 
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 
úBALLS AND STRIKES AS I SEE 
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 
úCRITICISM THAT WILL MAKE US 
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 RESISTAN 
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 E 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 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 
úTHE MUELLER INVESTIGATION BY 
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 
OVIDED 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 
úTHAT IT WAS SUFFICIENT 
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 
úALLOW FOR US TO GAUGE WITH 
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. 
úHOW TO KEEP AMERICANS SAFE 
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. 
