HAD A BIAS THAT REEKED. HOW THIS THING WAS OPENED, I DON’T KNOW. BUT I CAN TELL YOU MR. DURHAM HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW. I RESPECT YOUR VIEW THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A LAWFUL PREDICATE GIVING THEM EVERY BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BUT ONE OF THE PEOPLE PUSHING THIS WAS PETER STRZOK FROM DAY ONE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE A TASK AT HAND HERE TO MAKE SURE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN, TO HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, CHANGE OUR LAWS, SAVE THE FISA COURT IF WE AND I HOPE THIS CHAPTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY IS NEVER REPEATED AND FINALLY, IF YOU REPORT THAT THIS 434-PAGE REPORT SAYS LAWFUL INVESTIGATION WITH A FEW IRREGULARITIES, YOU ARE DOING A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AS WE SPOKE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, I POINTED OUT YOUR OFFICE SPENT 19 MONTHS AND INTERVIEWED 100 WITNESSES, AND YOUR REPORT CONCLUDED THAT THE FBI HAD AN ADEQUATE PRED, REASON, TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN TIES WITH RUSSIA. COULD YOU QUICKLY DEFINE THAT PREDICATE? >>YEAH SO THE PREDICATE HERE WAS THE INFORMATION THAT THE FBI GOT AT THE END OF JULY FROM THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT THAT REFLECTED A MEETING THAT THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAD WITH MR. PAP IN MAY. >>WHO WAS THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT? >>WE DON’T MENTION THAT. >>IS THAT CLASSIFIED? >>MY UNDERSTANDING STILL CLASSIFIED. AS I SIT HERE, I AM ONLY GOING TO SPEAK TO WHAT IS IN OUR REPORT. >>OKAY. GO AHEAD. AND AS I MENTIONED, IN MY STATEMENT, THE COMMENT WAS THAT MR. PAP HAD MADE A SUGGESTION THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SUGGESTION TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT WOULD BE DAMAGING TO CANDIDATE CLINTON AND THEN PRESIDENT OBAMA. >>SO YOUR REPORT STATES THAT YOU DIDN’T FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION PLAYED A ROLE? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>THANK YOU. AND YOU DIDN’T FIND A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY AGAINST CANDIDATE OR PRESIDENT TRUMP? >>AS TO THE OPENING, WE FOUND NO BIAS, NO TESTIMONIAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON THAT. >>AND NO RATIONALE FOR A DEEP STATE? >>WE LOOKED AT MR. PRE STAP WAS THE DECISIONMAKER AND WE DID NOT FIND ANY E-MAILS OR TEXTS ENGAGING IN ANY BIAS. >>>FBI DIRECTOR RAY PROVIDED A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO YOUR REPORT AND THESE INCLUDE THE KEY FINDING THERE WAS, QUOTE, AN AUTHORIZED PURPOSE AN ACTUAL FACTUAL UAL PRED CATION FOR THE INVESTIGATION. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, DID HE PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE THAT CAUSED YOU TO ALTER THIS KEY FINDING THAT THE FBI INVESTIGATION HAD AN ADEQUAT PREDICATE? >>NO, WE STAND BY OUR FINDING. >>THANK YOU. >>>DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR STATED HIS BELIEF THAT QUOTE SPYING ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DID OCCUR. END QUOTE. AND AS YOU SAID YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI PLACED ANY CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE WITHIN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR TASKED ANY CONFIDENTIAL DIVORCE TO REPORT ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, THAT’S CORRECT, RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND FURTHER NO EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER HE MOTIVATIONS INFLUENCED THE DECISION TO USE CONFIDENTIAL SOURCES AS PART OF THE INVESTIGATION. >>THAT’S CORRECT. DID YOUR OFFICE ASK ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR AND U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN DURHAM TO SHARE WHATEVER EVIDENCE THEY HAD THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT TO YOUR INVESTIGATION? >>WE ASKED MR. DURHAM TO DO THAT. >>AND WHAT ABOUT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR? >>AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. >>>THANK YOU. SO NOTHING THEY COULD PROVIDE ALTERED YOUR OFFICE’S CONCLUSION THAT THE FBI DID NOT PLACE SPIES IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? >>NONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS CHANGED OUR FINDINGS HERE. >>THANK YOU. IN A PRESS STATEMENT, ISSUED MONDAY, U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN DURHAM, TRAFFICKED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, TO ALSO INVESTIGATE THE ORIGINS OF THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION STATED AND I QUOTE LAST MONTH, WE ADVISED I THE I GTHAT WE DO NOT AGREE WITH SOME OF THE REPORT’S CONCLUSIONS AS TO PRED CATION AND HOW THE FBI CASE WAS OPENED. WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO THAT? >>WELL, I WAS SURPRISED BY THE STATEMENT. I DIDN’T NECESSARILY KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE RELEASED ON MONDAY. WE DID MEET WITH MR. DURHAM, AS I MENTIONED. WE PROVIDED HIM A COPY OF THE REPORT AS WE DID OTHERS THROUGH OUR FACTUAL ACCURACY REVIEW PROCESS. WE MET WITH HIM IN NOVEMBER WITH REGARD TO THAT. WE DID DISCUSS THE OPENING ISSUE. HE SAID HE DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH OUR CONCLUSION ABOUT THE OPENING OF A FULL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS WHAT THIS WAS. BUT THERE IS ALSO AN INVESTIGATIVE MEANS BY WHICH THE FBI CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INVESTIGATION, CALLED A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS, FULL AND PRELIMINARY. THEY OPENED A FULL HERE. HE SAID DURING THE MEETING THAT THE INFORMATION FROM THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WAS, IN HIS VIEW, SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. AND AS WE NOTE IN THE REPORT, INVESTIGATIVE STEPS SUCH AS CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE ACTIVITY ARE ALLOWED UNDER A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OR UNDER A FULL INVESTIGATION. >>DID EITHER BARR OR DURHAM PRESENT ANYTHING THAT ALTERED YOUR FINDINGS? >>NO. >>SINCE WE HAVE THE AUTHOR OF THE WHISTLEBLOWER LEGISLATION VERY PROUDLY SITTING HERE. YOU PREVIOUSLY TOLD THIS COMMITTEE WHISTLEBLOWER RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN ONE OF YOUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES SINCE BECOMING I G. AS YOU KNOW, THERE HAVE BEEN CALLS FOR THE UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER TO BE IDENTIFIED PUBLICLY, EVEN THOUGH THAT PERSON WAS NOT A DIRECT WITNESS TO THE EVENTS. SO WHAT IS YOUR VIEW? SHOULD THE UKRAINE WHISTLEBLOWER’S CONFIDENTIALITY BE BREACHED AND THAT PERSONIFIED PUBLICLY? AND WHY NOT? >>SO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTIONS HAVE BEEN ONE OF MY HIGHEST PRIORITIES. I HAVE APPRECIATED WORKING WITH ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, PARTICULARLY SENATOR GRASSLEY. WE WROTE A LETTER RECENTLY AS THE I GCOMMUNITIES QUOTING HIS STATEMENT ON THE ISSUES AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WHISTLEBLOWERS AND WHISTLEBLOWERS HAVE A RIGHT TO EXPECT COMPLETE, FULL CONFIDENTIALITY, IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. IT IS IN THE LAW. IN THE I G, ACT THAT CONGRESS WROTE. AND IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PROVISION. >>>THANK YOU. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE GEORGE KENT TESTIFIED THAT POLITICALLY ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATIONS OR PROSECUTIONS AGAINST OPPONENTS OF THOSE IN POWER UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? DO POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS UNDERMAIN THE RULE OF LAW? >>ANY POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATION UNDERMAINS THE RULE OF LAW. >>>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE WHITE HOUSE ASKED THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO INVESTIGATE THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP OR HIS CAMPAIGN? >>WE CERTAINLY DIDN’T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT IN THE FBI FILES OR THE DEPARTMENT’S FILES, WHICH WAS OUR MANDATE HERE AND OUR AUTHORIZED JURISDICTION. >>>YOU HAVE A POLICY RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE USE OF CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT THE USE OF CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES WAS CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING RULES, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>THE USE OF CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES HERE WAS NOT SOLELY TO GATHER FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTED INFORMATION? >>CORRECT AND THAT IS THE STANDARD CURRENTLY IN THE RULES. >>AND YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE DECISION TO USE CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES WAS MOTIVATED BY POLITICAL BIAS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>WITH REGARD TO YOUR POLICY RECOMMENDATION, WHAT, IF ANYTHING, DO YOU BELIEVE SHOULD BE CHANGED? AND WHY? >>SO AS I MENTION IN MY OPENING STATEMENT, I THINK WE WERE SURPRISED TO LEARN AND CONCERNED TO LEARN THAT IN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANY POLITICAL NATIONAL PARTY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN, THE CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE USAGE COULD BE APPROVED BY ONLY A FIRST LEVEL SUPERVISOR. IN THIS INSTANCE AS WE NOTE HERE SOME OF THEM WERE APPROVED AT THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR LEVEL BUT THEY COULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED AT JUST THE LINE SUPERVISOR LEVEL. FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF A MAJOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF EITHER SIDE, OR ANY SIDE, THAT WAS CONCERNING TO US, PARTICULARLY SINCE THERE WAS NOT A RIVAL THAT ANY DEPARTMENT LAWYER, WHETHER AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION, THE CRIMINAL DIVISION, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, NEEDED TO BE NOTIFIED, AT ANY POINT IN TIME. >>>DID YOU GIVE INTERVIEWS ABOUT YOUR INVESTIGATION WHILE IT WAS ONGOING? >>I’M SORRY? >>DID YOU GIVE INTERVIEWS? >>OH, MYSELF? NO. >>DURING THE INVESTIGATION? >>NO, I DO NOT DO THAT. >>DID ANYONE ON THE I G, TEAM? >>NO AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO DO SO. >>SO I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR THIS UP. WHAT ARE THE DANGERS OF DISCUSSING AN INVESTIGATION THAT IS ONGOING? >>SO I ACTUALLY WROTE AND WE WROTE A 500-PAGE REPORT ABOUT THAT WE ISSUED LAST YEAR ON THE MID-YEAR INVESTIGATION, AND AMONG OTHER THINGS CRITICIZED WHAT OCCURRED LAST YEAR WITH REGARD TO THE HANDLING OF THAT INVESTIGATION. ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS ARE, NEED TO BE PROTECTED FROM OUTSIDE INFLUENCE. YOU DON’T KNOW, AS AN INVESTIGATOR OR SHOULDN’T CONCLUDE UNTIL YOU ARE DONE WITH THE INVESTIGATION YOU SHOULDN’T BE REACHING YOUR CONCLUSIONS UNTIL THAT POINT. SO GIVING PRELIMINARY IDEAS, ADVICE, GUIDANCE, STATEMENTS CAN BE MISLEADING, AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE REACHING FINAL CONCLUSIONS UNTIL YOU GET TO THE END OF THE REFERRING. >>>THERE IS A LOT OF MISIMPRESSION ABOUT TWO PEOPLE, PETER STRZOK AND PAGE. FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS RELENTLESSLY ATTACKED FORMER FBI OFFICIALS AS A WAY TO UNDERMINE THE INVESTIGATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENT TWEETED THAT, AND I QUOTE, HOW CAN THE WICKED WITCH HUNT PROCEED WHEN IT WAS STARTED, INFLUENCED AND WORKED ON BY PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAGE? WHO EXCHANGED TEXT MESSAGES CRITICAL OF CANDIDATE TRUMP. YOUR INVESTIGATION FOUND THAT WHILE LISA PAGE ATTENDED SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATIONS, SHE DID NOT PLAY A ROLE IN THE DECISION TO OPEN CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. YOU ALSO FOUND THAT WHILE PETER STRZOK WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THE DECISIONS TO OPEN CROSSFIRE HURRICANE, HE WAS NOT THE SOLE OR EVEN THE HIGHEST LEVEL DECISIONMAKER TO ANY OF THOSE MATTERS. THAT DECISION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WAS MADE BY FBI ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PRE STAP, AS YOU HAVE INDICATED AND BY CONSENSUS AFTER MULTIPLE DAYS OF DISCUSSIONS AND MEETINGS. MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU FOUND THE DECISION HAD A PROPER FACTUAL BASIS IS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT QUOTE POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION INFLUENCED IT. SO, BASED ON YOUR INVESTIGATION, PERSONAL, POLITICAL VIEWS EXPRESSED IN TEXT MESSAGES DID NOT MOTIVATE THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION OF TIES BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISERS AND RUSSIA. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. ULTIMATELY WE CONTINUE INCLUDED THOSE TEXT MESSAGES, WHICH WE FOUND LAST YEAR, WERE ENTIRELY INAPPROPRIATE, DIDN’T ULTIMATELY PLAY THE ROLE IN. MR.PRE STOP’S DECISION TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION. >>THANK YOU. SO YOUR INVESTIGATION ALSO UNCOVERED TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN OTHER FBI EMPLOYEES EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR CANDIDATE AND PRESIDENT TRUMP, CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO FBI EMPLOYEES HELD PERSONAL POLITICAL VIEWS THAT WERE BOTH FAVORABLE AND UNFAVORABLE TOWARD THE CANDIDATE AT THAT TIME? >>THAT’S CORRECT. AS WE NOTE HERE, AND WE NOTED IN LAST YEAR’S REPORT, WE DID NOT FIND THE TEXT MESSAGES WERE INAPPROPRIATE, SOLELY BECAUSE PEOPLE EXPRESSED A VIEW AS TO WHICH CANDIDATE THEY SUPPORT OR DIDN’T SUPPORT IN AN ELECTION. WHAT CONCERNED US WITH THE TEXT MESSAGES WE OUTLINED LAST YEAR AND REFERENCE AGAIN IN THIS YEAR’S REPORT AS TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS, IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THEIR VIEWS AND THEIR WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION. >>>TO CONCLUDE MY QUESTIONING, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE, WITH YOUR LONG EXPERIENCE, ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS THAT THIS 400- PLUS PAGE REPORT BRINGS FORWARD? >>WELL, I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL. AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT IN A LARGE REPORT. >>THAT IS WHY I STILL HAVE TIME. >>I THINK, AS WE OUTLINE IN THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FIRST IT WAS OPENED WITH THE PROPER PREDICATE, SUFFICIENT PRED CATION BY A PERSON WHO WAS NOT ONE OF THE TEXT MESSAGE PERSONS, AND SENIOR TO THOSE PEOPLE. THIRD, THAT THE CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE OPERATIONS, WHILE PERM MID BY FBI POLICY SHOULD CAUSE EVERYONE TO GIVE PAUSE WHETHER THAT POLICY IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE ACCOUNTABILITY OVER DECISIONS. AND FINALLY, THAT THE FISA PROCESS HERE WAS NOT USED APPROPRIATELY, PROPERLY, AND THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED. >>WELL THAT CONCLUDES MY QUESTIONING. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU, AND THANK YOU TO YOUR STAFF. I’M VERY GRATEFUL TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE YEAR IN YEAR OUT. THANK YOU. >>>I WOULD YIELD THE BALANCE OF MY TIME TO SENATOR LEAHY. >>YES, MA’AM. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE AT 12:00. AND WE WILL TRY TO GET THROUGH SENATOR GRASSLEY AND MAYBE LEAHY AND TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH AND COME BACK ABOUT 30 MINUTES LATER. >>SURE. ABSOLUTELY. >>>WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT FISA, AS SENATOR GRAHAM POINTED OUT EARLIER, SENATOR LEE AND I HAVE WORKED ON TRYING TO PUT IN SOME PROTECTIONS, IN FISA, THE USA FREEDOM ACT AND SO ON, BUT THE FBI ACCEPTED ALL OF YOUR FINDINGS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND THAT INCLUDES WHERE YOU HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE USE OF FISA? >>CORRECT. >>OF THE FIVE INVESTIGATIONS YOU REVIEWED, THE ONLY APPLICATION FOR FISA WARRANT WAS WITH RESPECT TO CARTER PAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>OUT OF THE FIVE. THE 17 ERRORS AFFECTING THE CARTER PAGE FISA APPLICATION CAME AFTER, AND THUS DID NOT IMPACT THE BROADER RUSSIA INVESTIGATION WHICH BECAME THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S INVESTIGATION, AM I CORRECT IN THAT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. THOSE OCCURRED IN OCTOBER AND LATER. >>IT WAS NOT. >>NOT IN AUGUST WHEN THE MATTER WAS OPENED. >>NOW, SO THAT CAME AFTER THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CAME AFTER. IN THE MUELLER REPORT, HOW MANY PAGES DID THE MUELLER REPORT REFER TO CARTER PAGE. >>I DON’T RECALL THE EXACT NUMBER. BUT IT WASN’T A LARGE NUMBER. I DO KNOW. I READ IT. IT WAS SEVEN PAGES. THAT WAS OUT OF 448 PAGES, SO BARELY MENTIONED. I’M NOT TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE FBI MISTAKES HERE, BUT KEEP IT IN CONTEXT. THE FBI’S ERRORS IN CARTER PAGE’S CASE DO NOT UNDERMINE THE UNANIMOUS ASSESSMENT THAT RUSSIA, AND NOT UKRAINE, INTERFERED IN OUR ELECTION, IS THAT CORRECT? >>YEAH. WE DESCRIBE, IN THE REPORT, THE INFORMATION ABOUT RUSSIA’S, THE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT RUSSIA’S MEDDLING IN THE 2016 ELECTION. >>I REMEMBER ONE OF THE POLITICAL EVENTS MR. TRUMP WAS HAVING, HE SAID RUSSIA, IF YOU ARE LISTENING, TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN SEEMED TO WELCOME AND EXPLOIT IT. NOW NONE OF THESE ERRORS, AND CORRECT ME IF I’M WRONG, MINIMIZED THE LEGITIMATE DOZENS OF INMENTS AND CONVICTIONS THAT RESULTED FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION, IS THAT CORRECT? >>WE MAKE VERY CLEAR THE ERRORS AND SERIOUS PROBLEMS WE IDENTIFY ARE CONCERNING THE CARTER PAGE FISA AND THE PEOPLE IN THAT CHAIN OF COMMAND WE DON’T MAKE ANY FINDINGS AT CRSSFIRE HURRICANE. >>I BELIEVE THEY DO NOT UNDERMINE THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION, AM I CORRECT? >>OUR REVIEW WAS NOT OF THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. OUR REVIEW WAS OF THE FISAS WE OBTAINED AND OF THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION AND THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION WE GOT ABOUT THE CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE USE. >>>AND YOU FIND YOU DID A 19- MONTH INTERVIEW, IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS MOTIVATED BY ANTITRUMP OR POLITICAL BIAS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>WE FOUND NO EVIDENCE THE INITIATION OF THE INVESTIGATION WAS MOTIVATED BY POLITICAL BIAS. IT GETS MURKOWSKIIER, THE QUESTION GETS MORE CHALLENGING, SENATOR, WHEN YOU GET TO THE FISA AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE OTHER, WHEN YOU GET TO THE ATTORNEY’S ACTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE IN CONNECTION WITH THAT FISA. >>>>>DID YOU CONCLUDE THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE BASIS TO INVESTIGATE TIES BETWEEN TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIA? >>WE CONTINUE INCLUDED TO OPEN ON JULY 31 AND THE SUBSEQUENT SUB FILES THEY OPENED ABOUT 10 DAYS LATER OR SO. >>AND SOME OF THAT CAME FROM WITHOUT NAMING THE TRUSTED FOREIGN ALLY? >>CORRECT THE INFORMATION CAME FROM THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT. >>AND DID YOU FIND IN THAT THAT THE FBI COMPLIED WITH AND EVEN EXCEEDED CURRENT DEPARTMENT RULES ON WHO CAN AUTHORIZE AN INVESTIGATION, WHO HAS TO BE NOTIFIED? >>THEY FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES WITH REGARD TO THAT. >>>DOES IT REFUTE THE CLAIMS MADE BY SOME THERE IS A DEEP STATE INVOLVED? >>IT FINDS THAT IT WAS A PROPERLY PREDICATED INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE RULES AT THE FBI. >>AND DID YOU FIND ANYTHING WHERE THE FBI PLANTED SPIES IN MR. TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN? >>WE FOUND NO USE OF CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES AND PLACING THEM IN THE CAMPAIGN OR TRYING TO PUT THEM IN THE CAMPAIGN. >>I HAVE USED UP THE FIVE MINUTES. >>YOU’LL GET YOUR 10 MINUTES. >>NO, I HAVE TAKEN HER REMAINING FIVE MINUTES. >>>HAS ANYBODY BEEN PROSECUTED OR CHARGED WITH ANY OF THIS RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION? >>I’M SORRY? ON THIS MATTER THAT I’M HANDLE? >>YEAH. >>NO ONE THAT I’M AWARE OF. >>>FOLLOWING UP ON A QUESTION THAT SENATOR FEINSTEIN ASKED, DID THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OR PRESIDENT OBAMA, HIMSELF, IS THE ONE I’M INTERESTED IN, KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION? >>I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT DEFINITIVELY. OUR AUTHORITY WAS OVER THE FBI AND TO LOOK AT THE FBI DEPARTMENT ACTIVITIES. >>>IN JANUARY 2018, CHAIRMAN GRAHAM AND I WROTE TO THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT, REFERRING CHRISTOPHER STEELE FOR INVESTIGATION OF POTENTIALLY LYING TO THE FBI. WE TOLD THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT THAT WHAT THE FBI TOLD THE COURT WITH STEELE’S MEDIA CONTEXT DIDN’T MATCH WITH WHAT HE TOLD THE BRITISH COURT. DID, FOUR QUESTIONS IN REGARD TO THAT. DID THE FBI EVER ASK STEELE WHETHER HE WAS A SOURCE FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2016 YAHOO NEWS ARTICLE THAT CITED WESTERN INTELLIGENCE SOURCES? IF NOT, WHY NOT? >>THEY DID NOT ASK THAT QUESTION, DESPITE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO AND WE GOT A VARIETY OF EXPLANATIONS, INCLUDING THAT AS TO SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT THEY DIDN’T WANT TO OFFEND HIM OR JEOPARDIZE THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM. >>QUESTION TWO. ON OCTOBER 11th DRAFT OF THE FISA APPLICATION STATING FBI BELIEVED STEELE WAS THE SOURCE FOR THE YAHOO NEWS ARTICLE, BUT IT WAS AKEN OUT IN THE OCTOBER 14TH DRAFT, WHY DID THE FBI ORIGINALLY SAY STEELE WAS THE SOURCE? AND WHAT FACTUAL BASIS DID THE FBI HAVE TO CHANGE THAT? AND TELL THE COURT THAT STEELE WAS NOT A SOURCE? >>THIS IS WHAT WAS SO DISTURBING ABOUT THAT EVENT, WHICH IS THE INITIAL APPLICATION SAID, AS YOU NOTED, THAT THE FBI ASSESSED THAT STEELE WAS THE DIRECT SOURCE OR WAS A DIRECT SOURCE. AND ON OCTOBER 14TH THE DRAFTS CHANGED TO THE EXACT OPPOSITE. WHAT WE FOUND IS THE FBI HAD NO BASIS FOR THE FIRST STATEMENT, NO EVIDENCE IN THEIR FILE. IT TURNED OUT THE FIRST STATEMENT WAS, IN FACT, THE ACCURATE STATEMENT. THE POINT THOUGH, WAS, THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT. AND WHEN THEY FLIPPED IT, THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT, EITHER. THAT IS THE KIND OF ISSUE THAT, UNDER THE BASIC WOODS PROCEDURES, THE FACTUAL ACCURACY PROCEDURES, HAD SOMEONE BEEN DOING THEIR JOB, AND FOLLOWING UP, THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN THAT AND FOUND THAT. AND, OF COURSE HAD THEY BOTHERED TO ASK MR. STEELE THEY MIGHT HAVE FOUND OUT. >>MAYBE THEY WEREN’T INTERESTED IN DOING THEIR JOB. >>>CHAIRMAN GRAHAM AND I SENT OUR REFERRAL TO THE FBI AND THE DOJ ON JANUARY 1, 2018 AND ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, ALTHOUGH THE FBI ALREADY KNEW THE BRITISH INTELLIGENCE AND THE FBI OFFICIALS DISCUSSED LITIGATION WITH DIRECTOR COMEY, THE FBI NEVER GOT STEELE’S STATEMENT IN THAT LITIGATION UNTIL WE PROVIDED THEM. THE FBI ALSO NEVER CONSIDERED UPDATING THE COURT ON THESE STATEMENTS. WHY DID THE COURT LEARN, NO. WHEN DID THE COURT LEARN ABOUT THESE CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT STEELE DID OR DIDN’T HAVE INFORMATION WITH THE MEDIA AND DID THE FBI SEEM CONCERNED AT ALL IT WAS NOT UPDATING THE COURT, AND KNOWINGLY PROVIDING A COURT WITH INCORRECT AND MISLEADING INFORMATION? >>SO, THE FISA COURT FIRST LEARNED OF IT IN A, AT LEAST AS I UNDERSTAND IT IN A LETTER SENT IN JUNE 2018, A YEAR AFTER THE LAST FISA AUTHORIZATION, WHEN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS SENT A LETTER INFORMING THEM OF NEW INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD LEARNED, INCLUDING FROM LITIGATION THAT MR. STEELE HAD ACKNOWLEDGED HE WAS A DIRECT CONTACT FOR YAHOO NEWS IN THAT STORY. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME THE COURT WAS TOLD ABOUT IT. >>>WOULD YOU LOOK AT FOOTNOTE 461 FOR ME? >>YES. THAT FOOTNOTE STATES THAT A FORMER FBI CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE CONTACTED AN FBI AGENT IN AN FBI FIELD OFFICE IN LATE JULY 2016 TO REPORT INFORMATION FROM QUOTE A COLLEAGUE WHO RUNS AN INVESTIGATIVE FIRM HIRED BY TWO ENTITIES, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, AS WELL AS ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS NOT NAMED, TO EXPLORE DONALD TRUMP’S LONGSTANDING TIES TO RUSSIAN ENTITIES. END OF QUOTE. WAS THAT INVESTIGATIVE FIRM FUSION GPS? OR DID THE DNC HIRE ANOTHER FIRM TO PEDAL ANTITRUMP INFORMATION TO OBAMA’S FBI? >>I DON’T KNOW DEFINITIVELY WHICH IT IS BUT I CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW-UP AND GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. >>BUT IT IS A QUESTION YOU CAN ANSWER FOR ME? >>I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH OUR FOLKS ON THAT. >>IF YOU COULDN’T WOULD THAT BE A CASE OF PRIVACY OR SOMETHING? >>NO. I DON’T KNOW IF WE ULTIMATELY FIGURED OUT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. BECAUSE IT WAS IN A DIFFERENT FIELD OFFICE WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO HAVE TO INTERVIEW AND THAT SORT OF THING. I’M NOT SURE HOW MUCH WE WENT DOWN THAT ROAD, FRANKLY. >>>THANK YOU. I HAVE BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS SINCE SEPTEMBER 2017 ABOUT WHAT KIND OF DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS THE FBI PROVIDED TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THE FBI TOLD ME ITS BRIEFINGS TO BOTH CAMPAIGNS WERE SIMILAR, AND THAT IT WASN’T AWARE OF ACTION THAT IT TOOK AS A RESULT. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON AND I WROTE, AGAIN, TO THE FBI TWO MONTHS AGO. WE NOTED TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN TWEETER STRUCK AND PAGE INDICATED THE FBI MAY HAVE USED DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS NOT TO WARN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BUT TO INVESTIGATE IT. FOUR QUESTIONS ALONG THIS LINE. QUESTION ONE. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BRIEFINGS WERE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THOSE PROVIDED TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN? >>IF I COULD, THEY WERE CALLED, IT WAS NOT AN FBI BRIEFING. IF THEY WENT TO AN OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING IT WAS A STRATEGIC COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BRIEFING AND I MENTION THAT BECAUSE IT PRECISELY WASN’T A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING, IT WAS AN INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING AND THEY WERE TREATED DIFFERENTLY IN THAT THE AGENT WROTE IT UP TO THE FILE AND PUT THE INFORMATION IN THE FILE. THE BRIEFINGS WERE IDENTICAL, BUT THE NET RESULT WAS ONE WAS FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES AND ONE WAS PURELY FOR THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING. >>I THINK WHAT YOU SAID TOUCHES ON QUESTION TWO. IN THIS CASE THE AGENCY AT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BRIEFING DOCUMENTED STATEMENTS AND INTERACTIONS OF MICHAEL FLYNN AND CANDIDATE TRUMP FOR THE FBI’S INVESTIGATIVE FILES. IS IT NORMAL FOR THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BRIEFERS TO DOCUMENT STATEMENTS AND INTERACTIONS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY ARE BRIEFING FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES? >>IT WAS DOCUMENTED IN ONE AND NOT DOCUMENTED IN THE OTHER. AS YOU SAID, SENATOR. AND BASED ON WHAT WE SAW, THERE IS ACTUALLY NO POLICY ON IT. BUT BASED ON THE REACTION OF THE CURRENT LEADERSHIP AND DIRECTOR WRAY’S RESPONSE, WHERE HE UNDERLINED THE WORD THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN GOING FORWARD, I THINK IT IS PRETTY CLEAR WHAT HIS STATE OF MIND IS ON THAT. THIS SHOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. >>>QUESTION NUMBER THREE. DID THE FBI MAKE ANY INVESTIGATIVE USE OF THE INFORMATION GARNERED IN THE DEFENSE BRIEFING? FOR EXAMPLE TO INFORM ITS LATER INTERVIEW WITH MICHAEL FLYNN? >>SO I DON’T KNOW DEFINITIVELY WHETHER THAT DID OCCUR. BUT THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE STATE PURPOSE FOR THE AGENT BEING PRESENT. >>OKAY. LASTLY, CAMPAIGNS PLACED TRUST IN THE FBI TO PROVIDE AN ENVIRONMENT OF COOPERATION AND HONEST ASSESSMENTS ABOUT THE RISK OF FOREIGN THREATS. HOW CAN THE FBI REPAIR THAT TRUST AFTER ABUSING THE BRIEFING PROCESS? >>WELL THAT IS WHERE WE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION. WE THINK THE FBI HAS TO CLEARLY STATE WHAT ITS POLICY IS. IT DOES THESE KIND OF STRATEGIC BRIEFINGS, AS THE CHAIRMAN MENTIONED, FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, FOR PRIVATE CITIZENS, COMPANIES WHEN THEY GET ATTACKED. ON THEIR COMPUTER SYSTEMS, FOR EXAMPLE. TRANSITION, FOR TRANSITION PURPOSES, AS WAS THE CASE HERE AND THERE NEEDS TO BE CLEAR GUIDANCE AND RULES SO THAT THOSE GETTING THE BRIEFINGS UNDERSTAND. >>ON ANOTHER POINT. ACCORDING TO YOUR REPORT, BRUCE ORR TOLD THE FBI STEELE’S REPORTING HAD GONE TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN NOVEMBER 2016. BY JANUARY 11, 2017, KEY INVESTIGATORS KNEW THE DOSSIER WAS PREPARED, IN PART, FOR THE DNC. AND BY FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2017, QUOTE UNQUOTE, IT WAS BROADLY KNOWN IN THE FBI AND BY SENIOR JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS THAT SIMPSON WAS WORKING FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE FBI AND DOJ KNEW THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS POLITICAL OPPOSITION RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE DEMOCRATS, AND WHO WERE THEY? AND DID ANY OF THEM APPROVE INFORMATION IN THE FISA OR ANY OF ITS RENEWALS WHILE KNOWING WHO WAS PAYING FOR IT? >>SO ON THE FBI SIDE, AS WE LAY OUT IN THE REPORT, PAGE 258 FORWARD, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO THAT YOU. IT IS CHALLENGING, GETTING BACK TO THE CHAIRMAN’S QUESTION TO KNOW PRECISELY WHAT WAS KNOWN AT THE VERY HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE FBI AND WHEN. THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR LEVELS, BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF ANY YOU KNOW, DIRECT RECORD OF ENTIRE BRIEFINGS. BUT THERE CERTAINLY WAS MUCH INFORMATION, AS WE LAY OUT HERE, KNOWN AT THE FBI. AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, MUCH OF THAT WAS NOT KNOWN. MR.ORR WAS PASSING THIS INFORMATION FROM MR. STEELE TO THE FBI. THAT THIS WAS WAS NOT BEING GIVEN BACK BY THE FBI TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. SO THE COLLEAGUES AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WERE APPROVING AND REVIEWING THESE FISAS DIDN’T KNOW THEIR COLLEAGUE HAD PASSED ALONG THAT INFORMATION TO THE FBI. >>>THANK YOU. >>>WE’LL GO WITH ACCEPT TORE LEAHY THEN BREAK FOR LUNCH AND COME BACK AT 1:00 AND GO VOTE. . >>>I HAVE READ AN AWFUL LOT OF THE REPORTS IN MY YEARS HERE. AM I CORRECT WHEN AN OPPONENT HAS COMMENTS THE GENERAL PRACTICE IS ON TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO PUBLISH ALONG WITH YOUR REPORT, IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. WE WOULD ALWAYS INCLUDE THAT IN OUR APPENDIX TO OUR REPORTS. >>MY STAFF LOOKED AT 797 INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORTS FILED SINCE YOUR TENURE BEGAN, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT COMPONENT CONTESTED ONE OR MORE, HOW MANY I GREPORTS UNDER YOUR NAME INVOLVE THE JUSTICE ICE DEPARTMENT ARGUING THAT, IN FACT. >>>I FIND IT VERY UNUSUAL ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR DIDN’T ACCEPTED YOU ANYTHING TO GO IN THE REPORT, HE WENT TO THE TELEVISION CAMERAS TO TALK ABOUT IT. THERE WAS A LOT ABOUT THE PERSONAL TEXT MESSAGES INVOLVED IN YOUR 2018 REPORT, AND INVOLVED IN THE FBI LAWYER AND AN AGENT INVOLVED IN THESE INVESTIGATIONS, PERSONAL ANIMUS TOWARD PRESIDENT TRUMP. YOU ALSO, DIDN’T YOU, IN YOUR INVESTIGATION FIND PRO TRUMP, FAVORABLE TRUMP TEXT MESSAGES FROM AGENTS WHO WORKED ON THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION? INCLUDING ONE THAT WAS AN EXPLETIVE EXCHANGE WHERE THE AGENTS WERE ENTHUSIASTICALLY TALKING ABOUT TRUMP’S ELECTION, AND THEIR DESIRE TO INVESTIGATE THE CLINTON FOUNDATION UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP? YOU FOUND THAT, TOO, DIDN’T YOU? >>THAT’S CORRECT. THAT IS IN THE REPORT. >>>WELL I THINK IT IS POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC WHETHER THEY ARE PRO TRUMP OR PRO CLINTON IN THEIR THINGS. I ASSUME FBI INVESTIGATORS CAN HAVE STRONG VIEWS ON POLITICS, BUT DOES IT AFFECT THEIR WORK. >>EXACTLY. WHETHER THEY ARE WORKING ON A SENSITIVE MATTER OR NOT. IN OUR VIEW, WHEN WE TOOK THE VIEW LAST YEAR, WE LAID IT OUT, WE WERE NOT HOLDING OR REFERRING PEOPLE FOR PERFORMANCE FAILURES SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY EXPRESSED SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT FOR A CANDIDATE. IT WAS AS YOU INDICATED, CONNECTING IT. >>THANK YOU. NOW THERE WAS ONE OCCASION WHERE IT DID IMPACT RUSSIAN WORK. THE FBI APPROPRIATELY KEPT QUIET ABOUT THE TRUMP RUSSIA INVESTIGATION DURING THE 2016 ELECTION. THE SAME CAN’T BE SAID ABOUT THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. RUDY GIULIANI AND OTHERS APPEARED TO RECEIVE HIGHLY SENSITIVE LEAKS FROM THE NEW YORK FBI FIELD OFFICE. LEAKS THAT LIKELY CONTINUE TRICKED TO DIRECTOR COMEY’S PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE WAS REOPENING THE CLINTON INVESTIGATION DAYS BEFORE THE ELECTION. I ASKED THEN DIRECTOR COMEY ABOUT THE LEAKS, HE SAID HE WAS INVESTIGATING. NOW WE KNOW A NUMBER OF THESE LEAKS TO MR. GIULIANI, WHICH HE ACTUALLY BRAGGED ABOUT TALKING ABOUT, WHAT CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE LEAKS TO RUDY GIULIANI AND OTHERS? >>SO AS WE NOTED PUBLICLY LAST YEAR IN OUR REPORT, WE WERE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. WE PUT IN THE APPENDIX CHARTS SHOWING ALL THE DIFFERENT CONTACTS. AND SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, REPORT AND THIS CONTINUES TO THIS DAY, WE ARE INVESTIGATING THOSE CONTACTS. WE HAVE ISSUED A COUPLE OF PUBLIC SUMMARIES SO FAR ABOUT PEOPLE WE FOUND VIOLATED FBI POLICY. WE HAVE OTHER INVESTIGATIONS ONGOING WHEN WE CONTINUE INCLUDE WE WILL ALSO POST SUMMARIES OF. WHAT IS PROVING TO BE VERY HARD IS TO PROVE THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE AGENTS AND THE REPORTER. OR THE INDIVIDUALS, AS YOU MATE GUESS. BUT WE CAN PROVE THE CONTACTS. AND UNDER FBI POLICY YOU NEED AUTHORIZATION IF YOU ARE GOING TO DISCLOSE INFORMATION AND HAVE CERTAIN CONTACTS. >>>THANK YOU. >>>YOUR CENTRAL FINDINGS IS THAT THE FBI INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIA TIES INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN DOES NOT INCLUDE BIAS. >>THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION WAS NOT CONNECTED TO ANY OF THE BIASED TEXTS WE IDENTIFIED. >>>NOW THERE IS AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. MAYBE A HERD OF THEM. AT THE PRESIDENT’S DIRECTION THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN COMBING EUROPE TO FIND SUPPORT FOR FRINGE THEORIES TO CAST DOUBTS ON THE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. I’M NOT CLEAR WHAT LEGITIMATE LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE THIS SERVES. HOW DO WE KNOW THAT POLITICS IS NOT DRIVING THE BARR DURHAM INVESTIGATION? >>I’M NOT SURE HOW ANYBODY KNOWS WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW, UNLESS YOU DO AN INVESTIGATION OR YOU REVIEW IT OR SOMEBODY LOOKS THROUGH, AS WE DID, FOR EXAMPLE HERE. A MILLION RECORDS AND AN EXHAUSTIVE EFFORT. >>BUT YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATIONS HAVE TO BE FREE OF IMPROPER POLITICAL MOTIVATION. >>ABSOLUTELY 1000%. I DID PUBLIC CORRUPTION INVESTIGATIONS, I RAN THE PUBLIC CORRUPTION UNIT IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. YOU HAD TO BE STRAIGHT DOWN THE YELLOW LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD ON ANYTHING YOU TOUCHED. >>DOES IT CONCERN YOU THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS RUNNING AROUND EUROPE TO FIND ANY KIND OF THEORIES THAT MIGHT CAST DOUBT ON THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION? >>I THINK YOU HAVE TO ASK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT THOSE MEETINGS. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THOSE MEETINGS WERE ABOUT AND OBVIOUSLY HAVEN’T DONE ANY INVESTIGATING. >>>YOU KNOW, I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE IT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE NORMALLY IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION OR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT BY LETTING YOU KNOW BEFORE THE REPORT COMES OUT SO YOU COULD INCLUDE AND WOULD INCLUDE ANY DISAGREEMENTS. IT JUST WENT TO THE PRESS WITH IT. I THINK ABOUT WHEN GLENN FINE INVESTIGATED THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED FIRING OF NINE U.S. ATTORNEYS DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, HE SAID THAT THE DEPARTMENT LEADERS ABDICATED THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROSECUTORIAL DECISIONS WOULD BE BASED ON THE LAW, THE EVIDENCE AND DEPARTMENT POLICY, NOT POLITICAL PRESSURE. IN THIS CASE FOR THE FIRST TIME, PERSONS ARE NOT SENT TO YOU BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT GIVEN TO THE PRESS, IS THAT CORRECT IN YOUR EXPERIENCE? >>YEAH I DON’T KNOW OF ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE WE DIDN’T GET THOSE ATTACHED IN OUR APPENDIX TO OUR REPORT. >>>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT SENATOR LEE AND MYSELF. >>ABSOLUTELY. WE WILL ADJOURN. AND RECESS UNTIL 1:00. . >>>SO WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THE HEARING OF SENATE HEARING. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TALK ABOUT HIS REPORT LOOKING INTO THE FBI INVESTIGATION. ESSENTIALLY THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE INVESTIGATION. THE FBI INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN MEDDLING. HOW THEY WENT ABOUT GETTING THE FISA APPROVAL TO CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE ON ESSENTIALLY THE CORE OF IT IS CARTER PAGE. I WANT TO BRING IN SORT OF EVERYONE HEAR. WE HAVE MOLLY AND LESLEY AND ALL DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THIS. ANTON IS STANDING BY IN DC. HE IS GIVING US JAZZ HANDS. SO THERE WAS A LOT DISCUSSED HERE. ESSENTIALLY THOUGH, WE SORT OF GONE THROUGH THE REPORT AND THERE IS STILL SORT OF TWO BIG THEMES HERE, RIGHT? THERE IS A CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE FISA PROCESS WAS BEING ABUSED AND WAS ADHERED TO PROPERLY AND THEN THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MOTIVATION. THERE WERE SO MANY ERRORS, WHY WERE THERE? I WANT TO START WITH YOU AND TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT JUMPED OUT AT YOU THAT YOU THOUGHT WERE PARTICULARLY TROUBLING. >>OKAY. SO YEAH, ANYTIME THAT YOU LIE TO A COURT, THAT IS A BIG, THAT IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM. THERE WERE OBVIOUSLY PROCESS BREAKDOWNS, AS WE DISCUSSED EARLIER. AND YOU KNOW, THE COURT IS DESIGNED, WHEN IT IS REVIEWING AN APPLICATION TO BE A NEUTRAL. IT IS DESIGNED TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING A JUDGE REVIEW THE APPLICATION IS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A PROPER BASIS FOR PROBABLE CAUSE. IF THE COURT IS DENIED THE FACTUAL RECORD THROUGH LIES OR OTHERWISE, TO MAKE A PROPER DETERMINATION, THEN ALL SORTS OF BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN. INCLUDING, SURVEILLANCE WHICH MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED. SO WHAT LEAPS OUT AT ME IS THE NOTION THAT THE PARTICULAR LIE, SO THE PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINATION HERE WAS, WAS THERE PROBABLE CAUSE TO FIND OUT IF CARTER PAGE WAS A FOREIGN ASSET? RIGHT? AND THE LIE THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS E-MAIL FROM THE FBI LAWYER IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS WORKING FOR THE CIA WHEN HE WAS TALKING, THE OTHER AGENCY, BUT SENT TORE GRAHAM REFERRED TO IT AS THE CIA. WAS WEARING HE WORKING FOR THE CIA, SO DID HE HAVE AN AUTHORIZED PURPOSE? WAS HE WORKING FOR THE U.S. WHEN HE TALKED TO THAT RUSSIAN ASSET? WHICH COMPLETELY FLIPS THE SCRIPT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO THINK HE WAS A RUSSIAN ASSET IF HE WAS, IN FACT, RUNNING UP AGAINST THE RUSSIAN FOR THE U.S. SO THAT IS A KEY FACTUAL PROBLEM. >>RIGHT. >>THE RECORD HERE DISCLOSING THAT THE LAWYER LIED ABOUT THAT, DOCTORED, FALSIFIED AN E- MAIL, IS VERY DISTURBING. THE GOOD NEWS, IF THERE IS ANY, AND THERE ISN’T MUCH, RELATING TO CARTER PAGE’S FISA APPLICATION, IS THAT HE WAS NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME. >>UH-HUH. >>SO THAT IS PERHAPS THE ONLY GOOD NEWS OUT OF THIS. AND THEN I’M SURE WE’LL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER. THE CARTER FISA APPLICATION IS ONLY A PIECE OF THE LARGER COUNTERINTELLIGENCE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS OPENED. SO THAT IS, I THINK PROBABLY FOR LATER IN OUR DISCUSSION. >>ALSO LET ME GO TO YOU, MOLLY, YOU ARE NODDING ALONG. WHEN THEY STARTED TO TALK ABOUT CARTER PAGE AND WHETHER OR NOT HE WORKED FOR THE CIA, THAT WAS LIKE WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? THAT WAS NEW INFORMATION. >>EXACTLY. SO THERE IS THAT POINT. BUT I THINK WHAT STRUCK SENATORS, IN PARTICULAR LINDSAY GRAHAM, WHAT REALLY STRUCK THEM WAS THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN GRAHAM AND HOROWITZ, HOROWITZ WAS EXPLAINING THERE WERE TWO DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS FOR THE CANDIDATES. THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. YOU HAVE THE FBI COMING IN AND SAYING THE RUSSIANS WANT TO INFILTRATE YOUR CAMPAIGN SO BE ON THE LOOKOUT. THAT IS A DIVISIONSIVE BRIEFING. BUT WHAT WAS CONCERNING THE SAME PERSON WHO WENT TO GIVE THIS BRIEFING WENT AWAY FROM THE TRUMP MEETING AND SAID WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION ON THEM I’M GOING TO WRITE WHAT THEY SAID AND PUT IT INTO AN INVESTIGATIVE FILE. SO IT BECAME MORE THAN JUST A DEFENSIVE BRIEFING, WHERE WE ARE LETTING THE CANDIDATE KNOW TO WATCH OUT FOR SOMETHING. WHEREAS, COMPARED TO THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN, AND THIS IS WHAT HOROWITZ WAS SAYING, THERE WAS NO SUCH, THEY CALL THEM 302, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY AGAIN, IF YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INVESTIGATION, YOU TAKE NETS, INTERVIEWS WITH PEOPLE AND THAT GOES INTO A FILE. THE AGENT WHO GAVE THAT BRIEFING TO THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN, THERE WAS NO SUCH FILE. >>THE INTEL BRIEFING VERSUS THE INVESTIGATIVE BRIEFING. >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>>SO, LESLEY, YOU ARE HEARING THIS. AND DOES IT SOUND LIKE THE KIND OF INFORMATION, I MEAN YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT THE PRESIDENT KIND OF AND HOW HE CAN BE SORT OF FAST AND LOOSE WITH WORDS. WHEN I HEARD THAT, THIS PRETTY MUCH SPEAKS TO WHAT HE HAS BEEN SAYING WAS HAPPENING ALL ALONG. >>THE PRESIDET WAS SAYING THIS ALL ALONG. I THOUGHT THE MOST POWERFUL PART, THE MOST COGENT PART WHAT WAS WHEN LINDSEY GRAHAM SAID YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO LIKE THE PRESIDENT BUT IF YOU ARE SOMEBODY WHO IS INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, YOU CAN’T OVERLAY THOSE TWO TOGETHER. YOU SHOULDN’T BE INVESTIGATING HIM AND YOU SHOULDN’T BE USING GOVERNMENT TEXTS AND E-MAILS TO DO THIS. THIS EFFORT LINDSEY GRAHAM IS MAKING STEP BY STEP TO SAY MAYBE IT DIDN’T START THE INVESTIGATION BUT YOU KEPT THE DOSSIER INVOLVED. ONCE YOU DISPROVED THE DOSSIER, WHICH WAS FUNDED BY THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, YOU STILL DIDN’T DISCLOSE THAT. AND WHO WERE THESE INDIVIDUALS? THE AGENTS? WE HEARD THOSE NAMES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAGE. IT WAS NOT TO PROTECT TRUMP BUT TO PROTECT US FROM TRUMP. THERE WAS A LOT OF THAT IN 2016, PEOPLE FELT THIS IS SOMEBODY WHO WOULD UNDERMINE OUR DEMOCRACY, UNDERMAIN THE INSTITUTION OF THE PRESIDENCY AND THEY WERE TRYING TO SAVE US FROM TRUMP. AND THIS KIND OF POINTS TO THAT. >>YOU KNOW I HAVE TO GET ANTOINE IN. SOMEHOW, WHEN YOU WERE HEARING THIS, I MEAN, JUST TELL ME SORT OF, WERE YOU HEARING THE SAME THING I WAS HEARING? PERHAPS WHEN THE PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT THE FBI OR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE FBI WERE OUT TO GET HIM AND YOU HEAR ABOUT THE INTEL BRIEFING VERSUS THE INVESTIGATIVE BRIEFING, THIS KIND OF SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE STUFF HE TALKS ABOUT AT SOME OF HIS RALLIES. >>YEAH, LOOK, I THINK THE PRESIDENT OFTEN TIME FLIRTS WITH WHAT HE IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY DATE. YOU HEARD THE LANGUAGE AND THE RHETORIC LAST NIGHT SAYING NASTY THINGS ABOUT THE FBI IN THE PROCESS. THAT IS THE FLIRT TATION FOR THE DATING WORDS FOR HIM AND FOR OTHER SUPPORTING MEMBERS OF HIS AGENDA WITHIN HIS PARTY. YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THIS. WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE. YOU ARE GOING TO SEE AN ONGOING EFFORT THROUGHOUT TODAY AND FOR DAYS TO COME TO TAINT THE FBI AND SOME BAD PLACE THAT IS OVERFLOWING WITH CORRUPT, ANGRY PEOPLE WHO ARE ANTITRUMP. THAT IS HOW TRUMP IS ABLE TO GENERATE A CERTAIN RESPONSE AND ENTHUSIASM BECAUSE HE RAN ON THIS IDEA OR NOTION OF DRAIN THE SWAMP, THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD, EVERYONE IS AN INSIDER. BUT I’LL TELL YOU THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME OR ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS I HEARD IN THAT HEARING WAS LINDSEY GRAHAM EMPHATICALLY SAYING THAT IT WAS THE RUSSIANS WHO HACKED INTO OUR ELECTIONS IN 2016 AND THEY ARE ACTIVELY GOING TO PURSUE IT AGAIN. SO THAT DEBUNKED, DISPUTES, IT THROWS OUT ALL THE CLAIMS THAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS AND THE PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS IDEA THAT IT WAS UKRAINE, UKRAINE, UKRAINE. IT WAS RUSSIA. THAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT. BUT ALSO THE BEHAVIOR AND I THINK THE PATH WE SAW THE GOP SENATORS GO DOWN WITH THEIR LINE OF QUESTIONING IS TRYING TO TIPPET THE PROCESS AND THAT THE FBI IS BAD. I THINK VERY MUCH LIKE THE SMALLER REPORT, THIS DOES NOT EXONERATE OR GIVE A PASS TO THE PRESIDENT IN THIS REPORT. I THINK WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THE FRAMEWORK OF THIS COMMITTEE HEARING IS TO INSINUATE THIS PROCESS IS SO BAD IT EXONERATES EVERYTHING WE KNOW TO BE TRUE THAT IS ILLEGAL AND CORRUPT ABOUT DONALD TRUMP. >>>THIS WHOLE IDEA, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN IN THE REPORT, THE REPORT DOES NOT SAY THERE WAS ANY POLITICAL BIAS. BUT THE ARGUMENT IS WELL, IF SOME PEOPLE DIDN’T LIKE DONALD TRUMP, THEN YOU KNOW THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS POISON FROM THE VERY START. >>>IT IS NOT THAT,ENING THE PRESIDENT OVERREACHES ON THAT PART AND I HAVE BEEN SKEPTICAL ABOUT LIKE THEY WERE JUST IN THERE WRINGING THEIR HANDS TRYING TO TAKE THIS PRESIDENT DOWN, WHICH IS THE ARGUMENT THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE. BUT REALISTICALLY, FISA NOBODY HAD OVERSIGHT. THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR AMERICANS. >>WHAT IS ALSO KIND OF INTERESTING, GOING BACK TO LINDSEY GRAHAM. OVER THE PAST FEW DAYS, JAMES COMEY AND ANDREW MCCABE HAVE SAID WE ARE VINDICATED. LINDSEY GRAHAM GOES DOES THIS REPORT VINDICATE JAMES COMEY AND HOROWITZ IS LIKE IT DOESN’T VINDICATE ANYONE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF INTERESTING. BUT AGAIN, HOROWITZ DID GO, WHEN HE WAS TALKING WITH DIANNE FEINSTEIN, HE POINTED TO THE POLITICAL BIAS THEY COULDN’T FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS POLITICAL BIAS. THAT THESE OPINIONS PEOPLE HAVE IMPACTED HOW THEY CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION. BECAUSE WE ARE ALL PEOPLE. WE ALL HAVE OUR OPINIONS. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE A PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AND THESE INDIVIDUALS, WHO ARE ATTORNEYS, BUT ONE OF THE REASONS YOU HAVE TO GET A LICENSE FROM THE BAR, RIGHT? IF YOU BASICALLY, IF YOU DO SOMETHING THAT IS CONTRARY TO THOSE RULES OF THE BAR, I MEAN YOU ARE GOING TO GET DISBAR AND YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO PRACTICE YOUR TRADE. THAT IS VERY SERIOUS TO ATTORNEYS. >>YEAH,ENING THAT LAWYER WHO DOCTORED THE E-MAIL HAS GOT A LOT MORE TO WORRY ABOUT THAN LOSING HIS LAW LICENSE. >>SO THERE IS A LOGICAL PROBLEM WITH THE IDEA THAT AS WE HAVE ALL BEEN DISCUSSING THE ENTIRE BUREAU IS BASED AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP, RIGHT? SO REMEMBER BACK TO THE 2016 ELECTION CYCLE WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION. COMEY CAME OUT IN JULY AND WROTE THAT LETTER IN OCTOBER. ALL THIS INVESTIGATIVE WORK WAS NOT DISCLOSED. THE FBI DID ALL OF THAT WORK. NOBODY KNEW. IN THE RUN UP TO THE ELECTION WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE ONE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE JUST BEFORE THE ELECTION SAYING THAT THE FBI HAD CLEARED PRESIDENT TRUMP IN CONNECTION WITH THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF THE INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO MR. TRUMP, A LOT OF DISCLOSURE WITH RESPECT TO CANDIDATE HILLARY CLINTON. SO IT IS VERY HARD TO LOGICALLY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT THAT THE FBI, THROUGHOUT THIS, WAS PERMEATED. I ALSO THOUGHT, JUST REAL QUICK, THAT GRAHAM SAID THAT THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE TO FOLLOW-UP ON WHAT ANTOINE SAID THAT IT WAS RUSSIANS NOT UKRAINE, HE ALSO SAID THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE CONCERN TO INVESTIGATE. I THINK THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PRED CATION FURTHER, I’M SURE WE WILL AS WE GO ON. >>GO AHEAD. >>SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THE COSMETICS OF THIS HEARING. THIS IS A LESSON FOR DEMOCRATS WHO MAY BE WATCHING OR LISTENING. TODAY’S EXAMPLE AND CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS ARE A PRIME EXAMPLE OF HOW REPUBLICANS FALL IN LINE AND DEMOCRATS FALL. IF YOU NOTICE THE PATTERN OF QUESTIONING THE ENTIRE STRATEGY BEHIND ALL OF THESE HEARINGS, IT IS TO PAINT THE SYSTEM OVERALL AS BAD AND THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE IS AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, WHICH IS THE OVERALL CONTINUED THEME FROM HIS CAMPAIGN IN 2016, AND WHAT HE IS GOING RIGHT NOW. NO MATTER HOW CREDIBLE ALLEGATIONS ARE, NO MATTER HOW CREDIBLE WITNESSES ARE, IF THEY ARE AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, THAT MEANS THEY ARE ANTIDONALD TRUMP AND THAT IS A LESSON FOR DEMOCRATS, WHO ARE WATCHING THIS PROCESS AND OBSERVING THIS PROCESS FROM 50,000-FOOT AND FROM 5000-FOOT. >>>IT IS INTERESTING YOU HAVE TWO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES STILL IN THE RACE ON THE PAM AND THEY CAN ASK ABOUT THAT TODAY. >>I DON’T THINK IT IS A FAIR ANALYSIS TO DISAGREE, RESPECTFULLY, WITH ANTOINE. >>I LOVE YOU LESLEY. >>I LOVE YOU TOO, BUT THOSE ARE BROAD BRUSH STROKES. HAVING WORKED IN THE FEDERAL SERVICE, I DON’T THINK THEY ARE SAYING THAT EVERYBODY AT THE FBI, WELL MAYBE TRUMP, THAT IS FAIR. THAT IS NONSENSE. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE STRONG PUBLIC SERVANTS. BUT HOW DID THAT BIAS AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO BE IN THAT SENIOR ROLE WITHOUT PROPER OVERSIGHT? THAT IS THE IG EFFORT, THEY DISCLOSE PROCESS IN TERMS OF WHO WAS DOING WHAT. AND FRAUDULENT E-MAILS. YOU KNOW, REMOVING AND CHANGING E-MAILS, THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. THE BIGGER QUESTION LINDSEY GRAHAM TALKS TO, I HOPE YOU ARE NOT SURVEILLING ME OR ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM. >>THAT QUESTION IS AN ANSWER. >>THAT SCARES THE HECK OUT OF EVERYBODY. WHEN FISA COURTS, YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE ESTABLISHING THESE, THAT WAS THE FEAR THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU KNOW, BIG BROTHER IS IN THERE, OVERSEEING EVERYTHING. >>AND ALL THESE CANDIDATES, THEY ALL HAVE DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS LIKE THIS. LINDSEY GRAHAM WAS SAYING, WE ALL GET THESE DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS, DO YOU WANT THAT AGENT TO GO AND TAKE WHATEVER HE LEARNED, WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOUR STAFFERS ASKED WHATEVER I ASKED, TURN THAT INTO AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORT? I MEAN, THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED SPYING ON YOU. >>HOLD THAT THOUGHT. BECAUSE KATHERINE IS STANDING BY. SHE IS A SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPOND DEN. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE HEARING. SO I WANT TO GET FROM YOU, SORT OF YOUR BIGGEST TAKE AWAYS. >>WELL I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO AN EXCHANGE WE HAD WITH HOROWITZ JUST BEFORE WE HEADED INTO THE BREAK AND HE WAS ASKED POINT BLANK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF POLITICAL BIAS AND WHETHER THIS WAS PART OF THE INTENT OR MOTIVATION FOR FBI OFFICIALS AND IT SOMEHOW EXPLAINED SOME OF THE MISTAKES OR INACCURACIES OR WITHHOLDING OF EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE FROM THE SURVEILLANCE COURT. AND HOROWITZ SAID VERY CLEARLY THAT ON THE OPENING OR PRED CATION OF THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS DONE BY SOMEONE CALLED BILL PRE STEP, A SENIOR COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL WITHIN THE FBI AND HAD HE LOOKED AT HIS COMMUNICATIONS, TEXT MESSAGES AND FOUND NOTHING THAT SMACKED OF A POLITICAL BIAS. SO BILL IS THE ONE WHO OPENED IT AND THIS IS VERY SEPARATE FROM PETER STRZOK, THAT IS THE FBI’S WHO TEXT MESSAGES ALONG WITH LISA PAGE HAVE BEEN WIDELY REPORTED ON IN THE PRESS. WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION IS THAT HOROWITZ SAID WHEN YOU GET TO THE RENEWAL AND THE APPLICATION FOR THE FISA WARRANT FOR CARTER PAGE, THE WORD HE USED WAS IT BECOMES QUOTE MURKY AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD HEARD HIM ALMOST OPEN THE DOOR TO THIS QUESTION OF INTENT AND MOTIVATION AND WHETHER THEY WERE ACTING BASED ON THEIR OWN PERSONAL BELIEFS. SO IT IS NOT AS CLEAR CUT AS MAYBE WE’D LIKE IT TO BE ON THE PRED CATION AND THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION, THEY FOUND NOTHING IN THE TEXT MESSAGES OF BILL THAT SUGGESTED POLITICAL BIAS. BUT HE WAS VERY CAREFUL TO SAY THAT ON THE FISA APPLICATION AND RENEWALS, HE FELT THIS ISSUE WAS MORE MURKY. SO THAT REMAINS OPEN, IN HIS VIEW. >>THE OTHER THING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WERE THESE BRIEFINGS THE TWO CAMPAIGNS RECEIVED AND HOW THE INTENT BEHIND THE BRIEFINGS, AT LEAST, WAS DUAL WHEN IT CAME TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. >>I DON’T THINK I HAVE EVER, IN THE NEARLY 20 YEARS THAT I HAVE WORKED IN THIS SPACE, SEEN A SITUATION WHERE A BRIEFING THAT IS DESIGNED TO GIVE SENIOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SORT OF SITUATIONAL AWARENESS ABOUT A SPECIFIC THREAT IS THEN USED TO GATHER INFORMATION ON THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEING BRIEFED. WHAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL MICHAEL HOROWITZ TESTIFIED TO TODAY THAT IT WAS NOT ILLEGAL, IF YOU WILL, OR AGAINST THE POLICIES, BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY HIGHLY IRREGULAR. AND IF I HEARD HIM CORRECTLY, THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY IS GOING TO CLARIFY FOR ALL INVOLVED. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THESE BRIEFINGS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE DECISIONMAKERS, BUT IN THIS CASE THE BRIEFINGS WERE USED TO ALSO GATHER INTELLIGENCE ABOUT THE DECISIONMAKERS, AND THIS WAS PUT INTO SOMETHING VERY FORMAL CALLED AN FBI 302. THIS IS THE FORMAL DOCUMENT OF AN INTERVIEW OR INFORMATION THAT IS GATHERED BY A BUREAU AGENT. >>I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SORT OF SURPRISED ME THE MOST ABOUT THE PROCESS IS HOW MUCH WAS LEFT UP TO I WANT TO SAY SORT OF LOWER LEVEL INVESTIGATORS TO SORT OF DECIDE WHAT INFORMATION TO PUT FORWARD. PARTICULARLY WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, HUMAN SOURCES, THEY TALKED ABOUT YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT THEY DEPEND ON AND THAT THEY CAN SORT OF, IT DIDN’T HAVE TO BE APPROVED OF AT HIGHER LEVELS. >>VERY HIGH UP THE CHAIN. I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THIS DOWNTOWN, THE ABILITY TO OPEN A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION, SO MUCH OF THE RESPONSIBILITY RESTED WITH INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE FBI. THERE WASN’T THAT NECESSARY SORT OF GOING UP THE CLAIM TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR THAT KIND OF APPROVAL. AND CERTAINLY THAT WAS NOT REQUIRED, REGARDLESS OF THE TARGETS OF ANY COUNTER INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION IN THIS CASE CARTER PAGE OR WHETHER IT WAS ANOTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN. SO THE FBI HAS A LOT OF AUTONOMY WORKING IN THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE SPACE. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IS THE CASE, IF I CAN JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT SORT OF NERDY, BOOKISH EXPLANATION IS THAT AFTER 9/11, THIS ABILITY TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE INSIDE THE UNITED STATES WAS PLACED FIRMLY WITHIN THE FIB FINE AND THAT WAS DRIVEN BY FBI DIRECTOR ROBERT MUELLER. BECAUSE THE IDEA WAS TO GIVE THE FBI THE TOOLBOX TO BREAK UP DOMESTIC TERRORISM PLOTS OR TO BREAK UP SPY RINGS. SO THE FBI WAS GIVEN THESE SORT OF VERY BROAD AND POWERFUL AUTHORITIES AND INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS IN THEIR TOOLBOX. AND WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY SORT OF ALMOST 20 YEARS AFTER THE FACT, IS THAT THE FBI HAD A LOT OF AUTONOMY, AND IG HOROWITZ FOUND THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH OVERSIGHT. OR YOU COULD MAKE THE ARKMENT THAT THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS MAYBE HAVEN’T KEPT PACE WITH SOME OF THESE CHANGES. THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK IN TERMS OF REFORM WE WILL SEAGOING FORWARD. >>AND JOHN DURHAM CAME UP. YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW JOHN DURHAM AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THIS REPORT. >>>ONE OF THE MOST ENLIGHTENING EXCHANGES CAME ABOUT 90 MINUTES IN. AND INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ WAS ASKED ABOUT THIS STATEMENT FROM THE U.S. ATTORNEY JOHN DURHAM, WHO HAS BEEN RUNNING A SEPARATE AND BROADER INVESTIGATION INTO THE ORIGINS OF THE FBI’S RUSSIA CASE IN 2016 AND DURHAM SAID HE DID NOT AGREE ON THIS CONCLUSION THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS PROPERLY OPENED BY THE FBI. HOROWITZ SAID HE HAD HAD A MEETING WITH DURHAM AND IN THAT MEET BEING DURHAM SAID HE FELT THE EVIDENCE ABOUT THIS TRUMP CAMPAIGN AIDE GEORGE PAP, HE SAID THAT WAS SUFFICIENT TO OPEN WHAT IS CALLED A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. BUT WHAT HAPPENED INIAL OF 2016 IS THEY SKIPPED OVER THAT PRELIMINARY STEP AND THEY WENT TO A FULL INVESTIGATION. AND I THINK FOR FOLKS AT HOME THEY WONDER WHY DOES THAT EVEN MATTER? I WONDERED THAT TOO. HOROWITZ SAID WHETHER THERE WAS PRELIMINARY OR WHETHER IT WAS FULL, UNDER THE CURRENT POLICIES THE FBI STILL HAD THE ABILITY TO RUN CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES AGAINST INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. SO IT APPEARED TO ME WHETHER IT WAS PRELIMINARY OR FULL, THESE SAME VERY AGGRESSIVE INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS WERE STILL AVAILABLE TO THE FBI AND THE DECISION TO USE THEM WAS BASED ON A LIMITED NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS, BUT FAIRLY LOW DOWN IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. >>>WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SOUND FROM THAT. WE ARE GOING TO PLAY IT. >>WE MET WITH HIM IN NOVEMBER, WITH REGARD TO THAT. WE DID DISCUSS THE OPENING ISSUE. HE SAID HE DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH OUR CONCLUSION ABOUT THE OPENING OF A FULL COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION, WHICH IS WHAT THIS WAS. BUT THERE IS ALSO AN INVESTIGATIVE MEANS BY WHICH THE FBI CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INVESTIGATION. IT IS CALLED A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS, FULL AND PRELIMINARY. THEY OPENED A FULL HERE. HE SAID DURING THMEETING THAT THE INFORMATION FROM THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WAS, IN HIS VIEW, SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. AND AS WE NOTE IN THE REPORT, INVESTIGATIVE STEPS SUCH AS CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE ACTIVITY THAT OCCURRED HERE ARE ALLOWED UNDER A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OR UNDER A FULL INVESTIGATION. >>DID EITHER BARR OR DURHAM PRESENT ANYTHING THAT ALTERED YOUR FINDINGS? >>NO. >>>SO YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LISTEN TO PORTIONS OF THIS HIGHLIGHTED ON LIKE THE EVENING NEWS. AND I DON’T KNOW IF THEY ARE REALLY GOING TO GRASP THE WEIGHT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT IS HAPPENING HEAR. AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE FISA PROCESS. BUT THE FACT THAT IT IS SUCH A SECRETIVE PROCESS MEANS IT IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE INFORMATION THAT LEADS TO A FISA WARRANT IS ACCURATE. CAN YOU JUST SORT OF. >>CORRECT. >>GIVE US THE WEIGHT OF THIS CONVERSATION. >>OKAY. WELL THAT IS AN EASY QUESTION, ISN’T IT? WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT THERE IS REALLY NO HIGHER THRESHOLD FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COURT THAT THEY SHOULD USE VERY AGGRESSIVE INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS TO GATHER THE COMMUNICATIONS OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. THINK ABOUT THAT. AN AMERICAN CITIZEN INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. AND BECAUSE IT IS AN EX PARTE COURT, WHICH OPINIONS IT IS JUST A SINGLE PARTY, I WOULD ARGUE THERE IS AN EVEN GREATER BURDEN ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO SHARE THE FULL SCOPE OF THE INFORMATION. SO INFORMATION THAT SUPPORTS THE WARRANT FOR SURVEILLANCE OF AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. AND THEN ALSO INFORMATION THAT UNDERCUTS PROBABLE CAUSE OR GOES AGAINST THAT APPLICATION. AND THE FINDINGS OF THE HOROWITZ REPORT IS THAT WHEN THERE WAS EVIDENCE THAT UNDERCUT THE FISA APPLICATION FOR CARTER PAGE, THAT INFORMATION DID NOT GET TO THE SURVEILLANCE COURT IN A TIMELY FASHION. AND SOME INFORMATION, LIKE THE FACT THAT HE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CIA, PROVIDING INFORMATION, THAT INFORMATION NEVER GOT TO THE COURT BECAUSE IT IS ALLEGED THE FBI LAWYER ALTERED THAT COMMUNICATION, THAT E-MAIL SO IT SAID, IN FACT, CARTER PAGE WAS NOT A SOURCE FOR THE CIA. SO THE STANDARD FOR THE INFORMATION IS VERY HIGH IN TERMS OF ACCURACY, AND THE STANDARD IS VERY HIGH IN TERMS OF PROVIDING BOTH SIDES OF THE ARKMENT FOR THE WARRANT AND AGAINST THE WARRANT. AND AGAIN, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT USING THE MOST AGGRESSIVE INVESTIGATIVE TOOLS TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE AND COMMUNICATIONS OF AN AMERICAN INSIDE THE UNITED STATES. THESE CAPABILITIES WERE BUILT AFTER 9/11 TO DISRUPT DOMESTIC TERRORISM AND TO BREAK UP SPY RINGS. THAT IS HOW POWERFUL THEY ARE. SO TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF THE CASE THAT IS BEING MADE TODAY IS, I THINK TO CONSIDER ALL OF THOSE FACTORS. >>THAT WAS PERFECT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>>YOU ARE WELCOME. >>>OKAY, THANK YOU. >>>SO I WANT TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE STEELE DOSSIER. MUCH HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT WHO PAID FOR IT, THE SOURCE, WHO COMMISSIONED IT TO BEGIN WITH. IT IS THE STEELE DOSSIER THAT LAUNCHES THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION INTO CARTER PAGE, RIGHT? . >>>IF THERE ARE REASONS TO QUESTION THE BIAS OR CREDIBILITY OF A SOURCE, YOU HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT. WHO IS PAYING FOR STEELE? THAT IS IMPORTANT. I DON’T THINK THERE IS ANY, GOING TO BE ANY REAL DISPUTE THAT THERE WERE SERIOUS BREAKDOWNS IN THIS APPLICATION, BASED ON WHATTER HEARING. >>>IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK IT WAS GRASSLEY, IT WASN’T JUST WHO PAID FOR IT, IT WAS CHRISTOPHER STEELE HIMSELF AND THE FACT HE HAD BEEN DISCREDITED BY MI5 AND MI6 IN BRITAIN AND THEY SAID WATCH OUT FOR THIS GUY AND HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO EVERYTHING HE COULD TO MAKE SURE DONALD TRUMP DIDN’T BECOME PRESIDENT. EVEN THAT KNOWLEDGE THE PERSONAL BIAS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTING THE INVESTIGATION, THESE COURTS NEED TO BE AWARE OF IT. AND HOROWITZ AGREED WITH THAT. HE SAID POLITICAL BIAS CAN UNDERMINE THE RULE OF LAW. >>>I KEEP THINKING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO THINK WHEN THEY LISTEN TO THE HIGHLIGHTS FROM THIS HEARING. I MEAN, THE FBI AND CERTAINLY THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN TAKING A LOT OF HITS FROM THE PRESIDENT, AND OTHERS. BUT YOU CAN’T HELP BUT TO SCRATCH YOUR HEAD ABOUT THIS. IF THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SORT OF THE HIGHEST LEVEL, ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT WARRANTS TO GET, IT SEEMS LAKE AN AWFUL LOT OF SLOPPINESS FROM THE STEELE DOSSIER TO OUTRIGHT LIES. AND I WAS SURPRISED THAT YOU DIDN’T NEED MORE, THAT THERE WASN’T MORE SUPERVISION. >>>AND THE OTHER THING IS, SO CONGRESS WILL TAKE THIS AND OFTENTIMES WHEN THEY GET AN IG REPORT THEY TAKE THE FINDINGS AND TRY TO MAKE LAWS AND CHANGE THINGS. BUT WHAT IS INTERESTING HERE IS THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF CIVIL LIBERTY ABUSES THAT ARE BEING SEEN. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE ACLU HAS COME OUT HARD AGAINST THE FBI IN THEIR ABUSE OF SURVEILLANCE. AND THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE TRANSPARENCY AS TO WHAT IS NEEDED TO OBTAIN A SURVEILLANCE WIRE TAP FROM THE FISA COURT. BECAUSE IT IS SEE SECRETIVE. MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS BETTER. WHO EVEN KNOWS WHERE THE JUDGES ARE. WHO ARE THESE JUDGES? WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING AT? HARD TO IMAGINE STRANGER BED FELLOWS THAN AK L U AND CARTER PAGE. BUT THE DAMAGE THIS DOES ONCE IT IS ROLLING AND MOVING. AND UNPACKING THAT. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE THE SAME FEAR ABOUT BIG BANKS AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. ONCE YOU GET IN THERE THE AUTHORITY YOU HAVE IN TRYING TO FIGHT A SYSTEM IS REALLY DIFFICULT TO SAY YOU HAVE ANY AUTHORITY, ANY POWER. DO YOU AGREE? >>YEAH. I MEAN, LACK, AS I SAID IS, THE GOOD NEWS IS CARTER PAGE WASN’T CHARGED, RIGHT? >>HIS REPUTATION IS. >>AND WE ARE IN THIS REALLY UNUSUAL SITUATION. NORMALLY INVESTIGATIONS THAT DON’T GO ANYWHERE REPORT DISCLOSED. BUT BECAUSE THERE IS AN UNUSUAL EXCEPTION FOR INVESTIGATIONS THAT ARE OF INTENSE PUBLIC INTEREST. OBVIOUSLY THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, RUSSIA INFLUENCE, INVESTIGATION IS INTENSELY OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC. SO CARTER PAGE IS SWEPT UP IN THIS. YOU KNOW HE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT HIS REPUTATION HAS BEEN HARMED. THERE IS A MOVIE ABOUT TO COME OUT ON RICHARD JEWEL, THE SAME BASIC PROBLEM. >>A LITTLE BIT OF A DEPARTURE. LISA PAGE IS SUING BECAUSE HER PRIVACY WAS VIOLATED. DO YOU THINK SHE HAS SOMETHING THERE? >>I DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THAT. >>A LOT OF LAWSUITS FLYING AROUND ALREADY. >>>HOW ABOUT THE ADVICE THAT YOU DON’T USE YOUR GOVERNMENT CELL PHONE IF YOU WANT TO START SOMETHING. >>>FOR SOMETHING WHO IS A COUNTER INTELLIGENCE AGENT, THAT IS CRAZY. >>>THAT WAS ALMOST MORE DISCONCERTING. THE HEAD OF OUR PROGRAM IS TEXTING HIS GIRLFRIEND ON A GOVERNMENT PHONE. WHAT? >>KATHERINE KIND OF WRAPPED THAT UP. I WANTED TO GIVE HER CREDIT ON THAT WHEN SHE TALKED ABOUT THE AUTONOMY SHE HAD AT THE DIFFERENT LEVELS. PERHAPS THE ENVIRONMENT HAS CHANGED. THAT IS THE ARGUMENT WE HEARD AFTER NINE ELEVEN, HAVING WORKED IN THE GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE BRANCH, WHEN THAT HAPPENED. THAT WAS, WHEN YOU ARE GIVING ALL THESE AUTHORITIES, THAT WAS THE CHILLING EFFECT OF ARE WE KEEPING PACE WITH THE THIRD PARTY ACTORS THAT ARE WORKING AGAINST US? AND IN MANY CASES, DO WE HAVE THESE TOOLS, BUT ARE THEY USING THEM WITH DISCRETION? ARE THE GUIDELINES, LIKE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE GETTING INTO, UP TO DATE WITH THE REALITY OF WHERE WE ARE? >>OKAY. SO, GOING TO MAKE IT REALLY QUICK. I WANT TO LET YOU GET IN HERE. >>>SO SEVERAL THINGS. YOU WON’T GET ANY DISAGREEMENT OUT OF ANTOINE, THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO REALLY EVALUATE AND PUT SOME REFORM MEASURES IN PLACE. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A FIRST TIME WE HAVE SEEN A FLAW IN THE SYSTEM WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES. ARGUABLY, THERE WERE SOME SHOOTINGS THAT HAPPENED THAT KIND OF ADDRESSED SOME FLAWS IN THE SYSTEM WITH INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES WITHIN THE FBI. SO YOU WON’T GET ANY DISAGREEMENT OUT OF ME ON THAT. BUT I THINK WE ARE KIDDING OURSELVES IF WE DO NOT THINK GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES AT ANY AGENCY WHO HAVE WORKED IN GOVERNMENT FOR ANY AMOUNT OF TIME, DO NOT HAVE THEIR OWN OPINION ABOUT THE POLITICS OF OUR DAY. I THINK WE ARE FOOLING OURSELVES. NOW, THE THING WE HAVE TO BE HONEST AND TRANSPARENT ABOUT IS NOT ALLOWING THE INDIVIDUAL FEELINGS OR POLITICS TO DICTATE THEIR WORK. AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE MISTAKE WAS MADE, PERHAPS, AND BY EXPRESSING WHAT THEIR POLITICAL FEELINGS ARE, VIA TEXT, WHICH IS SO SILLY IN MY MIND AND NOT SMART. I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD. BUT ALSO I THINK WE CANNOT GET INTO THIS IDEA OF BASHING THE ENTIRE AGENCY. OR GOVERNMENT AS A WHOLE, BECAUSE A FEW PEOPLE MADE A MISTAKE. YOU DON’T STOP EATING APPLES BECAUSE YOU HAD A FEW APPLES IN A BATCH THAT WERE BAD. >>>THERE YOU GO. LESLIE, ANTOINE, THANK YOU SO MUCH, EVERYONE. WE ARE ABOUT 10 MINUTES AWAY FROM THE HEARING STARTING BACK UP AGAIN. AS WE WAIT, WE WANT TO REMIND YOU, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS HAPPENING IN THE WORD. A LOT OF OTHER BUSINESS TAKING PLACE ON THE HILL, INCLUDING THE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS INTO PRESIDENT TRUMP. LATER TONIGHT HOUSE DEMOCRATS WILL BEGIN DEBATING TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. THIS COMES AFTER PRESIDENT TRUMP FIRED BACK AT DEMOCRATS DURING A CAMPAIGN RALLY IN PENNSYLVANIA LAST NIGHT. HE CALLED THEIR IMPEACHMENT EFFORTS FLIMSY AND PATHETIC. A NEW POLL IS REVEALING HOW AMERICANS ARE REALLY FEELING AND IT SHOWS A MAJORITY OF VOTERS ARE ACTUALLY AGAINST REMOVING THE PRESIDENT FROM OFFICE. NANCY CORDES REPORTS FROM CAPITOL HILL. >>THESE TWO FLIMSY, PATHETIC RIDICULOUS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. >>Reporter: CAMPAIGNING IN PENNSYLVANIA PRESIDENT TRUMP QUESTIONED DEMOCRATIC MOTIVES. >>THEY ARE IMPEACHING ME AND THERE ARE NO CRIMES. THIS HAS TO BE A FIRST THIS HISTORY. YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO WIN AN ELECTION AND THAT IS THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN DO IT. >>Reporter: BUT THE NEW ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT WARN THE PRESIDENT WILL QUOTE REMAIN A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE CONSTITUTION IF ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN OFFICE. >>THE ARGUMENT WHY DON’T YOU JUST WAIT AMOUNTS TO THIS. WHY DON’T YOU JUST LET HIM CHEAT IN ONE MORE ELECTION. >>Reporter: THE FIRST ARTICLE OF IMPEACHMENT, ABUSE OF POWER, ALLEGES THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP OPENLY AND CORRUPTLY URGED UKRAINE TO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE INVESTIGATIONS INTO HIS POLITICAL OPPONENT, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN. >>WHEN THE PRESIDENT GOT CAUGHT, HE COMMITTED HIS SECOND IMPEACHABLE ACT, OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. >>Reporter: THAT ARTICLE ACCUSES THE PRESIDENT OF DIRECTING THE UNPRECEDENTED CATEGORICAL AND INDISCRIMINATE DEFIANCE OF THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION. WITH THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, ENERGY AND DEFENSE REFUSING TO PRODUCE A SINGLE DOCUMENT OR RECORD. >>I THINK THIS IS A CLEAR, SHORT, CONCISE ARGUMENT THAT THE PRESIDENT ABUSED HIS POWER. >>SOME DEMOCRATS, LIKE MIKE QUIGLEY OF ILLINOIS, WANT MORE SEVERE CHARGES. >>Reporter: ARE YOU SATISFIED WHERE THE PARTY HAS ENDED UP WHEN IT COMES TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT? >>I MA’AM. YOU ARE TRYING TO EXPLAIN LEGAL MATTERS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. >>Reporter: THE PRESIDENT HAS PUSHED FOR A ROBUST DEFENSE IN THE REPUBLICAN-LED SENATE. BUT SOME IN HIS PARTY DON’T WANT TO DRAG THE PROCESS OUT. >>I THINK THE PROSPECT OF CALLING WITNESSES, IN MY VIEW, SEEMS UNLIKELY. >>>NANCY CORDES IS ON CAPITOL HILL. WHAT, EXACTLY, CAN WE EXPECT FROM TONIGHT’S PUBLIC DEBATE? >>AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE FINISHES UP? >>THE JUDICIARY COMMITTE HAS MORE THAN 40 MEMBERS AND THEY ARE EACH ALLOWED TO MAKE AN OPENING STATEMENT. SO IF YOU DO THE MATH, WE ARE LOOKING AT HOURS OF OPENING STATEMENTS ALONE BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO THE DEBATE ITSELF. SO THAT IS WHY THEY ARE STARTING AT 7:00 TONIGHT, EASTERN TIME. THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE EVERYONE THEIR CHANCE TO SPEAK AND THEN MOST LIKELY BREAK AND RETURN TOMORROW TO CONTINUE THE DEBATE. THAT SETS UP A VOTE PROBABLY TOMORROW AFTERNOON, AND WE EXPECT THAT THAT WILL BE A DEBATE ALONG PARTY LINES, NO DEFECTIONS ON EITHER SIDE. AND THEN IT GOES TO THE FULL HOUSE FLOOR. AND WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MY SOURCES IS THAT THIS IS NOT THE LAST THING THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO BEFORE THEY LEAVE TOWN. THEY DON’T WANT TO LEAVE TOWN ON THIS NOTE FOR THE HOLIDAYS. SO, THEY MAY HOLD THE VOTE ON IMPEACHMENT EARLY IN THE WEEK NEXT WEEK, MAYBE TUESDAY. AND THEN VOTE ON THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ON THE DOCKET THAT ARE MORE BIPARTISAN IN NATURE, LIKE FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT AND THIS NEW TRADE DEAL. >>SO NANCY, LET ME GET YOUR SENSE IN TALKING TO YOUR SOURCES, AS TO WHAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT ONCE THIS IMPEACHMENT BATTLE MOVES TO THE SENATE. IS THE SENATE EXPECTED TO CALL WITNESSES? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A LONG PERIOD OF TIME? OR SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT SHORTER THAN ANTICIPATED? >>THAT IS ALL UP FOR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. I ASKED THE LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL YESTERDAY WHETHER HE FAVORS LONGER TRIAL WITH MORE WITNESSES OR A SHORTER TRIAL THAT WOULD ENABLE HIM TO MOVE ON MORE QUICKLY TO OTHER THINGS, AND HE SAID IT IS REALLY UP TO THE MEMBERS. INTERESTINGLY, A NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS, SENATORS, ARE NOW SAYING THEY ACTUALLY DON’T WANT THIS TO DRAG ON. THAT PERHAPS THERE WON’T BE ANY WITNESSES AT ALL. THEY SAY THAT IMPEACHMENT IS HURTING THE COUNTRY THE LONGER IT GOES IN THE SENATE, THE MORE CIRCUS-LIKE IT COULD BECOME. IF YOU INTRODUCE NEW WITNESSES, ALLOW DEMOCRATS TO BRING IN NEW WITNESS AS WELL. THIS RUNS COUNTER TO WHAT THE PRESIDENT HAS SAID PUBLICLY, HE WANTS LOTS OF WITNESSES EXONERATING HIM, HE WANTS THE REPUBLICANS WHO CONTROL THE SENATE TO MOUNT THIS VERY STRONG DEFENSE. BUT YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS, CLEARLY, AMONG REPUBLICANS, ABOUT WHAT DRAGGING THIS OUT MIGHT ACTUALLY DO FOR THE DEFENSE. SO HE MAY NOT GET HIS WAY ON THAT. >>>IN THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, THEY SORT OF ALLUDE TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF úT TALKING ABOUT A PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, BUT THEY DON’T SPECIFICALLY INCLUDE IT AS A CAUSE FOR ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. WHY IS THAT? >>BECAUSE DEMOCRATS DECIDED TO PLAY IT SAFE. THERE WERE TWO ARTICLES ABOUT WHICH THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO DEBATE IN THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS AND THAT IS ABUSE OF POWER AND OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS. DEMOCRATS BELIEVE THOSE TWO ARTICLES ARE LOCK SOLID, PLENTY OF EVIDENCE TO BACK THOSE ARTICLES UP. THEY REFLECT PAST ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AND THEY FEEL THEY CAN EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY THEM TO A SKEPTICAL AMERICAN PUBLIC. WHEN YOU GO BEYOND THAT, BRIBERY, FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE ABOUT BRIBERY, BOTH ABOUT WHAT THE FOUND ERRED MEANT, EXACTLY WHEN THEY PUT BRIBERY INTO THE CONSTITUTION, AND WHEN TALKING ABOUT IMPEACHMENT, AND ALSO, WHETHER THIS PRESIDENT, AND WHAT HE DID, TECHNICALLY AMOUNTED TO BRIBERY. AND SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT THEY DECIDED WAS THAT THEY WOULD PLAY IT SAFE. AND GO WITH THIS MORE NARROW APPROACH. THERE ARE SOME DEMOCRATS WHO HAD WANTED TO GO FORMER PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER, BUT BY AND LARGE, THEY, YOU KNOW HE, SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT EACH THIS NARROW APPROACH IS FINE WITH THEM. WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM WAS TO BRING FORTH ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE, LESS IMPORTANT TO THEM WHAT THOSE ARTICLES WERE. >>>FORCED HIM TO PUT OFF THE SENATE VOTE UNTIL EARLY NEXT YEAR. BEYOND THAT FRANKLY THERE ARE SOME SENATE REPUBLICANS WHO FEEL THAT THEY WERE CUT OUT OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE FINAL FEW WEEKS. THEY FEEL THAT THE WHITE HOUSE MAY HAVE GIVEN TOO MANY CONCESSIONS TO DEMOCRATS PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO SOME OF THE LABOR RULES IN THIS NEW AGREEMENT AND SO THEY’RE NOT IN A HUGE HURRY TO PASS IT. THERE ARE SOME FRUSTRATIONS AND SOME BRUISED FEELINGS AND THEY’RE GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND STEP BACK BEFORE THEY HOLD THE FINAL VOTE IN THE SENATE. >>ALL RIGHT. IT’S GOING TO BE A LONG NIGHT FOR YOU NANCY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>YOU’RE WELCOME. >>>TONIGHT RED AND BLUE WILL BRING YOU A SPECIAL PREVIEW OF TONIGHT’S DEBATE ON THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE JOINED BY CBS NEWS CORE RESPOND YENS AND CONTRIBUTORS. OUR SPECIAL COVERAGE BEGINS AT 5:00 P.M. EASTERN. >>WE’RE GOING TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK WHICH MEANS IT’S TIME FOR YOU TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE CBS NEWS APP ON YOUR DEVICES. WATCH CBSN ANY TIME ANYWHERE ON ANY DEVICE ABSOLUTELY FREE. >>SAY THAT AGAIN. >>FREE, FREE, FREE. >>ALL RIGHT. >>WHAT DO YOU SAY? >>CHEEP CHEEP. . >>MEANING FREE. >>AND OUR WEBSITE IF YOU HAVE TOO MANY APPS ON YOUR DEVICE HEAD TO CBS NEWS.COM. . >>WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK. . >>>OUR NATION’S CAPITAL, DECISIONS ARE MADE HERE THAT EFFECT ALL OF US SO JOIN US EVERY EVENING AS WE BRING YOU CBS NEWS ORIGINAL REPORTING FROM AROUND THE WORLD WHILE KEEPING OUR EYE ON. >>>WHEREVER WE HAVE TO GO. >>WE JUST WENT ALONG THE COASTLINE. >>WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO. >>THE FIRST ROUND OF TEAR GAS. >>EVERY EVENING WE ARE FOCUSED. >>THIS IS THE MAIN HIGHWAY TO THE HARDEST HIT AREAS. >>ON FINDING AND TELLING THE TRUTH. >>HOW DOES THAT HAMPER OR HURT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. >>AMONG THE ASHES YOU CAN SEE THE SIGNS OF DEFORESTATION. >>EARNING YOUR TRUST. >>YOU TRAVELED THE WHOLE WAY WITH YOUR SON? >>THE CBS EVENING NEWS WITH NORAH O’DONNELL. >>>UNDERSTADING THE WORLD BEGINS WITH THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. >>DON’T YOU TRUST KIM JONG-UN? >>DOESN’T THE BLAME RESIDE WITH JUUL. >>IS IT NOW OUR TOP TERRORIST THREAT. >>WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE. >>CHECK THIS OUT. . >>MORE NEWS. >>I’M TONY DECOPEEL WITH CBS NEWS. >>MORE ORIGINAL REPORTING. >>IT PUTS EVERYTHING IN PER SPEBLGHTIVE. >>WE ARE ON A MISSION WITH NASA. >>EVERY MORNING ON CBS THIS MORNING. >>WE’RE GOING TO BEGIN WITH BREAKING NEWS. [MUSIC] . >>>HI EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. ANY MOMENT NOW THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTOR GENERAL MICHAEL HOROWITZ WILL RESUME HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BEING ASKED ABOUT THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE SURVEILLANCE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THE NEARLY 500 PAGE REPORT WAS RELEASED MONDAY AND FOUND SEVERAL PROCEDURAL ERRORS BUT OVERALL NO POLITICAL BIAS WAS FOUND. THE REVIEW FOUND THE FBI WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAUNCHING THE JULY 2016 INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAMPAIGN KNOWN AS CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BAR PUBLICLY CHALLENGED THE IG’S CONCLUSION CALLING THE EVIDENCE FLIMSIY AND SAY THAT HE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PREDICATION TO ACTUALLY OPEN AN INVESTIGATION. SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM THE REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND CLOSE ALLY OF THE PRESIDENT DID NOT DISPUTE THE FINDINGS BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. DURING HIS OPENING STATEMENT HE INSTEAD SLAMMED THE FBI FOR HOW THE INQUIRY UNFOLDED. >>WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A FEW IRREGULARITIES BECOMES A MASSIVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OVER TIME TO DEFRAUD THE COURT AND ILLEGALLY SURVEILLANCE VAIL AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND KEEP AN OPERATION OPEN AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIOLATING EVERY NORMAL KNOWN TO THE RULE OF LAW. MANY OF YOUR PROSECUTORS, MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN U.S. ATTORNEYS. MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. TRUMP’S TIME WILL COME AND GO. BUT I HOPE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE CAN NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS NOT IRREGULARITIES. WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THE SYSTEM FAILED, PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF OUR GOVERNMENT TOOK THE LAW IN THEIR OWN HANDS. . >>AND WE’RE HEARING FROM THE MAN BEHIND THE INDEPENDENT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WATCH DOG REPORT. MICHAEL HOROWITZ DEFENDED HIS CONCLUSIONS AND DETAILED HOW THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT. . >>WE DETERMINE THAT THE DECISION TO OPEN CROSSFIRE HURRICANE WAS MADE BY THEN FBI COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BILL PRESTAP AND THAT HIS DECISION REFLECTED A CONSENSUS REACHED AFTER MULTIPLE DAYS OF DISCUSSIONS AND MEETINGS AMONG SENIOR FBI OFFICIALS. WE REVIEWED DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND CONCLUDED THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EXERCISED DISCRETION IN OPENING THE INVESTIGATION WAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE POLICIES. WE ALSO REVIEWED AS WE DETAIL IN THE REPORT THE E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS OF THOSE INVOLVED IN THAT DECISION AND PARTICULARLY MR. PRESTAP’S AND WE DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT INDICATED POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION INFLUENCING HIS DECISION TO OPEN THE INVSTIGATION. WHILE THE INFORMATION IN THE FBI’S POSSESSION AT THE TIME WAS LIMITED, IN LIGHT OF THE LOW THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED BY DEPARTMENT AND FBI PREDICATION POLICY WHICH BY THE WAY IS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT BUT RATHER A PRUDENTIAL ONE IN THE FBI AND DEPARTMENT POLICIES WE FOUND THAT CROSSFIRE HURRICANE WAS OPENED FOR AN AUTHORIZED INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSE WITH SUFFICIENT FACTUAL PREDICATION. >>I’M GOING TO BRING IN OUR PANEL, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT JOSEPH MORENO, CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR MOLLY HOOPER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST JOSEPH PINON AND DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST EMILY JOINS US AS WELL. I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LIVE LOOK NOW. THE HEARING HAS ACTUALLY RESUMED SO WE’RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THAT PANEL AND TAKE YOU LIVE TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY. >>HOLD GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS IMPORTANT AS DEPARTMENT JUSTICE AND FBI ACCOUNTABLE AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW HOW MUCH WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND YOUR TEAM’S WORK. LIKEWISE I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT EVEN THOUGH WE’RE CRITICAL OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE FBI DURING THE LAST ADMINISTRATION AND THE WAY THEY MISHANDLED THIS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION. I THINK THE RANKING FILE AGENTS AND THE FBI AND THEIR COLLEAGUES IN THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY NEED TO KNOW THAT WE ARE THERE FOR THEM AND SUPPORT THEM IN THE FAITHFUL DISCHARGE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF SERVING ON THE COMMITTEE AND I’D LIKE TO THINK THERE IS NO MORE SUPPORTER OF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES OR OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAN I AM. AND I BELIEVE THAT GENERAL HAYDEN WHEN HE WROTE HIS BOOK ABOUT HIS EXPERIENCE AT THE CIA HAD IT RIGHT. IT’S CALLED PLAYING TO THE EDGE. PLAYING TO THE EDGE OF AUTHORITIES NOT OVER THE LINE BUT UP TO THE EDGE IN THE INTEREST OF OUR NATIONAL SECURITY BUT I THINK THAT ALSO MAKES IT IMPORTANT FOR US TO ROOT OUT THE LEGALITY AND DECEPTION IN THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITIES THAT ARE GIVEN TO OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. AND SO LET ME ASK YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. THE–BECAUSE I CAN’T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE DAMAGING TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, THE FBI AND DOJ THAN WHAT YOU HAVE UNCOVERED IN THIS 400 PAGE REPORT THAN WHAT WE’VE SEEN HERE. IT REALLY IS VERY TROUBLING. CAN I ASK YOU, THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT AS YOU HAVE POINTED OUT CONSIDERS THE APPLICATION OF A FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE WORKING WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. DO YOU BELIEVE IF THE COURT KNEW WHAT YOU KNOW NOW THAT IT WOULD HAVE EVER ISSUED THE WARRANT IN THE FIRST PLACE? >>WE’RE CAREFUL NOT TO PREDICT WHAT FEDERAL JUDGES WOULD DO PRESENTED WITH THE EVIDENCE AND WHETHER THERE WOULD BE SUFFICIENT BASIS TO FIND PROBABLE CAUSE. I KNOW THEY WOULD NOT SIGN A WARRANT IF THEY WERE TOLD NOT ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS INCLUDED IN IT. >>OR IF THEY WERE LIED TO. >>AND CERTAINLY IF THEY WERE LIED TO. >>DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THE COURT IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING THIS MATTER. >>WELL I KNOW THE COURT BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH FOLKS AT NSD AT THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION THAT THEY HAVE THE REPORT AND THAT THEY HAVE A FOLLOW ON LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS MATTER. . >>WELL I HOPE THEY WILL NOT LET THIS PASS BECAUSE THIS BEHAVIOR, THIS ILLEGALITY, THIS DECEPTION BECOMES ROUTINE I AGREE WITH SENATOR GRAHAM THAT IT WILL BE THE END OF THE AUTHORITIES THAT CONGRESS HAS GRANTED UNDER THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT WHICH I THINK WOULD BE VERY DAMAGING TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. THE ATTORNEY INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT INCLUDES THE WORD SURVEILLANCE OBVIOUSLY AND YOU CAN’T SURVEILLANCE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES EXCEPT UNDER VERY SPECIALIZED AND EXACTING CIRCUMSTANCES. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>BECAUSE THE RIGHTS GIVEN TO AN AMERICAN CITIZEN UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ARE LAID OUT IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AMONG OTHER PLACES AND THERE IS A MORE–A HIGHER STANDARD WITH REGARD TO GETTING A WARRANT LET’S SAY TO WIRE TAP OR TO INVESTIGATE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THAN THERE WOULD BE A FOREIGN AGENT; CORRECT. >>THAT’S CORRECT. THERE’S PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND SURVEILLANCE OF A U.S. PERSON. >>SO THE WHOLE EXCEPTION HERE WHICH THE COURT AUTHORIZED THE SURVEILLANCE OF MR. PAIGE WAS BASED ON SOME PROOF OR SOME INDICATION OR SUSPICION HE WAS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER; CORRECT? >>CORRECT THEY HAD TO SHOW PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE HE WAS AN AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER. >>BUT AS YOU POINTED OUT THEY GOT MISS INFORMATION. >>THEY GOT INACCURATE INCOMPLETE INFORMATION, AGREED. >>SO WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SURVEILLANCE AND SPYING? >>WELL, SURVEILLANCE IN THE TERM I’M GOING TO USE AND WE USE IN THE REPORT IS WHAT’S IN THE LAW, THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT. >>YOU DON’T LIKE THAT? >>I’M GOING TO STICK TO WHAT WE DO AS IGS WHICH IS LOOK AT THE LAW AND STICK TO WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS IN THE LAW. >>TO MY MIND THERE’S REALLY NO DIFFERENCE ALTHOUGH IT’S LEGALLY AUTHORIZED ACCORDING TO THE SURVEILLANCE ACT IT’S AN ACT OF COVERT INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AGAINST A FOREIGN POWER OR AGENT OF A FOREIGN POWER. LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE DEFENSIVE BRIEFING. AND YOU’VE EXPLAINED IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR GRAHAM’S QUESTIONS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION AND A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION AND I BELIEVE AT SOME POINT DURING THE LAST FEW YEARS I REMEMBER LORETTA LYNCH THE FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL SAY THAT DEFENSIVE BRIEFINGS WERE ROUTINE IN COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATIONS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>I FRANKLY DON’T HAVE ENOUGH EXPERIENCE WITH THEM ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY SIDE TO TELL YOU ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I’VE HEARD THAT BEING SAID BUT I DON’T KNOW THAT SPECIFICALLY. >>YOU DON’T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISAGREE. >>NO REASON TO DISAGREE. >>SO IF THEY ARE ROUTINE IF ATTORNEY GENERAL LYNCH IS CORRECT, THE DECISION BY MR. PRESTAP THE HEAD OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE DIVISION OF THE FBI NOT TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSIVE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE BRIEFING TO CANDIDATE TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN WOULD BE UNUSUAL. >>IF IT’S USUAL THEN NOT DOING IT YES I AGREE WOULD BE UNUSUAL. >>WHAT WAS EVEN MORE UNUSUAL IS THE FACT THAT WHEN THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE WENT TO PROVIDE WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE A PRO FUNK REASM BRIEFING THAT YOU INDICATED IN YOUR REPORT THAT THEY HAD IMPLANTED INTO THAT GROUP AN AGENT, FBI AGENT THAT WAS PART OF THE INVESTIGATIVE TEAM FOR A CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. THERE WAS ONE FBI AGENT THERE AND THEY CHOSE THE AGENT FROM THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION. >>SO INSTEAD OF THEIR MISSION BEING TO PROVIDED CANDIDATE TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN TO ARM THEM WITH INFORMATION SO THAT THEY COULD PREVENT THE RUSSIANS FROM INFILTH RATING THEIR CAMPAIGN, THIS BRIEFING SUCH AS IT WAS HAD A DUEL PURPOSE. THE AGENT IT SAYS ON PAGE 342 OF YOUR REPORT ACTUALLY PREPARED HIMSELF GOING THROUGH MOCK BRIEFINGS. HEADED BY STROKE, LISA PAIGE, THE INTEL SECTION CHIEF AND POSSIBLY THE GENERAL COUNCIL UNIT CHIEF; CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO THIS WAS NOT JUST A CURSE OF AN INCIDENTAL SORT OF THING. OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE PLANS MADE FOR THE AGENT TO GO IN AS PART OF THIS DEFENSIVE BRIEFING AND PERHAPS GET GENERAL FLYNN TO INADVERTENTLY OFFER INFORMATION THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO THE FBI IN THEIR INVESTIGATION. . >>AND AS EXPLAINED TO US IT WAS DUEL PURPOSE TO SEE IF ANYTHING WAS SAID DURING THE BRIEFING IN RESPONSE TO THE BRIEFING THAT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR CROSSFIRE HURRICANE PURPOSES IMMEDIATELY BUT ALSO AS THE AGENTS TOLD US FOR PURPOSES OF A FUTURE INTERVIEW OF MR. FLYNN. THAT DID IN FACT OCCUR LATER. >>AND SO MR. FLYNN WAS CLEARLY THE TARGET? >>HE WAS CERTAINLY OF THE THREE PEOPLE THERE FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN THE ONLY ONE OF THE THREE ABOUT WHOM–WHO WAS A SUBJECT OF AN FBI INVESTIGATION AT THE TIME. >>AND HE WASN’T TOLD THAT HE WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION OR THAT THE AGENT WAS THERE HOPING TO BAIT HIM AND TO PROVIDE AN INCRITICISM TREASM INFORMATION AND THE AGENT DIDN’T PROVIDE HIM ANY DECLARATION OR ADMONISHMENT OF HIS MIRANDA RIGHTS; CORRECT? >>HE WASN’T TOLD THERE WAS A DUEL PURPOSE TO THE BRIEFING. >>IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE DIRECTOR RAY WAS SO CONCERNED ABOUT THIS THAT HE’S AS YOU POINTED OUT SAID THAT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. >>THAT’S RIGHT. >>IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SO LET ME ASK YOU, MR. HOROWITZ, ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE FACT THAT DIRECTOR COMEY HAD A MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP IN JANUARY OF 2017 TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE STEEL. >>I AM AND WE ACTUALLY REFERENCED THAT ABOUT OUR REPORT THAT CAME OUT OF THE MEETING. >>WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT DIRECTOR COMEY’S SO-CALLED DEFENSIVE BRIEFING IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT OF THE PRESIDENT IN JANUARY OF 2017 WAS ANYTHING MORE THAN AN ATTEMPT TO TRY TO BAIT THE PRESIDENT INTO PROVIDING INCRITICISM TREASM INFORMATION WHICH WOULD BE USEFUL TO THE FBI IN ITS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OR POTENTIALLY SOME FUTURE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. >>I HAVE NO INFORMATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER TO MAKE A JUDGMENT ON THAT BUT AS MENTIONED EARLIER ONE OF THE CONCERNS WITH DOING THAT HERE IS THAT IT LEAVES OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT PEOPLE MIGHT ASK DID IT HAPPEN ELSEWHERE. >>WELL IT STRIKES ME AS WITH DANGER GUTSES LIKE IT WAS FOR GENERAL FLYNN FOR THE DIRECTOR TO GO INTO THE WHITE HOUSE, THE OVAL OFFICE NOT TO TELL THE PRESIDENT THAT ANYTHING HE SAYS COULD BE USED AGAINST HIM IN AN ON GOING INVESTIGATION POTENTIALLY INCLUDING CRIMINAL CHARGES AND THE FINAL THING I WOULD SAY IS I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN. IF THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OR THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHAT KIND OF PROTECTION TO AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT WON’T ARRAY THIS VAST POWER AGAINST THEM AND ESSENTIALLY RUIN THEIR LIVES? TO ME THAT’S A PROFOUND CONCERN AS A RESULT OF YOUR INVESTIGATION. . >>THANKS MR. CHAIRMAN AND PICKING UP ON THAT ED TOARL COMMENT I’VE BEEN JOINING THEM FOR YEARS TALKING ABOUT THIS COURT. AND WE NOW HAVE AMPLE RECORD HERE IN THIS CASE AND IN A LOT OF OTHERS. 2002 THE COURT IDENTIFIED MORE THAN 75 CASES IN WHICH IT WAS MISLED BY THE FBI. INTERNAL FBI REVIEW IN 2006 DOZENS OF INACCURACIES PRIDED TO THE COURT. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON SO LET’S HAVE A CONVERSATION AFTER THIS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE COURT AND THE REPRESENTATIONS THAT ARE MADE TO IT. LET ME TRY IF I CAN MR. HOROWITZ THANK YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR BEING HERE TO GO THROUGH A FEW POINTS. THE CHAIRMAN GAVE AN UNCHARACTERISTIC FLOWERY HEATED OPENING THAT WENT ON FOR SOME 40 MINUTES AND PRODUCED A LENGTHY RECORD OF E- MAILS FROM LISA PAIGE AND PETER STRUCK WHICH REPEATEDLY GENERATED STATEMENTS OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS DONALD TRUMP. HE WENT ON TO SEE THESE WERE THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE. WHEN I READ YOUR SUMMARY OF YOUR FINDINGS, YOU DIDN’T FIND EITHER OF THEM TO BE IN CHARGE DID YOU? >>ON THIS INVESTIGATION WE DID NOT. >>OKAY. WHEN IT COMES TO EXPLETIVES YOU FOUND THAT SOME AGENTS HAD AN OPPOSITE VIEW POINT AND WERE VERY POSITIVE TOWARDS CANDIDATE TRUMP AND VERY OPEN IN THEIR USE OF EXPLETIVES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. . >>AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO BE CLEAR WERE NOT PART OF THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM BUT WERE IN A DIFFERENT OFFICE INTERACTING WITH THE TEAM. >>I HOPE WE CAN ALL CONCEDE THE POINT WE DON’T BELIEVE ANYONE IN THIS DELICATE CAPACITY WITH LIFE CHANGING DECISION MAKING EVERY SINGLE DAY SHOULD BE SO POLITICALLY BIASED AS TO CALL INTO QUESTION THEIR VALUES AND THEIR CHARACTER. >>THAT’S CORRECT, AND I MADE THIS POINT LAST YEAR WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP. INDIVIDUALS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE POLITICAL VIEWS AND BE VOTERS AND BE ENGAGED CITIZENS. THEY SHOULD BE. THEY CAN’T THOUGH TIE THEIR PERSONAL VIEWS TO THEIR INVESTIGATIVE ACTS. >>AND I’M SURE THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS YOU’VE SHARED WITH DIRECTOR RAY. >>CORRECT. >>ALL RIGHT. ALSO CHAIRMAN MADE A POINT EARLY ON OF TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THIS ON GOING INVESTIGATION UNTIL A MUCH LATER DATE AFTER IT HAD BEEN INITIATED AND I WOULD JUST SAY BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR BECAUSE THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO LOOK AT THE JAMES COMEY OCTOBER 28 PUBLIC DECLARATION ABOUT THE HILARY CLINTON INVESTIGATION AS BEING DEADLY IN TERMS OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS ELECTION SO THIS NOTION OF THE FBI PUB SIZING THE INVESTIGATION MAKING THEM KNOWN TO MANY PEOPLE CAN CUT BOTH WAYS. IT’S GOOD TO KNOW I’M SURE BUT YOU RUN THE RISK THAT AS MORE PEOPLE COME TO KNOW IT, IT BECOMES PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. IS THAT AN ISSUE? >>LOOK, WE WROTE LAST YEAR’S REPORT ABOUT THAT CONCERN OF WHAT DIRECTOR COMEY DID IN THAT REGARD AND YOU OBVIOUSLY WANT TO CONTROL INFORMATION AND MAKE SURE ONLY PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY NEED TO KNOW IT. . >>SO THE POINT I’M TRYING TO GET TO IS THE CHAIRMAN’S OPENING SUGGESTED A BIAS AT LEAST IN THIS INSTANCE THAT THE FBI AND OTHERS AGAINST DONALD TRUMP THAT HE BELIEVES TO HAVE MANIFESTED IN MANY OF THE THINGS THAT FOLLOWED. I COULD ARGUE FROM OUR SIDE OF THE TABLE WE COULD FIND BIAS THAT INCLUDES COMEY’S PUBLIC STATEMENTS RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION THAT REALLY HAD IN MANY OF OUR POINTS OF VIEW A DETERMINATIVE OUTCOME. LET ME GO BACK TO THE EVER PRESENT GUILIANI BECAUSE HERE’S SOMETHING DURING THE 2016 CAMPAIGN RUDY GUILIANI WAS THEN A TRUMP CAMPAIGN SURROGATE BRAGGED ABOUT HAVING ACCESS TO THE INVESTIGATION OF HILARY CLINTON’S E-MAILS AND TEASED IN OCTOBER 2016 THAT A SURPRISE WAS COMING AND ON NOVEMBER 4 AFTER DIRECTOR COMEY SENT HIS LETTER REOPENING THE INVESTIGATION, GUILIANI SAID AND I QUOTE I HAD EXPECTED THIS. DID I HEAR ABOUT IT? YOU’RE DARN RIGHT I HEARD ABOUT IT THE MAYOR SAID SO HOW CAN WE BE DEALING WITH THOSE KIND OF STATEMENTS THAT LONG AGO AND STILL NOT HAVE RESOLUTION WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS BLUFFING OR IF HE HAD MOLES IN THE NEW YORK OFFICE. IF I REMEMBER RIGHT ONE OF THE RATIONALS WAS I COULDN’T DO IT THROUGH THE NEW YORK OFFICE BECAUSE IT LEAKS LIKE A SCHIFF. IS THERE NO INVESTIGATION OR HAS THERE BEEN NO INVESTIGATION OF THIS? >>SO AS I MENTIONED LAST YEAR WHEN WE RELEASED OUR REPORT ON THE CLINTON E-MAIL INVESTIGATION WE WERE LOOKING AT–WE ARE LOOKING AT STILL THAT QUESTION AND THE CHALLENGE OF THAT INVESTIGATION AS I MENTIONED BACK THEN AND I’LL MENTION AGAIN IS PROVING WHO SPOKE TO WHOM AND WHEN BASED ON RECORDS AT THE FBI AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE’S RARELY GOING TO BE SUBSTANCE INFORMATION WE WILL GET FOR EXAMPLE FROM TOLL RECORDS OR OTHERS BUT WE WILL FIND OUT CONTACTS AND WE’RE TRYING TO FOLLOW UP. WE’RE CONTINUING TO DO THAT. WE’VE ISSUED TWO REPORTS SO FAR ABOUT FINDINGS WE HAD OF LEAKS AND MISCONDUCT. AND WE HAVE THE INVESTIGATIONS ON GOING. . >>MR. GUILIANI NOW PRO FESSES TO BE PRESIDENT TRUMP’S LAWYER AND OCCASIONALLY THE PRESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT. SOMETIMES HE DOESN’T. ARE THERE ANY CONCERNS THAT MR. GUILIANI MAY BE CONTINUING TO IMPROPERLY OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM SOURCES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT NOT AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE IT? >>I’M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TO WHAT WE’VE LEARNED OR WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT WHAT OUR ON GOING INVESTIGATIONS AND I’M NOT INVESTIGATING MATTERS RELATED TO THE ON GOING UKRAINE ISSUES THAT I THINK YOU’RE REFERENCING. . >>LET ME ASK IF I CAN ON THIS QUESTION OF THE PROBLEMS WITHIN THIS CASE PARTICULARLY AS THEY RELATE TO THE TREATMENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN IT. AND I’M THINKING PARTICULARLY OF THE ON GOING QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL IS TREATED FAIRLY HERE. IS IT YOUR CONCLUSION THAT HE WAS NOT–THAT THIS PAGE WAS NOT A RUSSIAN AGENT OR SHOULD SAY DID NOT HAVE IMPORTANT CONTACTS THAT WERE NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES WITH THE RUSSIAN LEADERSHIP? >>I’M NOT IN A POSITION TO ASSESS THAT. WHAT I CAN ASSESS IS LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI PUT FORWARD TO THE FIESA COURT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PIECES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT SUPPORT THEIR THEORY OF THE CASE AND THAT WAS NEVER TOLD TO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAWYERS WHO ARE THE GATE KEEPERS AND HAVE TO BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THEY’RE THE EXPERTS NOT ME. >>CAN WE SPEAK FOR A MOMENT TO THE STEEL FILE IN THIS CASE? >>YES. >>I BELIEVE YOU HAD A DEFINITIVE STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT IMPACT THAT STEEL FILE HAD ON THE INITIATION OF THIS INVESTIGATION. WHAT WAS YOUR CONCLUSION? >>IN TERMS OF INITIATION OF TE INVESTIGATION IT HAD NO IMPACT. IT WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE TEAM THAT OPENED THE INVESTIGATION THE TIME THEY OPENED IT. . >>SO YOU’VE CONCLUDED IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS NO EVIDENCE OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE FOR THE OPENING OF THIS CROSSFIRE HURRICANE INVESTIGATION; IS THAT CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>ALL RIGHT. ON THIS FIESA REFORM ISSUE WE’LL GET BACK TO IT LATER. ONE THING THAT’S INTERESTING HERE SENATOR LEE IS NOT WITH US AT THIS MOMENT HE’S INTRODUCED A BILL WHICH I AM CO-SPONSORING WHICH WOULD GIVE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE THE AUTHORITY TO INVESTIGATE ATTORNEYS IN THE DEPARTMENT. >>CORRECT. >>RIGHT NOW THAT’S NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE LAW; IS IT? >>THAT’S CORRECT IT IS NOT AND THANK YOU FOR CO-SPONSORING THE BILL AS FOR SEVERAL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. >>IT SEEMS TO BE OBVIOUS. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE THEORY IS BEHIND THERE BEING SEPARATE AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE INVESTIGATION? >>THIS IS A LEGACY OF HISTORY BACK IN 1988 WHEN THE IG WAS CREATED AT JUSTICE THE COMPROMISE WAS ATTORNEYS WOULD BE CARVED OUT. BY THE WAY SO WAS THE FBI AND DEA AT THE TIME. AFTER THE ALDRIDGE AIMS SPY SCANDAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL ASH CROFT ACTUALLY GAVE US THAT AUTHORITY OVER THE DEA AND FBI CONGRESS COT PHID IT IN 2002 BUT ATTORNEYS STILL ONLY THE IG THAT CAN’T REVIEW CONDUCT OF ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES IN OUR ORGANIZATION INCLUDE ATTORNEYS. >>AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS AUTHORIZED TO GIVE YOU THAT KIND OF OPTION? >>UNDER THE STATUTE AS IT THEN EXISTED HE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. THE STATUTORY CHANGE TOOK THAT AWAY. >>MR. CHAIRMAN HOPE YOU CONSIDER THAT WHEN WE’RE PUTTING TOGETHER AN AGENDA. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. >>THANK YOU. >>AND WE’LL GO TO THE SENATOR FOR 30 SECONDS HERE. HAS ANYBODY BEEN CHARGED WITH WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS ILLEGALLY WORKING WITH THE RUSSIANS THAT WERE PART OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN THAT YOU KNOW OF? >>NOT THAT I KNOW OF. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. CHAIRMAN. I FIND THE CONCLUSION THAT SOME HAVE RAISED AT YOUR REPORT MR. HOROWITZ SOMEHOW EXONERATES THE FBI IN THIS MATTER TO BE CRAZY. ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. TO THE POINT THAT IT ALMOST MAKES ME WONDER WHETHER THOSE WHO ARE MAKING THIS ARGUMENT HAVE READ THE SAME REPORT THAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. PERHAPS THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT REPORT? THERE IS NO PLANET ON WHICH I THINK THIS REPORT INDICATES THAT THINGS WERE OKAY WITHIN THE FBI IN CONNECTION WITH THIS INVESTIGATION. THEY MOST CERTAINLY WERE NOT AND YET STUNNINGLY FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JIM COMEY TOOK TO THE PAGES OF THE WASHINGTON POST TO DECLARE THAT THIS REPORT, YOUR REPORT, SHOWS THAT THE FBI FULFILLED ITS MISSION PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND UP HOLDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. I DON’T UNDERSTAND THAT. I FIND IT ABSOLUTELY STUNNING THAT HE WOULD REACH THAT CONCLUSION. IT’S NONSENSE. THEY DON’T CARE WHERE YOU FIT ON THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. IF YOU ARE A POLITICIAN OR IF YOU ARE A NON POLITICIAN IF YOU ARE A LIBERAL OR A CONSERVATIVE, A REPUBLICAN A DEMOCRAT REGARDLESS OF YOUR AGE YOU SHOULD BE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT’S IN YOUR REPORT MR. HOROWITZ. THIS REPORT IS A SCATHING INDICTMENT OF THE FBI, OF THE AGENTS THAT WERE INVOLVED AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE FBI IS AN CONSTITUTION THAT HAS A LONG HISTORY OF RESPECT IN THIS COUNTRY AND AS A FEDERAL PROSECUTOR I WORKED WITH THE FBI AND FOUND MANY OF ITS AGENTS TO BE OF UTMOST INTEGRITY AND THOROUGHNESS. THAT’S PART OF WHY I’M SO CONCERNED BY YOUR REPORT AND ITS FINDINGS AND THE FACTS STATED THERE IN BECAUSE I THINK THIS REALLY DAMAGES THAT. THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD IN THIS COUNTRY THAT COMES NOT JUST FROM THE FBI BEING GOOD BUT ALSO BEING UNDERSTOOD TO BE GOOD. THE BEHAVIOR OUT LINED IN YOUR REPORT IS AT A MINIMUM SO NEGLIGENT I ACTUALLY WOULD SAY SO RECKLESS THAT IT CALLS INTO QUESTION THE LEDGE FREQUENCY OF THE ENTIRE PROGRAM AND I DON’T SAY THAT LIGHTLY. I SAY THIS OF COURSE AS SOMEONE WHO HAS LONG QUESTIONED THE PROGRAM AND HOW IT COULD BE ABUSED BUT THIS REALLY PUSHES US OVER THE EDGE. I’LL GET BACK TO THAT IN A MINUTE. THE REPORT CONCLUDES WAY TOO GENEROUSLY IN MY VIEW THAT THE REPORT DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF INTENTION MISCONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE CASE AGENTS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. BUT THE REPORT GOES ON TO CALL THE CONDUCT OF THE AGENTS AND THE SUPERADVISORS INVOLVED TO BE “SERIOUS PERFORMANCE FAILURES” WHICH YOU NOTED WERE FAILURES FOR WHICH YOU DID NOT RECEIVE A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>SERIOUS PERFORMANCE FAILURES. FAILURES WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. THIS IS THE FAILURE THAT JIM COMEY ASTOUNDINGLY STUNNINGLY IRRESPONSIBLY CONSIDERS A FULFILLED MISSION? A MISSION THAT INCLUDES AMONG OTHER THINGS PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? I THINK NOT. THIS IS WHAT THE FORMER HEAD OF THE FBI CONSIDERS PROTECTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND UP HOLDING THE CONSTITUTION. I JUST CAN’T UNDERSTAND IT. IT’S SIMPLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH. MAYBE IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR MR. COMEY. IT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. EVERY AMERICAN REALLY SHOULD BE TERRIFIED BY THIS REPORT. THE FBI TEAM THAT INVESTIGATED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT HAND PICKED. AFTER ALL IT COULDN’T AND WOULDN’T AND WASN’T THE CASE THAT THEY WOULD JUST PICK ANY ORDINARY INVESTIGATORS TO INVESTIGATE A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTY NOMINEES. FOR WHAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED IN THE REPORT TO HAVE BEEN ONE OF THE MOST SENSITIVE FBI INVESTIGATIONS. THESE AGENTS WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN THE BEST OF THE BEST AND WE WOULDN’T EXPECT ANYTHING LESS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO BE OF THE HIGHEST CHARACTER AND PROFESSIONALISM COMMITTED TO PROTECTING THE CIVIL LIBERTIES OF ALL AMERICANS. YOU SEE OUR PRIVACY IS NOT AT ODDS WITH OUR SECURITY. OUR PRIVACY IS INEXPLICABLY INTERTWINED WITH AN INDEED AND INSEPARABLE PART OF OUR SECURITY. WE CANNOT BE SECURE UNLESS OUR PRIVACY IS ALSO GUARANTEED. WE CERTAINLY CAN’T BE SECURE IN OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IF AFTER ALL OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS IN PERIL BY PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO THE INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AND LAW ENFORCEMENT APPARATUS THAT OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS. SO WE’RE FACED WITH TWO POSSIBILITIES, EITHER ONE THE FBI AGENTS PURPOSELY USED THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO WAGE A POLITICAL WAR AGAINST A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THEY DESPISEDDED OR TWO THESE AGENTS WERE SO INCOMPETENT THAT THEY ALLOWED A PAID FOREIGN POLITICAL OPERATIVE TO WEAPONNIZE THE FIESA PROGRAM INTO A SPYING OPERATION ON A RIVAL PRESIDENTIAL POLITICAL CAMPAIGN. I’M NOT SURE ABOUT YOU BUT–I’M NOT SURE WHICH ONE IS WORSE. I AM SURE THAT NEITHER CONCLUSION IS ACCEPTABLE. THEY’RE BOTH HORRIFYING FOR SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT REASONS. I’M NOT SURE THERE IS A DESCRISKS BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM. I’M NOT SURE ONE CAN CONCLUDE- -I’M NOT SURE IT’S POSSIBLE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE BIAS EVIDENT IN COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN SOME OF THESE INVESTIGATORS WASN’T AT LEAST A PART OF IT. NOW IT AFFECTED YOU SAY THAT THERE WASN’T A CAUSE OF CONNECTION BETWEEN THEM IF THERE WASN’T FOR CAUSAL CHANGE BETWEEN THOSE COMMUNICATIONS AND THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION ITSELF IS BE SIDE THE POINT. THE FACT IS THESE WERE AGENTS WHO MADE THEIR BIAS CLEAR AND THEY WENT AFTER SOMEONE IN PART BECAUSE THEY DID NOT LIKE HIS CANDIDACY AND THAT’S INEXCUSABLE. THE REPORT IN THE FBI’S ABUSE I BELIEVE IT’S LONG STANDING ABUSE. I BELIEVE IT’S INEVITABLE ABUSE OF FIESA AND THE COURT TO SURVEILLANCE AMERICAN CITIZENS. SHOULD IN A SENSE NOT BE OF TREMENDOUS SURPRISE TO US. JAMES MADISON WARNED US AGAINST THIS VERY KIND OF THING AND FEDERAL IS 51. IF YOU SAID MEN WERE ANGELS THEY WOULDN’T NEED A GOVERNMENT. IF WE HAD ACCESS TO ANGELS TO GOVERN US WE WOULDN’T NEED RULES ABOUT GOVERNMENT BUT WE DO NOT HAVE ANGELS TO GOVERN US SO WE HAVE TO HAVE AUXILIARY PRECAUTIONS WITH CHECKS AND BALANCES TO MAKE SURE NO ONE ENTITY GETS TOO MUCH POWER AND ADDED TO THOSE CHECKS AND BALANCES WE ALSO HAVE LIMITATIONS LIKE THE FORTH AMENDMENT AND WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE THERE TO PROTECT US. I BELIEVE FOR SOME TIME AS HAS BEEN NOTED EARLIER IN THIS HEARING AND I’VE TEAMED UP WITH PEOPLE AT THE OPPOSITE END OF THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY SPECTRUM THAT FIESA CARRIES WITH IT AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK OF ABUSE. THAT’S WHY I’VE TEAMED UP WITH THE SENATOR THE LAST NINE YEARS THAT I’VE SERVED IN THE SENATE AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THESE PROGRAMS ARE SUBJECT TO ABUSE. I’VE BEEN WARNING FOR YEARS THAT INEVITABLY THESE WOULD RESULT IN ABUSE. IT’S NOT A QUESTION OF IF BUT WHEN AND HOW SOON WILL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS GET CAUGHT AND SURPRISES ME IN SOME WAYS THAT IT TOOK US THIS LONG TO FIND AN INSTANCE WHERE WE GET CAUGHT BUT THEN AGAIN THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. WHEN YOU TAKE A STANDARD THAT REQUIRES VIRTUALLY NO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY YOU RENDER ALL BUT A SMALL HANDFUL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE LAW MAKERS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE YOU RENDER ALL OTHER CITIZENS OTHER THAN THEM AND THE INTEL COMMUNITY ITSELF INELIGIBLE TO REVIEW THEIR WORK AND YOU MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO GATHER INFORMATION THIS KIND OF THING IS OF COURSE GOING TO HAPPEN. IT’S NEVER NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AND THAT SCARES ME TO DEATH. NOW, INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ YOU STATED SEVERAL TIMES IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT AND IN RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS YOU DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF BIAS THAT INFLUENCED THE FBI’S DECISION TO CONDUCT THESE OPERATIONS. BUT MR. HOROWITZ, IS NOT THE LACK OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT SELF EVIDENCE OF BIAS? ISN’T THE LACK OF EVIDENCE UNBIAS, EVIDENCE THAT WE REALLY SHOULD TAKE AS BIAS BUT IN ANY EVENT IT’S CERTAINLY NOT SELF INDICATIVE THAT NO BIAS OCCURRED. ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>AS TO THE OPENING, WHICH IS IN A DIFFERENT PLACE THAN THE FIESA ISSUES THAT YOU’VE IDENTIFIED AND I TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, I THINK IT’S TOO VERY DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. ON THE FIESA SIDE WE FOUND AS YOU NOTED A LACK OF DOCUMENTARY TESTIMONY EVIDENCE ABOUT INTENTIONALITY BUT WE ALSO NOTED THE LACK OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATIONS AND IN FACT LEAVE OPEN THE POSSIBILITY THAT FOR THE REASONS YOU INDICATED IT’S UNCLEAR WHAT THE MOTIVATIONS WERE. ON THE ONE HAND GROSS INCOMPETENCE, NEGLIGENCE, ON THE OTHER HAND INTENTIONALITY AND WHERE IN BETWEEN WE WEREN’T IN A POSITION WITH THE EVIDENCE WE HAD TO MAKE THAT CONCLUSION. >>MY POINT IS. >>I’M NOT RULING IT OUT. >>YOUR LACK OF EVIDENCE HERE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS NO BIAS. . >>I’M SOLELY BASING IT CORRECT ON THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE. . >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. . >>MR. HOROWITZ YOU ACTUALLY DID MAKE A FINDING ON THAT VERY QUESTION, DID YOU NOT? I DIRECT YOU TO PAGE 14 OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHERE YOU ASCRIBE THIS TO MANAGEMENT AND SUPERADVISORY FAILURES THAT WERE NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE BUT THAT WERE POTENTIALLY ENDEMIC IS THAT NOT CORRECT? >>I’M SORRY. >>YUP, YOU SAY THAT SO MANY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS WERE MADE BY THREE SEPARATE HAND PICKED TEAMS AND THE MOST SENSITIVE RAISES SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FBI CHAIN OF COMMANDS, MANAGEMENT AND SPRFERLINGS OF THE PROCESS. YOU THEN GO ON TO DESCRIBE AS A FAILURE OF MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS. >>RIGHT. >>AND YOU GO ON TO SAY THAT YOUR REMEDY AS AN OIG AUDIT NOT ONLY OF THIS CASE BUT OTHER CASES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN OR POLITICS SO YOU ACTUALLY DO MAKE A FINDING ABOUT THIS AND YOU ATTRIBUTE THE FAILURE HERE TO A FAILURE OF MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION THAT COULD GO BEYOND THIS PARTICULAR CASE. >>CORRECT ALTHOUGH NOT JUST MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS OBVIOUSLY. ALL OF THE LINE PEOPLE WHO MADE SERIOUS ERRORS. >>BUT YOU MADE NO FINDING THAT THIS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY OR POLITICAL CONSPIRACY OR ANY SUCH TYPE OF MOTIVATION. >>WE MAKE NO FINDING. WE EXPLAIN IN THERE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE DOCUMENTARY TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL. WE ALSO POINT OUT THE LACK OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATIONS AND FROM THERE I CAN’T DRAW ANY FURTHER CONCLUSIONS. >>CORRECT OTHER THAN YOU DO WHAT YOU GO WITH IS THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE OF MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OVER THIS COMPLICATED PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED. >>FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. >>CORRECT. NOW WHEN DID THE–WHAT’S THE TIMELINE ON THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GETTING NOTICE OF THIS REPORT. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE BETWEEN WHEN HE FIRST SAW THIS AND CREDITED THIS YOUR INVESTIGATION IS THE CREDIT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE? >>WELL WE FIRST PROVIDED THE DRAFT REPORT FOR CLASSIFICATION MARKING PURPOSES AT THE BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER, END OF AUGUST. >>SO HE AND HIS TEAM HAVE HAD IT WELL OVER A MONTH. >>AND THEN WE GOT IT BACK WITH THE MARKINGS AND DID NORMAL PROCESS IN A CLASSIFIED REVIEW AND INCORPORATED THE MARKINGS AND PRODUCED IT BACK IN NOVEMBER FOR THE ACCURACY. >>THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI WOULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO IT DURING THAT TIMEFRAME. >>SAME EXACT TIMEFRAME AND HE FOUND HE COMPLICATED YOU ON PROFESSIONALISM AND SAYS HE ACCEPTS THE REPORT’S FINDINGS; CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>WITH PLENTY OF TIME TO REVIEW IT? >>CORRECT. >>THEN WE GET TO MR. DURHAM. DID MR. DURHAM HAVE ACCESS TO THIS REPORT DURING THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME. >>NO. WE DID NOT GIVE IT TO HIM IN THE END OF AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER PRECISELY BECAUSE IT WAS FOR CLASSIFICATION PURPOSES HE HAD NO REASON TO SEE IT. WE WERE VERY CAREFUL AS TO WHO COULD SEE IT AND WHO COULDN’T. . >>YUP. >>WE HAD LISTS OF WHO COULD SEE IT AND WHO COULDN’T. . >>HE WASN’T ON THE LIST? >>HE WAS NOT ON THE LIST. WE PROVIDED IT TO HIM IN NOVEMBER. >>NOVEMBER WHEN? DO YOU REMEMBER? >>I COULD CHECK BUT IT’S PROBABLY ROUGHLY MID NOVEMBER. SO ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE IS UNDER TAKING AT ALL? >>I’M SOME WHAT BUT NOT–I WOULDN’T PRESEND TO BE COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH IT. >>HE NOTES THAT HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH SOME OF YOUR REPORTS CONCLUSIONS AS TO PREDICATION AND HOW THE FBI CASE WAS OPENED. WHAT INFORMATION DO YOU HAVE THINK HE HAS ACCESS TO THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO? >>I HAVE NO IDEA. >>WHEN YOU LOOK AT DIRECTOR RAY’S LETTER HE SAYS THAT HIS ORGANIZATION THE FBI PROVIDED BROAD AND TIMELY ACCESS TO ALL OF THE INFORMATION REQUESTED BY THE OIZ INCLUDING HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL AND HE ACCEPTS THAT YOUR–THAT THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE INVESTIGATION WAS DONE FOR AN AUTHORIZED PURPOSE WITH ADVOCATE PREDICATION. I’M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE D EVIDENCE OF EXISTS ABOUT PREDICATION THAT YOU DIDN’T HAVE ANGUISHES TO AND THAT FBI A DIRECTOR RAY WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO. WHERE COULD JOHN DURHAM BE GOING FOR INFORMATION THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT YOU HAVE ACCESS TO OR WHAT FBI DIRECTOR RAY HAS ACCESS TO? >>I DON’T KNOW AND YOU’D HAVE TO ASK ATTORNEY GENERAL OR MR. DURHAM. ú>>HSM THEATERICALLY IS THERE SOME AREA OF EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT YOU DIDN’T GET ACCESS TO? >>WE ARE NOT. WE’VE GOT A MILLION RECORDS AND ASKED THE FBI FOR ALL OF THEIR TERRELLS INCLUDING FROM OTHER AGENCYST. >>GRAND JURY OPERATING DO YOU KNOW? >>I HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI SAY. >>IS HE GOING OVER SEAS TO DEBRIEF FOREIGN AGENTS AND INTERESTS. >>NO IDEA. YOU’D HAVE TO TALK WITH HIM. >>OKAY. PREDICATION INVOLVES A THRESHOLD DOES IT NOT? >>CORRECT. IT’S FOR OPENING AN INVESTIGATION. >>YUP. AND WHEN YOU HAVE HIT YOUR PREDICATION THRESHOLD MORE EVIDENCE DOESN’T–AS LONG AS THE EVIDENCE IS ADVOCATE MORE EVIDENCE DOESN’T TAKE IT AWAY; CORRECT? >>CORRECT. . >>SO I’M ALSO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT IS THAT EVEN IF HE HAD MORE EVIDENCE THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE THAT TAKES AWAY FROM YOUR CONCLUSION THAT PREDICATION WAS ADEQUATE. >>AGAIN I THINK YOU’D HAVE TO ASK HIM OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >>YOU CAN’T THINK OF A WAY TO GET THERE, CAN YOU? >>I DON’T KNOW. AS I SAID EARLIER WE STAND BY OUR FINDINGS. . >>SO YOU DESCRIBED SERIOUS PERFORMANCE FAILURES IN THE FIESA PROCESS. THOSE ARE LIKELY TO LEAD TO EITHER DISIPLINARY ACTIONS TRUER SANCTIONS BY THE COURT OR AT LEAST BE CONSIDERED FOR THOSE THINGS; CORRECT? >>THOSE ARE CERTAINLY TWO OF THE OPTIONS. >>AND IN THAT PROCESS THOSE INDIVIDUALS WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH DUE PROCESS INVOLVED. >>THAT GOES TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE COURT OR ANY OTHER ENTITIES. >>SO WE MAY FIND OUT MORE AS THOSE PROCESSES GO FORWARD IN THAT CONTEXT. >>CORRECT WHAT DID THE FBI KNOW ABOUT HOW FAR RUSSIAN INTERESTS HAD PENETRATED INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. >>SOME OF WHAT THEY KNEW THEY KNEW THE CONCERNS AND HE WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. >>CORRECT. >>THEY HAD AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON INTO MICHAEL FLYNN. >>DO YOU KNOW IF THEY KNEW ABOUT THE TRUMP TOWER. >>I DON’T KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. >>OKAY. AND GOING INTO IT, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE WOULDN’T IT TO EXPECT THAT THE FBI DID NOT THEN KNOW HOW FAR RUSSIAN PENETRATION INTO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WENT. >>I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT STAGE THEIR INVESTIGATION WAS AT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BUT I DON’T KNOW INDEPENDENTLY. >>THERE WAS NO WAY TO RULE OUT PEOPLE PRESENTAT THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING ON BEHALF OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MAY HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN THE RUSSIAN OPERATION? >>I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE. ALL I KNOW AS TO THAT IS THEY T POTENTIAL PARTICIPANT IN THE MATTER THEY WERE LOOKING INTO. >>IT WAS BIGGER THAN THE PIECES WE WERE LOOKING AT SO I CAN’T TELL YOU WHAT ELSE THE FBI MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN AT THE TIME. >>SO WHILE WE CAN AGREE THAT PUTTING OPERATION–SORRY CROSSFIRE HURRICANE AGENT INTO THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN MIGHT HAVE BEEN OVER AGGRESSIVE FOR THE FBI TO BE IN THAT INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING WOULD BE PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE; CORRECT? >>IN FACT ABSOLUTELY APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO BE THERE THAT WAS THE DEBATE THAT WENT ON INTERNALLY AT THE FBI WHICH IS WHAT TO DO AND THEY NEVER WHICH THEY DID NOT DISCUSS EITHER WITH ANYONE AT THE DEPARTMENT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF IT OR AT THE ODNI. DNI. >>THERE IS NO REASON I SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN IN THAT BRIEFING. >>THE FBI SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOR INTELLIGENCE PURPOSES AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO DEBRIEFED THE FBI AGENT PRESENT AT THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING TO SEE IF MICHAEL FLYNN HAD SENT ANYTHING RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION OR ANYBODY ELSE FOR THAT MATTER IT WAS INFORMATION POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE INVESTIGATION WAS IT ANOTHER. >>>ARE FOR MURPS TO ALLOW TOMORROW OCCUR FOR AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE FOR PARTICIPANT IN THAT BRIEFING ON THE PART OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN FBI INVESTIGATION. >>THAT IS CORRECT BUT IT RAISES NOT A SIGNIFICANT POLICY BUT WE SHOULD NOT DRAW THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE’S NO WAY THE FBI SHOULD EVER BE GIVEN ACCESS TO EVIDENCE THAT ARISES IN THE CONTEXT OF AN INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE. >>THAT IS UP TO DIRECTOR RAY. >>TIME HAS EXPIRED. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. . >>30 SECONDS HERE. IN THE JANUARY MEETING WASN’T THERE DEPARTMENT OF A JUSTICE OFFICIAL PRESENT AT THAT MEETING? >>YES. LET ME CLARIFY ON THAT. THE PEOPLE PRESENT WERE THE SUB SOURCE, HIS LAWYER, TWO FBI CROSSFIRE HURRICANE PEOPLE AND FOR PARTS OF THE INTERVIEW LAWYERS FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION WERE THERE NOT KNOWING THE BACKGROUND NECESSARILY. THEY WERE THERE BECAUSE THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE HAD A LAWYER SO THE FBI WANTED A LAWYER THERE IN CASE THERE WERE LAWYER ISSUES. >>SO WE’RE BEATING UP ON THE FBI APPROPRIATELY SO FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IN THE ROOM TOO. >>THEY WERE IN THE ROOM BUT THE REASON WE NOTE THIS YEAR IS THERE’S A NUMBER OF INSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE GET DRIVE BYES AND SOMEBODY TRIES TO TAG YOU WITH SOMETHING. >>FAIR ENOUGH. SENATOR CRUZ. >>CHAIRMAN CAN I JUST CLOSE? ONE POINT FROM PAGE 341 THE FBI’S MR. BAKER TOLD THE IG REPORT AS SAYING THE AGENT IN THAT INVESTIGATIVE BRIEFING WAS NOT THERE TO INDUCE ANYBODY TO SAY ANYTHING. HE WAS NOT THERE TO DO AN UNDER COVER OPERATION OR ELICIT A STATEMENT OR TESTIMONY. >>THANK YOU. SENATOR CRUZ? >>THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND I WANT TO START BY TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THANK NOT ONLY YOU BUT THE MEN AND WOMEN OF YOUR TEAM THAT ARE GATHERED HERE. I THINK THE WORK THAT YOU’VE DONE IN THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. READING THIS REPORT THIS IS A 434 PAGE REPORT THAT LAYS OUT WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A STUNNING INDICTMENT OF THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. OF A PATTERN OF ABUSE OF POWER AND BOTH THE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FBI FOR DECADES HAVE HAD A GREAT MANY HONORABLE PRINCIPAL PROFESSIONALS WITH A FIDELITY OF RULE OF LAW AND THIS INDICTMENT I’M AN ALUM INC. TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THIS PATTERN OF FACTS MAKES ME ANGRY AND IT MAKES ANYONE WHO EXPECTS LAW ENFORCEMENT TO BE NON PARTISAN AND FAITHFUL TO THE LAW IT SHOULD MAKE THEM ANGRY AS WELL. NOW THE PRESS HAS FOCUSED ON I SPEFNG OF CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE OF BIAS. I THINK THAT JUDGMENT IS IN MANY WAYS THE LEAST SIGNIFICANT COMPONENT OF THIS REPORT. I THINK THE FACTS THAT ARE IN THIS REPORT NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD AND THEY SHOULD BE DEEPLY CHILLING TO ANYONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THE FACTS IN THIS REPORT AND DRAW THE INFERENCE AS TO WHY THAT PATTERN OF ABUSE OCCURRED. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>I’M SORRY? >>I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT IS TO LAY OUT THE FACTS FOR THE PUBLIC AND EVERYBODY CAN DEBATE AND DECIDE WHAT THEY THINK OF THIS INFORMATION. I SHRILL AGREE. >>THIS 434 PAGE REPORT OUT LINES 17 MAJOR ERRORS AND MISS STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE FBI OR DOJ IN SECURING WARRANTS. A NUMBER OF THEM ARE DEEPLY TROUBLING. THESE ARE NOT SMALL ERRORS. THESE ARE ABUSES OF POWER. LET’S FOCUS ON A COUPLE OF THEM. THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE AND THE FIRST ERROR YOU NOTE IN THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH APPLICATION FOR THE WARRANT IS THAT THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE REPORTING RAISED SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE STEEL WHICH WE NOW KNOW WAS A BUNCH TO USE A TERM THAT’S BEEN INTRODUCED AND THE BASIS OF THIS STEEL REPORT WAS WHAT’S REFERRED TO IN YOUR REPORT AS THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE. THAT WAS THE PRINCIPAL BASIS AND THE FBI INTERVIEWED THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE NOT ONCE, TWICE OR THREE TIMES IN JANUARY MARCH AND MAY OF 2017 SO THAT’S THE BASIS AS THE OIG REPORT SAYS THE INTERVIEW WITH THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE RAISED SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RELIABILITY OF THE STEEL REPORTING. WHAT DID THE SUB SOURCE SAY SPECIFICALLY AS YOUR REPORT GOES ON TO SAY STEEL MISS STATED OR EXAGGERATED MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE REPORTING. SAYS THAT PORTIONS OF IT PARTICULARLY THE MORE SECTIONAL PORTIONS WERE BASED ON RUMOR AND SPECULATION. IT SAYS THAT SOME OF THE BASIS CAME FROM FRIENDS OVER BEERS AND STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN JESES. AND THE PRIMARY SUB SOURCE ALSO SAYS TO TAKE THE OTHER SUB SOURCES WITH A GRAIN OF SALT AND WHAT THEY DID DO IN RENEWAL APPLICATION THEY ADVISED THE COURT THE FBI FOUND THE SOURCE TO BE TRUTHFUL AND COOPERATIVE WITH ZERO REVISIONS. YOU NOTE THAT AS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT MISS STATEMENT INTO IS GOING IN FRONT OF A COURT OF LAW RELYING ON FACTS THAT YOU KNOW NUMBER TWO WAS ADMITTING CARTER PAIGE’S PRIOR. THE UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE AGENCY THAT’S A PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT FACT. IF YOU ARE TELLING THE COURT THE FACT THAT THIS GUY CARTER PAIGE I DON’T KNOW BUT THE FACT HE’S TALKING TO RUSSIANS REALLY SUSPICIOUS WELL THE FACT THAT HE’S SERVING AS A SOURCE FOR U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS IS PRETTY DARN RELEVANT TO WHY HE’S TALKING TO RUSSIANS BECAUSE WE HAVE LOTS OF SOURCES TALKING TO BAD GUYS AND WHEN YOU DON’T TELL THE COURT THAT YOU’RE DECEIVING THE COURT. BUT IT’S WORSE THAN JUST DECEIVING THE COURT BECAUSE AS THE OIG REPORT DETAILS IN ASSISTED COUNSEL OF THE FBI ALTERED AN E- MAIL, FABRICATED EVIDENCE AND FROM THE OIG REPORT SPECIFICALLY THE WORDS AND NOT A SOURCE HAD BEEN INSERTED INTO THE E-MAIL. THAT E-MAIL THEN WAS SENT ONTO THE E-MAILS WITH THE OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE TO GO FORWARD AND AS THE REPORT SAID LET ME READ ON PAGE 256 CONSISTENT WITH THE ACT OF 1978 AND FOLLOWING THE DISCOVERY THAT THE OGC ATTORNEY HAD ALTERED THE E- MAIL HE SENT TO THE SUPERADVISING AGENT WHO RELIED ON IT TO SWEAR OUT THE FINAL FIESA APPLICATION SO THE MEN AND WOMEN AT HOME NEED TO KNOW WHAT’S HAPPENING. A LAWYER AT THE FBI CREATES FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE, ALTERS AN E-MAIL THAT IS IN TURN USED AS THE BASIS FOR A SWORN STATEMENT TO THE COURT THAT THE COURT RELIES ON. AM I STATED THAT ACCURATELY? >>THAT IS CORRECT. THAT’S WHAT OCCURRED. >>YOU HAVE WORKED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT A LONG TIME. IS THE PATTERN OF A. >>>OF JUSTICE EMPLOYEE ALTERING EVIDENCE AND SUBMITTING FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE THAT ULTIMATELY GETS SUBMITTED TO A COURT IS THAT COMMON PLACE? IS THAT TYPICAL? >>I HAVE NOT SEEN AN ALTERATION OF AN E-MAIL AND IMPACTING A COURT DOCUMENT LIKE THIS. . >>IN ANY ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE IF A PRIVATE CITIZEN DID THIS FABRICATED EVIDENCE AND BY THE WAY WHAT HE INSERTED WAS NOT JUST SLIGHTLY WRONG IT WAS 180 DEGREES OPPOSITE WHAT THE EVIDENCE SAID SO THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY SAID THIS GUY IS A SOURCE AND HE INSERTED THIS GUY AS NOT A SOURCE. IF A PRIVATE CITIZEN DID THAT IN ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION IF THEY FABRICATED EVIDENCE AND REVERSED WHAT IT SAID IN YOUR EXPERIENCE WOULD THAT PRIVATE CITIZEN BE PROSECUTED FOR EVIDENCE AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND PERJURY? >>THEY CERTAINLY WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT IF THERE WAS AN INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO DECEIVE THE COURT. ON THIS ONE I’M GOING TO DEFER BECAUSE AS WE NOTED HERE IN THE SENTENCE YOU INDICATED WE REFERRED THAT OVER TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FBI DIRECTOR FOR HANDLING. THIRD MAJOR OMISSION THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DID NOT TELL THE COURT THIS ENTIRE OPERATION WAS FUNDED BY THE DNC, HILARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND DEMOCRATS SOME LEVEL THIS IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE RESEARCH DUMP IN HISTORY BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT OF. >>AND FBI WERE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO BE FOR THIS RESEARCH DUMP. NOW THROUGHOUT EVERY ONE OF THE FILINGS DOJ AND THE FBI DIDN’T INFORM THE FIESA COURT THAT THIS WAS BEING PAID FOR BY THE DNC AND HILARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN. IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S NOT IN ANY OF THE APPLICATIONS. >>SO THEY DIDN’T TELL THE COURT THAT AND IT’S NOT LIKE DOJ DIDN’T KNOW INDEED ONE OF THE SENIOR DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS BRUCE OAR HIS WIFE WORKED AT FUSION GPS THE RESEARCH COMPANY BEING PAID BY THE–BY THE DNC AND HE BECAME THE PRINCIPAL LIAISON WITH STEEL WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT HE WAS ESSENTIALLY WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. WHO AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS–AND BY THE WAY, SEVERAL DEMOCRATS IT’S INTERESTING SEEING DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WANTING TO DEFEND THIS ABUSE OF POWER. SEVERAL SENATORS, SENATOR FINESTEIN SAID I WROTE THIS DOWN THE FBI DIDN’T PLACE SPIES IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. HE SAID SOMETHING SIMILAR. THAT MAY BE TRUE NOT SPIES IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BUT READING FROM YOUR REPORT THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY YOUR REPORT SAYS THEREAFTER THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM USED THE INTRUSIVE TECHNIQUES INCLUDING CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES TO INTERACT AND CONSENSUALLY RECORD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH PAIGE AND BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AS WELL AS ONE OCCASION WITH A HIGH LEVEL TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL WHO WAS NOT THE SUBJECT SO THEY DIDN’T PLACE SPIES IN THE CAMPAIGN BUT SENT SPIES TO RECORD IN THE MIDDLE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WHEN THAT CANDIDATE WAS THE NOMINEE FOR THE OTHER MAJOR PARTY THAT WAS THE OPPOSING PARTY TO THE ONE IN POWER IS THAT RIGHT? >>THEY SEND CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES IN TO DO THOSE. WHO KNEW ABOUT THIS? DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR WHITE HOUSE KNOW ABOUT THIS? >>BASED ON WHAT WE FOUND NOBODY HAD BEEN TOLD IN ADVANCE. THEY DID NOT. THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT SOMEBODY KNEW WHERE THE LINE ATTORNEYS IN NSD AND NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION WHEN THEY WERE TOLD VERY SELECTIVE PORTIONS OF WHAT HAD OCCURRED. NOBODY KNEW BEFORE HAND. NOBODY HAD BEEN BRIEFED AND FRANKLY THAT WAS ONE OF THE MOST CONCERNING THINGS HERE IS THAT NOBODY WOULD NEED IT TO BE TOLD. >>AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY TIME AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND FOR MY TIME AT LAW ENFORCEMENT ANY RESPONSIBLE LEADER WHEN HEARING THAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT SENDING IN SOPHIES AND A WIRE TAP ON ANY PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE SHOULD SAY WHAT IN THE ARE WE DOING AND BY THE WAY THE PEOPLE UP THE CHAIN WHO ARE SAYING WE DIDN’T KNOW IF YOU HAD RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP THERE’S NO MORE IMPORTANT DECISION. I CAN TELL YOU IF SOMEONE SAID LET’S TAP HILARY CLINTON OR LET’S TAP BILL CLINTON OR JOHN KERRY THE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE SAID WHAT IN THE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON HERE THIS WASN’T JASON BOURNE. >>>I WANT TO TONE THINGS DOWN A LITTLE BIT. >>AND FIRST TO EXPRESS MY GRATITUDE FOR THE THOUSANDS OF MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK EVERY DAY ON THE FRONT LINE WITH THE FBI. OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT WORK WITH THE FBI EVERY DAY. AND IN THE SENATE I’VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO WORK WITH MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN THE FBI. AND I THINK THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S JOB IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. HE KEEPS EVERYONE HONEST. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT FOR THOSE AGENTS AND THOSE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT ARE WATCHING TODAY THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE UP HERE THAT UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE DOING YOUR JOBS. AND WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE. BEFORE I START MY QUESTIONS, I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO PUT THIS DISCUSSION IN CONTEXT WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE 2016 ELECTION WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. IT IS NOW UNDISPUTED BY OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCY THAT IS RUSSIA INVADED OUR DEMOCRACY NOT WITH BOMBS OR JETS OR TANKS BUT WITH A SOPHISTICATED CYBER MISSION TO UNDERMINE THE UNDERPINNINGS OF OUR VERY DEMOCRACY. A DEMOCRACY THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN AND WOMEN HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES ON THE BATTLEFIELD DEFENDING OUR DEMOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY ABROAD. A DEMOCRACY THAT AT THE HEIGHT OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT LOST THEIR LIVES IN A CHURCH IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA. PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE DEMOCRACY WAS EXTENDED TO PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. LET’S REMEMBER WHY WE’RE HERE TODAY. LET’S REMEMBER THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY WHO SERVED IN THE SENATE. WELL RESPECTED. AND HE SAID THAT IN FACT, RUSSIA HAS BEEN EMBOLDENED TO DO THIS AGAIN. SENATOR GRAHAM MADE CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT UKRAINE, IT WAS RUSSIA. AND IT WAS THE WORDS OF FIONA HILL AND THE IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS IN THE HOUSE I THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER. ANYONE THAT IS REPEATING THIS LIE IS BASICALLY PEDALING IN RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA. LET’S REMEMBER THIS IS NOT ABOUT ONE ELECTION OR ONE PARTY. IT IS ABOUT OUR DEMOCRACY. WHAT CAN WE DO? WE CAN BE HONEST AND STOP MAKING POLITICAL HAY OUT OF THIS AND TAKE SOME ACTIONS TO PROTECT OUR ELECTION IN 2020 AND THAT INCLUDES FINISHING THE WORK THAT SENATOR LANGFORD AND I HAVE STARTED TO PASS NOT ONLY THE MONEY BUT GET IN PLACE REQUIREMENTS TO PUSH THE STATES THAT DON’T HAVE BACKUP PAPER BALLOTS TO GET THOSE BACKUP PAPER BALLOTS AND TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AUDITS AND BETTER COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITIES. AND MOVE FORWARD ON THE BILL THAT SENATOR McCAIN AND I HAD AND SENATOR GRAHAM AND I HAVE. REQUIRES THE SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES AND, TO PLAY BY THE SAME RULES FOR PAID POLITICAL ADS WHICH WOULD GREATLY HELP US BUT NOT COMPLETELY WITH THE PRO- EN PROPAGANDA PROBLEM. YOU INTERVIEWED 100 WITNESSES AND REVIEWED 1 MILLION DOCUMENTS. IS THAT RIGHT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AND UNDER DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES AN INVESTIGATION HAS AN AUTHORIZED PURPOSE IF IT IS OPEN TO DETECT, OBTAIN, OR PREVENT FEDERAL CRIMES TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY OR COLLECT FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. YOU FOUND THAT THE INVESTIGATION AT ISSUE WAS OPEN TO DETERMINE WHETHER PEOPLE ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WERE COORDINATING WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. >>S THAT THE REASON THE FBI PROVIDED. >>AND AGAIN TO BE CLEAR. YOU DID NOT FIND THAT THE FBI ACTED IMPROPERLY WHEN IT OPENED THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION THAT YOU REVIEWED IN WRITING IN THIS REPORT. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>THE DEPARTMENT’S GUIDELINES ALSO REQUIRE THAT A DECISION TO OPEN INVESTIGATION IS SUPPORTED BY AS YOU DESCRIBE IN YOUR REPORT ALLEGATIONS, REPORTS, FACTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT INDICATE THE POSSIBILITY OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY OR A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT. AND YOU FOUND THAT THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION WAS PREDICATED ON A REPORT FROM A FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT THAT HEARD THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD RECEIVED SOME KIND OF SUGGESTION THAT RUSSIA COULD HELP THEM BY RELEASING INFORMATION DAMAGING TO HILLARY CLINTON. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AS A FORMER PROSECUTOR I KNOW THAT IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE FBI IS ABLE TO TAKE AN ACTION TO INVESTIGATE THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. DO YOU THINK THAT INTERFERENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS BY A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTES A NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT? >>YES, I DO. >>OKAY. DOES ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT CALL INTO QUESTION THE FINDING IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT INTERFERED IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION. >>NO IT DOESN’T. AND WE LAY OUT ALL THE REPORTS. >>DOES ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT CALL INTO QUESTION THE REPUBLICAN CHAIRMAN BIRD’S STATEMENT THAT RUSSIA IS WAGING AN INFORMATION WAR FAIR CAMPAIGN. >>DOES ANYTHING IN THE REPORT CALL INTO QUESTION THE ASSESSMENT BY FBI DIRECTOR RAY THAT RUSSIA’S INTERFERENCE IS ONGOING AND THE INTERFERENCE IN THE MIDTERMS WERE A DRESS REHEARSAL FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS? >>NO, IT DOESN’T. >>DOES ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT CALL INTO QUESTION THE FINDING IN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT THAT THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT PERCEIVED IT WOULD BENEFIT FROM A TRUMP PRESIDENCY. >>WE DON’T TAKE ISSUE WITH ANY PART OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL’S REPORT, NO. >>DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL BIAS OR OTHER IMPROPER CONSIDERATION AFFECTED THE FBI’S DECISION TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION INTO GEORGE PAPADOPOULOS. >>NO, WE DON’T. >>DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE OF POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER CONSIDERATIONS THE INVESTIGATION TO MICHAEL FLYNN? >>WE DID NOT. >>ANY INVESTIGATION THAT POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTED THE DECISION TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION INTO CARTER PAGE? >>NO DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OR OTHER EVIDENCE. >>SO WE ARE CLEAR, DID YOUR REPORT UNCOVER SYSTEMATIC POLITICAL BIAS AT THE FBI? >>AS TO WHAT WE LOOKED AT IN THE OPENINGS, WE DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. >>CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHY IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE RULE OF LAW AND THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. >>I ALSO WAS A PROSECUTOR AND DID PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASES IN NEW YORK, AND THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL IS NONPOLITICAL DECISION MAKING MADE BY PROSECUTORS AND AGENTS WORKING TOGETHER TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES. >>VERY GOOD. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE YOU BRIEFLY DISCUSSED WHISTLE BLOWERS. WITH SENATOR FEINSTEIN BECAUSE IT’S TO IMPORTANT. AND SENATOR CARES A LOT ABOUT THIS ISSUE. CAN YOU SPEAK GENERALLY INTO HOW OFTEN IN YOUR CAREER INFORMATION PROVIDED TO WHISTLE BLOWERS HAS LED TO UNCOVER WRONGDOING. >>I’LL SPEAK TO MY EXPERIENCE IN THE SEVEN YEARS AS ARKS G YEARS AS AND GOING BACK TO NEW YORK DOING POLICE CORRUPTION CASES, WE HAD AN INCREDIBLY BRAVE AND KRANGS POLICE OFFICER WHO SAW CORRUPTION AND CAME FORWARD AND REPORTED IT. AND ALLOWED US TO MAKE A VERY SUBSTANTIAL POLICE CORRUPTION CASE THAT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED BUT FOR THAT COURAGEOUS OFFICER. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT’S REALLY HELPFUL. >>AFTER YOU REPORT WAS RELEASED ON MONDAY, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR STATED HIS OPINION THAT THE FBI LAUNCH. ON THE THINNEST OF SUSPICIONS. WHEN THE FBI DECIDED TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATIONS, THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE WAS ALREADY AWARE OF RUSSIAN EFFORTS TO INTERFERE WITH THE 2016 ELECTION. IS THAT CORRECT? >>I’M NOT SURE WHAT THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE KNEW AT THE TIME. >>IT WAS IN THAT CONTEXT THAT THE FBI RECEIVED INFORMATION, I’M JUST GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT THE FBI RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WHICH WE KNOW CAME FROM AN AUSTRALIAN DIPLOMAT. AND A TRUMP CAMPAIGN OFFICIAL SUGGESTED THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD RECEIVED SOME KIND OF SUGGESTION FROM RUSSIA. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>YOUR REPORT QUOTED CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY DIVISION DAVID LOCKMAN WHO SAID THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DERELICTION OF DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER NOT TO COMMIT THE APPROPRIATE RESOURCES AS URGENTLY AS POSSIBLE TO RUN THESE FACTS TO THE GROUND AND FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON. IS THAT CORRECT. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>AT THAT TIME DO YOU AGREE WITH ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR THAT THE INVESTIGATION WAS PREDICATED ON THE THINNEST OF SUSPICIONS? >>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO A COMPARISON OF HIS VIEW. HE’S FREE TO HAVE HIS OPINION. AND I STAND BY OUR CONCLUSION ú PREDICATION TO OPEN THE INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE LOW THRESHOLD REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT AND FBI POLICY. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>THANK YOU. WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT PAPADOPOULOS. I DON’T KNOW ANYBODY TO BELIEVE THAT ANYBODY NAMED IN THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CONVICTED OF BEING AN AGENT OF THE RUSSIANS. HAS ANYBODY ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEEN CHARGED AS AN AGENT OF THE RUSSIANS? >>NOT THAT I KNOW. >>HE WAS BEING SURVEILLED BY THE FBI, IS THAT CORRECT? >>YES, THEY DID, THEY CONSIDERED BY DID NOT PROCEED TO SEEK A FISA APPLICATION. >>HE WAS BEING WIRETAPPED AND DIDN’T KNOW IT. >>AN UNDERCOVER OPERATION AND HAVING A WIRE. >>HE’S TALKING TO SOMEBODY THAT’S GOT A WIRE. >>I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL. YOU DO A WIRE AND YOU THINK OF A COURT ORDER. >>TRUST ME, THIS WAS DONE BECAUSE THEY CAN DO IT. THEY DON’T HAVE TO GET ANYBODY’S APPROVAL. >>THEY NEED SUPERVISORY APPROVAL. >>I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT HE SAID. >>NO, WE DON’T WANT TO WORK WITH THE RUSSIANS. I’M SUMMARIZING. THAT WOULD BE TREASON. >>MR. HIS OR HER WITS HOROWITZ, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT ARE REALLY TROUBLING, BUT SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN UNPACKED PRETTY FULLY. I’M GOING TO PICK UP SOME LOOSE ENDS. >>BRUCE ORR, WHO IS HE AND WHAT’S HIS ROLE AT THE DEPARTMENT. AND LET’S TALK ABOUT THE BIZARRE PATHWAY HE BECAME INVOLVED. >>HE WAS AN ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE HEAD OF THE DRUG TASK FORCE. THE ORGANIZED CRIME AND DRUG ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE. AND THAT’S CONNECTED HOW? >>IT IS NOT. >>WHAT THE IS HE DOING HERE? >>THAT WAS PRECISELY THE CONCERN THAT WE LAY OUT. HE HAD NO ROLE IN ANY OF THE ELECTION INTERFERENCE MATTERS. >>WE HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA WHO WANTED TO HAVE A PREDETERMINED ANSWER FOR HOW TO INTERPRET EACH PIECE OF THIS. AS THE CHAIRMAN BEGAN TODAY, HE SAID PREDICATE OF INVESTIGATION APPROPRIATE BUT SOME MINOR MISTAKES AND ERRORS WERE MADE. YOU’VE OUTLINED IN THE REPORT, 17 SIGNIFICANT ERRORS IN THIS INVESTIGATION. BRUCE ORR WHO HAS A VERY SIGNIFICANT SENIOR ROLE, THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS PRIMARY OVERSIGHT OF ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN THE COUNTRY. AND IF YOU’RE IN THE FBI AND MIGHT MAKE A MISTAKE, THE PEOPLE YOU’D BE IN TROUBLE WITH NORMALLY ARE IN THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE. AND HERE’S A GUY IN THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE WHO GETS INVOLVED AND INSERTS HIMSELF INTO THE INVESTIGATION. AND IT’S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A SYSTEMIC FAILURE IF A GUY WHO SHOULD BE DOING OVERSIGHT ON THIS IF HELPN’T ON ANOTHER, IF HELP GOING TO GET INVOLVED. HE SHOULD BE CHECKING THE WORK OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THE WORK. AND THERE ARE PROTOCOLS AND PROVISIONS VIOLATED. AND BRUCE ORR DECIDES TO GET INFORMATION OUT OF THE CHRISTOPHER STEEL AFTER HE HAD BEEN CUT OFF BY THE FBI. WHY DID THE FBI DECIDE TO NO LONGER LISTEN TO CHRISTOPHER STEELE? >>HE WAS CLOSED IN NOVEMBER 2016 AFTER THE FBI LEARNED OF HIS DISCLOSURE TO MOTHER JONES MAGAZINE THAT HE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH THE FBI PREVIOUSLY. >>AND WE KNOW FROM THE EVIDENCE THAT SENATOR CRUZ WENT THROUGH, THERE WERE A BUNCH OF SUB SOURCES THAT CHRISTOPHER STEELE WAS SUMMARIZING AND THE FBI WAS BELIEVING HE MIGHT BE A CREDIBLE GUY. AND THEY ULTIMATELY REALIZED THIS IS A BUNCH OF B.S. AND HE SAID SOME OF THIS IS OVERHEARD IN A BAR. NONE OF IT THE FIRST HAND. AND THE FBI DECIDES THAT MR. STEELE’S INFORMATION IS NOT CREDIBLE. >>LET ME BE CLEAR. WHAT CAUSED THEM TO CUT HIM OFF WAS TALKING TO THE PRESS IN THE MAGAZINE. >>SO YOU’RE DISAGREEING WITH ME TO SAY THAT THE PROBLEMS ARE TWICE AS BAD AS SUMMARIZED. >>THAT ISN’T WHY THEY CUT HIM OFF. THAT’S THE CONCERN. >>BRUCE ORR WHO DOESN’T HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITIES IN THIS AREA DECIDES INSERT HIMSELF IN THE INVESTIGATION AND GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM OR ABOUT CHRISTOPHER STEELE AND THE PEOPLE. >>WHO IS HE MARRIED TO? >>BRUCE ORR’S SPOUSE, NELLY ORR, AT THE TIME HE STARTED INTERACTING IN NOVEMBER 2016 WITH STEELE HAD BEEN A FORMER INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR FOR FUSION GPS. >>SO BRUCE ORR DECIDES TO INSERT HIMSELF INTO AN INVESTIGATION AFTER THE PROFESSIONAL AGENTS SAID MR. STEELE ISN’T REPUTABLE OR CREDIBLE AND HAS BEEN TALKING TO THE MEDIA. SO WE’RE NOT GOING TO TALK TO CHRISTOPHER STEELE ANY MORE. AND HE MEETS WITH THE EMPLOYERS OF CHRISTOPHER STEELE WHO IS ALSO BRUCE ORR’S WIFE’S SOURCE OF COMPENSATION. >>HAD BEEN. AS OF SEPTEMBER 2016 SHE HAD NO LONGER BEEN AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INAPPROPRIATE ACTIONS. THE FBI WAS NOT A RELUCTANT PARTICIPANT IN THIS RELATIONSHIP THAT WAS OF A CON DUDE FROM BRUCE ORR THROUGH BRUCE ORR TO STEELE AS WE LAY OUT HERE. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. THEY ARE SAYING IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING, WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. >>I WISH MIKE LEE WERE NOT SITTING HERE BECAUSE AS A NATIONAL SECURITY HAWK, I HAVE ARGUED WITH MIKE LEE IN THE 4 1/2 OR FIVE YEARS THAT STUFF LIKE THIS COULDN’T POSSIBLY HAPPEN AT THE FBI AND AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. AS SOMEBODY WHO IS EMBARRASSED ON BEHALF OF THE FBI ABOUT YOUR REPORT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IT’S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE FISA STATUTE. THE APPROVAL RATING OF APPLICATIONS THAT COME BEFORE THE ARE OFF THE CHARTS. A COUPLE YEARS AGO. 97.9%. >>THE LAST NUMBER WAS 98%. >>98% APPROVAL RATINGS. WHY WOULD IT BE THAT HIGH? PEOPLE WOULD SAY. IN A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT. WHEN YOU THE AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO MIGHT BE BEING SURVEILLED OR SUSPECTED OF SOMETHING TO OPEN A SURVEILS WARRANT, THE ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT IF YOU CAN’T BE THERE, IT’S THAT THE DEPARTMENT’S LAWYERS ARE SO SCRUPULOUS THAT IF THERE’S ANY INFORMATION THAT MIGHT EXONERATE YOU, THEY WOULD SAY THE BAR IS SO HIGH, WE ALWAYS ERR ON THE SIDE OF PRIVACY. AND MIKE LEE HAS WARNED ME FOR 4 1/2 YEARS, THE POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE IS TERRIBLE. AND I CONSTANTLY DEFENDED THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE BUREAU THAT YOU COULDN’T HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPEN. LET’S MOVE TO THE RENEWALS. THE FIRST ONE WE CAN HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS POLITICAL BIAS. THE SECOND, THE THIRD, AND THE FOURTH WARRANT AGAINST OR FISA PROCEEDING AGAINST CARTER PAGE, BASED ON AN ASSUMPTION THAT WE HAVE A BUNCH OF INFORMATION THE FIRST TIME, AND IF WE THOUGHT IT WAS LEGITIMATE TO OPEN A CASE INTO THIS GUY, THE BUREAU IS GOING TO HAVE SO MUCH INTEGRATE AND IF THERE’S A REASON FOR THEM TO DOUBT INFORMATION THAT LED TO THE OPENING APPLICATION, THEY’LL BRING US THAT INFORMATION. IN RENEWALS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, THEY BRING NONE OF THIS INFORMATION? >>THAT’S CORRECT. THE THEY ARE NOT TELLING THE DEPARTMENT SO THE LAWYERS CAN DECIDE. >>WE FACE A MASSIVE, AN OPEN SOCIETY IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO THE KINDS OF INFLUENCE OPERATIONS THAT RUSSIA RUNS AGAINST US ON A DAILY BASIS, AND CHINA IS EVENTUALLY GOING TO RUN AGAINST US IN A SOPHISTICATED WAY. THE REAL DEBATE WE SHOULD BE HAVING ON TV AND IN THE JOURNALISTIC COMMUNITY IS NOT ABOUT MAKING THIS MONTH 48 OR MONTH 49 OF THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THAT WILL NEVER DIE. WE SHOULD BE HAVING AN ADVANCE CONVERSATION ABOUT 2024, 2028, AND 2032. CHINA WILL BE FAR MORE SOPHISTICATED THAN THIS. IF THE BUREAU FUNCTIONS THIS POORLY, WHEN WE HAVE A SOPHISTICATED ATTACK, WE’LL HAVE A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM IF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T THINK THEY CAN TRUST IT. WHETHER PEOPLE AGREE ON WHETHER OR NOT POLITICAL BIAS WAS A FACTOR. THERE’S A MASSIVE CULTURAL FAILING INSIDE THE D.O.J. WITHOUT ANYBODY THINKING THAT THEIR WORK IS GOING TO BE SCRUTINIZED AGAIN. IF THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS, AND THIS IS ARGUABLY THE SECOND, THIRD, OR FOURTH MOST IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION. IF THIS HAVE BEEN HAPPEN IN AN INVESTIGATION WHERE THEY SUSPECT A LOT OF SCRUTINY. WHAT IS YOUR SUSPICION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN A REGULAR FISA PROCESS. THIS CAN HAPPEN AGAINST A CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES. WHAT HAPPENS IN AN ORDINARY FISA CASE. >>THAT WAS OUR CONCERN AND WHY WE STARTED A NEW AUDIT TO LOOK AT THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE SIDE AND THE COUNTERTERRORISM SIDE. WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON THERE? WE DON’T, WE WANT TO BE FAIR. BUT FOR THE REASONS YOU INDICATED. IF IT’S HAPPENING HERE, WHAT’S GOING ON ELSEWHERE. >>I WANT TO SUMMARIZE SOMETHING YOU SAY ON PAGE 14 WHICH IS TO THIS POINT. SO MANY PEOPLE ARE READING THE HEARING AND LISTENING TO THE HEARING OF WHO THE FAVORITE RED OR BLUE JERSEY TEAM WAS IN THE 2016 ELECTION. THERE ARE SO MANY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS, THAT SO MANY BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS WERE MADE BY THREE SEPARATE HAND PICKED TEAMS ON ONE OF THE SENSITIVE. AND THE FBI OFFICIALS WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO CLOSE SCRUTINY RACE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF THE FISA PROCESS. THIS WAS A FAILURE OF NOT ONLY THE OPERATIONAL TEAM BUT OF THE MANAGERS AND THE SUPERVISORS, INCLUDING THE SENIOR OFFICIALS IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE FBI REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THESE EMPLOYEES AND WHO HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PREPARATION, THE WOODS REVIEW WHICH IS YOU CHECK YOUR WORK AND DO WE HAVE FOOTNOTES AND COULD WE CORROBORATE THIS IF ASKED TO. OR PICKING UP THE QUOTE. APPROVAL OF THE FISA APPLICATIONS AS WELL AS THE MANAGERS AND SUPERVISORS IN THE CHAIN OF COMMAND IN THE CARTER PAGE INVESTIGATION, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, TAKE ACTION DEEMED APPROPRIATE. THIS MEANS POTENTIAL DISCIPLINE AND FIRING I ASSUME. AND GIVEN THE COMPLIANCE FAILURES, WE, TO ASSESS THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND FISA RELATED POLICIES THAT SEEK TO PROTECT THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE U.S. PERSONS ALSO KNOWN AS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. AND WE HAVE INITIATED, IT’S A BIG HEADLINE. WE HAVE INITIATED AN O I G AUDIT. THAT TARGET U.S. PERSONS IN BOTH COUNTERINTELLIGENCE. THAT’S A BIG HEADLINE. YOU’RE SAYING THERE’S A SYSTEMATIC CULTURAL FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY RELATED TO THE FISA PROCESS. MIKE LEE DOESN’T DRINK BUT I’D BUY HIM WHISKEY IF HE DID. AND HE’S RIGHT ABOUT THINGS THAT. IF WE HAD TIME FOR ANOTHER ROUND, I THINK WE SHOULD ASK SOME FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DEFENSIVE BRIEFING. AND THE AMERICAN SYSTEM WHEN THE PEOPLE GET TO PICK POLITICIANS TO REPRESENT THEM, THE POLITICIANS ARE NOT BETTER THAN THE BUREAUCRATS, BUT THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HOLD CERTIFICATES OF ELECTION. THE POLITICIANS DON’T KNOW AS MUCH AS THE BUREAUCRATS AT THE TOP LEVELS OF THE AGENCIES. THE AGENCY EXPERTS HAVE BEEN THERE ARE FOR A LONG TIME. AND THAT’S WHAT THEY SHOULD BE ABOUT NOT AN INVESTIGATORY TROJAN HORSE. >>I’M IMPRESSED BY THE THURSDAYNESS OF YOUR TEAM’S WORK. THOROUGHNESS OF YOUR TEAM’S WORK. MORE THAN 100 WITNESSES. AND 170 INTERVIEWS. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THIS IS A TESTAMENT TO THE RULE OF LAW AND THE TRANSPARENTY OF OUR SYSTEM THAT YOUR OFFICE CAN PRODUCE A SEARCHING AND THOROUGH REPORT THAT CONTAINS CRITICISM OF THE MOST POWERFUL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS IN THE NATION. >>I COULDN’T AGREE WITH YOU MORE. AND A TESTAMENT TO THE CONGRESS. >>THIS IS WHY WE HAVE YOUR OFFICE TO PROVIDE AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF THE FACTS THAT’S NOT BEHOLDEN TO ANY PARTISAN AGENDA. THE FBI ACCEPTS THE REPORT’S FINDINGS AND EMBRACES THE NEED FOR THOUGHT, MEANINGFUL, REMEDIAL ACTION. MY APPRECIATE TO YOU AND DIRECTOR WRAY FOR BEING GUIDED BY THE FACTS. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS CALLED THE ENTIRE RUSSIA INVESTIGATION A WITCH HUNT AND A HOAX. BUT YOUR REPORT FOUND THAT THE FBI HAD AN AUTHORIZED PURPOSE WHEN IT OPENED THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHETHER INDIVIDUALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAMPAIGN WERE COORDINATING WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT’S BROAD EFFORTS TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 ELECTION GROUNDED IN PROTECTING NATIONAL SECURITY. DO YOU STAND BY THAT CONCLUSION? >>WE STAND BY THE CONCLUSION. >>RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE HACKED THE DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE AND THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN. DOES YOUR REPORT. >>WE DON’T DISPROVE ANY OF THE FINDINGS. >>WE KNOW RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE WAS ACTING TO RELEASE STOLEN E- MAILS THROUGH WIKILEAKS AND, WITH AN INTENTION TO HELP PRESIDENT TRUMP’S CAMPAIGN. >>THE RUSSIAN RESEARCH AGENCY CONDUCTED A CAMPAIGN ON SOCIAL MEDIA TO TRY TO SEW DISCORD AND YOUR REPORT DOESN’T DISAGREE WITH THAT CONCLUSION. WHEN THE FBI OPENED THIS INVESTIGATION KNOWN AS CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. RUSSIA WAS ENGAGING IN AN UNPRECEDENTED AND BROAD SCALE ATTACK ON OUR ELECTION AND DEMOCRACY. AND THEN CANDIDATE TRUMP’S RESPONSE WAS TO SAY AND I QUOTE AS A CANDIDATE, RUSSIA IF YOU’RE LISTENING, I HOPE YOU’RE ABLE TO FIND HILLARY’S E-MAILS, IT WAS TO PRAISE WIKILEAKS, AND TO SUGGEST THAT RUSSIA WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE. AND IT MIGHT BE SOMEONE WEIGHING 400 POUNDS SITTING ON A BED IN A HOME. >>I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO SEE OUR PRESIDENT CRITICIZE THE RUSSIANS THEN. BUT TO YOUR REPORT. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE APPROVED THE OPENING OF THE FBI INVESTIGATION INTO POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE, THERE WAS A COUNTER-ER INTELLIGENCE CONCERN THAT THE FBI WAS OBLIGATED TO INVESTIGATE. DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL TO, MOTIVATED BY BIAS, PARTISANSHIP RATHER THAN A SENSE OF OBLIGATION? >>WE DID NOT. >>ON MARCH 2017. PRESIDENT TRUMP WE WANT TOED. JUST FOUND OUT OBAMA HAD MY WIRES TAPPED. THIS IS MCCARTHYISM. DID YOUR INVESTIGATION IDENTIFY ANY EVIDENCE THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA ORDERED THE FBI TO TAP DONALD TRUMP’S PHONE. >>WE DIDN’T FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT ANY OTHER PHONES WERE TAPPED. >>BUT AN FBI EMPLOYEE DOCTORED AN E-MAIL. >>CORRECT. >>AS YOU REPORT CONCLUDES, I’M HERE TO RESTATE THAT’S INEXCUSABLE AND WE MUST HOLD FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS, EVEN THOSE OF US WHO SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT. WHO APPOINTED CHRIS WRAY? >>PRESIDENT TRUMP. >>AND DID DIRECTER WRAY ACCEPT ALL OF THE FINDINGS? >>HE DID. >>AND THAT INCLUDES THAT INVESTIGATIONS WERE OPENED WITH ADEQUATE PREDICATION. DID HE AGREE WITH THAT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>YOUR REPORT IDENTIFIED ERRORS. WE SHOULDN’T MINIMIZE THE ERRORS. THE REPORT DOESN’T SPECULATE AS TO WHETHER A FISA WARRANT HAD BEEN AUTHORIZED. IS THAT CORRECT. >>MR. PAGE WAS NOT INDICTED IN THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. >>HE WAS NOT CHARGED AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND. >>BUT THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, PERSONAL ATTORNEY, AND LONGTIME STRATEGISTS WERE ALL CONVICTED OF CRIMES OR PLED GUILTY IN FEDERAL COURTS. IS THAT CORRECT? >>I THINK I FOLLOWED THE LIST BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU’RE SAYING. >>DID YOU IDENTIFY FISA ERRORS WHERE REDS TO ANY OTHER TRUMP. >>THE ONLY FISA WE FOUND EXISTED WAS THE ONE WE’VE WRITTEN ABOUT. >>IN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND THE INVESTIGATION AND THE OUTCOME, I THOUGHT IT WAS WORTH REPEATING THAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION PRODUCED 37 INDICTMENTS, GUILT PLEAS AND NONE OF THOSE ARE CALLED INTO QUESTION BY YOUR REPORT. >>WE DON’T ADDRESS THOSE AT ALL. >>ONE POINT WITH SOME BIPARTISAN AGREEMENT TODAY IS A RENEWED INTEREST IN REFORMING THE FISA PROCESS. AND WHILE WE CONTINUE TO CONSIDER, I’D WELCOME DISCUSSIONS FROM FBI DIRECTOR WRAY TO ENSURE THAT THE ERRORS DON’T HAPPEN AGAIN WHILE ENSURING THE. I THINK CONGRESS SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER REFORMS TO SAFEGUARD CIVIL LIBERTIES AND I’M MORE IN SENATOR LEE’S CAMP. DO YOU BELIEVE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS YOU REPORT WOULD BENEFIT FROM CONGRESSIONAL ACTION TO REFORM THE FISA PROCESS. >>THAT’S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DEPARTMENT. WE DON’T MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS. CONGRESS THOUGH AS IMPORTANT ISSUES TO THINK ABOUT IN THIS REPORT AS TO HOW THIS PROCESS CAN BE IMPROVED AND ENSURE THAT THESE KINDS OF ERRORS ARE ADDRESSED GOING FORWARD. >>INSPECTOR GENERAL, I AM GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE AND WORK. LET ME CONCLUDE WITH ONE LAST QUESTION. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT FBI AGENTS AND OFFICIALS WERE BIASED AGAINST HIM AND WORKED TO FAVOR THE CAMPAIGN OF HIS OPPONENT, HILLARY CLINTON. IN YOUR INVESTIGATION DID YOU FIND THAT THE FBI TOOK ANY INVESTIGATIVE STEP BASED ON POLITICAL BIAS AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP? >>I’M GOING TO BE CAREFUL ON THAT BECAUSE OF THE REFERRAL WE MADE ON THE ALTERED E-MAIL AND THE OTHER ISSUES. >>DID YOU FIND ANY SUBSTANTIVE STEP INFLUENCED BY POLITICAL BIAS? >>AGAIN, I’M GOING TO BE CAREFUL. WE HAVE THE ALTERED E-MAIL BY THE INDIVIDUAL AS WE KNOW IN THE FOOTNOTES HAD TEXT MESSAGES CONCERNING THAT WE IDENTIFIED LAST YEAR. SO I’M GOING TO DEFER ON WHAT THAT, WHAT THE RATIONALE MIGHT HAVE BEEN. >>OVERARCHING, THE IN ADDITION OF THE INVESTIGATION WAS WELL PREDICATED AND FOR A LAWFUL PURPOSE. >>GOING BACK TO THE OPENING, CORRECT. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT. >>AS TO EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWED THE OPENING, THERE’S A LOT OF CONCERN? >>I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE FISA PROCESS AND HOW THAT OCCURRED. THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT ISSUE RAISES POLICY QUESTIONS, BUT WE FOUND THEY COMPLIED WITH THE POLICIES. >>PETER STRZOK WORKED FOR WHO? >>OVER TIME HE MOVED UP THE CHAIN. BUT SOME OF THE KEY TIMES, MR. PRIEST. >>SENATOR HOLLY. >>LET ME START WHERE SENATOR KUHN’S LEFT OFF. YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE FISA WARRANTS. WHEN IT CAME TO POLITICAL BIAS. THINGS GET MURKIER. YOU CAN OPEN AN INVESTIGATION. I SAY THAT AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOU’VE TESTIFIED THAT IT CAN BE DONE QUITE EASILY. BUT WHEN YOU START TAKING STEPS AND GATHERING EVIDENCE AND START SURVEILLING AMERICANS, THAT’S WHEN REAL QUESTIONS ARISE. AND YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY AND IN THIS REPORT IS THAT WHEN THIS HAPPENED, THERE’S CONCERNS ABOUT POLITICAL BIAS, IS THAT CORRECT? >>WE HAVE ACTIONS NOT CONSISTENT. AND WE COULDN’T REACH A CONCLUSION. >>WHICH IS WORSE? IS IT WORSE TO HAVE A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT TRYING TO MEDICAL UNTIL OUR ELECTIONS? OR TO HAVE OUR OWN GOVERNMENT MEDDLING IN THE ELECTION? >>I THINK THAT’S WHAT THIS REPORT SHOWS. OUR GOVERNMENT, THE MOST POWERFUL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY, THE FBI, MEDDLED IN THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. AND YOU EXPECT IT FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS. I’M NOT SAYING IT’S GOOD. RUSSIA HAS BEEN DOING IT FOR YEARS. CHINA HAS BEEN DOING IT. OTHERS HAVE BEEN DOING IT. AND WE KNOW WHAT STEPS TO TAKE. WE HAVE TO TAKE THEM MORE EFFECTIVELY. BUT WHEN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT DOES IT, WHAT DO WE DO? AND THERE’S ONE ACTOR WHO HAS NOT GOTTEN THE CREDIT THAT THEY DESERVE. AND THAT’S THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. I’VE SEEN MY FRIENDS COMPLAIN ABOUT HOW INEFFECTIVE HILLARY CLINTON’S CAMPAIGN WAS. I BEG TO DIFFER. THIS IS THE MOST INCREDIBLE. THE DNC PAYS FOR STEELE DOSSIER. SOLICITS THE STEELE DOSSIER. AND THEN GETS THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO GET FISA WARRANTS, SURVEIL AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. SURVEIL A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ALL ON THE BASE OF MANUFACTURED GARBAGE THAT THEY PAID FOR. THAT’S GOT TO BE THE IF IRRELEVANT IN HISTORY. ARE YOU AWARE OTHER OF ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN BEING TARGETED BY THE FBI DURING THE CAMPAIGN LIKE THE TRUMP ONE WAS TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE? >>I WOULDN’T SUGGEST I’M AN EXPERT. >>BUT YOU’RE NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING LIKE THIS. AND I’M CORRECT IN THINKING THAT THE FUSION GPS DOSSIER WAS SOLICITED BY THE DNC. >>IT WAS ULTIMATELY LEARNED BY THE FBI THAT WAS THE CASE OR THAT CAME TO BE THEIR BELIEF. >>WE GET THE STEELE DOSSIER. AND IT’S FED TO THE FBI. THE FBI GOES AND ASKS FOR THE FISA WARRANTS WHICH HAVE ALL OF THE PROBLEMS YOU HAVE ARTICULATED AND MY COLLEAGUES HAVE DRAWN OUT, INCLUDING OUTRIGHT FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE. THEY ALSO GET THE DNC ALSO GETS NEWS STORIES WRITTEN DURING THE CAMPAIGN ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM. IN SEPTEMBER OF 2016 THERE’S A STORY ABOUT POSSIBLE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. IN OCTOBER OF 2016 THERE’S A STORY ABOUT THE FBI INVESTIGATING THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. AND WE KNOW ON THE LAST ONE THAT STEELE HIMSELF WAS INVOLVED. IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT AND THE FBI KNEW HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE SEPTEMBER 1 AS WELL THAT YOUR REFERENCING. >>AND WHAT ACTION DID THE FBI TAKE WHEN THEY KNEW THESE FACTS? >>IN NOVEMBER THEY CLOSED HIM. >>WHAT STEPS DID THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAMS TAKE? >>WHAT HAPPENED IS THEY CLOSED HIM AS A SOURCE IN NOVEMBER. BUT THAT’S WHEN THE MEETINGS WITH MR. ORR STARTED WHERE HE WAS A CONDUIT. >>THE FBI TAKES THE INFORMATION JUST VIA A D.O.J. CONDUIT. AND AFTER THEY KNOW HE’S TOTALLY INCREDIBLE. THIS IS THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE 2016 CAMPAIGN. AND I DON’T KNOW WHO AT THE DNC HATCHED THIS, I SUPPOSE THEY OUGHT TO MAYBE TAKE A VICTORY LAP FOR IT. TO GET THE FBI TO LAUNCH SURVEILLANCE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN AND INTO THE TERM. IT’S JUST EXTRAORDINARY. IT’S ABSOLUTELY EXTRAORDINARY. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE THESE INDIVIDUALS WHOSE MISDEEDS THAT YOU HAVE DOCUMENTED HERE IN THIS REPORT, THE MEMBERS, I’M THINKING OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE TEAM. ARE THEY STILL TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE WORKING AT THE FBI. >>SOME ARE, SOME AREN’T? >>WHY? WHY ARE THEY STILL THERE? >>YOU’D HAVE TO ASK DIRECTOR WRAY. >>WHAT ABOUT THE MISLEADING OF CARTER PAGE’S RELATIONSHIP. IS THAT PERSON TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE AT THE FBI? >>TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT PERSON IS STILL THERE. >>WHAT ABOUT PROCEDURES. WHAT PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN CHANGED AT THE FBI TO DATE TO PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING? >>ALL THAT I’M AWARE OF IS WHAT IS IN DIRECTORWRAY’S LETTER. THERE ARE FOR MORE CHANGES NEEDED TO ADDRESS ALL OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT’S A GOOD BEGINNING, BUT THERE’S A LOT MORE TO BE DONE. >>IN CLOSING, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY THING WHEN THE MOST POWERFUL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE COUNTRY, MAYBE THE WORLD, IS ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY INTERVENE AND INFLUENCE A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AT THE BEHEST AND WITH THE COOPERATION OF A POLITICAL PARTY. I THINK THE COLLUSION WAS BETWEEN THE DNC AND THE FBI AND IT IS, IF WE DON’T CHANGE SOMETHING HERE. TO SEE DIRECTOR WRAY SAY THAT HE DOESN’T THINK THERE ARE ANY PROBLEMS. I FOR ONE DON’T KNOW HOW ANY AMERICAN CAN HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THAT INSTITUTION AND IN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ELECTIONS IF THINGS LIKE THAT CAN HAPPEN. >>SENATOR BLUMENTHAL. >>THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK. DO YOU AGREE THAT THE FBI MEDDLED IN THE 2016 ELECTION? >>WHAT I FOUND IS WHAT’S IN THE REPORT. >>DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI PURPOSEFULLY INTERVENED TO EFFECT THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 ELECTION? >>WE’VE WRITTEN ABOUT WHAT WE DID HERE. AND I’LL STAND ON THOSE FINDINGS AND THOSE FINDINGS ALONE. >>I DIDN’T FIND ANY CONCLUSION THAT THE FBI MEDDLED OR INTERFERED TO EFFECT THE OUTCOME. >>WE DID NOT REACH THAT CONCLUSION. >>YOU DIDN’T REACH A CONCLUSION ABOUT THE FBI ACTING OUT OF POLITICAL BIAS, CORRECT? >>I’M GOING TO STICK BY THIS REPORT AND LAST YEAR’S REPORT. THERE ARE SPECIFIC FINDINGS AS TO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS. >>LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT SOME OF THE FINDINGS. AND LET ME SAY AT THE VERY OUTSET. I KNOW YOU’RE A CAREER OFFICIAL AND I WANT TO PAY TRIBUTE TO ALL OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS PARTICULARLY IN THE FBI BECAUSE I CAN SEE HOW SOME OF WHAT’S BEEN SAID MIGHT BE SEVERELY AND UNFAIRLY DEMORALIZING. WE HAVE YOU BACK. WE HAVE YOUR BACK. >>WE SHOULD HAVE YOUR BACK. SO SOME OF WHAT’S BEEN SAID HERE. AND ALSO IN THE LARGER REALM OF PUBLIC COMMENT I THINK HAS BEEN SEVERELY A DISSERVICE TO OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND TO THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE WE ARE DISCOURAGING ABLE AND DEDICATED YOUNG PEOPLE FROM JOINING YOUR RANKS. AND WE NEED THEM. AND I SAY THAT AS A FORMER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY AND A STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAS WORKED WITH SOME OF THE BEST AND SOME OF THE LESS BEST. LET ME ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS. PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS SAID REPEATEDLY THAT THE FBI QUOTE TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE PRESIDENCY. DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE PRESIDENTY. >>WHAT WE FOUND IS LAID OUT IN THE REPORT. >>IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU FOUND THAT THE FBI TRIED TO OVERTHROW THE PRESIDENCY. WE FOUND THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED HERE. THAT’S WHAT WE FOUND. >>DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI TRIED TO ENTRAP ANYONE? >>AS A LEGAL MATTER, SINCE WE DON’T SEE ANY ACTUAL CASES, I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. >>THERE WAS NO ENTRAPMENT. DID YOU FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI TAPPED THE PHONES AT TRUMP TOWER? >>NO, THE ONLY SURVEILLANCE WE FOUND WAS WHAT’S LAID OUT HERE. >>DID YOU FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI PLANTED INFORMANTS IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? >>NO. >>DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI TRIED SPECIFICALLY TO ENTRAP ANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE THE FOCUS OF THEIR INVESTIGATION NAMELY MANAFORT, FLYNN, PAPADOPOULOS, OR PAGE. >>ENTRAPMENT IS A LEGAL TERM. WE DIDN’T SEE THAT. >>CORRECT. THERE’S NO EVIDENCE OF ENTRAPMENT. BUT THE PRESIDENT HAS CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS ENTRAPMENT, THAT HIS PHONES WERE TAPPED, THAT CARTER PAGE MAY HAVE BEEN USED AS A SPY. DID YOU FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI PUT SPIES IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN? >>I’M GOING TO SPEAK TO THE TERMINOLOGY USED AT THE DEPARTMENT THAT WE OVERSEE WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES AND WE DID NOT FIND EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI SOUGHT TO PLACE CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCES INSIDE THE CAMPAIGN OR PLANT THEM INSIDE THE CAMPAIGN. >>WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION, INCLUDING THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION WAS A QUOTE UNQUOTE BOGUS NARRATIVE. >>WE DON’T ADDRESS THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION OR TAKE ISSUE WITH ITS HANDLING AT ALL. >>WELL, IN FACT YOU FOUND OR AGREED WITH MUELLER THAT RUSSIAN, THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ATTACKED OUR DEMOCRACY IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC WAY, CORRECT? >>WE HAD A COUPLE OF PAGES IN HERE TO REFERENCE THE MUELLER REPORT AND OTHER CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS. >>DID YOU SHOW THIS REPORT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR BEFORE IT WAS RELEASED. >>AS STANDARD PROCESS WE PROVIDE THIS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE FBI DIRECTOR. >>DID HE SUGGEST CHANGES? >>HE FOUND A FEW TYPOS AND OTHER THINGS THAT HE SUGGESTED WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT. >>YOU MUST HAVE BEEN SURPRISED BY HIS ATTACK ON YOU AND YOUR TEAM? >>NO I HAD SOME IDEA HE WASN’T COMPLETELY. >>I’VE HAD SITUATIONS OF DISAGREEMENT WITH LEADERSHIP. >>I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO DEFEND YOURSELF AND YOUR TEAM WHO HAVE DONE A HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL JOB HERE. 19 MONTHS, HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES. HARD WORK. DO YOU THINK THIS ATTACK ON YOU AND YOUR TEAM IS FAIR? >>I’LL SAY THIS. MY DEFENSE OF OUR TEAM AND WORK IS WE STAND BY THE REPORT. NOTHING I’VE HEARD CHANGES OUR VIEW. THE DEPARTMENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHOMEVER IS FREE TO DISAGREE WITH MY CONCLUSIONS. I WANT TAKE THE JOB TO BE POPULAR. >>I ASSUME YOU WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT THE AGENTS INVOLVED IN THIS WORK ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE RUSSIAN ATTACK ON OUR DEPARTMENTS WERE QUOTE UNQUOTE SCUM, WOULD YOU? >>I WOULD NOT CALL PEOPLE NAMES LIKE THAT. >>I WELCOME MY COLLEAGUES, APPARENTLY NEWFOUND INDIGNATION ABOUT THE POTENTIAL REFORM OF THE FISA COURT AND THE PROCESS. AND YOU WELL KNOW I’M SURE THAT REFORMS HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED. IN FACT, I AUTHORED THE FISA COURT REFORM ACT IN 2013 WITH 18 COSPONSORS, ALL DEMOCRATS. THAT LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE CREATED A SPECIAL ADVOCATE. IT WOULD HAVE CREATED OTHER CHECKS BECAUSE THE FISA PROCESS IS SECRET. BECAUSE ORDINARILY, WE DON’T WANT OUR ADVERSARIES TO KNOW WE’RE INVESTIGATING THEM, CORRECT? >>YES. >>BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE CHECKS AND BALANCES. UNFORTUNATELY A GREAT MANY OF THE PROPOSED REFORMS DID NOT BECOME LAW IN 2015. I KNOW IT’S NOT YOUR JOB TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT FISA COURT REFORMS. DO YOU THINK THAT YOUR REPORT INDICATES THE NEED IF THE KINDS OF REFORMS I PROPOSED IN THE FISA COURT REFORM ACT OF 2013? >>I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO HAVE CONVERSATION OF REFORMS LIKE THAT. AND WE DON’T MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT WE ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP WITH LEGISLATION DRAFTING. >>I HOPE WE CAN MAKE USE OF YOUR EXPERTISE, AND I HOPE MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES BEING SO VEHEMENT WILL JOIN ME IN LOOKING FORWARD AND REFORM OF THAT COURT. DID YOU SHOW THIS REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DURHAM? >>IN NOVEMBER HE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE REPORT. DURING OUR FACTUAL ACCURACY PROCESS. >>THERE HAVE BEEN PUBLIC REPORTS THAT THERE WERE REFERENCES, AT LEAST ONE TO THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY DURHAM IN THIS REPORT. IS THAT CORRECT? >>IN ONE OF THE EARLY DRAFTS. >>I’M NOT GOING TO GET INTO AN EARLIER DRAFT. THE REASON WE DO THIS IS TO úAL INDIVIDUALS. THE DEPARTMNT, THE FBI, WE MAKE CHANGES WHEN WE GET THINGS WRONG. WE MAKE CHANGES IF WE NEED TO CLARIFY. I’D RATHER NOT GET INTO WHAT OUR DRAFT REPORTS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SAID. >>DID HE MAKE REQUEST FOR CHANGES? >>WE CONSIDERED HIS COMMENTS ON WHAT HE DISAGREED WITH. AND THIS IS OUR FINAL REPORT. HE DISAGREED ON THE PREDICATION QUESTION. AND I MENTIONED EARLIER THE NATURE OF OUR CONVERSATION. >>DID YOU REMOVE ANY REFERENCE TO HIM AT HIS REQUEST? >>AGAIN, I DON’T BELIEVE I CAN GET INTO OR SHOULD GET INTO WHAT OUR DRAFTS DID OR DIDN’T SAY. THERE ARE EDITS MADE THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS. AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO ASK US TO MAKE EDITS. WE DON’T MAKE MANY. BUT IF WE START TALKING ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE GAVE US COMMENTS OBJECT. IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE TO DO THESE REPORTS. I WAS SURPRISED BY THE PRESS RELEASE. >>DID YOU CONCLUDE IN THIS REPORT THAT YOUR FINDINGS SHOWED A GROTESQUE ABUSE OF POWER. >>WE DID NOT SAY THAT IN THE REPORT? >>WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>WE DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION LIKE THAT SO I WOULDN’T HAVE THAT. THAT WASN’T OUR CONCLUSION. PEOPLE CAN HAVE THAT VIEWPOINT. >>THOSE FISA WARRANTS WERE RENEWED? >>THREE TIMES. >>BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, THERE’S A REASON WHY WARRANTS ARE RENEWED. THEY ARE RENEWED BECAUSE THEY ARE PRODUCING USEFUL INFORMATION. >>OR THEY SHOULD BE. >>AND YOUR REVIEW OF THE WARRANTS WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY WERE PRODUCING USEFUL INFORMATION, CORRECT? >>NOT SURE THAT’S ENTIRELY CORRECT AND I DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH I CAN SAY ABOUT THAT IN THIS SETTING. >>THEY WERE PRODUCING INFORMATION. >>I’M NOT SURE I WOULD SAY IF THEY WERE HELPFUL OR NOT. >>THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION PRODUCED 37 INDIVIDUAL INDICTMENTS. SEVEN CONVICTIONS, FIVE PRISON TERMS. AND HOPEFULLY, WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO ADVERSARIES, THE RUSSIANS AND OTHER NATIONS THAT MR. MUELLER WARNED ABOUT THAT THERE WILL BE ACTION TAKEN AGAINST THEM. AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN COME TOGETHER ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS TO REFORM THE FISA PROSPECT. JUST AS IMPORTANTLY FORESTALL THE ATTACK ON OUR DEMOCRACY. THAT’S MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT. YOUR REPORT OUGHT TO ALARM AMERICANS ABOUT THE ATTACK ON OUR NATION BY THE RUSSIANS AND OTHER NATIONS. >>VERY QUICKLY, I THINK SENATOR BLUMENTHAL MAKES A GOOD POINT. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THE BEHAVIOR HERE OF KNOWING THAT THE SUB SOURCE DISAVOWS THE DOSSIER. THAT WAS THE PRIMARY REASON YOU GOT A WARRANT. FINDING A LAWYER DOCTORED AN E- MAIL TO KEEP THE INVESTIGATION GOING IN A WAY UNFAIR TO MR. PAGE. THIS IS NOT ROUTINE. TO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >>IT BETTER NOT BE ROUTINE. AND I HAVE NO REASON TO THINK THAT IT IS ROUTINE. >>THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. YOU GUYS DO GREAT WORK. I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE AND I COMMEND YOUR STAFF FOR THE TOPNOTCH EFFORT. I DON’T THINK ANYBODY IS QUESTIONING THE QUALITY OF YOUR WORK. I’M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I’VE NEVER ARGUED A CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. I’M NOT A PROSECUTOR, A SOLICITOR GENERAL. I’M A BUSINESS PERSON. AND I’VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULD LOOK AT THIS AT THIS HEARING AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO GET TO HERE. YOU’VE MENTIONED THAT WHEN PEOPLE ASK YOU ABOUT POLITICAL MOTIVATION, WHEN IT HAS TO DO WITH THE RENEWAL REQUEST, YOU SAID IT GETS A BIT MURKY. BEING SOMEBODY THAT USED TO DO A LOT OF ORGANIZATION CHARTS, I’D TRIKE TO EXPLAIN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHY THIS GETS A LITTLE BIT MURKY. THIS IS ROUGHLY THE ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE IN PLACE WITH THE D.O.J. LET’S GET THE CHARACTERS NOT ON THE CHART BUT ACTIVELY INVOLVED. THIS STARTED WITH A DOSSIER PAID FOR BY THE DNC AND STEELE WAS A PART OF THAT PROCESS. IS THAT CORRECT. HIS PRIMARY SUB SOURCE SAID THEY MISSTATED OR EXAGGERATED STATEMENTS THAT THE ALLEGED SEXUAL ACTIVITIES WERE RUMOR OR SPECULATION. THAT THE CONVERSATIONS WERE HAD WITH FRIENDS OVER WE’RES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. THAT WAS SOMETHING AFTER THE DOSSIER WAS USED AS THE BASIS FOR MOVING FORWARD. THIS IS INFORMATION THAT CAME AFTERWARDS THAT WAS KNOWN TO PEOPLE IN THIS ORGANIZATION CHART BEFORE THEY ATTESTED TO A FISA COURT THAT THE FBI FOUND THE SUB SOURCE TO BE TRUTHFUL AND COOPERATIVE. THAT’S AN ACCURATE STATEMENT. BUT IF THEY INCLUDED ALL THE TRUTHFUL COMMENTS HE SAID. THAT WOULD HAVE HAD AN AFFECT ON THE RENEWAL. TO NOT INFER THAT THERE WAS A POLITICAL MOTIVATION, OR SAY AN AGENDA. THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO GET RENEWED. I DON’T UNDERSTAND AS A NON- ATTORNEY HOW THAT DOESN’T CARRY A FAIR AMOUNT OF WEIGHT. AND NOW TO THIS ORGANIZATION CHART. YOU CAN’T SEE IT. BUT IT’S ON RECORD WITH THE DOJ. AND I HAVE ORR WHO REPORTS TO THE OFFICE OF THE D.A.G. AND WHEN STOLE A WAS NO LONGER ALLOWED TO SPEAK WITH THE FBI BECAUSE HE WAS SHOPPING THE DOSSIER TO MAKE MONEY THROUGH THE MEDIA OR WHATEVER REASON. AND THEN THE FBI CONVENIENTLY ACCEPTED ORR’S FEEDBACK FROM STEELE. STEELE IS SOMEBODY WHO WORKED FOR FUSION GPS ON BEHALF OF THE DNC TO GET THE DOSSIER WHICH HAS BEEN PROVEN FALSE. HIS WIFE WORKED FOR GPS BUT SHE HAD RELATIONSHIPS THERE. AND WHEN THEY CUT OFF STEELE AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR THE FBI, DID I HEAR YOU RIGHT THAT MULTIPLE TIMES THE FBI WARMLY RECEIVED FEEDBACK THROUGH ORR? >>WE IDENTIFIED 13 OCCASIONS. >>THIS GUY NEVER COMMUNICATED WITH IN THIS CASE OF HIS STAFF OR SUPERIORS THAT HE WAS DOING THIS? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>PROBABLY BECAUSE IF HE ASKED FOR APPROVAL. >>WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW. THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE WALKING DOWN THE HALLWAY OR IN A MEETING. LISA PAGE IS ON THE CHART. AND SHE’S A SPECIAL COUNSEL TO ANDY McCABE. AS A MATTER OF FACT. IT LOOKS LIKE PETER STRZOK AND PAGE WERE IN THE OFFICE IN THE TIME FRAME. THIS IS SOMEBODY ON THE CHART. SOMEBODY THAT WORKS FOR THE DIRECTOR OF THE FBI WHO SAYS HE’S NOT EVER GOING TO BE PRESIDENT, RIGHT? THERE’S ANOTHER GUY WHO YOU’LL SEE IN A FUTURE TEXT MESSAGE TALKS ABOUT A MEETING WITH McCABE. NO, HE WON’T, WE WILL STOP HIM. >>I WANT TO BELIEVE THE PATH THAT YOU THREW OUT FOR CONVERSATION AND ANDY McCABE’S OFFICE THAT THERE’S NO WAY HE GETS ELECTED. I’M AFRAID WE CAN’T TAKE THAT RISK. IT’S LIKE AN INSURANCE POLICY IN THE UNLIKELY EVENT YOU DIE BEFORE YOU’RE 40. >>THESE ARE PEOPLE WALKING THE HALLWAY ASKING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE CANDIDATE AND THEN THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU’RE BEING FAIR MINDED AND SAYING IT’S MURKY AS TO WHETHER OR NOT GIVEN AND THE QUESTION BEING WHAT WAS THE INTENT, WHAT WAS THEIR INTENTION AND MOTIVATION THERE AND WHAT WE DETERMINED WAS WE COULDN’T DEFINITIVELY SAY WHAT THE MOTIVATION WAS. >>ARE THESE PRETTY SMART PEOPLE? , FAIRLY WELL EDUCATED? WELL EDUCATED, I DON’T KNOW IF THEY ARE SMART. >>I WAS GOING TO SAY — YEAH — >>THEY HAVE LAW DEGREES, RIGHT? >>AT LEAST SOME OF THEM DO. >>SO YOU THINK THE WOODS REVIEW FOR PEOPLE AT THIS LEVEL OF THE ORGANIZATION WOULD — >>TO BE CLEAR, THE STUFF THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON THE WOODS REVIEW WAS BASIC STUFF. YOU DIDN’T NEED TO BE A DEEPLY EXPERIENCED FBI AGENTS TO BE ABLE TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. >>THAT’S MY POINT. WOULDN’T YOU THINK THAT THAT WOULD ALMOST BE MUSCLE MEMORY FOR PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO KNOW THEY HAD AN OBLIGATION TO GO THROUGH THAT? >>THEY CLEARLY SHOULD HAVE. >>WOULDN’T IT ALSO SEEM REASONABLE IF THEY DIDN’T, YOU CAN’T ANSWER THIS QUESTION, BUT TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE IF SOMETHING IS STANDARD AS THAT PROCESS, BEFORE YOU GO TO COURT, TO NOT DO IT WAS SOMETHING THEY INTENDED NOT TO DO. THEY DIDN’T WANT TO GO THROUGH IT. THEN YOU ASK YOURSELF WHY. BECAUSE WE DON’T EVER WANT THIS GUY TO GET ELECTED PRESIDENT AND IF HE DOES, SOUNDS LIKE THEY WANT TO IMPEACH HIM. I MEAN, I CAN’T UNDERSTAND ANYBODY WORKING IN THIS ORGANIZATION, UNDERSTANDING THE SCRUTINY THAT WE PLACED UNDER THE PFIEZERO COURTS AND COUNT ME IN BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN THE ABUSES — YOU CAN SMIRK AGAIN BECAUSE YOU WERE RIGHT. BUT WE ARE — IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS ORGANIZATION, THIS CLOSELY HELD ORGANIZATION OF HIGHLY EDUCATED, HIGHLY EXPERIENCED PEOPLE, I HAVE TO BELIEVE, THAT THEY WERE HANDPICKED FOR THIS PROCESS, THEY WERE PICKED BECAUSE THEY HAD SOME OF THE BEST REPUTATIONS IN THERE. THEY HAD TO KNOW THAT THIS WAS — THAT IT WAS GOING TO COME TO THIS. THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE SCRUTINIZED. REGARDLESS OF WHO THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION WAS, IF THE NAMES WERE CHANGED AND THE PARTIES WERE CHANGED, WE WOULD STILL BE HERE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WERE TRYING TO SCALE ON THE EDGES AND GET AWAY WITH SOMETHING TO ME AND I CAN’T IMAGINE THAT THEY DID IT FOR ANY OTHER REASON THAN A POLITICAL MOTIVATION AND I DON’T EXPECT YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE YOU’RE DOING A GREAT JOB OF HOLDING TO THE SCOPE OF YOUR REPORT. BUT NOBODY CAN TELL ME WITH PEOPLE OF THIS CALIBER, WITH THE RECORD OF PARTISAN, VITREALIC — WE FORGOT TO DO A STANDARD PROCEDURAL REVIEW, THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT ONE OF THEIR STAFF TWO OR THREE LEVELS DOWN TO KNOW WHEN TO DO IT. IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE TO ME. YOU’VE GOTTEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR REPORT. I THINK YOU’VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF SAYING I’VE GOT TO TALK ABOUT MY REPORT. YOU DIDN’T DO A RUSSIA COLLUSION INVESTIGATION? >>WE DID NOT. >>WOULD YOU AGREE YOU GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS TODAY THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU WERE HERE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY? >>CERTAINLY SEVERAL. >>WHAT I FOUND INTERESTING WAS THAT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THIS AS A PLATFORM ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE THAT SAYS, WELL, NOW WE NEED TO REVISE THE — WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE PFIZER PROCESS. UNLESS YOU THOUGHT THIS WAS A CLEAR CASE OF WHERE THE FISA PROCESS WAS ABUSED. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION, THIS ECOSYSTEM OF SMART PEOPLE WHO I THINK TURNED A BLIND EYE TO DAMNING EVIDENCE TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR RENEWAL OF THE FISA REPORT IS BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION. THE WEIGHT IN THIS EVIDENCE IN YOUR REPORT I THINK IS PRETTY STRONG. I HOPE MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE, WHEN WE TAKE UP IMPEACHMENT NEXT MONTH, HAVE THAT SAME STANDARD FOR THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKED TO LOOK AT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >>SENATOR ROHNERT. >>THANK YOU. YOU IDENTIFY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH THE FISA APPLICATION PROCESS FOR CONDUCTING SURVEILLANCE ON CARTER PAGE. BEFORE THIS INVESTIGATION WERE YOU AWARE OF PROBLEMS WITH THE FBI’S USE OF THE FISA PROCESS? >>I WAS NOT PERSONALLY. ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY WE HAVE DONE REPORTS, AS YOU KNOW, SENATOR, FOR — SINCE 9/11, MY OFFICE ON THESE ISSUES. >>YOU CAN’T SIT HERE AND TELL US THAT THESE ERRORS ONLY OCCURRED WITH REGARD TO THIS FISA APPLICATION PROCESS? >>WE HAVE IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. I WILL SAY WE HAVE NEVER DONE A DIVE INTO ONE AS DEEP AS THIS. >>AS HAVE A NUMBER OF US, BY THE WAY, SENATOR LEE AND OTHERS OF US, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE ISSUES RELATING TO THE FISA PROCESS AND AFTER YOU POINTED OUT YOUR — THE ERRORS, ET CETERA, THE DIRECTOR ACKNOWLEDGED YOUR FINDINGS AND IN FACT, HE IS MOVING AHEAD TO MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FISA PROCESS AND AS HE PUT IT, TO MAKE THE FBI A MUCH STRONGER INSTITUTION. >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>WOULD YOU AGREE THAT IT IS A MAJOR DECISION TO SEEK AUTHORITY FROM A FISA COURT TO CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE ON AN AMERICAN? >>I AGREE. >>IF FBI OFFICIALS WERE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AND WANTING TO CONDUCT SURVEILLANCE ON A PARTICULAR AMERICAN, WOULDN’T THE DECISION TO SEEK FISA APPROVAL BE A POINT WHERE POLITICAL BIAS COULD AFFECT THE PROCESS? >>COULD? >>YES. >>YES. >>ACTUALLY, THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD TIME FOR ANY KIND OF POLITICAL BIAS TO MANIFEST ITSELF BUT HERE YOU FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF POLITICAL BIAS IN DECIDING TO SEEK FISA APPROVAL? >>WE DID NOT FIND SUCH EVIDENCE. >>WHEN YOU RELEASED YOUR REPORT ON MONDAY, BOTH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MR. DURHAM IMMEDIATELY ISSUED PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS IN YOUR REPORT, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR STATED, QUOTE, THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT NOW MAKES CLEAR THAT THE FBI LAUNCHED AN INTRUSIVE INVESTIGATION OF A U.S. PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ON THE THINNEST OF SUSPICIONS THIS IN MY VIEW WERE INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE STEPS TAKEN, END QUOTE. CAN YOU POINT TO THE PAGE OR PAGES IN YOUR REPORT THAT FOUND THAT THE FBI LAUNCHED AN SPRUCE SIEVE INVESTIGATION ON THE THINNEST OF SUSPICIONS THAT WERE INSUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY THE FBI’S ACTIONS? >>WE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT FRED INDICATION. >>WOULD YOU CONSIDER WORDS LIKE THE THINNEST OF SUSPICIONS, INTRUSIVE INVESTIGATION NEUTRAL WORDS TO DESCRIBE YOUR WORK? >>I AM GOING TO LET OTHERS ANSWER FOR THEIR OWN COMMENTS AND STICK TO WHAT WE — >>YOU SAID THAT EVERYBODY IS ENTITLED TO CHARACTERIZE YOUR INVESTIGATION BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHAT CONSTITUTES FAIR, A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION AND I WOULD SAY THOSE ARE NOT FAIR. YESTERDAY ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR WENT ON TV TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE FINDINGS OF YOUR REPORT AND SUGGESTED THAT HIS OWN FBI AGENTS MAY HAVE ACTED IN, QUOTE, BAD FAITH OR WITH IMPROPER MOTIVES AND THAT IT WAS PREMATURE TO CONCLUDE OTHERWISE. THESE INSINUATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH YOUR REPORT. AND ONE JUSTIFICATION THAT HE GAVE FOR DISREGARDING THE KEY FINDING IN YOUR REPORT WAS THAT UNLIKE THE INVESTIGATOR HE HANDPICKED, MR. DURHAM, YOU COULD NOT COMPEL TESTIMONY. YOU INTERVIEWED MORE THAN 100 WITNESSES FOR YOUR INVESTIGATION. IN YOUR REPORT YOU NOTE YOU WERE UNABLE TO COMPEL TESTIMONY FROM TWO PEOPLE, GLEN SIMPSON AND JONATHAN WIENER. WERE THESE THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE FOR WHOM YOU COULDN’T COMPEL THEIR TESTIMONY OR WHO WOULDN’T TESTIFY OR TALK TO YOU? >>THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO PEOPLE THAT WE ASKED TO INTERVIEW THAT TURNED US DOWN. >>DO YOU THINK THAT THE FACT THAT YOU DID NOT INTERVIEW THESE TWO WITNESSES UNDERMINE THE CONCLUSIONS IN YOUR REPORT THAT YOU FOUND NO DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF POLITICAL BIAS IN OPENING THE INVESTIGATION OR SEEKING FISA AUTHORITY FOR CARTER PAGE? >>I DON’T BELIEVE THEY UNDERMINED ANY OF OUR CONCLUSIONS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD TO HAVE THEIR EVIDENCE, LIKE IT IS NORMALLY. >>DO YOU THINK THAT THAT — THE FINDINGS IN YOUR REPORT ARE INACCURATE BECAUSE YOU LACKED THE AUTHORITY TO COMPEL WITNESSES? >>NOT IN THIS INSTANCE, NO. >>IN APRIL 2019, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR TOLD CONGRESS — IN TALKING ABOUT THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN’S TIES WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION AND YESTERDAY ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR REITERATED THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS CLEARLY, I’M QUOTING HERE, CLEARLY SPIED UPON. HE CLAIMED THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION, INVESTIGATIVE ACTONS WHICH YOU DISCUSS IN YOUR REPORT CONSTITUTE SPYING. AND THE WORD SPYING CARRIES, I WOULD SAY NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS, DON’T YOU THINK? >>YOU KNOW — >>IT SOUNDS AS — IT SOUNDS LIKE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS DOING SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO DO, THAT THEY WOULD SPY ON US. >>AND THAT’S WHY WE USE AND ONLY RELY ON THE WORD THAT’S IN THE LAW, WHICH IS SURVEILLANCE. >>AND YET WE HAVE THE HIGHEST LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSON IN OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY USING A WORD NOT JUST ONCE, BUT TWICE, USING THE WORD SPYING. SO CLEARLY YOUR REPORT FOUND THAT THE FBI’S INVESTIGATION WAS FOR AN AUTHORIZED AND WITH AN ADEQUATE PREDICATE AND YOU WOULD NOT CHARACTERIZE THAT AS SPYING. YOU WOULD NOT USE SUCH A WORD IN YOUR REPORT. >>WE DON’T USE THAT. >>YOU DID NOT — >>– IN THE REPORT. >>DO YOU THINK QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF YOUR STAFF AS POSSIBLY INVOLVING BAD FAITH OR ACCUSING THEM OF SPYING WOULD BE DEMORALIZING TO YOUR OPINON? >>LET ME PUT THIS — I WOULD NOT SPEAK TO MY FOLKS ABOUT THEM ACTING IN THAT MANNER. >>DO YOU THINK THAT’S A REALLY GREAT WAY TO CHARACTERIZE WHAT YOU ALL DO IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY? I THINK THAT’S A RHETORICAL QUESTION. >>YEAH. >>SO DESCRIBING — >>POINT TAKEN, THOUGH. >>LAW ENFORCEMENT STAFF’S INVESTIGATIONS AS INTRUSIVE AND BASED ON THE THINNEST OF SUSPICIONS ALSO CASTS DISPERSIONS ON THE PROFESSIONALISM OF YOUR PEOPLE AND I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY ALSO NOT TERRIBLY EDIFYING OR SUPPORTIVE. DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM THAT THE FBI AGENTS WERE SPYING? >>IN TERMS OF EVIDENCE, WE DIDN’T GET ANY EVIDENCE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. WE DID MEET WITH MR. DURHAM, HAD A DISCUSSION WITH HIM, BUT WE, AS I SAID, ARE STANDING BY OUR CONCLUSIONS. >>DOES IT BOTHER YOU THAT YOU HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL USING WORDS LIKE SPYING TO CHARACTERIZE WHAT THE FBI DID UNDER AN AUTHORIZED PROCESS? >>YOU KNOW, INSPECTOR GENERAL I’M GOING TO STICK TO WHAT WE DO AND WHAT WE HAVE SAID AND NOT TRY AND GUESS THE MOTIVES OR IDEAS OR THOUGHTS OF ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE. >>I DON’T SEE YOU JUMPING UP AND DOWN IN GLEE WITH USE OF SUCH WORDS. LET ME GO ON. ON NOVEMBER 21st DR. FIONA HILL, THE FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SENIOR DIRECTOR FOR EUROPEAN AND RUSSIA WARNED THAT RUSSIA HAS QUOTE GEARED UP TO REPEAT THEIR INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. EVEN AS WE SPEAK THAT’S WHAT RUSSIA IS DOING. SHE ALSO WARNED CONGRESS AGAINST PROMOTING THE FICTIONAL NARRATIVE THAT UKRAINE, RATHER THAN RUSSIA, INTERFERED IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION. THESE CONSPIRACY THEORIES, SHE SAID CLEARLY ADVANCED RUSSIAN INTERESTS. FBI DIRECTOR STATE ON MONDAY THAT THE FBI HAS NO INFORMATION THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO INTERFERE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. WE TALK ABOUT INTERFERE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE KIND OF SYSTEMIC GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTION PROCESS THAT RUSSIA ENGAGED IN, AND THERE’S NO WAY THAT UKRAINE ENGAGED IN THAT KIND OF SYSTEMATIC INTERFERENCE. SO IN ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU REVIEWED, 100 WITNESSES, DID YOU FIND ANY EVIDENCE THAT CRITICS FBI DIRECTOR WRAY’S STATEMENT THAT THE FBI HAS NO INDICATION THAT INDICATES THAT UKRAINE TRIED TO INTERFERE IN THE2016. >>WE DIDN’T SEE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE. >>YOU WOULD THINK THAT YOU’RE LOOKING THROUGH A MILLION DOCUMENTS — >>FORTUNATELY NOT ME, BUT THE TEAM. >>THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THERE THAT REFERENCED THAT MAYBE UKRAINE WAS ENGAGING IN KIND OF SYSTEMATIC INTERFERENCE THAT RUSSIA DID. I KNOW THE SENATORS KLOBUCHAR ASKED YOU ABOUT THIS BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION OF THE — INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION IN A SWEEPING AND SYSTEMATIC FASHION? >>NO. >>AND OF COURSE YOU ALL KNOW THAT THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION RESULTED IN 37 INDICTMENTS AND SIX CONVICTIONS OF TRUMP ASSOCIATES. IS THERE ANYTHING IN YOUR REPORT THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER’S CONCLUSION THAT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN NOT ONLY KNEW ABOUT RUSSIA’S EXPERIENCE BUT THEY ENCOURAGED IT AND EXPECTED TO BENEFIT ELECTORALLY FROM IT? >>NO. >>I KNOW YOU RECEIVE A LOT OF REQUESTS FROM REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO DO CERTAIN INVESTIGATIONS AND I HAVE BEEN AMONG THOSE. I REALIZE YOU HAVE TO TAKE CERTAIN FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE SO MANY RESOURCES TO CONDUCT ALL THESE INVESTIGATIONS. ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT I AND MY COLLEAGUES ASKED YOU TO INVESTIGATE WAS WHETHER ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S HANDLING OF THE MUELLER REPORT WAS MISLEADING AND WHETHER HE DEMONSTRATED BIAS IN DEALING WITH THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION. IN LIGHT OF THE FACTORS THAT I AM SURE YOU CONSIDER, WILL YOU TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THE REQUESTS THAT I AM — AND MY COLLEAGUES SENT YOU TO SEE WHETHER YOU’RE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE ANY OF THEM? >>SO ON THAT, SENATOR, FIRST OF ALL I WOULD BE HAPPY AND COME UP AND MEET WITH YOU AND TALK ABOUT IT WITH YOU IN PERSON. I’VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS ISSUE. THE LETTERS ASKING US TO LOOK AT THE CONDUCT OF SENIOR LAWYERS AT THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY IMPLICATE SECTION 80 OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT WHICH PROHIBITS ME FROM LOOKING AT CONDUCT OF LAWYERS IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LAWYERS. SENATOR LEE HAS SPONSORED A BILL THAT PASSED THE HOUSE UNANIMOUSLY, BIPARTISAN FULL SUPPORT PENDING HERE. SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE HAVE CO-SPONSORED IT. THAT PROVISION PREVENTS ME FROM UNDERTAKING INVESTIGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT BY SENIOR DEPARTMENT LAWYERS OR ACTUALLY ANY DEPARTMENT LAWYERS JUST TO BE CLEAR. >>THIS IS ONE TIME WHEN I ACTUALLY THINK I AGREE WITH SENATOR LEE IN NEEDING TO MAKE THAT KIND OF CHANGE TO ENABLE YOU TO MAKE THE KIND OF INVESTIGATION THAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO MAKE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >>I WOULD BE HAPPY TO COME UP AND TALK WITH YOU ABOUT IT FURTHER? >>THANK YOU. >>I WILL KEEP DOING THIS AND I APOLOGIZE. HAS ANYONE BEEN CONVICTED OF THE CRIME OF WORKING WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN THAT YOU KNOW OF? >>NOT THAT I KNOW OF. >>WELL, THEY HAVEN’T SO I JUST — WHATEVER CONVICTIONS HAVE BEEN ATTAINED GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH COLLUDING WITH THE RUSSIANS, THAT’S WHAT GOT US HERE. AND ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS SURVEILLING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN PURSUANT TO A FISA WARRANT AND THE GOVERNMENT — INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE GOVERNMENT THAT QUESTIONS THE FOUNDATION OF THE WARRANT, IS THERE AN OBLIGATION TO TELL THE COURT? >>ABSOLUTELY. >>THEY DID NOT DO THAT HERE; IS THAT CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>AS A MATTER OF FACT, THEY LIED TO THE COURT ABOUT THE INFORMATION THEY HAD THAT WAS EXCULPATORY TO MR. PAGE. >>THEY GAVE MISLEADING AND INACCURATE INFORMATION. >>AT WHAT POINT CAN A SURVEILLANCE THAT STARTED LAWFULLY BECOME ILLEGAL? >>IT CAN BECOME UNAUTHORIZED, INAPPROPRIATE, ILLEGAL, DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF THE — >>WOULD YOU APPLY ALL THOSE TERMS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE? >>I’M GOING TO LET OTHERS WHO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES DECIDE WHAT THE PRECISE LEVEL OF INTENT WAS. >>HERE’S WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY. IT MAY HAVE STARTED LAWFULLY, IT GOT OFF THE RAILS QUICK, IT BECAME A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE FISA COURT, TO PUT MR. PAGE THROUGH AND TO CONTINUE TO SURVEIL PRESIDENT TRUMP AFTER HE GOT ELECTED AND I HOPE SOMEBODY PAYS A PRICE FOR THAT. YOU HAVE CERTAINLY DONE YOUR PART, MR. HORWITZ. SENATORS. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND PRESENTING THIS INFORMATION. AND I KNOW THAT A COUPLE OTHERS HAVE FOCUSED ON THIS AND I’D LIKE TO DIVE BACK IN. BUT FIRST, THERE IS A LOT OF RESPECT OUT THERE OR THERE HAS BEEN FOR THE FBI. AND I REMEMBER AS A KID, YOU KNOW, WATCHING MOVIES OR SHOWS THAT PORTRAYED THE FBI AND WE REALLY THOUGHT, WOW, THOSE ARE THE GOOD GUYS. AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE SEEN THROUGH THE PAST NUMBER OF YEARS, NUMBER OF MONTHS IS THAT A FEW BAD ACTORS HAVE REALLY SQUANDERED THAT AWAY. AND I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE LOOK AT THE FBI AND THEY THINK, WOW, IF THEY ARE DOING THIS TO A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, WHAT WOULD THEY DO TO ME AS A NORMAL AMERICAN CITIZEN? ARE THEY THERE FOR ME? SO I AM JUST SO SORRY THAT THIS HAS LED TO THIS, AGAIN, A FEW VERY BAD ACTORS. I HEARD SOMEBODY EARLIER SAYING, OH, THE MISTAKES THAT WERE MADE AT THE FBI, THE MISTAKES. IT’S NOT LIKE, OOPS, I ACCIDENTALLY FILED A FISA WARRANT OR AN APPLICATION, A FISA APPLICATION, OOPS, THAT ACCIDENTALLY HAPPENED. THAT’S NOT A MISTAKE. IT JUST REEKS OF ILL WISHES TO DO HARM. SO AGAIN, I JUST THINK THE FBI, WE HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT OF IT AS SUCH A GREAT INSTITUTION AND NOW I’M LOOKING AT ALL THIS INFORMATION, WE HAVE ALL REVIEWED THE REPORT AND I THINK FOR GOOD SAKES, WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. YOU KNOW, SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS WORK. I THINK IT’S JUST REALLY IMPORTANT WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT’S GOING ON, WHY IT HAPPENED AND I’D LIKE TO FOCUS A LITTLE MORE JUST ON THE DISCIPLINE ASPECT OF THIS, BECAUSE THESE MISTAKES WERE MADE BY SOME PEOPLE THAT REALLY WANTED TO DO BAD HARM TO AN INDIVIDUAL, ILLEGALLY. SO PETER STRZOK WAS FIRED FROM THE FBI; IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>OKAY. SO HE STILL HAS A MERIT SYSTEM PROTECTION BOARD THAT’S NOT YET ADJUDICATED; IS THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >>OKAY. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE TERMINATION IS FINAL OR NOT FINAL? >>I AM GOING TO GET AHEAD OF MY LEGAL EMPLOYMENT LAW CAPABILITIES IF I GIVE YOU TOO MANY OPINIONS ON WHAT HIS LEGAL RIGHTS ARE IN THAT REGARD. >>VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. IT SEEMS THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL REFERRED FOR POSSIBLE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION BASED ON THE IG REVIEW AND THAT’S THE PERSON THAT ALTERED THE E-MAIL, TIM PLY THAT CARTER PAGE WAS NOT OR NEVER A SOURCE FOR ANOTHER AGENCY. WITH THAT APPARENT CONCEALMENT OF FACTS FROM THE FISA COURT ESPECIALLY AS THEY RELATE TO THE ACCURACY OF STEELE’S REPORTING, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THERE WERE NO MORE CRIMINAL REFERRALS? >>WHAT WE ULTIMATELY DECIDED WAS THAT THE CONDUCT HERE WARRANTED SENDING THE ENTIRE REPORT TO THE FBI AND THE DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW FOR REVIEW FROM THE LINE AGENT ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP OF PEOPLE WHO WERE STILL AT THE FBI. AND AS WE SAID, WE DIDN’T SEE DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OF INTENT, BUT WE ALSO DIDN’T HEAR GOOD EXPLANATIONS, WHICH LEFT US WITH AN OPEN QUESTION ON WHAT THE MOTIVE WAS AND WHAT THE STATE OF MIND WAS AND THE ADJUDICATED PROCESS. >>SO WE DON’T KNOW OF ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS BEEN FIRED OR REASSIGNED? >>I DON’T KNOW AS I SIT HERE. THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM THE FBI OR THE DEPARTMENT. >>OKAY. SO WITH THAT, HOW MANY OF — HOW MANY CASE AGENTS INVOLVED WITH FISA APPLICATIONS IN YOUR REPORT ARE STILL ACTIVE CASE AGENTS TODAY? >>AS I SIT HERE, I CAN’T TELL YOU THE PRECISE NUMBER. THERE ARE SEVERAL WHO STILL ARE. >>THAT ARE ACTIVE CANDIDATES? >>THAT ARE STILL ACTIVE AGENT. WHETHER THEY ARE STILL IN CERTAIN ROLES OR NOT, I DON’T KNOW. >>OKAY. BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW SPECIFICALLY IF THEY ARE STILL WORKING AS CASE AGENTS, DO YOU BELIEVE IF THEY WERE WORKING AS CASE AGENTS THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN YOUR REPORT AS IT RELATES TO THOSE CASE AGENTS SHOULD BE RELEASED TO OTHER CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS UNDER THE DEPARTMENT’S GIGLIO POLICY. >>WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO TO REMEDY ANY WRONGS HERE. >>FOR THOSE FOLKS THAT ARE WATCHING THIS BACK AT HOME IN IOWA, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE GIGLIO POLICY? >>SO IN CRIMINAL CASES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN AN AGENT IS FOUND TO HAVE ENGAGED IN MISCONDUCT, WHETHER BY A JUDGE OR BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THERE IS AN OBLIGATION UNDER CASE CALLED THE GIGLIO CASE TO NOTIFY THE DEFENDANT OF THE WRONGDOING OR HARM OR MISCONDUCT, IMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, AND THAT OBLIGATION IS TAKEN SERIOUSLY, HAS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. I HAVE DONE LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRUPTION CASES AS AN AUSA AND ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE DO INCLUDING NOW AS IG WHEN WE FIND ISSUES IS NOTIFY PROSECUTORS AND THE DEPARTMENT AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THEY TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS IN A TIMELY WAY TO MAKE SURE THOSE AGENTS AREN’T CONTINUING TO PURSUE CASES OR AREN’T ALLOWED TO STAY IN THOSE POSITIONS IF THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST THAT THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN. >>NOW, I THINK THAT’S IMPORTANT, THE REASON WE ARE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS AND DISCIPLINE, POLICY AND PROCEDURES IS BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AGAIN, WHEN THEY LOOK AT AN INSTITUTION LIKE THE FBI, THEY WANT TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE GOOD GUYS AND IF THEY ARE NOT GOOD GUYS, THEY NEED TO GO. I THINK THE AMERICAN PUBLIC GETS TIRED OF SEEING BAD ACTORS WITH NO REPERCUSSIONS. >>VERY IMPORTANT FROM OUR STANDPOINT AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S OFFICE, THAT THERE BE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ALL CONDUCT ACROSS THE BOARD, BUT CERTAINLY FOR MISCONDUCT, AND PERFORMANCE FAILURES AND THOSE NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. >>YEAH. PERFORMANCE FAILURES, LYING, I MEAN, THERE WAS A LOT GOING ON IN THE DEPARTMENT. THEY WEREN’T JUST MISTAKES AS SOMEBODY CASUALLY MENTIONED. THESE ARE NOT JUST MISTAKES. THIS WAS BAD CONDUCT. IT WAS INTENTIONAL. SO I DO THINK THAT AS WE SEE THIS MOVE ON, MOVE FORWARD, THAT ANYBODY THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THOSE MALICIOUS ACTIVITIES IS GONE. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT POLICY AND PROCEDURES JUST VERY QUICKLY. THE IG’S OFFICE HAS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED A PATTERN OF LEAKS AND IMPROPER CONTACT BETWEEN FBI EMPLOYEES AND THE MEDIA. PART OF THE DECISION TO WORK THE CROSSFIRE HURRICANE CASE OUT OF THE FBI HEADQUARTERS, IT DOES SEEM TO BE DUE TO THE FEAR OF LEAKS IF IT WERE ACTUALLY WORKED OUT IN THE FIELD. SO CAN YOU CHARACTERIZE HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM LEAKS ARE AND THOSE UNAUTHORIZED CONTACTS BETWEEN THE MEDIA AND MEMBERS WITHIN THE FBI? >>SO WE IDENTIFIED THIS LAST YEAR IN OUR CLINTON ELECTION REPORT, THE NUMBER OF CONTEXT AND WE HAVE SEEN IT AS WE HAVE DONE THESE REPORTS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT IN FINDING INAPPROPRIATE, IMPROPER CONTACT BETWEEN AGENTS AND THE MEDIA. SINCE OUR REPORT LAST YEAR, DIRECTOR WRAY PUT OUT A NEW POLICY AND UNDERTAKEN NEW TRAINING TO DEAL WITH THAT, OR TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT AND TO CHANGE THE CULTURE WHICH IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT A YEAR AGO, THAT THE CULTURE AND THE VIEWPOINT OF — IN A FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, FAIRNESS TO THE DEFENDANT, THE SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION, FAIRNESS TO VICTIMS IF THERE ARE VICTIMS, FAIRNESS TO THE PROCESS REQUIRES PEOPLE, AGENTS WHO ARE WORKING THESE CASES TO KEEP THEIR HEAD DOWN, WORK THE CASE AND NOT DISCLOSE INFORMATION TO OUTSIDE PARTIES, WHETHER IT’S THE MEDIA, FRIENDS, RELATIVES, NEIGHBORS, WHOMEVER. THAT INFORMATION HAS TO STAY IN THE OFFICE. >>AND SO THERE HAS BEEN A POLICY CHANGE, BUT WHAT ARE THE REPERCUSSIONS IF SOMEONE IS FOUND GUILTY OF ENGAGING IN THOSE UNAUTHORIZED CONTACTS WITH MEDIA? >>THAT’S ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE FBI ON, AS WE HAVE DONE THESE CASES OVER THE LAST YEAR, WHAT, AS WE HAVE REFERRED THEM, WHAT’S BEEN THE PENALTY THAT’S BEEN IMPOSED? WHAT’S HAPPENED TO THOSE FOLKS AND HOW IS IT — HOW IS THAT MESSAGE GETTING OUT, NOT JUST PUBLICLY BUT INTERNALLY THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE CONSEQUENCES WITHOUT THAT. WITHOUT THE CONSEQUENCES THE DETERRENT EFFECT GOES AWAY. >>ABSOLUTELY. THERE IS NO RESTORATION OF TRUST IN THE AGENCY IF THERE ARE NOT REPERCUSSIONS TO THOSE THAT ARE MALICIOUSLY PURSUING THESE TYPES OF ACTIVITIES. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE YOUR TEAM AND THE WORK THAT THEY PUT INTO THE REPORT AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, WE HAVE GOT TO DO BETTER AND WE HAVE GOT A LONG WAYS TO GO TO RESTORE TRUST IN THE FBI AND ANYONE WORKING WITH THE FBI. SO AGAIN I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I YIELD BACK. >>SENATOR HARRIS, WELCOME BACK. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GENERAL HORWITZ, THANK YOU FOR CONDUCTING YOUR INVESTIGATION INTO THE ORIGINS OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. YOUR REPORT MAKES CLEAR THE FBI HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO INVESTIGATE THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN; IS THAT CORRECT? >>SUFFICIENT FREDCATION. >>ANOTHER KEY FINDING WAS THAT THE FBI COMMITTED SEVERAL ERRORS IN HIS APPLICATIONS AND IN THEIR APPLICATIONS TO SURVEIL CARTER PAGE? >>MAYBE MORE THAN SEVERAL. >>AND AS THE FBI DIRECTOR WRAY HIMSELF ACKNOWLEDGED HIS INVESTIGATION FOUND SERIOUS FBI MISCONDUCT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND DIRECTOR WRAY ALSO SAID THAT THE FBI FULLY ACCEPTS YOUR INVESTIGATION’S FINDINGS; ISN’T THAT CORRECT? >>THAT’S CORRECT. >>ON THE OTHER HAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR HAS BEEN HIGHLY CRITICAL OF YOUR FINDING. DURING THE FINAL STAGES OF YOUR INVESTIGATION HE EVEN EMBARKED ON HIS OWN PERSONAL INVESTIGATION BY MEETING WITH FOREIGN LEADERS IN FOREIGN LANDS, APPARENTLY IN SEARCH OF EVIDENCE THAT CRITICS THE FACT THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2015 UNITED STATES PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TO BENEFIT TRUMP. CLEARLY BARR’S INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS LAUNCHED TO DO THE BIDDING OF PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS TWO OBJECTIVES. ONE, TO UNDERMINE THE INTEGRITY OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. THE GOAL, TO CAST DOUBT ON THE FINDING THAT RUSSIA INTERFERED IN THE 2016 ELECTION IN ORDER TO BENEFIT THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN AND, TWO, TO INTIMIDATE THE MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY BY SUGGESTING THAT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY PROFESSIONALS WILL FACE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IF THEY INVESTIGATE WRONGDOING ON THE PART OF THIS PRESIDENT OR HIS OPERATIVES. SO GENERAL HORWITZ, I APPRECIATE YOUR EXTENSIVE WORK AND THE WORK THAT YOUR OFFICE HAS DEVOTED TO THIS INVESTIGATION. BUT IN ADDITION, YOU HAVE THE POWER AND THE DUTY TO INVESTIGATE MISCONDUCT COMMITTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, WHO IS DOING THE BIDDING OF THE PRESIDENT TO UNDERMINE OUR INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY AND I TRUST YOU TAKE THAT DUTY SERIOUSLY? >>I DO. AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT UNDER THE LAW, UNDER THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT, IT CARVES OUT FROM MY AUTHORITY THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT MISCONDUCT BY DEPARTMENT LAWYERS FROM THE LINE LAWYER ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL — >>HISTORY HAS ALSO SHOWN US THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CAN PARTICIPATE IN AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THAT IN FACT HAPPENED WITH GENERAL GONZALEZ. DO YOU RECALL THAT? >>THAT HAPPENED AND IT’S WORTH NOTING THAT HAPPENED AFTER THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID OUR OFFICE WAS NOT GOING TO GET THE CASE. THAT IT WAS GOING TO GO TO THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE CHOICE FOR OUR OFFICE WAS WHETHER TO JOIN THAT INVESTIGATION OR NOT. BUT THAT WASN’T INITIATED BUT THROUGH US. >>SO THEN — >>THAT’S THE IMPORTANT POINT. A LOT HAS TO CHANGE, SENATOR. >>ARE YOU RECOMMENDING THE — >>ABSOLUTELY. >>IF I PROPOSE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE LAW, WOULD YOU SUPPORT THAT? >>ABSOLUTELY. THERE’S LEGISLATION SENATOR LEE HAS SPONSORED SEVERAL MEMBERS, HAVE CO-SPONSORED — THE HOUSE HAS PASSED THIS UNANIMOUSLY. >>AND YOU SUPPORT IT? >>YES. >>RUDY GIULIANI ASKED UKRAINIANS TO HELP SEARCH FOR DIRT OF THE POLITICAL RIVALS OF THE PRESIDENT. IN EXCHANGE FOR THE HELP GIULIANI OFFERED TO HELP FIX CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THEM AT DOJ. GIULIANI AND HIS ASSOCIATES, TWO OF WHOM HAVE BEEN INDICTED AND ARE NOW IN FEDERAL CUSTODY, ALLEGEDLY REACHED OUT TO A UKRAINIAN ENERGY TYCOON WHO FACED LEGAL PROBLEMS IN AMERICA. IN EXCHANGE FOR HELPING FIND DIRT ON THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL RIVALS, GIULIANI’S ASSOCIATES REPORTEDLY CONNECTED THE UKRAINIAN WITH LAWYERS WHO COULD GET A TOP LEVEL MEETING AT THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. IN ESSENCE, GIULIANI’S SCHEME WAS AN ATTEMPT TO TRADE, GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARDS FOR POLITICAL FAVORS. AS PART OF GIULIANI’S PLAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR MET WITH THE UKRAINIANS’ LAWYERS WHO ASKED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WITHDRAW EVIDENCE IN THE TYCOONS’ BRIBERY PROSECUTION. EARLIER TODAY YOU SAID YOU ARE NOT INVESTIGATING MATTERS RELATED TO ONGOING UKRAINE ISSUES. DOES THAT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED NOT TO INVESTIGATE THESE INCIDENTS? >>NO. AS I THINK MENTIONED IN A RECENT LETTER, AND I HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH FELLOW IGs WHO HAVE BEEN ASKED BY MEMBERS TO LOOK AT THOSE ISSUES. WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH EACH OTHER. I THINK AS MR. FINE, THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT IG WROTE TO SEVERAL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, HE WAS FORGOING AT THE TIME UNDERTAKING ANY WORK WHILE THE HOUSE INVESTIGATION PROCEEDED AND ANY MATTERS HERE IN THE SENATE AND, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED, WE WILL LOOK ACCORDINGLY AT ANY ACTION THAT WE HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW GETTING BACK TO THE SECTION 80 DISCUSSION, NO OTHER IG HAS THAT LIMITATION, BY THE WAY. SO THEY CAN INVESTIGATE THEIR SECRETARY, DEPUTY SECRETARY, ADMINISTRATOR, WHOMEVER. I JUST POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE THAT’S IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE GET REQUESTS, WHY ARE WE DIFFERENT THAN THE STATEMENT DEPART I.G., THE OTHER — >>COULDN’T AGREE WITH YOU MORE. DO YOU AGREE THAT IF TRUE, GIULIANI’S SCHEME IS ALARMING? >>ANYTHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE VERY CONCERNING. OF DIRT ON THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL RIVALS APPARENTLY IN ORDER TO COOK UP A DOSSIER OF HIS OWN. YESTERDAY HE TOLD REPORTERS THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED HIM TO BRIEF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND SENATE REPUBLICANS ON WHAT IF ANYTHING HE FINDS. DO YOU AND ARE YOU CONCERNED THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WOULD COORDINATE WITH THE PRESIDENT’S PERSONAL LAWYER ON A SCHEME CLEARLY DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT’S POLITICAL CAMPAIGN? >>I AM GOING TO LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE MYSELF AND FACTS I HAVE LEARNED TO — BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION TO NOT JUST RELY ON NEWS REPORTS OR OTHER ALLEGATIONS BUT TO ACTUALLY SPEND THE TIME TO LOOK AT THEM. SO I WOULD ASK TO TAKE A LOOK AT AT THAT AND AGAIN HAPPY TO COME AND MEET WITH YOU AND TALK TO YOU — >>PLEASE DO. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANYONE AT THE DOJ TO TAKE ACTIONS THAT ARE SLOWLY — OR SOLELY DESIGNED TO BENEFIT THE PRESIDENT POLITICALLY? >>I THINK THAT WOULD CREATE QUESTIONS ABOUT — ON VARIOUS RULES AT THE DEPARTMENT AND PRACTICES AT THE DEPARTMENT. >>DURING ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR’S LAST APPEARANCE BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, I ASKED HIM HAS THE PRESIDENT OR ANYONE AT THE WHITE HOUSE EVER SUGGESTED THAT YOU OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OF ANYONE. AFTER PONDERING THE WORD SUGGEST, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DECLINED TO ANSWER. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S NONRESPONSE SUGGESTED TO MANY THAT HE HAS OPENED POLITICALLY MOTIVATED INVESTIGATIONS. WE KNOW THAT DURING A CALL WITH THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE, PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR WOULD FOLLOW UP REGARDING THE QUOTE/UNQUOTE FAVOR THAT THE PRESIDENT DEMANDED. DID THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR ANYONE AT JUSTICE FOLLOW UP WITH THE PRESIDENT’S CALL? >>I DON’T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. AND AGAIN — >>DOES ANYONE IN YOUR OFFICE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? >>I DON’T BELIEVE ANYBODY IN MY OFFICE WOULD KNOW IT AND IT GETS TO THE QUESTION OF A DECISION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WHETHER TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION OR NOT WHICH IN MOST INSTANCES I WON’T FORECLOSE IT COMPLETELY BUT IN MOST INSTANCES WOULD FALL SQUARELY WITHIN THE PROHIBITION ON MY JURISDICTION. >>PRESIDENT TRUMP’S PHONE CONVERSATION WAS AN APPARENT EFFORT TO SOLICIT FOREIGN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2020 ELECTION. AND THE CALL INVOLVED OFFICIALS AT MULTIPLE AGENCIES, INCLUDING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE STATE DEPARTMENT, THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AND OTHERS. ARE YOU WORKING WITH THE INSPECTORS GENERAL OF THESE VARIOUS AGENCIES ON THAT ISSUE? >>AS I MENTIONED, ALLEGATIONS WILL COME IN, WE WILL TALK WITH OUR FELLOW — >>ON THAT SPECIFIC ONE, ARE YOU WORKING WITH OTHER I.G.s? >>I DON’T HAVE ANY ONGOING WORK AT THIS POINT. I’M NOT SURE WHAT MY LEGAL — IF I HAVE A STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT ACTIONS BY LAWYERS AT THE DEPARTMENT RELATED TO MISCONDUCT. >>HAVE YOU BEEN APPROACHED BY ANY OTHER I.G.s TO WORK WITH THEM ON AN INVESTIGATION THAT RELATED TO THAT PHONE CALL? >>I WOULD SAY WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS GENERALLY. I DON’T KNOW WHETHER OTHER I.G.s AT THIS POINT HAVE OR DO NOT HAVE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS. >>YOU HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS GENERALLY ABOUT THIS PHONE CALL? >>ABOUT GENERALLY UKRAINE- RELATED MATTERS AND DISCUSSIONS GENERALLY. >>HOW ABOUT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS PHONE CALL? >>I DON’T RECALL AS I SIT HERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT. BUT I HAVE — >>YOU HAVE TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY? >>REFRESH MY RECOLLECTION ON THIS ISSUE. I OBVIOUSLY HAVE BEEN SPENDING A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME PREPARING TO DEAL WITH THE 400 PLUS PAGE REPORT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. >>INVOLVING UKRAINE? >>YEAH. NO, RIGHT. THIS — >>OKAY. >>SORRY. >>THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF JUSTICE WAS FOUNDED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW AND THAT PRINCIPLE OBVIOUSLY MEANS THERE CANNOT BE ONE SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE AND A DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF JUSTICE FOR OTHERS AND I HAVE SPENT MY CAREER FIGHTING FOR EQUAL JUSTICE AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT EVERYBODY IN A DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OBVIOUSLY HAS A DUTY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE GET A FAIR SHOT. UNFORTUNATELY RECENT REPORTS SUGGEST THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LEADERS FALL FAR SHORT OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO PURSUE EQUAL AND EVEN HANDED JUSTICE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN 2011 THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL ISSUED AN OPINION THAT PAVED THE WAY FOR STATES TO LEGALIZE ONLINE GAMBLING. THIS OPINION WAS OPPOSED BY SHELDON AIDLESON, WHO IS A MAJOR DONOR WHO SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND HIS LOBBYISTS ALSO SENT A MEMO TO TOP DOJ OFFICIALS ASKING THAT THE OPINION BE REVERSED AND, OF COURSE, THEN THE LC REVERSED THE 2011 OPINION IN JANUARY OF 2019. HAS YOUR OFFICE INVESTIGATED WHERE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS MOTIVATED THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S ABRUPT REVERSAL OF ONLINE GAMBLING? >>I’M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT WE WOULD BE BARRED FROM DOING THAT BY THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION. I DON’T THINK WE WOULD HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO LOOK AT WHY THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MADE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, UNLESS THERE WAS A CRIMINAL ALLEGATION CONNECTED TO IT. >>MY TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. >>SENATOR. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND AGAIN I JOIN WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, MR. HORWITZ, FOR THANKING YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE DONE HERE. I’M GOING TO GO BACK TO AN ISSUE THAT’S BEEN TALKED ABOUT BY MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES TODAY AND THAT IS THIS QUESTION OF BIAS. ACTUALLY I WANT TO START BY GOING BACK TO JUNE OF 2018 WHEN YOU WERE LAST HERE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND WHEN I ASKED QUESTIONS OF YOU AT THAT TIME, I HAD TALKED ABOUT YOUR FINDINGS THEN WITH REGARD TO BIAS. THE SPECIFIC FOCUS THAT I RECALL THERE WAS PETER STRZOK AND LISA PAGE AND THE INFORMATION THAT’S ALREADY BEEN WELL PRESENTED HERE ABOUT WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE THE UNDENIAL BIAS THAT THEY HAD AGAINST THE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENT TRUMP. AT THAT TIME YOU MADE SIMILAR STATEMENTS TO THOSE YOU MADE TODAY, WHICH IS THAT YOU DID NOT FIND BIAS IN THE DECISIONS THAT YOU WERE EVALUATING IN THAT REPORT. BUT AS I WENT THROUGH THAT WITH YOU, I THINK THAT YOU ALSO CONFIRMED THAT YOU WERE NOT SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO BIAS BY THOSE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN MAKING DECISIONS. RATHER, YOU WERE SAYING YOU COULD NOT PROVE THAT THAT BIAS WAS A FACTOR IN THEIR MANAGEMENT OF THE ACTIVITIES THEY ENGAGED IN ON BEHALF OF THE FBI. AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, YOU SAID THAT THERE WAS BIAS BUT IN FACT THAT YOU HAD ASKED THEM WHETHER THEIR BIAS INFLUENCED THEIR WORK PERFORMANCE THEY HAD TOLD YOU THAT IT DID NOT AND YOU HAD NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE TO DISPUTE THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? >>LET ME CLARIFY. — LET ME EXPLAIN, WE FOUND THAT THOSE TEXT MESSAGES EVIDENCED BIAS AND WHAT WE ULTIMATELY FOUND WAS THAT OTHER PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED AND MADE MANY OF THOSE DECISIONS NOT THEN AND THAT WAS — NOT BECAUSE WE DIDN’T KNOW WHETHER THEY WERE BIASED, THOSE TEXT EVIDENCED BIAS BY THEM. >>THE QUESTION WAS THE OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WE DIDN’T HAVE TEXT MESSAGES FOR, OTHERWISE IN EVIDENCE OF BIAS BY THOSE INDIVIDUALS. >>THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOUR REPORT HERE TODAY SAYS, AS I AM READING FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, I BELIEVE THAT’S HIS TITLE PRESTAT. >>DEPENDING UPON THE TIME PERIOD. >>HE’S THE ONE MONTH MADE THE FINAL DECISION TO OPEN EACH OF THE FOUR INVESTIGATIONS? >>CORRECT. >>HE DID THAT IN CONSULTATION WITH A NUMBER OF OTHERS INCLUDING PETER STRZOK. >>CORRECT. >>AND YOU DON’T NECESSARILY KNOW WHAT ADVICE WAS GIVEN IN THOSE CONVERSATIONS, DO YOU? >>I DON’T. >>BUT HE MADE THE FINAL DECISION AND BECAUSE YOU HAD NO — AND YOU HAVE USED THE PHRASE VERY CONSISTENTLY HERE TODAY, YOU DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL PIE AS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION INFLUENCED THE DECISION TO OPEN THESE FOUR INVESTIGATIONS. >>RIGHT. >>DID YOU ASK MR. PRESTEP WHETHER HE HAD BIAS? >>WE ASKED ALL THE WITNESSES, NOT JUST HIM AS TO WHETHER BIAS OR OTHER IMPROPER CONSIDERATIONS HAD ANY IMPACT. BUT WE ALSO LOOKED FOR E-MAILS, TEXT MESSAGES, DOCUMENTS THAT COULD SHOW WHAT WE FOUND, FRANKLY WITH STRZOK AND PAGE. THAT IS HOW YOU FIND EVIDENCE OF BIAS. BEYOND THAT, I’M STUCK TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT’S IN SOMEBODY’S HEAD IF THERE’S NO OTHER — >>I WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR WHAT IT IS YOU’RE SAYING AND WHAT YOU ARE NOT SAYING. >>CORRECT, CORRECT. >>AND IN THIS CASE WHAT YOU’RE SAYING IS THAT YOU COULD NOT FIND ANY DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTIGATORS THAT THEY WERE NOT LETTING BIAS INFLUENCE THEIR DECISION? >>CORRECT. >>DO YOU BELIEVE THAT’S AN OPEN QUESTION? >>OKAY. ONLY SPEAK TO THE EVIDENCE WE FOUND. I THINK THE IMPORTANT POINT HERE THAT I MADE EARLIER IS ALL THE EVIDENCE IS HERE. PEOPLE ARE FREE TO CONSIDER, EVALUATE WHAT THEY THINK ULTIMATELY PEOPLE’S MOTIVATIONS WERE. WE — >>YOU AREN’T MAKING THAT DECISION? >>WE ARE NOT MAKING A DECISION ON ULTIMATELY INFORMATION, EVIDENCE WE DON’T HAVE THAT SOMEBODY MAY HAVE ACTED. >>BUT THERE’S — IN MY OPINION AND I THINK IN THE OPINION OF MOST OF US ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE WHO HAVE TALKED TO YOU TODAY, I THINK THERE’S TONS OF EVIDENCE OF BIAS HERE. IN FACT, YOU HAVE REFERRED FOR FURTHER ACTION TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ONE CASE FOR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, IF I UNDERSTAND IT RIGHT, AND OTHER CASES OF HOW MANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS? >>SO — BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR, WE ARE TALKING NOW ABOUT THE FISA AS OPPOSED TO THE OPEN? >>I UNDERSTAND AND THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE OPENING OF THE INVESTIGATION — >>VERY — >>AND THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION. >>CORRECT. >>AND SO I AM MOVING — I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE — >>I HAVE TRIED TO SEPARATE THAT. >>YOUR CLARIFICATION. BECAUSE IN THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION IT APPEARS TO ME THERE HAS BEEN INTENSE BIAS. BUT YOU’RE NOT MAKING THAT JUDGMENT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. YOU ARE REFERRING THAT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CORRECT? >>UH-HUH, AND THE FBI FOR ADJUDICATION AND — >>UNDERSTOOD THAT. AND I BELIEVE IN RESPONSE TO SENATOR ERNEST’S QUESTION ON THIS SAME ISSUE YOU INDICATED SIMILARLY SINCE YOU COULD NOT FIND ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THEIR STATEMENTS THAT THEY WERE NOT BIASED THAT THAT LEAVES AN OPEN QUESTION AS TO WHAT THE FBI OR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL FIND WITH THESE REFERRALS? >>THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT SERIOUS FAILURES HERE ON THE OPERATION PARTICULARLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE FISAS WHETHER IT’S SHEER GROSS INCOMPETENCE THAT LED TO THIS VERSIONS INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT OR ANYTHING IN BETWEEN AND WHAT THE MOTIVATIONS ARE, I CAN’T TELL YOU WAS CONSIDERED TODAY. >>YOU ARE NOT MAKING THAT DECISION? >>I CAN’T TELL YOU AS I SIT HERE TODAY BECAUSE I DON’T HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO REACH A CONCLUSION. >>YOU’RE TELLING US THEREIN NO BIAS HERE, THAT’S NOT WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US? >>THAT IS NOT AS TO THE OPERATION OF THESE FISAS WHAT I AM TELLING YOU. >>UNDERSTAND. I DID WANT TO GET TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE FISAS, AND YOU MAY NOT ANSWER THIS AND THAT’S FINE. IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE GO BEYOND THE BIAS QUESTION TO INTENTIONAL VERSUS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE KIND OF MISCONDUCT THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY YOU AND REVIEWED BY OUR CHAIRMAN AND MANY OTHERS HERE TODAY IS MIND NUMBING TO CONSIDER IT COULD BE JUST ACCIDENTAL. >>UH-HUH. >>CAN YOU REACH A CONCLUSION LIKE THAT? >>I WOULD BE SKEPTICAL BUT I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE WOULD BE SKEPTICAL OF THAT. THERE IS SUCH A RANGE OF CONDUCT HERE THAT IS INEXPLICABLE AND THE ANSWERS WE GOT WERE NOT SATISFACTORY THAT WE ARE LEFT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW COULD ALL OF THESE ERRORS HAVE OCCURRED OVER A NINE MONTH PERIOD OR SO AMONG THREE TEAMS HANDPICKED, ONE OF THE HIGHEST PROFILE IF NOT THE HIGHEST PROFILE CASE IN THE FBI GOING TO THE VERY TOP OF THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. >>WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK IT IS EXPLICABLE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN’T — OR AT LEAST AREN’T GOING TO MAKE THAT JUMP. YOU ARE GOING TO REFER THESE CASES. >>UH-HUH. >>AND I APPRECIATE THAT. IS CRIMINAL PROSECUTION A POSSIBLE ACTION IN THE CASES OTHER THAN THE ONE YOU HAVE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED? >>I WOULDN’T WANT TO PREJUDICE OR PRE JUDGE ANYTHING. I WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE DEPARTMENT TO SPEAK TO YOU ON THAT. >>ALL RIGHT. LET ME GO ON FOR JUST A MOMENT. LET’S MOVE TO THE WHISTLEBLOWER QUESTION JUST ONCE MORE. I AM SHIFTING TOPICS COMPLETELY. THIS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES TODAY AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT THAT A WHISTLEBLOWER IS ENTITLED TO ANONYMITY. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW IT HAPPENS THAT THE PERSON ACCUSED WHEN A WHISTLEBLOWER MAKES AN ACCUSATION CAN HAVE THE RIGHT THAT MOST AMERICANS THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE TO CONFRONT THOSE TESTIFYING AGAINST THEM. HOW IS THAT ACCOMPLISHED? >>SO I’LL SPEAK TO WHAT WE DO. WE GOT ANONYMOUS ALLEGATIONS FREQUENTLY. WE GET PEOPLE COMING FORWARD WHO ARE REPORTING MISCONDUCT WHO WANT TO BE ANONYMOUS, WANT TO STAY ANONYMOUS SO WE GET THEM BOTH WAYS. PEOPLE WALKING IN SAYING KEEP ME ANONYMOUS AND ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS. WE MOVE FORWARD ON BOTH IF WE THINK THEY ARE SUFFICIENT TO MOVE FORWARD ON AND PREDICATED AND HAVE SUPPORT. BUT WE THEN HAVE TO APPROVE THE ALLEGATIONS AND GET ORROBORATION FOR IT BECAUSE YOU’RE RIGHT, THE INDIVIDUAL, IF THERE IS A FINDING OF MISCONDUCT, HAS A RIGHT TO ULTIMATELY CHALLENGE THE EVIDENCE FOUND. BUT IT DOESN’T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THEY GET ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHERE THE NUGGET STARTED IF THAT INFORMATION IS CORROBORATED THROUGH OTHER MEANS. AND THE IG ACT REQUIRES US, ACTUALLY, THE CONGRESSIONAL — THE LAW SAYS SENATOR GRASSLEY, OBVIOUSLY, HAD A ROLE IN THIS, MAKES IT QUITE CLEAR. UNLESS WE ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION, THE LAW REQUIRES US TO DO SO, IT’S OUR OBLIGATION AS I.G.s TO KEEP THAT INFORMATION. >>I APPRECIATE THAT. WE MAY FACE THAT QUESTION IN THE SENATE RELATIVELY QUICKLY. I WOULD LIKE A QUICK ANSWER IF YOU COULD. I’M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHO BROUGHT THE STEELE DOSSIER TO THE ATTENTION OF THE FBI FOR THE INVESTIGATION? WAS THAT ANDREW McCABE OR WAS THAT BRUCE OHR? >>SO IT WAS STEELE ON JULY 25th OF 2016 GOING TO HIS HANDLING AGENT, THE AGENT — THERE’S A DISPUTE WHETHER HE WAS A CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE OR NOT. WE SPENT A NUMBER OF PAGES ON THIS, BUT THE AGENT THAT STEELE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH IS THE AGENT HE WENT TO WITH SOME OF HIS REPORTS. THAT AGENT THEN TOOK — PUT IT THROUGH A PROCESS AT THE FBI — EVENTUALLY IN THAT MEANDERING OVER THE — TO WHAT IS THAT? 2 1/2 MONTHS? THERE IS INFORMATION CONCLUDING HERE THAT MR. MCCABE WAS INVOLVED IN REFERRING IT OVER TO THE CROSSFER HURRICANE TEAM. >>OKAY. THANK YOU. >>LONG DAY, GENERAL. YOU GOT 30 KIDNEYS. >>HOPEFULLY FOR 20 MORE MINUTES. >>YEAH. I’M GOING TO TRY TO LAND THIS PLANE EARLY. I BELIEVE THE FBI IS THE PREMIERE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY. WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? >>I WOULD NOT. >>CURRENTLY WE HAVE GOT SOME BAD APPLES. I WANT TO THANK YOU AND I WANT TO THANK YOUR TEAM FOR YOUR USUAL SUPERB JOB. AFTER — I HAVEN’T READ THE ENTIRE REPORT. I’M ABOUT 70% OF THE WAY THROUGH BUT I’M GOING TO FINISH IT. IT’S TEDIOUS. >>YES. >>I DON’T MEAN THAT IN A PEJORATIVE SENSE. IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE TEDIOUS. >>RIGHT. >>AFTER ABOUT 15% OF THE WAY THROUGH IT MADE ME WANT TO HEAVE. AFTER ABOUT 25% OF THE WAY THROUGH I THOUGHT I DROPPED ACID. IT’S SURREAL. I COULDN’T BELIEVE IT. >>I HAVE READ IT MULTIPLE TIMES AND EVERY TIME I READ IT, I AM — >>LET ME ASK YOU THIS. HOW MANY MEMBERS COMPRISED THE MISFIRE HURRICANE TEAM? >>THERE WERE THREE TEAMS OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME. I WOULD VENTURE TO GUESS, AGAIN, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT THEM — >>JUST ROUGHLY. >>AT LEAST HALF A DOZEN TO A DOZEN ON EACH OF THOSE ITERATIONS. I’LL TURN AND SEE IF I AM SOMEWHAT CLOSE. >>DOES THAT INCLUDE SUPERVISOR? >>GENERALLY SPEAKING. >>HALF DOZEN TO A DOZEN? >>PROBABLY MORE IF YOU’RE GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY UP THE CHAIN THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT LEVELS AT THE BUREAU. >>DO YOU OR YOUR TEAM HAVE A FEEL FOR HOW MANY OF THESE FOLKS ARE STILL AT THE FBI? I KNOW YOU HAVE TRIED TO ANSWER THAT. DO YOU KNOW THAT? >>THE HIGHER LEVEL PEOPLE, AS YOU KNOW, HAVE CHANGED OVER IN THE LAST YEAR, TO THE DIRECTOR, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ET CETERA, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, A LOT OF PEOPLE AT THE UPPER LEVELS ARE NO LONGER — >>ARE SOME OF THE ACTUAL AGENTS? >>SOME ARE STILL THERE. >>ARE THEY STILL WORKING ON THE FISA APPLICATION? >>I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK TO THE FBI ABOUT THAT. >>I WILL. I THINK WE WILL. >>I THINK THEY HAVE TAKEN SOME STEPS IN THAT REGARD, I UNDERSTAND. >>IT’S EASIER TO DIVORCE YOUR SPOUSE FROM AROUND HERE THAN IT IS TO GET FIRED. THAT’S CLEAR. AT LEAST IN THE FBI. IS MR. OHR STILL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE? >>MY UNDERSTANDING, YES. >>HE’S STILL THERE? >>THAT’S MY UNDERSTANDING. >>HOW LONG WITHIN THE FBI — I KNOW YOU JUST ISSUED YOUR REPORT, BUT HOW LONG WITHIN THE FBI HAS THIS BEEN KNOWLEDGE? >>SO, WE SENT THE DRAFT FOR CLASSIFICATION — >>NOT YOUR DOCUMENTS. EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING BUT JUST THE FACT THERE WAS A MAJORLY SCREW-UP HERE? >>IT EVOLVED OVER TIME. THEY DID NOT KNOW A LOT OF THIS UNTIL WE FOUND IT. >>BUT THEY KNOW NOW, RIGHT? >>THE ALTERED E-MAIL, THEY DIDN’T — >>EVERYBODY KNOWS IT NOW, THOUGH, RIGHT? >>YES. >>OKAY. >>AS OF THE END OF AUGUST. >>DOES YOUR REPORT VINDICATE MR. COMEY? >>IT DOESN’T VINDICATE ANYBODY AT THE FBI WHO TOUCHED THIS INCLUDING THE LEADERSHIP. >>DOES IT VINDICATE MR. MCCABE? >>SAME ANSWER. >>HOW ABOUT MISS PAGE? >>A LITTLE DIFFERENT THERE BECAUSE AS WE FOUND HERE, SHE WASN’T INVOLVED IN THIS SO I ACTUALLY DON’T — LARGELY WASN’T INVOLVED IN THIS, SO — >>SHE PARTICIPATED IN THE DISCUSSION? >>IN SOME DISCUSSIONS BUT WAS NOT IN THE FISA CHAIN WHICH IS — >>ON THAT NOTE, WHO BRIEFED THE AGENT THAT WAS SENT TO SURVEIL MICHAEL FLYNN DURING THE MEETING WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP? >>THAT WAS DISCUSSED UP AND DOWN THE CHAIN AT THE FBI. >>OKAY. >>SO THAT WAS NOT A HIDDEN FACT OR HIDDEN INFORMATION. >>ALL RIGHT. I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM ARE VERY PRECISE IN YOUR LANGUAGE. I MEAN, FRANKLY I WISH I WROTE AS WELL AS YOU AND YOUR TEAM DO. AND I NOTICED YOU WERE CAREFUL TO SAY, I’M GOING TO QUOTE HERE, WE DID NOT FIND DOCUMENTARY OR TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE THAT POLITICAL BIAS OR IMPROPER MOTIVATION INFLUENCED THE DECISIONS TO OPEN THE FOUR INDIVIDUAL INVESTIGATIONS. YOUR WORDS? >>CORRECT. >>NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND NO TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE. SO YOU DIDN’T FIND ANY DOCUMENTS THAT SAID, WE DID THIS TO GET TRUMP, RIGHT? >>OR TEXT MESSAGES LIKE THE STRZOK/PAGE TEXT MESSAGES. >>AND NOBODY WHO IS INVOLVED IN THIS CIRCUS WITHOUT A TENT LOOKED YOU IN THE EYE AND SAID, YEP, I DID IT TO GET TRUMP? NOBODY DID THAT? >>OR, FOR EXAMPLE, A WHISTLEBLOWER COME IN OR OTHER PEOPLE TELL US THEY HEARD SOMETHING — >>NONE OF THE AGENTS YOU TALKED TO LOOKED YOU IN THE EYE AND SAID, YOU’RE RIGHT, I DID IT TO GET TRUMP? >>AND NO ONE CAME IN THROUGH A DIFFERENT MEANS AND SAID I’VE GOT A PROBLEM, WHAT’S GOING ON? >>YOU DON’T HAVE TO QUALIFY AS MATERIAL TO KNOW NOT TO DO THAT TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. >>ALTHOUGH LOOK AT THE TEXT MESSAGES WE FOUND. >>I UNDERSTAND. >>THAT MAY BE A COUNTER NARRATIVE TO THAT. >>I DON’T WANT TO GET TOO — I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE WORD, APISTOMOLIGICA HERE IS THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE ALWAYS THE ABSENCE? >>NO, IT ISN’T. >>CAN YOU RULE OUT CATEGORICALLY, UNEQUIVOCALLY AND UNCONDITIONALLY THERE WAS NO BIAS HERE BY THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN’T FIND ANYTHING IN WRITING AND NONE OF THESE CHUCKLE HEADS LOOKED YOU IN THE EYE AND SAID, YEAH, I DID IT TO GET TRUMP? >>IT’SRARE I COULD TELL YOU AT ANY POINT IN TIME I COULD 100% SAY THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. SO I GET IT. I WILL SAY — SOMEWHAT THE DIFFERENCE ON THE OPENING IS, WE CONCLUDED, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, THAT MR. PRESTAT OPENED IT. WE HAVE NOT SEEN IN LAST YEAR’S INVESTIGATION OR THIS — TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE, ANY EVIDENCE THAT HE DID IT FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE. CAN I TELL YOU A THOUSAND% SOMEONE WON’T WALK IN IN A WEEK AND SAY, AHA, YOU MISSED THIS? BUT THAT’S WHAT I’M SAYING. >>I’M SORRY. I’M SORRY. GO AHEAD. LET’S TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE INITIAL FISA APPLICATION AND THE RENEWALS. THESE ARE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE, RIGHT? >>IN THIS CASE, THESE WERE EXPERIENCED PEOPLE. >>I MEAN, YOU HAVEN’T HAD PROFESSIONAL DEGREES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LAW DEGREES, RIGHT? >>I ACTUALLY DON’T KNOW WHAT ALL THEIR DEGREES WERE. >>OKAY. THEY KNEW THE LAW? >>THEY SHOULD HAVE NOT ONLY KNOW THE LAW, THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN EVERY SINGLE POLICY TO DEAL WITH HERE. >>THEY WERE HANDPICKED BY MR. MCCABE, RIGHT? >>THEY WERE HANDPICKED. >>THIS WASN’T THEIR FIRST RODEO? >>IT CERTAINLY WASN’T WITH MAYBE AN EXCEPTION OR TWO TOWARDS THE END OF RELATIVELY NEW AGENTS COMING ON BOARD. >>WELL — >>BUT THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN EXCUSE, JUST TO BE CLEAR. >>WHAT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT HAS TO BE ONE OR TWO THINGS. EITHER INCOMPETENCE OR INTENTIONAL CONDUCT. >>I AGREE. IT’S EITHER SHEER INCOMPETENCE, INTENTIONALITY OR SOMETHING PERHAPS IN BETWEEN — >>WHICH DO YOU THINK IT IS? >>WE HAVE GOT SO MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE HERE, IT’S — FIRST OF ALL WOULDN’T BE FAIR TO LUMP EVERYBODY INTO ONE BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT ACTORS COMING IN AT DIFFERENT TIMES. SOME PEOPLE HAVE MORE TOUCHES OF THIS THAN OTHERS. I THINK IT’S FAIR FOR PEOPLE TO SIT THERE AND LOOK AT ALL OF THESE 17 EVENTS AND WONDER HOW IT COULD BE PURELY INCOMPETENCE. >>WELL, I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN. I KNOW THIS PUTS YOU IN A TOUGH SPOT AND I HOPE YOU WILL TELL YOUR COLLEAGUES BACK AT THE FBI THAT WE APPRECIATE THEIR WORK. >>ABSOLUTELY. >>BUT THIS HAS GOT TO BE FIXED. AT A MINIMUM SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO BE FIRED. >>COMPLETELY AGREED. GOT TO BE A — >>AGREED. >>SENATOR BLACK. >>THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND GENERAL, I KNOW YOU’RE HAPPY TO SEE THE END OF THE DAY IS COMING AT YOU. YOU’RE GOING TO GET OUT OF HERE. LET ME PICK UP RIGHT WHERE SENATOR KENNEDY LEFT OFF BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU THE PERCEPTION BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, FROM READING YOUR REPORT AND WE HAVE ALL PUT UP LINKS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN READ IT, IS THAT THIS WAS INTENTIONAL, THAT IT WAS DELIBERATE, THAT IT WAS MALICIOUS, IT WAS PREMEDITATED AND WELL THOUGHT OUT AND THAT IT IS CONDUCTED BY PEOPLE WHO WERE DESPERATE. IN ESSENCE, IT IS THE EPITOME OF THE SWAMP. IT IS MURKY AND MUDDY AND PEOPLE WEREN’T GOING TO GET THEIR WAY AND THIS GUY WHO WAS GOING TO WIN AND THEN DID WIN DIDN’T DESERVE TO WIN, AND IT DOES HAVE THE APPEARANCE OF INTENTIONALITY BECAUSE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THIS SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCES. THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS. IT IS THE SURVEILLANCE STATE AT WORK. THIS IS WHAT THEY DID. AND THEY TOOK THEIR PROFESSIONAL PLACE AND THOSE TOOLS THAT THEY HAD AT THEIR DISPOSAL TO GO SPY ON A CAMPAIGN AND ON U.S. CITIZENS, WHICH IS UNBELIEVABLE. AND YOU HAVE HEARD IT FROM SEVERAL TODAY. >>THEY WERE MALICIOUS IN THE WAY THEY WENT ABOUT THIS. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT CHRISTOPHER STEELE. HE WAS PAID $95,000 OVER THREE YEARS. >>CORRECT. >>AND WHAT WAS THAT MONEY PAID TO HIM FOR? >>THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR VARIOUS PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT HE GAVE TO THE FBI AFTER BEING AT CHS BUT NOT RELATED TO CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. >>CORRECT. >>BETWEEN ’13 AND ’16. >>HE WAS CONSIDERED A TRUSTED SOURCE AND HE WAS PAID. AND THEN HE BEGAN WORKING WITH FUSION GPS IN JUNE 2016 AND THAT SHOULD HAVE RAISED ALARM BELLS. NOVEMBER COMES ALONG THAT YEAR, AND YOU DROP STEELE AS A SOURCE, CORRECT? >>THE FBI DROPS STEELE. >>THE FBI DROPS HIM. >>HE WASN’T TRUSTED ANY MORE. AND THAT WAS BECAUSE HE BLEW HIS COVER. >>CORRECT. >>HE STARTED TALKING TO THE MEDIA. >>AND THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED RELYING ON HIM AT THAT POINT? >>UNDER FBI RULES, ONCE YOU’RE CLOSED. YOU’RE CLOSED. AND YOU NEED CERTAIN APPROVALS TO RE-ENGAGE. >>AND THE FBI CONTENT USING HIM. >>THEY MET WITH HIM THROUGH BRUCE OHR. >>AND THEY USED HIM FOR INFORMATION AFTER HE WAS CUT OFF. >>THEY RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION. >>13 DIFFERENT TIMES. >>CORRECT. >>SO WE GET THIS DOSSIER AND IT’S USED AS A BIG PART OF SETTING UP THIS ENTIRE PROCESS FOR THE FISA APPLICATION. AND CHRISTOPHER STEELE, PEOPLE AT THE FBI KNOW CHRISTOPHER STEELE WAS UNTRUSTWORTHY. HE WAS AN UNTRUSTWORTHY FOREIGN ACTOR. HE WAS A POLITICAL HACK. HE DIDN’T LIKE TRUMP. HE WAS BEING PAID BY THE CLINTONS, AND THEY STILL PUSHED FORWARD WITH USING HIM AND EXERCISED EXTREMELY POOR JUDGMENT, CORRECT? >>ONCE THEY FOUND OUT THAT HE HAD, THEY HAD DECIDED TO CLOSE HIM. THEY SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE RULES IF THEY WANTED TO RE- ENGAGE WITH HIM. BUT THEY HAD PLENTY OF INFORMATION TO QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE REPORTING. >>SHOULD BRUCE OHR BE HELD CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE? >>WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE DEPARTMENT. OTHERS WILL MAKE THE DECISION. >>A COUPLE OF TIMES WE HEARD AOUT LOWER LEVEL FBI AGENTS AND LAWYERS WHO HAD GENERATED SOME OF THESE INACCURACIES, THESE 17 INACCURACIES. WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR SUPERVISORS FACT CHECKING? >>UNDER THE WOODS PROCEDURES, THESE FACTUAL ACCURACY PROCEDURES PUT IN PLACE IN RESPONSE TO PRIOR INCIDENTS. THE FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR IS SUPPOSED TO RECHECK THE PROCESS. >>BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. >>THAT DID NOT HAPPEN HIGHER ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. >>AND WHY DID THAT NOT HAPPEN ON THESE MULTIPLE OCCASIONS THAT THIS WORK WAS NOT CHECKED? >>WE WERE GIVEN EXPLANATIONS RANGING FROM A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS. >>SO THEY WERE TRYING TO SKIRT NOT ONLY THE RULES BUT THE LAW. >>WE GOT A LOT OF EXPLANATIONS THAT WE DIDN’T FIND PARTICULARLY SATISFYING. >>I THINK WHAT THEY DID TO CARTER PAGE AS YOU HAVE HEARD IS JUST UNBELIEVABLE. HOW MANY TIMES, HOW OFTEN DO YOU FIND MISTAKES IN A FISA APPLICATION? >>THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT MY OFFICE HAS DONE A DEEP DIVE INTO A PARTICULAR APPLICATION. WE’VE DONE HIGHER LEVEL REVIEWS ON THE FISA PROCESS AND HAVE FOUND VARIOUS ISSUES AT A HIGHER LEVEL. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE’VE BEEN ABLE TO DELVE IN IN THIS WAY. >>IT’S A FAIRLY UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE. >>I WOULD HOPE SO. >>IF IT’S NOT AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE, THERE ARE MORE CULTURAL PROBLEMS THAN YOU KNOW ABOUT, CORRECT? >>CORRECT. >>I WANT TO TOUCH ON ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME I HAVE LEFT. I THINK IT IS ABSOLUTELY JUST INFURIATING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THOSE WHO EXECUTED THIS EXERCISE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED OPERATION TAKE DOWN TRUMP. THAT’S WHAT THEY WERE DOING. THAT THEY ARE STILL GETTING A TAXPAYER FUNDED PAYCHECK. THEY’RE STILL GETTING TAXPAYER FUNDED BENEFITS AND VACATION TIME. WHEN THEY TAKE OFF FOR CHRISTMAS. THEY’LL BE ON THE TAXPAYER DIME. AND AROUND HERE, FROM TIME TO TIME YOU’LL HEAR PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THOSE WHO WENT AFTER THE LATE SENATOR STEVENS, ONE OF THEM IS STILL WORKING FOR THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE IN ANCHORAGE AND ANOTHER IN SPOKANE. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DISCIPLINARY ACTION IS TAKEN. CASE AGENT IS STILL THERE. WHAT ABOUT SSA 1. >>HE IS STILL USING OUR MONEY TO FUND HIS LIFESTYLE. AND THE LAWYER, WE KNOW IS GOING TO HAVE, FACE CRIMINAL REFERRALS, CORRECT? >>I’M JUST GOING TO STICK WITH WHAT HE SAY HERE, WE REFERRED IT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. >>THE FBI SENT A — I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. PETER STRZOK APPROVED THE REQUEST TO EX-WE KITE THE FIRST FISA APPLICATION, AND HE ALONG WITH LISA PAGE. >>CORRECT. >>SO WE KNOW THAT SHE WAS IN ANSWER TO WHAT SENATOR KENNEDY ASKED YOU, SHE WAS INVOLVED IN THE LINE OF COMMUNICATION AND THE SETUP OF THIS. >>SHE WAS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST THE ONE MEETING WE IDENTIFY IN THE REPORT. >>AND I FOUND IT CURIOUS IN YOUR REPORT. AND THIS IS REASON I ASK, YOU SAID THAT THEY HAD NO ROLE IN THE PREPARATION OF THE APPROVAL OF ANY OF THE FOUR FISA WARRANT PUBLICS. SO I GUESS IF YOU’RE SAYING NOT PUTTING PEN TO PAPER AND GIVING A NOD UP OR DOWN. >>THERE’S A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OF APPROVAL. THEY WERE NOT IN THE CHAIN THAT HAD TO SIGN OFF ON IT. BUT THEY DID GET INVOLVED IN PUSHING THE DEPARTMENT TO GET ANSWERS. >>THEY WERE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS BUT NOT THE FINAL APPROVAL. >>THEY DID NOT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY AT ANY STEP OF THIS. >>WE’LL GET YOU OUT OF HERE MAYBE A FEW SECONDS EARLY. I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR TEAM VERY MUCH FOR THE PATIENCE FOR BEING HERE. FOR THE REPORT THAT YOU’VE GIVEN. MANY OF US LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT GENERAL DURHAM IS GOING TO SAY WHEN HE TAKES UP SOME OF THIS. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED LIKE THIS IN ONE OF OUR FEDERAL AGENCIES. AND THE REACTION WHEN I’M AT HOME IN TENNESSEE FROM PEOPLE IS THEY CANNOT BELIEVE THE ABSOLUTE MALICIOUSNESS THAT TOOK PLACE WITH THIS. IT IS NOT UNFORTUNATE COINCIDENCES. IT’S THE SURVEILLANCE STATE. YIELD BACK. >>AND I COULD JUST THANK YOU ALSO. WE MENTIONED SENATOR STEVENS, AND THE BILL THAT SENATOR LEE, THAT YOU COSPONSORED. I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. >>SENATOR HONORO HAS ONE QUESTION. >>MR. HOROWITZ, YOU ARE INVESTIGATING FOR 19 MONTHS, 100 WITNESSES, A MILLION DOCUMENTS, YOU EVEN HAVE A HOTLINE FOR WHISTLE BLOWERS. >>RIGHT. >>DID ANY WHISTLE BLOWERS COME FORWARD DURING YOUR INVESTIGATION WITH ANY CONCERN THAT ERRORS WERE MADE INTENTIONALLY OR OUT OF BIAS AGAINST TRUMP? FOR EXAMPLE, I’M LOOKING AT THE FOOTNOTE ON PAGE 339 OF YOUR REPORT. AND IT CITES SOME OF THE VERY COLORFUL PRO TRUMP TWEETS MADE BY SOME OF THE FBI AGENTS. ONE WOULD THINK THAT IF THEY KNEW ANYTHING THEY WOULD HAVE CONTACTED YOU IN THE 19 MONTH INVESTIGATION. DID ANYBODY COME FORWARD? >>WE DID NOT HAVE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE. >>NO ONE COMING FORWARD TO COMPLAIN. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER WAY OF GAUGING MOTIVES AS YOU PUT IT. >>CORRECT. >>NO ONE CAME FORWARD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >>I PROBABLY VIOLATED THE GENEVA CONVENTION TODAY BY HAVING YOU SIT FOR FOUR HOURS. THIS IS A WELL DOCUMENTED REPORT. THERE’S A BLUE TEAM, RED TEAM VIEW TO SOME EXTENT BUT I’M GLAD TO SEE ALL OF US COMING TOGETHER THAT THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. THE FISA SYSTEM HAS TO BE CHANGED. IF YOU TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION THAT WILL GIVE US CONFIDENCE THAT YOU SHOULD STICK AROUND. ALL OF US ARE THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT CHECKS AND BALANCES IN THAT REGARD. THE COUNTRY WOULD BE STRONGER. LET ME END WITH WHERE I BEGAN. RATHER THAN DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A LEGAL PREDICATE, REASONABLE ARTICULATION, A VERY LOW STANDARD, TO OPEN A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION, DURHAM WILL HAVE HIS VIEW OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENED. HE MAY KNOW MORE THAN YOU. I TRUST HIM TO BE FAIR. I TRUST YOU TO BE FAIR. THE FACT THAT THREE LAWYERS DISAGREE IS OKAY. NO ONE SUGGESTED THAT YOU’VE DONE A BAD JOB. YOU’VE DONE A GREAT JOB. AND I’M GOING TO ASSUME FOR A MOMENT THAT’S THE RIGHT CONCLUSION. AFTER IT WAS OPENED IT BECAME A NIGHTMARE. IT BECAME SOMETHING THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. OVER TIME A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD THE COURT. IT BECAME AN EFFORT BY LAWYERS TO DOCTOR EVIDENCE. IT BECAME A CONSCIOUS EFFORT TO DENY THE COURT EXCULPATORY INFORMATION ABOUT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN. THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AT LEAST IN JANUARY 2017, WHEN THE RUSSIAN SUB SOURCE SAID EVERYTHING IN THE DOSSIER I DISAVOW. POOR CARTER PAGE. TWO MORE WARRANT RENEWALS AFTER THEY WERE ON NOTICE, THE DOSSIER WAS UNRELIABLE. ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT WHY THEY DID IT, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION. BUT IT’S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS WAS A LOT OF THINGS. BUT IT WAS NOT A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP. THIS WAS OPENED AS A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION AND IT KEPT GOING AND GOING AND GOING AFTER IT SHOULD HAVE STOPPED BECAUSE THE LAST THING ON THEIR MIND WAS TO PROTECT DONALD TRUMP. A LOT OF THE KEY PLAYERS HERE WERE UPSET WITH THE OUTCOME OF THE 2016 ELECTION. AND MAN, THEY HAD A LOT OF POWER. AND THAT’S WHAT WORRIES ME THE MOST. YOU MAY NOT LIKE WHAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DO. BUT YOU SHOULD HONOR THEIR DECISION. AND THE REASON THE INVESTIGATION SURVIVED AND KEPT GOING AFTER SO MANY STOP SIGNS IS BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED IT TO KEEP GOING. >>THE REASON NOBODY BRIEFED DONALD TRUMP ABOUT YOU MAY HAVE PEOPLE WORKING FOR YOU CONNECTED TO RUSSIA IS THEY COULD GIVE A DAM ABOUT PROTECTING HIM. THIS IS JUST MY VIEW. IT’S KIND OF ODD THAT IN A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION YOU NEVER BRIEFED THE PERSON WHO IS THE SUBJECT OF THE FOREIGN INFLUENCE LIKE DIANNE FEINSTEIN AND HILLARY CLINTON. THE BOTTOM LINE IS I HOPE WE NEVER HAVE AN INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING WHERE YOU SEND IN AN FBI AGENT TO DO A 302 ON THE PEOPLE YOU’RE BRIEFING. THIS IS SOME REALLY SCARY STUFF. I THINK I KNOW WHAT THEIR MOTIVATION WAS BUT IT DOESN’T MATTER. THEY DID IT. I HOPE SOMEBODY HOLDS THEM ACCOUNTABLE. AND I HOPE IT NEVER EVER HAPPENS AGAIN. TO MY DEMOCRATIC FRIENDS, THIS COULD HAPPEN TO YOU ONE DAY. PREVENT HOROWITZ, DO YOU AGREE THAT EVERY POLITICIAN IN AMERICA SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED? >>EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD WANT THE PROCESS TO WORK THE RIGHT WAY. >>HOW EASIES THE FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN OUR LIVES AND OUR CAMPAIGNS AS VOLUNTEERS. AND I WOULD HOPE THE FBI WOULD TELL ME IF THEY’VE GOT A REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT SOMEBODY IN MY CAMPAIGN IS A BAD ACTOR SO I CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. WHAT SCARES ME THE MOST IS THAT THE POWER TO OPEN UP A COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION IS ALMOST UNLIMITED. THE POWER TO ABUSE IT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOUR REPORT TELLS US ABOUT. THANK YOU. THE HEARING IS ADJOURNED. AND FINALLY, THIS IS THE BEGINNING, NOT THE END OF THIS COMMITTEE’S INVOLVEMENT IN THIS MATTER. MUCH MORE TO FOLLOW. THANK YOU. >>HELLO, EVERYONE. I’M TANYA RIVERO. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, INSPECTOR GENERAL MICHAEL HOROWITZ HAS CONCLUDED HIS TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. HE WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS INVESTIGATION INTO THE SURVEILLANCE OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. THE REPORT WAS RELEASED MONDAY AND FOUND SEVERAL PROCEDURAL ERRORS BUT NO POLITICAL BIAS. THE FBI WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAUNCHING THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAMPAIGN KNOWN AS CROSSFIRE HURRICANE. ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR QUESTIONED THE CONCLUSION CALLING THE EVIDENCE FLIMSY. AND HE DID NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS REASON TO OPEN AN INVESTIGATION. >>LINDSAY GRAHAM DID NOT DISPUTE THE FINDINGS BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. HE INSTEAD SLAMMED THE FBI FOR HOW THE INQUIRY UNFOLDED. >>WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS A FEW IRREGULARITIES BECOMES A MASSIVE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY OVER TIME TO DEFRAUD THE FISA COURT, TO ILLEGALLY SURVEIL AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AND KEEP AN OPERATION OPEN AGAINST A SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES VIOLATING EVERY NORM TO THE RULE OF LAW. TRUMP’S TIME WILL COME AND GO. BUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE CAN NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS NOT A FEW IRREGULARITIES. WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THE SYSTEM FAILED. PEOPLE AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF OUR GOVERNMENT TOOK THE LAW IN THEIR OWN HANDS. >>THE MAN BEHIND THE REPORT FACED HOURS OF QUESTIONING TODAY. HOROWITZ DEFENDED HIS CONCLUSIONS AND DETAILS HOW THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE 2016 TRUMP CAMPAIGN WAS GIVEN THE GREEN LIGHT. >>WE FOUND THAT CROSSFIRE HURRICANE WAS AUTHORIZED FOR AN INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSE. >>LET’S BRING IN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY PROSECUTOR FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. CBSN POLITICAL CONTRIBUTOR MOLLY HOOPER. AND REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST. LET ME BEGIN WITH YOU. WE LEARNED WHEN THE FBI SOUGHT PERMISSION TO RUN SURVEILLANCE ON CARTER PAGE, THEY OMITTED THE FACT HE HAD WORKED AS A CIA ASSET IN THE PAST. TAKE A LISTEN TO WHAT SENATOR TED CRUZ HAD TO SAY. >>THE NUMBER 2 MAJOR ERROR IN THE APPLICATIONS WAS OMITTING CARTER PAGE’S PRIOR RELATIONSHIP. WE NOW HAVE EVIDENCE THAT CARTER PAGE FUNCTIONED AS A SOURCE FOR A UNITED STATES INTELLIGENCE AGENCY. THAT’S A PRETTY DARN IMPORTANT FACT. IF YOU’RE TELLING THE FISA COURT THE FACT THAT THIS GUY CARTER PAGE, THE FACT THAT HE’S TALKING TO RUSSIANS IS REALLY SUSPICIOUS. THE FACT THAT HE’S SERVING AS A SOURCE FOR THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE AGENTS IS PRETTY TURN RELEVANT. WHEN YOU DON’T TELL THE COURT THAT, YOU’RE DECEIVING THE COURT. >>REMIND US ABOUT CARTER PAGE’S ROLE IN ALL OF THIS. A LOT OF AMERICANS MAY NOT BE TOO FAMILIAR. AND WHY SENATOR TED CRUZ IS SEIZING ON IT HERE. >>CARTER PAGE WAS A ONE TIME ADVISER TO THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, AND ALSO AN ENERGY CONSULTANT AND HE’S DONE A LOT OF WORK IN RUSSIA, AND SPECIFICALLY WITH RUSSIAN OFFICIALS, HE WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE SURVEILLANCE WARRANT IN OCTOBER 2016 AND THEN THERE WERE THREE SUBSEQUENT RENEWALS FROM THE NATIONAL SECURITY COURT THAT EXTENDED THE SURVEILLANCE. THAT INCLUDES THE COLLECTION OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS THROUGH FALL 2017. NEARLY A YEAR LONG SPAN. AND WHEN THEY DO THESE RENEWALS. THEY NEED TO TELL THE COURT WHETHER THEY’VE UNCOVERED NEW EVIDENCE. WHAT WE LEARNED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PRETTY DRAMATIC DETAIL IS THAT THERE WAS CONFIRMATION FROM THE CIA THAT IT HAD A RELATIONSHIP TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM CARTER PAGE. TO HELP THE U.S. GOVERNMENT WITH THEIR STRATEGY ON RUSSIA. BUT AN FBI LAWYER HAD THIS E- MAIL, FORWARDED THE E-MAIL TOO A SUPERVISOR. AND INSERTED IN THE E-MAIL THAT PAGE WAS NOT A SOURCE. SO THERE WAS A MATERIAL CHANGE TO THE E-MAIL AND WHAT IT MEANT. IT WENT FROM CARTER PAGE HELPING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO CARTER PAGE HAVING NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. AND SENATOR CRUZ AND OTHERS WERE MAKING THE POINT THAT THIS WAS IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR THE NATIONAL SECURITY COURT TO WEIGH WHEN EXTENDING THE SURVEILLANCE INTO CARTER PAGE. >>IS THE INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED OF OMITTING THAT FACT OR CHANGING THAT FACT IN THE E-MAIL LIKELY TO FACE LEGAL OR CRIMINAL CONSEQUENCES? >>WE’VE BEEN REPORTING HERE AT CBS NEWS TO OUR CONTACTS THAT AN FBI LAWYER IS UNDER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION FOR ALLEGEDLY FALSIFYING A RECORD RELATED TO THE FISA APPLICATION. AND I THINK IT’S SAFE TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION THAT IT IS RELATED TO THE CARTER PAGE DOCUMENT. AND HOROWITZ SAID SO MUCH TODAY IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >>WE HEARD A LOT OF ACCUSATIONS OR CRITICISM OF THE FISA PROCESS. AND IT SEEMS AS IF LAWMAKERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ARE EAGER TO SEE REFORMS HERE. CIVIL LIBERTYIANS HAD THEIR DAY. REMIND US WHY THE FISA PROCESS WAS GIVEN SUCH UNFETTERED POWER. THIS IS ALL POST 9/11 IF I’M CORRECT AND WHY THERE’S A CALL TO TAMP THIS DOWN. >>THIS IS THE PART OF THE STORY THAT RAISES THE BIGGER PICTURE OVER WHY AMERICANS SHOULD CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY COURT. I’VE BEEN COVERING THIS SPACE FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES, AND THIS ABILITY FOR THE FBI TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE DOMESTICALLY, SO INSIDE THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE TARGETING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WAS CREATED SO THEY COULD DISRUPT DOMESTIC TERRORISM PLOTS AND BUST UP SPY RINGS. AND THE FBI WAS GIVEN EXTRAORDINARY AND INTRUSIVE POWERS TO GATHER INTELLIGENCE. THE CATCH WAS THEY HAD TO GO TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY COURT AND THERE WAS A HIGH THRESHOLD. THEY WOULD MAKE AN APPLICATION BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT. THEY HAD TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTED THE WARRANT APPLICATION, BUT THEY ALSO HAD TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT UNDERCUT THE APPLICATION. AND WHAT I G HOROWITZ IS FAULTING THE FBI FOR DOING IS A KEY SERIES OF OMISSIONS THAT WOULD HAVE UNDERCUT THE CASE. AND THE MATERIAL ALTERATION OF THE CIA E-MAIL IS ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES. >>CATHERINE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR INSIGHT. >>>MOLLY, I’M GOING TO TURN TO YOU NOW. ARE DEMOCRATS AT ALL CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING THE PRESIDENT’S CAMPAIGN? >>YES, I THINK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. BUT EVEN THOUGH THERE’S A LOT OF DISCREPANCIES IN TERMS OF THE RHETORIC FROM REPUBLICANS SAYING THERE WAS BIAS AND THE FISA APPLICATIONS WERE CORRUPTED AND DEMOCRATS SAYING THERE WAS NO BUY. IF YOU GET TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER. BOTH PARTIES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS SURVEILLANCE COURT IS ALLOWING THE FBI TO ESSENTIALLY WIRETAP AMERICAN CITIZENS. AND BOTH PARTIES ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THAT’S SOMETHING THAT’S NOT LIMITED TO A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT. I THINK THAT YOU WILL HEAR HEATED RHETORIC ON BOTH SIDES AS TO WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION FOR THE WIRETAPS. INITIALLY INITIATES THE INVESTIGATION. >>CIVIL LIBERTARIANS HAVE BEEN SHOUTING INTO THE WIND ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS. REMIND US WHY IT’S IMPORTANT TO ALL AMERICANS. >>THERE WAS ALWAYS CONCERN BY MANY THAT WHEN YOU GIVE THIS TYPE OF EXPANSIVE POWER TO THE GOVERNMENT. PARTICULARLY WHEN IT RELATES TO AMERICAN CITIZENS, SOMETHING BAD WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND THAT POWER WOULD BE ABUSED. AND NOW IT’S THRUST ON THE SCENE IN UNPRECEDENTED WAYS. THE FACT THAT DONALD TRUMP JR. DID NOT PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE FBI WHEN SOMEONE SAID DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT DIRT. WE HAVE AN ATTORNEY FOR THE FBI COOKING UP EVIDENCE AND INSERTING IT INTO A DOCUMENT. THIS IS A FAILURE OF INDESCRIBABLE LEVELS. AND IF WE CAN’T HAVE A BIPARTISAN CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SYSTEMIC FAILURE OF AMERICA FROM SOUP TO NUTS, WE’LL HAVE A DIFFICULT PROBLEM TRYING TO PROTECT OUR AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS. >>HOW SIGNIFICANT ARE THESE TYPES OF MISTAKES? AND CAN WE EXPECT TO SEE WIDE RANGING REFORMS AS A RESULT OF THEM? >>I HAVE TO THINK SO. THESE ARE SIGNIFICANT. FOR THOSE OF US PUTTING ASIDE POLITICS AND WHO WINS AND WHO LOSES, IT’S GREAT THAT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND IT WAS SOLID. THAT’S A GOOD THING. EVERYTHING ELSE IS REALLY BAD. I WOULDN’T GO SO FAR AS TO WHAT SENATOR GRAHAM SAID ABOUT A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE COURT. BUT INTERSECTION MASSIVE FAILURES. TO YOUR POINT. AN FBI LAWYER DOCTORING AN E- MAIL IS REALLY BAD. THE FISA COURT IS THE CLOSEST THING WE HAVE TO A SECRET COURT. IT’S COMPLETELY DONE OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE. IT’S ALL CLASSIFIED. AND THERE’S NO DEFENSE COUNSEL TO KEEP THE GOVERNMENT HONEST. YOU’RE GOING TO COME AWAY REALIZING HOW BROAD THIS POWER IS AND SAYING WE COULD TO DO BETTER. >>IT’S WORTH REMINDING PEOPLE HOW WE GOT HERE. PEOPLE WANTED TO FEEL SAFE AT ALL COSTS. WE’RE NOW MORE CONCERNED ABOUT INDIVIDUAL AND CIVIL LIBERTIES. IF WE HAVE ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK WHERE WE STARTED. >>AFTER 9/11 ONE OF THE QUICKEST PIECES OF LEGISLATION TO MOVE THROUGH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE WAS THE PATRIOT ACT WHICH EXPANDED THE HURT THE TO SPY ON AMERICANS. IN CASE THERE WERE TERRORIST INFILTRATIONS. AND EVEN THEN, PATRICK LEAHY WAS ONE OF THE LEADERS AS WELL AS I BELIEVE IT WAS SENATOR HATCH AT THAT TIME. THEY CAME FORWARD AND THEY WERE PUSHING THE LEGISLATION. GEORGE W. BUSH SIGNED IT. IN THE YEARS SINCE, EVERY TIME IT COMING UP FOR REAUTHORIZATION. THERE ARE LIBERTARIANS WHO ARE CONCERNS AND WANT TO REIN IN THE ABILITY OF THE FBI TO GO TO THIS SECRET COURT. AND IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR AND I’M NOT SURE IF THIS HAD BEEN OUT BEFORE. MICHAEL HOROWITZ INDICATED HE WAS, ONE OF THE INVESTIGATIONS IS INTO THE BROADER USE OF THE COURTS WHEN THEY GO TO GET THE FISA WARRANTS. >>LET ME GET TO THE DEBATE. úH WHILE RESPECTING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTIES. A VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPT IN THIS COUNTRY. >>WHEN YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT THE GUN DEBATE OR THE ISSUE WITH COURTS. HOW MUCH OF OUR PERSONAL LIBERTY ARE WE WILLING TO GIVE UP TO FEEL SECURE. WHETHER YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT GUNS, FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE IMBUED IN YOUR WORLD VIEW. SOME PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP PRIVACY AND RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS. BUT IT’S INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO WHAT DOES THE NEXT CENTURY FOR AMERICA LOOK LIKE. >>WE HAVE TO STRIKE THE RIGHT BALANCE. AND JOHN DURHAM SAID HE DISAGREED WITH THE IG’S CONCLUSIONS. MICHAEL HOROWITZ WAS ASKED ABOUT HIS INTERACTIONS WITH DURHAM. >>WE MET WITH HIM IN NOVEMBER. WITH REGARD TO THAT, WE DID DISCUSS THE OPENING ISSUE. HE SAID HE DID NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH OUR CONCLUSION. BUT THERE’S ALSO AN INVESTIGATIVE MEANS BY WHICH THE FBI CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INVESTIGATION CALLED THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS, FULL AND PRELIMINARY. THEY OPENED THE FULL HERE. SHE SAID DURING THE MEETING THAT THE INFORMATION FROM THE FRIENDLY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT WAS IN HIS VIEW SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION. AND AS WE NOTE IN THE REPORT, INVESTIGATIVE STEPS SUCH AS CONFIDENTIAL HUMAN SOURCE ACTIVITY ARE ALLOWED UNDER A PRELIMINARY OR A FULL INVESTIGATION. >>DID EITHER BARR OR DURHAM PRESENT ANYTHING THAT ALTERED YOUR FINDINGS? >>NO. >>JOSEPH, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE STANDARD IS FOR LAUNCHING A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION VERSUS A FULL INVESTIGATION? >>SURE, TANYA. WE’RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS HERE. AS WE HEARD FROM INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ. A PRELIMINARY, THE BAR IS REALLY LOW. ANY ALLEGATION OF CRIMINALITY OR A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY. >>THE BAR IS A BIT HIGHER ON THE FULL INVESTIGATION. BASIS FOR CRIMINALITY OR A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY. AND I THINK THERE’S SOME DAYLIGHT HERE BETWEEN INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ WHO SAID THAT THE EVIDENCE HE SAW WAS SUFFICIENT FOR EITHER ONE. IT MAY BE OKAY FOR THE FIRST BUT NOT THE LATTER. AND A FULL INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED TO GET A FISA WARRANT. THAT’S WHERE WE MAY SEE FIGHTING IN THE COMING MONTHS. I’M GLAD TO HEAR SENATOR GRAHAM SAY I’M NOT DISPUTING YOUR CONCLUSIONS HERE. THAT’S A GOOD AMOUNT OF AVOIDANCE OF PARTISAN FIGHTING. BUT THIS IS A BATTLE WE’LL SEE UNFOLDING IN THE COMING MONTHS. >>WHAT IS TO ACCOUNT FOR THE PUBLIC DISAGREEMENT WITH THE IG’S FINDINGS. THAT CAN STRIKE PEOPLE. HE FEELS HE HAS TO COUNTER-ER THE IG’S REPORT. >>IT MAKES OF PARTISANSHIP. I THINK IT MOST LIKELY IS POLITICAL. THIS HAS BEEN A SYSTEMIC FAILURE. WE HAVE REPUBLICANS TALKING ABOUT A DEEP STATE CONSPIRACY. AND WHAT GETS LOST IS THE FACT THAT THE AMERICANS HAVE BEEN FAILED BY GOVERNMENT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT THROUGH THAT PRISM. I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH WHAT TED CRUZ SAID. THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO POLITICAL BIAS IS PROBABLY THE LEAST IMPORTANT THING THAT CAME OUT OF THE MEETING. WE’RE DEALING WITH A DEEP FAILURE. IF THIS IS HAPPEN INTO AN INVESTIGATION OF SOMEONE WHO BECAME THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE? AND WHEN YOU’RE NOT, WE HAVE PEOPLE SUNSHINING AT EACH OTHER. AND NOT DEALING WITH THE UNDERLYING FACTS. AND WE HAVE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM AND WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE BREAKDOWN OF INSTITUTIONS. >>I THINK ONE OF THE BEST POINTS IS WHY DIDN’T THE FBI GO TO PRESIDENT TRUMP AND SAY WE THINK YOU’RE BEING TARGETED BY THE RUSSIANS. >>HOW CAN IT NOT BE BIASED WHEN THE FBI IS GOING TO GIVE A BRIEFING TO CANDIDATE TRUMP AND IS VERY INDIVIDUAL GIVING THE BRIEFING ALSO TOOK INFORMATION FROM THE MEETING AND WROTE IT IN THE FILE. AND ESSENTIALLY, THEY USED THAT FOR THE INVESTIGATION. THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN WITH THE HILLARY CLINTON CAMPAIGN AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT HOROWITZ POINTED OUT. AND HE SAID THAT THEY DIDN’T HAVE A LOT OF GUIDANCE ON HOW TO HANDLE IT. >>THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION INTO IMAGES ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. AND REALLY THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE CLARIFICATION. AND THE ONE THING THAT CAME OUT OF THIS. AND THIS IS TO THE POINT THAT JOSEPH. FOR A LONG TIME, THEY HAD PUSHED BACK AGAIN REINING IN THE ABUSE. BEN SASSE SAID I CAN’T BELIEVE I’M GOING TO RETHINK MY POSITION ON THIS. LET ME PARAPHRASE. I THOUGHT THE FBI WAS MADE OF HONORABLE PEOPLE DOING THE BEST THEY COULD FOR THE COUNTRY. AND THAT THIS WAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN WAS SO FRIGHTENING, WE NEED MORE GUIDANCE AND KNOWLEDGE OVERSIGHT OF THE WHOLE PROCESS. >>LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS ARE PEOPLE. THEY’RE FALLIBLE. >>I KIND OF TOOK EXCEPTION WITH SENATOR KLOBUCHAR TRYING TO SAY THERE WERE BIASED PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. IT WASN’T ABOUT POLITICAL LEANINGS, THE PROCESS WAS BUNGLED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WAS TERRIBLE. THERE WAS CLEARLY A PARTISAN IMPACT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOU MIGHT SAY THERE WAS NO INTENT. IF YOU’RE SOMEBODY WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT OUR FBI SPIED ON BLACK PANTHER MOVEMENTS. >>THE SAME THING. AND ARE WE GOING TO ILL NOR WHAT HAPPENED. >>THE PERSON IMPACTED WAS PRESIDENT TRUMP. >>MOLLY AND JOSEPH, STAND BY. WE’LL BE RIGHT BACK. AND JOSEPH MORENO, THANK YOU FOR JOINING UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >>>STILL TO COME, ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT ARE OFFICIALLY ON THE TABLE. AND THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS SET TO DEBATE ON THEM TONIGHT. WHAT WILL THAT LOOK LIKE? YOU’RE STREAMING CBSN ALWAYS ON.

100 Replies to “Watch live: Michael Horowitz testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee”

  1. Comey: "told you, I'm innocent YaaaaHooo!" Horowitz: "my report doesn't vindicate Comey"
    Well, he was as honest as possible….without pissing off his Democrat friends. Alas, the truth comes out with the Facts.
    How do both parties claim victory over the same report??? simple, it's 400+ pages and they needed to be studied so today is different. Now we wait for Durham. If not for the crooked press I think this next report would deal death blows to a handful of brainwashed dems.

  2. Save America from Trump ? Wow , this is not democracy. Trump has given you guys millions or jobs and you now have higher pays rates.

  3. No!! This was a tresonous activity which then was pushed for 3 yrs + by the MSM so all of you involved should be in a Military Tribunal!! You can't lie there!

  4. So, opening a preliminary investigation may have been OK, and even the use of CHS (spies) may have been OK, but in filing the FISA warrants, the FBI relied on unverified biased information, they falsified documents and withheld exculpatory information, they could provide no satisfactory answer for these mistakes, and the responsibility for this went to the top of the FBI…  Other than that, nothing …  Barr and Durham will take it from here.

  5. AND THIS IS WHY NOT ALL STATIONS BROADCAST THIS . ITS NOTHING BUT SLAMMING PEOPLE THAT CANT DEFEND THEMSELVES. JUST DISRESPECTFUL. THEY GAVE ALL REPUBLICANS THE CHANCE TO CALL THERE WITNESSES AND EVEN INVITED TRUMP . BUT NON SHOWED .ohh boy keep talking moscow mitch already spotted a lie. and you can say what ever you want atleasr the democrats had a speaker limit. so i wonder when do we hear the testimony? and when did you read the Mueller report?

  6. Been watching all the full hearings. It's all BS. The accusers are the guilty. Santanic Pedophiles, with corrupt business dealings. Trump knows their dirt and they are scared.

  7. Molly Hooper is lying here and may or may not know it. Sad, because Americans have to keep fishing the truth out for themselves when the MSM people just lie to them.

  8. Stems back to the Dems biased WITCH HUNT…when they will do anything to win…even if their motivations are totally illegal.

  9. —-> Lyndsey Graham is either grossly incompetent or lying. Donald Trump publicly solicited Russian help on July 27, 2016 even though watchdog groups had already filed complaints with the FEC against the Trump campaign for soliciting foreign governments. Trump continued to lie, denying that he WAS briefed on August 2016 that Russians were trying to infiltrate his campaign.
    Google: Trump campaign solicits illegal foreign donations despite warnings (The Hill)
    The FBI warned Trump that Russia would try to infiltrate his campaign team (Business Insider)

  10. How about the routine deception from trump
    He has lied to all your faces. Senate congress fbi. Cia. All of you. Routinely

  11. —- > According to the Mueller Report, a Russian businessman had called Micheal Cohen about the Pee Tape before the Steel dossier was released…. : a "Russian businessman" — who was involved in a deal with the Trump organization to build a Trump Tower in Batumi, Georgia. Rtskhiladze is Georgian, his spokesperson told BuzzFeed News.

    If if wasn't a sex tape, most likely it was a reminder about all the lies Trump was telling about having no business in Russia, and that Russia had compromat on Trump. While the possibility of a sex encounter can't be eliminated, it could be the message about a sex tape was a coded message.
    Here's What The Mueller Report Says About The Alleged Pee Tape.
    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/mueller-report-on-alleged-pee-tape

  12. Was it there any department of the government that the Obama administration didn't weaponize against its opponents? FBI, IRS, DOJ, AG's office. This is far worse than anything Nixon did. Can't wait for the Durham probe.

  13. Time and Time again this guy Horowitz gets up there and tells us everything that was wrong and than says no one broke the law because they only made mistakes…out of the 17 mistakes which one favored President Trump…and remember this bozo has already testified about the Muellar report months ago and told us the political bias from Stzruck and Paige. We the people should be able to sue the federal government for the loss of 30 million dollars spent on these investigations and we should be able to sue for damages because our country has stood still for 3 years, and none of the these people have acted in the interest of America.

  14. Wake up bozo we never had a president like trump thank God where you under a rock we are the luckiest people on this earth to have trump every body hates his guts because he beat crooked Clinton dosent make sense!!!you go Pres Trump make America great again!!!!USA USA USA USA USA

  15. Democrats and the corrupt Media must think that American people are complete idiots… Is there any honest or inteligent democrat believing that the FBI is a bunch of chorus boys who didn't know who was behind all this anti-Trump scheme ??

  16. Who cares- that’s all you can come up with? 😂 You sound like sour losers – stop wasting valuable time with this garbage. Lindsey you are 2 faced too. How much money did he pay all you repuntgents- is he blackmailing all of you. You called him names too! He’s gonna bring you all down with him, that’s why you can not admit all his wrongdoings. You are all idiots!

  17. Horowitz is a smart career beurocrat…appease both parties and keep your job, nothin too damning either way !! This is how and why the bull crap is allowed to continue !!!

  18. Why was Steele so desperate that Trump not win? I suspect that someone in the Dem party had promi$ed him a big reward if he helped prevent Trump's election. Just a thought.

  19. I admire Ben Sasse. He doesn't have to look down at papers that someone else wrote to question Horowitz. Look at how many have to read off prepared statements, especially the women.

  20. Diane "There is No Chinese National doing my book keeping" Feinstein…
    "No deep State" ? Really lady ?! Then surely it must be the incompetence and immaturity of a few "rogue" agents who took upon themselves, to subvert a duly elected President. You call it Apples Ms. Feinstein ? I call it Treason and so do many others…
    See how the Democrats re-calibrate the neurons firing in their brains, all to play a game with the American People ? Just a bunch of plasticine people who think they know better than us. ALL OF THEM. Repub AND Dem… I trust none of them. And it is why someone like Trump will be elected again and again… We are fed up with the political establishment and many of you on the left can't seem to understand that. Why ?

  21. Is it just me or did it seem like Kamala Harris walked in on the wrong hearing? She didn’t ask a single question or make a statement about the report that they are talking about. 🙄

  22. THESE SCRIPT READING ACTORS ARE BABBLING IN CIRCLES WITH NONSENSE. THIS REPORT IS VERY DAMAGING. BEST IF YOU WATCH THE RECORDED LIVE QUESTIONING AND TESTIMONIES. IT SHOWS THAT AFTER STEAL TOLD THE F.B.I. THAT IT WAS MOSTLY HEARSAY AND BIASED UNSUBSTANTIATED
    CLAIMS AND IS NOT CREDIBLE, THE F.B.I. STILL PRESENTED IT TO THE FISA COURT. IF YOU WATCH A LIVE FEED, THEN WATCH CNN, CBS, NBC, PBS, ETC… THEY TOTALLY TWIST THE EVENT INTO PURE LIES, YOU WILL FINALLY SEE HOW FAKE THEY ALL ARE. BELIEVE IT OR NOT GUYS LIKE GUTFELD, WATER'S WORLD, AND EVEN HANNITY (ALL ON FOX ) ACTUALLY DO GIVE THE MOST ACCURATE REPORTS. LIKE I SAID, YOU HAVE TO WATCH THE LIVE EVENT, THEN, SEE HOW THE DIFFERENT NEWS (?) REPORTERS REPORT IT. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY YOU WILL SEE WHO THE FAKE NEWS IS.

  23. Graham: "I hope you won't treat this report as finding a lawful investigation with a few irregularities". https://youtu.be/bi8V-9EQfec?t=3313
    Well, gee, Lindsay. That's EXACTLY what the IG said it was.

  24. The thing I'm most appalled by is that this Horowitz is sitting right in front of all of these senators drinking from a disposable plastic water bottle knowing that the world is going to end in 8 or 9 years!! How dare you Mr. Horowitz! How dare you! You've stolen my future!

  25. Can you say, FAKE NEWS !!! ??? NO! THESE WERE NOT 17 ERRORS. THEY ARE CRIMINAL ACTS. I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FAKE NEWS BELIEVERS THAT THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA (MSM) IS GOING TO PLAY DOWN THIS REPORT. HEADS ARE GOING TO ROLL! MARK MY WORDS !!!

  26. How can any democrat sleep at night ? They must walk around with a huge hole in their stomach.. On top of having a BLACK HEART… But thats how it is when you sleep with satan

  27. It WAS based off the Hillary paid for Steele dossier. And renewed 3 more times after they KNEW the report was false! Even after Trump took office. They can try, but you can't spin this away…Just admit it, they conspired to fix an election, then falsely accuse and impeach a president on false information. They still are. If the media continues to lie to support this coup, they need to be held accountable!

  28. The media has been co-conspirators in the orchestration of this coup to overthrow the President. They couldn't have pulled it off without the lies and omission of facts from the media. Just like the fisa lies and omissions.

  29. Did these people read the report! It was scathing. These abuses are a threat to ALL Americans. The time for parties is over! This is the common people vs these elite liars in government.

  30. These abuses PROVE that there was more than bias, there was criminal conspiracy to overthrow a president, and these morons are worried about his language.

  31. The impeachment is a distraction from the numerous crimes committed in the fisa abuse and Ukraine, not the other way around.

  32. Horowitz knows he cannot tell the truth. He would end up being another Clinton deep state casualty. They would find him floating down the Potomac if you get my drift.

  33. My favorite part was senator blumenthal when he asked about warrants. He did not get the answers from Horowitz he expected. The idiot was supposedly a former prosecutor? You ask questions that you know the answer to. Blumenthal obviously didn't know that Horowitz would say that he could not say new warrants were issued based on any productive info… What an idiot. And Horowitz basically said that no one admitted to him that they made decisions based on their hate for Trump. Didn't admit it, but obviously did.

  34. The only foreign influence you can prove is the Ukraine helping Hillary Clinton. And the use of the Steele dossier, paid for by Clinton, to get dirt from Russia then use it to spy on the Trump campaign. Hillary's emails were copied via thumbdrive and leaked by an insider to Wikileaks.

  35. Struck and Page were also on the Clinton email investigation. How well do you think they investigated her? That investigation needs to be reopened.

  36. Overall, I'm proud of how the Senate judiciary committee were civil with each other in voicing their perspectives, which is in sharp contrast to the house committees the public has had the unfortunate privilege of watching these past few months. Thank you both Republican and Democrat committee members for actually searching for the truth.

  37. They could not prove that there was bias, however, the bias is so apparent. Spin, spin CBSN. Do your best for your leftist masters.

  38. They could not prove bias, however once the criminal charges come out we will see who flips and talks. Then we will have the real proof of the bias.

  39. — > How could Steele's sub source be credible and his report not be credible? Maybe they didn't differentiate the subsource from the field notes which are only rough information. How could they catch a mistake they still didn't even know about until after June of, 2018? And, Comey and McCabe were already gone by then. Maybe the FBI just erred on the side of caution, if the erred at all…. standing there in a cross-fire hurricane. .
    …..the Trump campaign lied about 150 contacts with Russians.. Russian intelligence attacked our election. And, the campaign WAS briefed that Russians were trying to infiltrate their campaign after the investigation was opened.

    —> The Steele dossier claimed that Page met with two particular Russians during his trip, but Page insisted that he’s never met either. One of those was Igor Sechin, the CEO of the Rosneft oil company, which is majority owned by the Russian government. According to the dossier, Sechin and Page had a secret meeting on Moscow on either July 7 or July 8, at which Sechin offered Trump associates a large stake in his company and Page said Trump would lift US sanctions on Rosneft if elected.

    Page contemptuously denied all of this, straightforwardly asserting that he’s never met Sechin in a way that sounded more or less believable. But then, under questioning, Page admitted that during that trip, he met with one of Sechin’s subordinates — Andrey Baranov, the head of investor relations at Rosneft, with whom he had a preexisting relationship. Page went on to admit that they may have discussed sanctions in “general” terms, and that they might have discussed the planned sale of a large stake in Rosneft because it was “in the news.”

    —-> The specific allegations in the Steele dossier about Page remain unconfirmed. Still, there seems to have been a bit more to Page’s denial about his meetings than what might have thought at first glance. Page was a self-declared Russian agent and he publicly advocated against Russian sanctions while in Russia ….against U.S. policy during the 2016 campaign.

     I can see how some might think his activities were suspicious or that he lied about his activities. As a matter of fact, Carter Page's own testimony confined part of the Stteele dossier. Maybe agents don't know why they didn't catch the error was because they didn't see it and didn't think about it.

         Carter Page’s bizarre testimony to the HouseIntelligence Committee, explained
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/7/16616912/carter-page-testimony-trump-russia

  40. So the seasoned nonpartisan professional group that gathers vital information is being doubted, meanwhile the very busy handpicked Barr is going to stealthily go around doing his own undercover work to second guess them???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *