After james comey was fired by President Trump. Welcome, everybody. I think we have some leadership, about the theyll be coming in. Can you see, can you hear me . Is it working . Well, the election is over. Theyre still counting the votes and making once the votes are counted legal challenges are made and the votes are counted, well have that done. Weve still got two outstanding races in georgia to determine the control of the senate and the committee will keep moving forward doing its work. We have next week social media oversight. I cant wait to have the social media ceos come to the committee and explain themselves about their platform, thats the 17th. I think theres a lot of bipartisan support to take a hard look at social media platform. The act is still business pending before the committee and after the hearing well have markup. But today we have mr. Mccabe, the number two at the fbi during the hurricane. I think hes going to appear remotely, so i appreciate him coming. And what ill do is make a brief Opening Statement. Has been looked at in many fashions. The Inspector Generals report found 17 policy violations regarding the way the crossfire hurricane operation was performed. The fisa court basically rebuked the fbi and the department of justice regarding the warrant application made against carter page. Every person we talked to has been able to get ahold of has said then if i know now wouldnt have signed the carter page warrant application. Well take that topic up with mr. Mccabe. And counterintelligence investigations of the political people that the committee needs to look long and hard at creating some new rules of the road, this wont be the last time a Foreign Government has tried to interfere in our election, and the russians did for sure. Try to interfere in the 2016 election. Well see what happened in 2020. Also, you have to make sure those involved in investigating campaigns have an even hand about it and that whatever biases they have dont seep into the system so that one candidate gets treated differently than the other. And were going to talk about that today with mr. Mccabe. That every allegation of a campaign being involved with foreign entities or trying to create an impression of involvement with foreign entities needs to be looked at, not just one side of the ledger. And i look forward to asking mr. Mccabe, did the fbi live up to that when it came to crossfire hurricane and try to find out how the system got so off the rails when it came to mr. Page and the warrant application. So with that i will turn it over to senator feinstein. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comments on the election. I think we should all be heartened by the record participation and the dedication of our poll workers and state Election Officials and certainly on this side of the aisle. And i hope on the other side, too, in the results. We thank you for calling this hearing. Its part of your examination of crossfire hurricane, and thats the fbi investigation into rush than interference in the 2016 election. Special counsel mueller took control of that investigation when he was appointed in 2017. He concluded there was foreign interference in the 2016 election. He found that russia interfered, quote, in sweeping and systematic fashion, end quote. He also uncovered numerous contacts between members of the Trump Campaign and individuals linked to russia. And he determined that the campaign knew about, welcomed and, quote, expected it would benef benef benef benefit electorally. The Senate Committee confirmed muellers findings in a bipartisan report. The report details russias 2016 inteefrs and how Trump Campaign members were involved. That included Campaign Manager paul manafort, whose ties to russia made him, in the committees words, quote, a grave counterintelligence threat. These investigations make clear that the fbi was right to investigate Russian Election interference and the Trump Campaign ties. Michael horowitz also confirmed that the fbi was right to investigate. After a twoyear investigation, he concluded that the fbi was justified in opening crossfire hurricane and that there was no evidence that the political bias impacted the bureaus work. None of the 14 witnesses the committee has heard from during the chairmans investigation have provided evidence to the contrary. So, where are we . More than four years have passed since the fbi opened crossfire hurricane and multiple investigations have confirmed that the fbi was correct to do so. So, i think, mr. Chairman, its time to turn the page on crossfire hurricane. Im thankful to fbi director wray and career men and women of the fbi who worked hard to secure our country and its elections. They include fbi Deputy Director andrew mccabe, who i look forward to hearing from today. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, senator feinstein. Mr. Mccabe, are you im sorry, were not getting any sound. Bear with us, mr. Mccabe. Well see if we can fix this. Hello. Can you hear me now . Yes, thank you very much. Very much. Loud and clear, please. Could you raise your right hand. Raise your yes, sir. Do you solemnly swear the testimony youre about to give to this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god . I do. Would you like to say anything or yes, sir. I have an Opening Statement i would like to read. Please, go ahead. Okay. Chairman graham, Ranking Member feinstein and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I had the privilege to serve as an fbi agent for over 21 years. For my first assignment working russian organized crime in new york city to the last years i spent as Deputy Director at fbi headquarters, i worked with the greatest people on earth. Men and women who have dedicated their lives protecting the country as agents, analysts and professional Staff Members of the fbi. I know fbi people as hard working, dedicated patriots who are dedicated to the rule of law above all else. Their jobs are hard, sometimes dangerous, and often they are pushed beyond the limits of their experience into volatile, unpredictable situations. Fbi personnel are not perfect, but when they make mistakes, they submit to the rigors of oversight and remain committed to learning and getting it right the next time. I was honored to be one of them. I was honored to lead them. And im honored to discuss our work today. Ive agreed to testify today about my knowledge of events related to the u. S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General report entitled review of four fisa applications and other aspects of the fbis crossfire hurricane investigation and the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 president ial election. Because i was not permitted to consult the documents that may have refreshed my memory to include my personal notes and my calendar, i may not be as precise and accurate as i otherwise would be. I appreciate the committees flexibility in conducting this hearing virtually rather than in person. While i continue to believe an inperson appearance is a better vehicle for a fair and rigorous oversight hearing, the current status of the covid19 pandemic compels me to be extremely cautious about where i go and what i do. My wife is a frontline First Responder who takes care of children and their families in our local emergency room. I try to avoid unnecessary chances of potential exposure that might put her at risk and possibly endanger her ability to continue caring for our community. In july of 2016 the fbi initiated an investigation code named crossfire hurricane to determine whether an individual or individuals from the trump president ial campaign might be coordinating with the russian government to interfere with our 2016 president ial election. The concerns that led to our initiate of this case are well known. In the fall of 2014, the fbi had begun tracking cyber actors affiliated with russia who were targeting u. S. Political institutions, academic think tanks and other entities. In the spring of 2016, this activity intensified as new russian cyber actors invaded Computer Networks at the Democratic National committee. At the time we did not know what they planned to do with the information they were stealing from the dnc, but soon we found out. In july 2016, russian intelligence agents acting through the online alias gus2. 0 published hundreds of thousands of emails and other information stolen from the dnc with the intense of damaging Hillary Clinton on the eve of the Democratic National convention. This malicious use of stolen information signaled a new level of hostility directed at the heart of american democracy. Several months before this release, an unknown to the fbi at that time, a Foreign Policy adviser to the Trump Campaign, George Papadopoulos informed a diplomat from a Foreign Government that the trurp campaign had, quote, received indications from the russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. Close quote. It was only after the dnc information was publicly released in july that the diplomat communicated the content of his conversation with pap dap louse to the United States government. What did we know in 2016 . We know for two years that the russians were targeting our Political Campaign. We knew the russians had stolen information from the dnc. By july we knew the russians had used that information in a manner designed to hurt Hillary Clintons chances in the election and then we learned before the russians attacked us, an individual from the Trump Campaign may have known the attack was coming. Fbi policy sets the threshold for opening a full field investigation as the moment when you have information or facts that indicate a threat to National Security might exist or that a federal crime might have been committed. In july of 2016 we had both. Russian Intelligence Services attacking our democratic process, possibly in coordination with a president ial campaign. We opened a case to investigate and try to mitigate that threat and to find out what the russians might have done. Let me be very clear. We did not open a case because we liked one candidate or didnt like the other one. We did not open a case because we intended to stage a coup or overthrow the government. We did not open a case because we thought it might be interesting or because we wanted to drag the fbi into a heat political contest. We opened a case to find out how the russians might be undermining our election. We opened a case because it was our obligation and our duty to do so. We did our job. It is review of four fiz applications and other applications of the crossfire hurricane investigation details a significant number of errors and failures related to the fisa applications in this case. I agreed to be interviewed with the igs investigation and i have reviewed the report. I was shocked and disappointed at the errors and mistakes that the oig found. To me, any material misrepresentation or error in a fisa application is unacceptable, period. The fbi should be held to the standard of scrupulous accuracy that the court demands. Fisa remains one of the most important tools in our country. The fbi is the custodian of that tool. I fully support every effort to ensure the fbis use of fisa maintains the high standards that the court and the American People demand and deserve. This commitment to the rule of law acknowledging our mistakes and doing Everything Possible to ensure they are corrected, these are the reasons i am here today. They are the same reasons i have cooperated fully with every interview, hearing and Oversight Effort requested of me both while i served and since ive left the fbi. I have provided testimony to four different congressional committees on these and related matters. Ive been interviewed in connection with the special counsels investigation as well as three separate doj oig investigations, submitting to questioning and reviewing documents over the equivalent of seven full business days. In an effort to provide this committee with the most complete accurate testimony possible, i requested the fbi allow me to review some of my former materials, including my calendars and personal notes. That request was denied. Fortunately, the broad scope of these matters and the passage of time makes many of the details of our work hard to remember. I will do my best to answer your questions today, but i will not speculate or guess about details and facts that now remain beyond my reach without the benefit of refreshing my recollection. Based on the recent testimony of the current fbi director and other intelligence officials, it seems that many of the same signs and malevolent russian targeting that concerned us in 2016 were seen in the runup to the election we just completed. As both a former career Law Enforcement officer and a Senior Intelligence officer, i stress mr. Mccabe, you had a fiveminute Opening Statement. Were at 8 48. Could you please wrap up. Yes, sir. I cannot stress enough the importance of focusing your efforts and the attention of this nation on the dangers of foreign influence on our election. The russians were successful beyond their wildest imagination in accomplishing their goals in 2016. Their successes serve as an encouragement to other hostile nations intent on undermining our security, safety and stability. The russians and others will be back. Please do not let the recent calm of the 2020 election lure the nation into a false sense of security. It is up to you to ensure the nation recognizes the magnitude of the threat posed by foreign actors and take sufficiently aggressive steps to address it. With that im happy to take your questions. For the record, before i begin my questions, one of the reasons hes not able to review his notes is that the fbi did not want him to have access to classified information. I promised mr. Mccabe we would not go into details of his dismissal, but i dont want anybody to have the belief that this committee chose for him not to have access. It was his former employer who made that decision. Now, very quickly, did anyone from the Trump Campaign wind up being prosecuted for colluding with the russians . Senator, its my understanding the results of the Mueller Investigation that no one was prosecuted for criminal conspiracy involving activity that would include mr mr. Papadopoulos, is that correct. Mr. Papadopoulos was prosecuted for making false statements to fbi agents. Thank you. Lets make sure that the fbi treated both sides fairly. Senator feinstein suggested it was right to open up the investigation against the Trump Campaign. You say it was right, it was your duty. Lets look at the entire record of the 2016 election and see how evenhanded the fbi was. On september 7, 2016, the cia now, not the australian ambassador of the United Kingdom in london, but our cia sends an Investigative Lead over to the fbi. And they inform the fbi of u. S. President ial candidate Hillary Clintons approval of a plan concerning u. S. President ial candidate donald trump and Russian Hackers hampering u. S. Elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail service. How many agents were assigned to investigate that . Senator, if you are referring to the memorandum, the raw intelligence memorandum recently declassified by the dni yeah, yeah. I have read that memorandum and i dont understand it to be a request for investigative activity. Im not aware that any agents were assigned to investigate the wait a minute. Timeout. You get a memo, an Investigative Lead is what the cia calls it. Alleging that Hillary Clinton had just signed off on a plan to tie trump to russia for political purposes. How many people looked at that, how many acts were assigned to see if it was true or not . Did you know about it . Did you know about it . I was not aware of that memorandum until timeout, timeout, timeout. You get a cia memo, Investigative Lead memo, suggesting that the democratic candidate for president Hillary Clinton is trying to divert attention from her email server problem by casting aspergss against the Trump Campaign being connected to russia and you didnt know about it. How is that possible . Senator, id like to explain to you how thats possible. Who did it go to . Who did it go to . I just want to make sure if he nz who it went to. Who did the memo go to . I recently i read the memo recently. My understanding, it went to the to director comey and also to the attention of peter strzok. That memorandum youre referring to, as i read it, is in response to an fbi request, oral request, for an update of the sort of information that the crossfire Hurricane Task force was reviewing about russian activity in the campaign. Thats from my best recollection, thats what the well, im here to tell you that thats not what happened. The cia weve got the documents, sent to the fbi, information suggesting Hillary Clinton had approved of a plan to link donald trump to russia for political purposes, and it went to peter strzok. Do you believe peter strzok . My experiences working with peter strzok, yes, i believe he was fair and the decisions he made and the work that he did. So do you object to mueller relieving him of the investigation because of the emails showed that he hated trumps guts . My recollection, sir, is that we removed peter from that team because of the Ongoing Investigation did you remove him or did mueller remove him . We had conversations on the evening that i it was first shown Text Messages between mr. Strzok and miss page, and we made the decision to remove him and reached out to director muellers team and they agreed with that. Thats my recollection. So, you believe peter strzok was on the up and up. Were you ever was it ever suggested to you by mr. Preaccept that mr. Strzok should not be involved in this investigation because of his relationship with lisa page . Senator, to the i remember discussing with both mr. Prestep and mr. Steinbock probably in so, heres the here are the facts. Precep suggested strzok not be involved. You overrode him. Heres what we know about strzok and page. Page, march 3, 2016, god, trump is a loathsome human. Oh, my god, strzok, trumps an idiot. Hes awful. Strzok, god, hillary should win 100 million to nothing. August 2016. Page, hes not ever going to become president , right . Strzok, no, no, he wont, well stop it. So is it your testimony under oath that you think peter strzok had no biases against President Trump . Senator, it is my testimony under oath that the work that i saw peter strzok do on the crossfire case and other cases did not indicate zooish why did he go ahead. Senator, im having a hard time finishing an answer. I dont please, please finish. If its the connection or what. Please finish. Simply stating that the work that i saw peter do on this case and other cases, from that work and the decisions he made, i did not see any indications of political bias. Did you how do you explain to the American People that when the fbi received a memo from the cia alleging that Hillary Clinton had signed off on a plan concerning u. S. President ial donald trump and russia hackers hampering u. S. S elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail service that you did nothing . Should peter strzok have told you about this . I cant explain to you, senator, what peter strzok or director comey thought about that memo at the time. Should you but what i can say, senator no, wait a minute. Please, please. I want to get into this. Everybody is saying that you had the right to open up an investigation against trump based on the u. S. Ambassador excuse me, the australian ambassador to the United Kingdom who heard a conversation at a bar. What youre telling this committee, when the cia informs the fbi about a plan signed off by Hillary Clinton to link trump to russia, nothing was done. Is that what youre saying . There was no investigation of that allegation at all . What im saying, senator, it is not clear to me that theres an allegation of criminal conduct in that memorandum. That is based on my current reading of it. I did not see it at the time. I cannot a counterintelligence investigation is what was opened up against trump, not a criminal investigation. Is that true . Papadopoulos was a counterintelligence investigation. The case against mr. Papadopoulos was a counterintelligence case, correct. If youre going to have a counterintelligence investigation opened up against a Trump Campaign based on a conversation by the australian ambassador to the United Kingdom based on a bar conversation, youre telling me thats legit and you put all the resources for 2 and a ha1 2 years to run committee but youre telling our committee that when Hillary Clinton signed off a plan, you didnt do a damn thing. Is that your testimony . No, sir, thats not my testimony. Well, what happened . My testimony im happy to explain to you how we thought about the issue of mr. Papadopoulos. No, thats not my question. No. My question is, why did the fbi not open up an investigation based on the cia input . The cia is telling the fbi that they have information that Hillary Clinton signed off a plan to deflect attention from her and put trump in a bad light regarding russia. Ka came in september 2016. You didnt know about it, apparently. Can you explain to this committee and the American People why the fbi did nothing regarding that allegation . I cannot, sir, explain to you what peter strzok or anything else thought about that at the time, but i can explain to you information in that memo i accept that you believe that mr. Papadopoulos should be looked at. Im not arguing with you. I dont understand how you can how the fbi operated. Youve got a tip from an australian ambassador to the United Kingdom talking about a bar conversation with mr. Papadopoulos about russia hacking, and that leads to 2 1 2 years of turning the country upside down. Your own cia informs the fbi in september that they have information that Hillary Clinton herself signed off on a plan to divert attention from her email problems to trump by linking him to russia for political purposes. And mr. Strzok never told you about it, the fbi never opened up an investigation, they never hired one agent. That really is disturbing to a lot of us. Now, lets go to the warrant. In june 2016 excuse me, 2017, did you sign off on the carter page warrant application . In june of 2016, yes. 17, im sorry. 17, im sorry, 2017. Did you know at the time that the cia had warned the fbi on numerous occasions to be careful using the dossier, it was internet rumor . I did not know that at the time and i dont know that now. Okay. We got a list that cia informs fbi that carter page had approved had been approved as an operational contact from 2008 to 2013. Did you know that the cia had told the fbi that in august of 2017 . No, sir. The reason thats important, that would explain why mr. Page was actually talking to people he claimed to be talking with. Did you know did you have a conversation with mr. Orr about the reliability of Christopher Steele . I had a conversation in october of 2016 about with mr. Orr about his interactions with mr. Steele. Did he tell you you should be concerned and be careful . I dont remember him saying i should be concerned or be careful, no. In the fall of 2016, this is his testimony to the committee. You put mccabe on notice. You hey, you need to watch this, you need to verify. I certainly gave him the save caveats and the caveatses were that steele hated trumps. Yes, your concerns . Yes. What did you say when you told him that you were concerned about you need to be careful for lack of a better term . I think he understood because he also worked on russia criminal matters. So, we have mr. Orr under oath saying that expressed concerns to you, strzok and others about the reliability of mr. Steele. You dont remember that . Senator, i dont remember the specifics of our conversation. However, we were engaged in trying to determine and verify the statements in mr. Steeles reporting at that time, so we were certainly concerned about those things. Were you aware of the subsource interview in january and march with the fbi . I was aware that an individual who our team thought of as one of the primary subsources had been identified and that they were interviewing did they tell you about the substance of those interviews . Not in detail. So, you didnt know that in january the subsource tells the fbi he had no idea where some of the language attributed to him came from, his contacts never mentioned some of the information attributed to them, he said he did not know the origins of other information that was supposedly from his contacts, he did not recall other information attributed to him or his contacts, still used incorrect source characterization as subsource primary contacts that in march he said he never expected steele to put his statements in reports or present them as facts. The statements were word of mouth and hearsay conversations had with friends over beers or statements made in jest that should be taken with a grain of salt. Was any of that ever communicated to you . No, sir, not that i can recall. If you knew then what you know now, would you have signed the warrant application in june of 2017 against carter page . No, sir. Okay. Finally, who is responsible for ruining mr. Carter pages life . If its not you, its not rosenstein, if its not comey, if its not sally yates, whos responsible for putting together the information provided to the fisa court that was completely devoid of the truth, lacking material facts, completely represented what mr. Page did and how he did it, who should we look to for that responsibility . Well, sir, i dont agree with the way that youve characterized the thats what the court said. I think as the ig pointed out in the conclusions of their report whos responsible, mr. Mccabe . Everyone who had every person everybodys responsible . Nobodys responsible . Sir, it would help if you would allow me to finish my answer. I think it might be easier to understand. The question is, whos responsible . And i think that we are all responsible for the work that went into that fisa. I am certainly responsible as a person in a leadership position with oversight over these matters. I accept that responsibility fully. Did you mislead the fisa court . I signed a package that included numerous factual errors or failed to include information that should have been brought to the court. And what should be done to you and others . Well, senator, i think were we are doing that with this process. I think the our efforts should be focused on figuring out how these errors took place and ensuring they dont happen again. That starts with those who committed the problem being held accountable. Senator feinstein. Well, mr. Chairman, i hope you know, this is difficult. Forces one hearing is open and then they get opened and reports get done, and then they get castigated for doing it, and in his 434page report, ig horowitz confirmed that the fbi had a legitimate reason to open the crossfire hurricane investigation. Attorney general barr disagreed with the igs finding. And has since referred to as the bogus russiagate scandal. So, this is the first time i have heard this kind of thing happening. And one witness told the ig that, quote, it would have been a dereliction of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to investigate. Do you agree with that . Im sorry, senator. I absolutely agree that it would have been a dereliction of duty for us to not initiate the crossfire hurricane investigation and the work that we did. As i understand it, it was a counterintelligence investigation into Trump Campaign ties to russia. You opened a counterintelligence investigation into trump himself after he fired former fbi director comey and linked comeys termination to the russia investigation. I dont know whether thats true or not. Id like to know. You have said that if the fbi failed to open an investigation into trump under those circumstances, we wouldnt be doing our job. I believe you said that on 60 minutes request t minutes. So i think its pretty clear that opening a counterintelligence investigation into a president is an extraordinary step. Why did you see it as necessary under those circumstances . Well, senator, there were a lot of things that were concerning us as we went through the opening and the process of investigation please say what they were. I think it would be helpful to this conversation. Sure. So, we knew that the russians had been targeting us. We had reason to believe because of the friendly Foreign Government information that the campaign had been aware of that and might have coordinated with them and those activities. Thats why we initiated the crossfire investigation. After, as we proceeded with that investigation, we had a series of alarming inter i should say director comey had a series of alarming interactions with President Trump in which it became pretty clear to us that he did not want us to continue investigating what the russians had done. He actually asked at one point that we stop investigating general flynn. He then fired director comey when they also asked that we state publicly that he was not under investigation. When we didnt do that and we didnt close the investigation on general flynn, he fired director comey. He then stated publicly that he was he had fired director comey thinking about the russians. He then told the russians that he had fired director comey and that that had relieved a lot of pressure that had been on him. So, we had many reasons at that point to believe that the president might himself pose a danger to National Security and that he might have engaged in obstruction of justice if the firing of the director and those other things were geared towards eliminating or stopping our investigation of russian activity. So, what was found on that point . Well, thats the point, senator, we handed the investigation on the first four people and the investigation of President Trump and the investigation of former attorney general sessions over to the special counsel team. And i think, you know, we all know what happened at the conclusion of that investigation, the details that are provided in the Mueller Report, i think, provide pretty solid results that verify and that our concerns were valid. Im very confident in the work that the special counsel did, and i think it proved that our concerns at that time were legitimate. Would you go into some of those concerns and what the report showed. Sure. So, we opened the initial crossfire hurricane investigation because p predominantly the statements of George Papadopoulos that people maybe mr mr. Papadopoulos, maybe others affiliated with the campaign might be coordinating with russia. My recollection of the results of the special counsels investigation is that they found, i think it was over 100 different connections between people affiliated with or a part of the Trump Campaign and russians or people affiliated with the russian government or russian Intelligence Services. So, clearly, our concern that there might be connections here that we should be looking into to ensure theres no danger to National Security was proven true. On the obstruction of justice side, i think its well known director mueller concluded that he could not indict or seek an indictment of a sitting president due to department of justice policy. However, volume 2 of the Mueller Report lays out in pretty pretty excruciating detail at least ten different categories of behavior or activity that the president engaged in and, i think to the best of my recollection, in at least eight of those categories, the elements of the offense of obstruction of justice evidenced to prove each element of the obstruction of justice are present in those, you know, categories of behavior. So, its fairly a bit legalistic, and i apologize, but its a fairly compelling case that the president was, in fact, engaging in behavior that you could easily categorize as obstruction of justice. So once again, our concern that the president might be obstructing justice was verified by the results of the Mueller Report. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Senator cornyn. Mr. Mccabe, i revere the department of justice. I revere the fbi, but whats happened over the last four years has revealed an fbi gone rogue, that has interfered with not just one candidate, but with two candidates for president of the United States. Starting with Hillary Clinton. And then, of course, the investigation of the current president donald trump. How is it that the fbi decided to interfere in the election of not just one but two candidates for president of the United States . Well, senator, i dont agree with your characterization of our work as having gone rogue. And i would also say that at no time while i was in the fbi did we make a decision to interfere in any president ial election. We did you did you participate in the discussions leading up to the july 5, 2016 press conference that director comey held on the email investigation . Did you agree with that and did you support his decision to go public with that announcement . Senator, i was a part of those decisions at the time. I supported it at the time. I feel very differently about it now. Im happy to go into detail about that, if youd like. And you understand that while you thought firing the fbi director may be some evidence of russian involvement with President Trump, youre familiar with the Rod Rosenstein memo, which was at least in part the reason why director comey was fired, correct . I learned of the yes, yes. I became familiar with that the day that director comey was fired. What i dont understand, mr. Kab, is your relationship with director comey. Did director comey know everything you knew or did you selectively tell him or report to him about things that the fbi was doing . Well, i cant say, senator i cant say what director comey knew, but i can tell you that director comey and i attended numerous meetings together, briefings every day, that it was my practice to discuss all of the major issues that we were dealing with, that i was dealing with, with director comey, so we spoke frequently about, you know, most topics. I cant tell you with perfect accuracy everything we talked about. But we talked a lot, so he was pretty up to speed on what was going on at all times. Did you or director comey consult with attorney general lynch or Deputy Attorney sally yates about the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign . Yes, sir. Our team met with the folks the doj leadership of the National SecurityDivision Within a day or so of opening the crossfire hurricane investigation and informed them of what we had done and what we thought about the case and the people who were being investigated. And then director comey and i well, i wont speak for director comey. I had followup conversations with Department Leadership in the days that followed and many times during the coercion of the investigation. Mr. Mccabe, who should be held accountable for the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application that contained a lie about carter page with regard to his activities on behalf of another agency of the federal government . And who should be held accountable for relying on the now discredited steele dossier . I think thats the question people would like an answer to. Who should be held accountable . Senator, i think all of the people involved in this work should be and have been held accountable. I feel like the oversight process that we are engaged in now, the participation and cooperation and the efforts of the Inspector General, i think all of these elements of the work that the fbi has done internally to address everything from individuals to processes involved, i think those are all essential steps to ensure that this these errors are fixed and that we take appropriate steps not to make them in the future. Well, its 2020, and these occurred back in 2016. I dont think the i certainly dont have any confidence that the people who are responsible for this debacle over the last four years will ultimately be held responsible. I hope im wrong. So, i dont agree with my friend from california from california that says its now time to turn the page. We need to make sure that nothing like this ever, ever happens again to any candidate or any president regardless of their political party. I have to tell you, my biggest concern, mr. Mccabe, is that the fbi, under james comey, and under your leadership as Deputy Director of the fbi can do this, what they did to Hillary Clinton, a candidate for president of the United States, and can do it to donald j. Trump, both as a candidate and a current president of the United States. What chance does an average citizen have if theyre under investigation by an fbi led by leaders in the fashion that you and mr. Comey led during the time of these investigations . What confidence can an average citizen have that they would have any chance at all . Senator, i disagree with you. I think that all americans should and do have great confidence in the fbi today and during the time i was there and before that. The fbi conducts tens of thousands of investigations across all programs every single day. The fbi goes to Great Lengths to ensure that the rights, Constitutional Rights of those subjects of investigations, witnesses we come across and the sources of information we work with are protected during the course of those investigations. That doesnt mean that we dont make mistakes. We do. Were an organization of human beings, and people make mistakes. And when that happens, i think we go through a rigorous process to ensure that we dont make those mistakes again. But i when you make mistakes, other people pay the price, apparently. Let me just ask one final question, mr. Mccabe. On march the 16th, you were terminated by the fbi following an investigation of the office of Inspector General in the fbis office of professional responsibility, which found that you had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media, and you lacked candor, including under oath on multiple occasions. Isnt that correct . Senator, it is correct that i was the subject of a biased and deeply flawed and unfair investigation by the department of Justice Office of Inspector General. And ive been pretty clear in my vigorous objection to that investigation and its findings and conclusions. I filed a federal lawsuit. And i think i would refer you to the specific comments in that lawsuit. Its not proper for me to discuss the details of that investigation now that its in front of a federal judge. Thank you. Senator durbin. Mr. Chairman, anyone across america who tuned into this hearing has a right to be confused. If you were told this is a hearing on a president ial election, its true, but not the one that occurred a week ago. We are talking about a president ial election and campaign four years ago. Yes, we are focusing on a president ial election, but we are examining for the fourth time the role of russians in the 2016 election four years ago. And, more importantly, we are discussing President Trumps conclusion despite intelligence evidence to the contrary that the russian collusion was a hoax. For this Senate Judiciary committee, its all about hillary, its all about out going president truoutgoing President Trumps bizarre ideas, and its all about his doubts about that election. We all agree carter page was not treated properly. Both sides of the aisle said as much. How many more times do we need to say it . I want to say it again today because i still believe it. What are we actually facing here . What is the state of play in America Today that the Senate Judiciary committee might be interested in . Lets take a few items. We did have an election, a landmark moment in history. I sitting president , donald trump, who has routinely disrespected the rule of law, undermined democratic institutions, put his own interests ahead of the interests of the American People, ignored science and Public Health when it comes to this pandemic, and violated basic standards of honesty and decency. In unprecedented numbers, a clear number of americans voted to say, thats it, were finished with you, and replaced him with president elect joe biden and Vice President elect kamala harris, incidentally, two senators who served honorably on this committee. The election sent a clear message. Its time to stop relitigating issues of the last election. Its time, finally, to put behind us the divisiveness is vitriol of the trump era and to bring our fractured country together to address covid, number one, and put our economy back on its feet. But here we are today, seven days after that election, and our committee is holding another partisan hearing to advance President Trumps theories. This is the fourth hearing this year on the last administration, the previous administrations Justice Department in response to President Trumps repeated calls to investigate the investigators and to try to rewrite the story of russias involvement in the 2016 campaign. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary committee that we sit on here hasnt held a single oversight hearing on the Trump Administrations Justice Department in this congress. Any issues we might want to raise . I can think of a few. Perhaps we might even investigate the department of Homeland Security and their zero tolerance policy. I regret what happened to carter page, ive said so before. But i also regret what happened to 2,200 infants, toddlers and children, who were physically removed from their parents by the zero tolerance policy of the Trump Administration and the fact that 545 of those children still are in an abandoned status today. 545. So my question as asked to the witness today is, who should be held responsible . Why would the Senate JudiciaryCommittee Even care to have a hearing . Why would the immigration subcommittee, which i am a Ranking Member on with the senator from texas, even have one hearing on that issue . None. But this is the fourth hearing were having going back over this wellplowed ground. There are some timely issues related to the department of justice we might have even considered today. Let me give you one. Yesterday attorney general bill barr issued a memo authorizing federal prosecutors to, quote, pursue substantial allegations of voting and vote tabulation irregularities prior to the certification of elections. The attorney generals memo represents another instance of his sacrificing the reputation of the department of justice to serve the political interests of president donald trump. Attorney general barr is clearly attempting to fabricate a veneer of legitimacy for the baseless claims of voter fraud made by President Trump and his supporters, and hes doing so by overriding Longstanding Department of justice policies that were put in place to prevent this very type of political interference in an election season. Let me tell you what the previous guidelines, the previous attorney generals honored said. Quote, Public Knowledge of a criminal investigation could impact the adjudication of election litigation in contest and state courts. Accordingly, it is the general policy of the Justice Department not to conduct overt investigations, end of quote. Attorney general barr jettisoned that standard yesterday. The barr memo prompted the department of justice Election Crimes Branch to resign from his position, an issue the Senate Judiciary committee might want to be concerned about . No, im sorry, were back relitigating the 2016 election. Were going to go through that all over again, maybe a fifth time, instead of asking pertinent and relevant questions about whats happening today. Mr. Richard pilcher, who resigned from that position, noted barrs memo, quote, advocated the policy for ballot fraud allegations in the period prior to elections becoming certified and uncontested, end of quote. When general barr came before me in my office, i asked him point blank, why do you want to be Donald Trumps attorney general . Well, he said, you should have seen the list of other people who were also considered. I thought that i should step in at that point. And, secondly, he said, i want to preserve the reputation of the department of justice. Is there anyone on or off this committee who believes that general barrs actions yesterday preserve the integrity of the department of justice where baseless claims are being made about voter fraud . Do you know what the litigants record is in court since the election . Protesting the outcome of the election . Zero for 10. They have no evidence whatsoever of Election Fraud. If they did, they would certainly bring it forward. I want to close by thanking former president george w. Bush of texas for stepping up and doing the honorable thing and acknowledging to now president elect joe biden that he did win, that he will be the next president , and he, president bush, as a proud republican thought it was time for him to step up for the good of the republic. I yield. Thanks, senator durbin. I would like to respond to some of the comments you made about the committee, what were doing and why. Number one, we are going to investigate how the carter page warrant application was submitted numerous times to the fiso court with inaccurate information. I think its important to have everyone who signed it say, if i knew then what i know now, i wouldnt have signed it. To me its pretty stunning. The committee on september 9 received direction from ratcliffe that the cia informs the fbi that candidate Hillary Clinton approved of a plan concerning u. S. President ial candidate donald trump and russia hackers hampering u. S. Elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server. If you go look at the classified information, there is more there. I guess what were saying is that you accept, without any doubt, that the fbi should have looked at all things trump based on papadopoulos, that it would have been a dereliction of duty not to do so. What were suggesting is that when the cia informs the fbi that Hillary Clinton may have signed off on a plan to link trump to russia for political reasons, nobody did anything. There wasnt an investigation opened. Mr. Mccabe didnt even know about it. The fbi director says it didnt ring a bell. The person it went to was peter strzok who was incredibly biased against President Trump. So i guess what were saying, if you believe it would have been a dereliction of duty not to look at trump based on a statement by the australian ambassador of the United Kingdom regarding a barr conversation in london that led to everything weve dealt with for 2 1 2 years, we were wondering, just out loud here, how could you ignore the cia information provided to the fbi that the democratic candidate for president signed off on a plan to link trump to russia for political reasons which may explain some of the garbage in the crossfire hurricane . Youre okay with that. Were not. Youre absolutely perfectly fine with the fact that the democratic candidate for president of the United States in 2016, the cia had information she signed off on a plan to link the republican candidate to russia for political purposes, and nobody did anything. You are absolutely fine with that. We are not. That is a big deal to me. Because this wont be the last election well ever have. You cant live in a country this way. You cant live in a country where they take a cia lead and put it in the garbage can and nobody do anything. Thats just not fair to this country. Thats got to stop. You cant have two standards. Will you help me make sure mueller doesnt get fired . Yes, mueller got to do his job. Heres what were upset about. Nobody took allegations from the cia seriously about Hillary Clintons effort to sign off on a plan. It may not be true, but somebody should have looked at it. Nobody cared over there. I think most people on this side of the aisle believed that when it came to clinton and trump, the fbi and all the people involved in the crossfire hurricane shut out anything that would change the narrative that trump was being involved with the russians. They ignored every stop sign about carter page. They kept ignoring information because they wanted an outcome. And they didnt lift a finger to investigate a lead from our own cia. Mr. Chairman, may i respond . Yes, please. Mr. Chairman, what you just said is so alarming that we should have had, somewhere along the way, a thorough nonpartisan investigation of this whole crossfire hurricane. It turns out we did. Inspector general Michael Horowitz in december of 2019 found that fbis crossfire hurricane investigation was, quote, opened for an authorized purpose, had adequate factual predication and was not influenced by bias. Fbi director Christopher Wray agreed. That isnt what President Trump or attorney general barr, perhaps members of this committee, wanted to hear, so theyve tried to reopen that independent ig investigation in every partisan way imaginable, and this is the fourth try in this committee. Enough with all due respect, senator durbin, does it not bother you at all that the cia tells the fbi of a plan that Hillary Clinton may have signed off on and nobody looked at it . May i jump in . Please. Actually, it doesnt. And ill tell you why it doesnt. The fbi is an agency of limited and specific jurisdiction. It has the ability to pursue predicated criminal investigations, and i think weve all agreed that a Political Campaign choosing to tie politically the opponent to a foreign country is not a criminal act. The Trump Campaign tried to do that to joe biden with china all through this campaign. Its not a criminal act. And if youre looking at this as a counterintelligence investigation, the obvious difference is that the information that the fbi was receiving about carter page and the Trump Campaign is that there were contacts contacts between russian intelligence operatives and Trump Campaign operatives. When you have contacts going on, that does light up a flag on a counterintelligence front. And i dont see how anybody could disagree that thats the case. But when you have a Campaign Making its internal Campaign Policy to try to say either, well, biden is too close to china and you cant trust him, or trump is too close to russia and you cant trust him, i dont think the fbi has a lot of business interfering in that type of Public Campaign political debate. And i would bet you that if the fbi was looking at what the Trump Campaign said about biden with respect to china and whether they had a strategy to try to tie biden to trump, you would be beside yourself with irritation and anger that the fbi had taken that step. And yet here youre abscoring the fbi for going away from taking that step and putting it on the hillary campaign. I dont know how that gets you to criminality or the type of contacts with a foreign power that raise counterintelligence concerns. You keep asking this question. There is my answer. Let me give you my reply to your answer and well get to senator lee. In this case there was no criminal investigation opened, it was all counterintelligence based on a conversation by the australian ambassador of the United Kingdom with papadopoulos in a bar, and we got the tapes. And papadopoulos said on tape, no, im not working with the russians, that would be treason. They used that snippet for what is now the crossfire hurricane in the Mueller Investigation. What youre overlooking here is the dossier was prepared by steele from the democratic party. He was working with gps that was being paid by the democratic party. He created a document that was a bump bunch of garbage. The state department calls over to the fbi and says, this guy wants trump not to win in the worst way. Bruce orr and a bunch of other people warned the fbi that the steele document is suspect at best. The cia warned the fbi that its internet rumor. So this is a situation where if the clinton campaign, in fact, created this impression that trump was working with the russians through Christopher Steele, who was on the payroll, that, yeah, maybe that makes it all make sense. Maybe that explains that this dossier was prepared by a political person, by a person on the payroll that was used to get a warrant against an american citizen. This is the first time i know of that Opposition Research winds up being used by the fbi to get a warrant against an american citizen, a member of the other campaign. I am very sad that the cias information about Hillary Clinton signing off on a plan to link trump to russia wasnt looked at, because if you had looked at it, that may have explained Christopher Steele and the dossier. Senator lee. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. According to bill presteps handwritten notes from the june 24, 2017 meeting, a meeting mr. Mccabe attended, the fbis strategy with general Michael Flynn was to, quote, get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired. And, also, quote, if we can get him to admit to breaking the logan act, give the facts to the department of justice and have them decide, closed quote. Mr. Mccabe, is it typical for leadership at the fbi to strategize as to how to get subjects of an investigation to lie, as in this case, in an informal interview without counsel present . Well, i cant im not going to speak for mr. Presteps notes. Im just asking if its typical. I can tell you its common to discuss before an interview the many different ways that interview might turn out. And one of those ways is that the subject or the witness you are interviewing might be deliberately deceptive. So it is common to think through how you would handle that. Now, in his 302 interview, peter strzok said, quote, before the interview, mccabe, the fbi, general counsel and others decided agents would not warn flynn that it was a crime to lie during an fbi interview because they wanted flynn to be relaxed. And they were concerned that giving warnings might adversely affect the rapport, closed quote. Is it normal for fbi leadership to instruct agents to not inform interviewees of their rights in investigational interviews . There is no requirement to tell any witness or interviewee that it is a crime to lie to the fbi. It is very common for agents and their supervisors to discuss how theyre going to handle these different elements of an interview before they go in and do it. I assume you dont do that all the time, and one of the reasons you dont do that all the time is because you rely on formal interviews. You get a lot of information out of them. If you were constantly warning them in advance and making them feel like theyre targets, thats a problem. But it also can become a problem, and it invariably does, when people in an informal interview are lured into an informal interview with one set of expectations you created for them and you routinely dash them. When scheduling the january 24th meeting with flynn, you told kisly kislyak you would tell the department of justice if he appeared in the interview with flynn. That was used as the basis of his prosecution. Is it Standard Practice for the fbi to threaten highlevel Administration Officials if they refuse to appear for interviews without counsel or at least without somebody from the White House Counsels Office . The premise of your question is false. I did not threaten general flynn with anything. In a very short conversation, i asked general flynn if he wanted to have a representative from the White House Counsels Office or his own attorney attend the interview, and i simply told him if that were the case, that i would need agents to also bring an attorney from the department of justice. General flynn very quickly replied that he didnt want to bring an attorney to the interview, which is certainly his right, and we proceeded in that way. Okay. Im looking at your notes regarding your conversation with general flynn. Quote, i explained to Lieutenant General flynn that my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly, quietly and discreetly as possible. He agreed and offered to meet with the agents today. We had a discussion about timing and ultimately agreed to conduct the interview at his office in the white house at 1430 this afternoon. I heard it further stayed that if general flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting, like the white house counsel, for instance, that i would need to involve the department of justice. He stated that this would not be necessary and agreed with the agents without any additional participants. To me that carries a certain suggestion. Based on sally yates 302, director comey admitted that he would have informed the Obama White House chief of staff, dennis mcdonough, if this were occurring under analogous circumstances with president obama and president obamas National Security adviser. So why this disparate treatment . Why would you have one standard where you would inform the chief of staff in one instance but not in another administration . Well, sir, i cant speak for why jim comey what jim comey thought about that at the time. Im not aware of that. Okay. Mr. Mccabe, weve hauled in a few different people to talk about the crossfire hurricane investigation before this committee. So far we havent been able to get a single straight answer to some critical questions, including, who in leadership at the fbi or at the department of justice knew about the serious flaws contained in the carter page fiso warrants before the original application was submitted on october 24, 2016 . Also, who knew the first time before the first renewal was submitted on january 12, or how about the second renewal on april 7, 2017. And who knew before you signed the third renewal on june 8, 2017 . Nobody seems to be telling us anything. Back in august, Deputy Attorney sally yates told this committee that she had no idea where critical factual errors were on the carter page application. She had no idea those were there. A few weeks ago general comey told us he didnt know about the errors when he signed the applications and the subsequent renewals. Now youve told this committee what . What is your answer to these questions . Tell me what you were aware of as of those dates. Ive been pretty clear that i was not aware of the errors that were identified in the igs report or any other errors that were present in the package that i signed in june of 2017. Mr. Chairman, my time is expiring. Could i get an additional two minutes . I think i can wrap this up in that time. Thank you. Now, youve stated in your written testimony that, quote, fiso remains one of our most important tools to protect our National Security. The fbi is part of that tool. I certainly hope that fisos use is for the American People that they deserve. Thats all well and good. I like the statement as far as it goes, but i would note, mr. Mccabe, ive heard this line before. Not just once, ive heard it more times than i can possibly count in the last ten years while sitting on this committee. In fact, your comments are nearly identical to those ive heard from fbi official after fbi official, from basically every fbi official who has testified in front of this committee on this issue. Trust us. Were the good guys. And we need the secret surveillance authorities in order to keep you safe. And, furthermore, you dont need to worry about them. These arent the droids you were looking for, because were the good guys and we need high level of approval. It turns out, mr. Mccabe, no one involved in the high level of approval, the same people who told me over and over again the last decade, that they were reviewing them and thats why its okay. None of them can answer those questions. Thats why were here again. Im asking you now, how are we supposed to tell the American People to have confidence in the secret fiso process if, mind you this is hard to believe no one in fbi leadership, no one in leadership of doj or fbi wants to admit that they were aware of serious flaws in a very highprofile investigation. And what assurances could you possibly give us that the fisa application is targeting everyday americans, just u. S. Citizens, not Foreign Terrorists and not even highprofile officers in the United States. They simply cant be. In fact, the fisa process must be reformed. We cant ask americans to continue to give the federal government this enormous amount of unsupervised scrutiny and discretion only to have it abused like this, and only to have people accountable for it to say they have no idea how these things happen. I can assure you your abuse of the fisa process has cost you the trust of the American People. That in and of itself is tragic, and i dont use those words lightly. Whats even more tragic is theyve cost a great agency, one that i worked with as a federal prosecutor and for which ive had great respect, and where there is still countless, hardworking, honest men and women who earned fbis good name every day. Their reputation has been sullied, and the bureaus ability to do its job has been seriously impaired by these missteps. Thats why this structure must change and i wont rest until it does. Mr. Mccabe, would you like to respond . Sure. So i certainly cant respond to things that other people have said to senator lee over the last ten years. I do agree with you that this process, the igs oversight, the report that they delivered has uncovered that there are problems potentially with the way that the fbi is handling its fisa responsibilities. I think im fairly confident in saying that this experience has exposed to me, at least, that we have been overconfident in the process that weve been using for years. Weve been overconfident in the oversight that we have been subjecting each fisa package to, and i think we need to go back and very thoroughly look at how do we change that process to ensure that the errors and omissions in these packages that we now know about dont happen again. I agree with you in that respect, senator. It wont change. We have to change it. Its the law thats the problem. It gives an unfair amount of discretion to human beings who have proven time and again they cant be trusted with it. Thank you. Senator whitehouse. Thank you, chairman. First of all, let me just say that given the errors and omissions that everybody concedes and knows were in the fisa warrant, no official would say now that they would find that warrant, knowing that it had errors and omissions. So thats an obvious question. What i want to make sure of is that it doesnt lead to the wrong implication that because officials wouldnt sign a warrant that they knew to have errors and omissions in it, that had they found out there were errors and omissions in it, they would have ended the investigation. That is not a logical leap. That is not a correct assertion or a correct implication. What you do is you go back and you clear out errors and omissions, you take personal action necessary for the people responsible for those errors and omissions, and then you proceed with your case with a correct warrant. Lets make sure that is clear. I think we agree on that, but i want to clarify on that. I also have to say i have no objection to us pursuing endlessly the question of this crossfire hurricane investigation, but it does irk me that we do this at the expense of other things we could be looking at and should be looking at. If you havent read judge gleasons brief for a federal judge in the flynn case, its one of the most astonishing piece first of all, its just an amazing good piece of legal writing. If youre a law student out there or a young lawyer, go read it just to watch the skill of a terrific advocate at work. But the allegations and concerns that a retired federal judge on behalf of a sitting federal judge has made about the department of justice are unprecedented. And what attention have we given that . None. There is very likely mischief behind the antitrust letter that was sent out to Auto Companies who had the nerve to try to interfere with the fossil fuel industry scheme to undo vehicle emission standards. There is no support for that. Its since been withdrawn. The hearing continues to be postponed, and i still have got zero zero evidence or information in relation to my requests about that. We have what appears to have been a tanked fbi investigation in the kavanaugh hearings, and ive asked questions about that to which ive had no answer whatsoever. Weve had multiple resignations and protests by career doj officials under attorney general barr, and we cant get any answers to whats going on behind those resignations in protest, and now two federal courts have written official opinions, decisions, excoriating the work of the office of legal counsel. And nothing on that. So were highly selective of what we look into, and weve been solicitous of the sto stonewalling and nonresponsiveness of this department of justice. Guys, were about to go into a Biden Department of justice. And if the standard you want to set is that the department of justice doesnt have to answer any letters, doesnt have to answer any qfrs, only does things for the majority party, congratulations, because youve done a really good job of setting that precedent in this committee. You have allowed an effective pattern of nonresponsiveness of the fbi. The chairman actually brought a deputy general into a meeting with me thank you for that courtesy at my request because we were getting no answers to qfrs, no answers to letters. Just a complete blowoff. If i recall correctly, that meeting was in june. You know how many answers ive gotten since june after that meeting with the Deputy Attorney general about Unanswered Questions . None. Zero. So you all have set one heck of a precedent if you think youre going to come back with questions about the Biden Department of justice. You have set a precedent that the department of justice and the fbi dont have to answer our questions. And that if youre in the majority, thats cool, youre just going to let that ride. So i have to take this opportunity to ask some back questions to a former fbi official because we dont have that. So let me ask mr. Mccabe, the fbi does pretty much everything by policy and procedure in my recollection as a u. S. Attorney working with fbi agents. Were there fbi policies and procedures related to how a tip line operates . Yes, sir. There are policies about that. And where would i go to find those policies and procedures . I was able to find one statement on the internet. Are you aware of other places that we should go to look more specifically since we havent been able to get straight answers . I dont know if i can give you the Perfect Place to look, but the tip line, the way the fbi handles tip lines has changed a lot in the last five or so years. Theyre all managed centrally out of our facility in West Virginia that kind of handles all the incoming calls and then sends leads or information, you know, directs it to the field offices that would be responsible for following up on those things. Who has authority to set one up . Who makes the call . An agent . If i want a tip line on this case, where does that decision travel through the fbi . You dont get a tip line in every case. You get tip lines in some cases. How does that work . Typically, the office of Public Affairs would be involved in that suggestion, in that kind of if its a particular case that we think requesting the publics active involvement will help so the agent would ask his agent in charge, and the agent in charge would clear it with the Public Affairs office, and then the process for a tip line kicks in . Thats the best of my recollection, sir. And then once the tip line is up and running and information starts to come in, what does it look like when youre going through those tips . Obviously a lot of them are going to be just nutty people calling in, some of them are going to have very significant evidence, potentially, in them and youll have to go and dig into that. Who oversees that to make sure that is legitimate and that evidence is actually being dug out of a tip line call . So those calls, once the line is set up, those calls would go into our criminal Justice InformationServices Division in West Virginia, and the telephone the operators, the specialists who answer those calls have a process for how they memorialize the information that comes off that tip and who it gets sent to, and whether it should be brought to someones attention immediately if its something that involves possibly a threat to life. So there are kind of detailed policies around that. Im not really in a position to be able to tell you great detail about them off the top of my head. Im over my time, so let me ask a very short question, and that is, if an fbi tip line were set up and information were collected through that fbi tip line, and then nobody looked at what had been brought in, it was just all dumped in a file and there was no further investigative work at all, would that be consistent with fbi policy or procedure . From the way youve described the situation, sir, i would have to say no. Im not aware of a specific situation that fits that model, but presumably the information that comes in off the tip line gets put into our guardian system, and thats how all of our incoming tip information is managed and assigned and investigated at its most kind of initial level. So, no, information that comes into the fbi should never just be put aside and not followed up on. Thank you, chairman, for the extra time. Absolutely. And as to the antitrust issue youve been talking about, the committee deserves to have a hearing on that. We had the barrett nomination, siem going to get with senator lee and make sure that we can, in a reasonable fashion, get answers to the questions youve raised. I think we owe that to not only you but the committee itself. Hearings can be pretty meaningless if we havent been given any documents, if weve been blown off by the fbi again. Well look into that with justice kavanaugh, and i think from my point of view, you have pretty good scrutiny. So senator tillis. Nope. Who we got . Pressley. Pressley. I overlooked the soontobe chairman. Occurriduring the course of crossfire hurricane, biden used the process as a weapon against trump and then later President Trump. Doing so undermined his presidency from the start. We voted in the senate on legislation that would repair many of the shortcomings in the current fisa court system, striking a balance of increasing accountability transparency and ensuring fairness while protecting our National Security interest. Congress must ensure that the fisa process isnt abused for partisan political gain like it was during the Obama Administration. So now, mr. Mccabe, to my first question, the Inspector General found 17 errors and omissions in the carter page fisa application. There were also over 50 errors and omissions in the woods file for the page fisa application. In light of these overwhelming mistakes, the obvious lack of evidence and the failure to fully apprise the fisa court of relevant exculpatory facts, the investigation simply didnt have foundation to proceed. If you were diligent doing the job, how did you miss all of these critical mistakes and failures that will baffle the fbi for years to come . I dont agree with your accusation that the investigation was flawed. The flaws that you have referenced, the ones pointed out by the ig, should not have taken place in the fisa application, which is only one part of an overall investigation into mr. Page and three other individuals. An investigation that i would point out the ig indicated was for an authorized purpose properly predicated. According to the Inspector General, the steele dossier was central and essential to the carter page fisas. However, according to your testimony before the house intelligence committee, the dossier wasnt fully vetted and corroborated before it was used in the fisa application. Why didnt you ensure that the fbi perform its Due Diligence before the dossier was used to justify invasive surveillance on an american citizen . The fbi is not required by the court to only present information that has been absolutely verified and proven true. We often use information that we have not yet gotten to the bottom of. We are required to provide information about the source of that information so that the court is adequately aware of what we know about what we told them and how we think about its verification. In this case we were in the middle of a very long and extensive effort trying to prove the many allegations in the steele reporting. On january 4, 2017, the fbi prepared a memo to close the flynn case and no derogatory information was identified. That same day mr. Strzok interceded to keep it open. Did you order strzok or anyone else to keep it open . If not, who did . I dont recall ordering peter to keep, or mr. Strzok, to keep that investigation open. I think that obviously thats what happened, but i dont know who gave that order. Did anyone ever instruct you to keep the flynn case open . If so, who . No one ever instructed me to keep the flynn case open. We had conversations about the flynn case towards the end of 2016 and whether or not we should keep it open. There was some thought that we had not developed much information during the course of the information, and that it might be appropriate to close the case. However, those thoughts changed as soon as we became aware that we had evidence of general flynns conversations with the russians. So our initial concern that general flynn might be the point of contact between the Trump Campaign and the russians was elevated when we found evidence that he was, in fact, in touch with the russians. During your time at the fbi, how many logan act investigations were you a part of . I do not recall ever having been a part of a logan act investigation. Based on the evidence ive seen, much of which has been made public, the fbi was out to get flynn and they broke every rule in the books to interview him and try to entrap him. What the Obama Administration and fbi did to flynn under your watch is a textbook example of the power of the federal government that can be abusive and hurt the American People. Now going to leaks. The subject leaks, lleaks. Ive made this point before, but its frustrating when the fbi refuses to answer this committees questions in full, but leaks relevant information to the media. I asked thendirector comey in may 2017 whether he ever served as an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the trump investigation or clinton investigation. His response, quote, unquote, never. So the next question to you. Deputy director mccabe, was that a true and Accurate Answer based on your experience working for him . First, senator, to be clear, i strongly disagree with your characterization of our investigation of general flynn. But with respect to your question about mr. Comeys testimony to you about being the source of anonymous leaks, i dont have any i dont have any information about that. Thats i dont know. In that same may 2017 hearing, i asked thendirector comey whether he authorized someone else at the fbi to be an anonymous source in news reports about the trump investigation or clinton investigation. His answer was no. So, mr. Mccabe, was that a true and Accurate Answer based on your experience of working for him . I am not aware of director comey authorizing or directing people to be Anonymous Sources for the media. The Justice Departments Inspector General report on your disclosing of information to the media, lack of candor or lying under oath contained references to a Clinton Foundation investigation. Specifically that report said you had a conversation with a Justice Department official about the clinton investigation, and in that conversation you reportedly stated, quote, are you telling me that i need to shut down a valid, predicated investigation, end quote . Why did you believe the Clinton Foundation investigation was validly predicated . Well, im not sure i can answer that question because its beyond the scope of what we were told i would be questioned about today, and also it would call for me to reveal information that im not sure the fbi i havent been authorized by the fbi to discuss. But i would point out, senator, that the director and the Deputy Director of the fbi are the only two fbi officials who have the authority and the responsibility to authorize the release of information to the media. And so i think that your questions are overlooking that important distinction. So thats it. Thank you. Senator klobuchar, well come to you in a second. You said you present information to the court that sometimes is not fully proven, is that right, when it comes to a warrant . Thats correct. We often present information in warrants that we have not yet finished verifying. Do you have an obligation when you find information, its exculpatory to provide it to the court . In the fisa process, agents are obligated to present information that might cut might cut against, you know, the veracity of a source or youre obligated to present information that puts the court in a position to accurately assess whether they believe, you know, the source of information you presented. Thats why if you alter an email from the cia saying that mr. Page actually was a source, thats misleading to the court, and thats why mr. Klein smith is being prosecuted, is that correct . Thats my understanding. When you have information in the possession of the fbi in january and march where the subsource basically disavows the legitimacy of the dossier, the barr talk and hearse, can you tell us how that never made it to you by june of 2017 . How could that information been gathered in january and march of 2017 and not known to the system as late as june 2017 . Do you know . Did you talk to mr. Alton about this at all . Im not sure im not sure who that was you just referred to. Excuse me, the junemarch interview was conducted by mr. Altman and a few other agents, and thats when the subsource told us basically that a lot of it was bar talk, hearsay, gutted the reliability of it. And you said if you had known then what you know now you wouldnt have signed the warrant application. Do you have an explanation as to why that application never made it to you and others . There is no question that the Crossfire Team should have had a much more thorough discussion with the people preparing that package. They should have made an informed decision as to whether or not they should have been included in the package. And your testimony is that no one told you about these interviews, the substance of them, is that correct . Thats correct. Senator klobuchar. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Welcome back, mr. Mr. Mccabe. Good to see you. This hearing was set up before the election, i know that, but since we got the notice on this hearing, we now know we have a new president , president elect biden, and a new Vice President that we will see in washington, and that is Vice President elect harris. I just want to make clear to anyone watching this out now out there in the virtual land that this is all about what happened before the 2016 election, is that correct, mr. Mccabe . And around that time period. Thats correct. Okay. And in the 2016 election, donald trump won and Hillary Clinton lost. Is that correct . Thats my understanding. Okay, thats the correct answer, right. So now we move forward to this election in 2020, and we have a situation where our very democracy has spoken. Weve had the greatest number of people that voted ever in a president ial election. Are you aware of that, mr. Mccabe . Yes, maam, im aware of that. And do you think there were some improvements made on how we handled foreign interference in the election . I think it seems of course, im not privy to all the information about what folks know and what steps they took, but it does seem to me that the efforts to bring greater security to our elections at the state level was time and effort well spent. Yes. And i personally think there is a lot more that needs to be done. Senator graham and i have the honest ads act, which i think would be really helpful for ads that are political ads that are taken out to make sure i think youre aware of that bill. And i think there is a lot more that can be done, but i think its really important to note that the subject that were talking about predates the 2016 election. I want to talk about whats happening right now with the Justice Department and our election. And i really do it with what president elect biden said to the nation. He asked that the grim era be behind us. Im sure that might have resonated with you, mr. Mccabe, and we are understanding that some people didnt agree with him and voted for donald trump, but he literally reached out to people who voted for donald trump, and he said, look, ive been disappointed before, ive lost elections, but im asking you to give me a chance and ill give you a chance. So that is the approach that i take here, and i know that its hard to lose elections, but i think that we need to move on as a country. The pandemic, everything we have before us, and really the integrity of our justice system. And i was actually very disheartened yesterday when attorney general barr told sent out a memo to the u. S. Attorneys throughout the country asking them to examine voting irregularities even before the states had certified their results. And i had actually done a letter back on october 23rd when he started questioning mailin ballots early on and asked them to look at this, because the federal prosecution of elections, the Justice Departments policy says, quote, ov overcriminal investigations should not be taken, quote, until the election has been concluded, its results certified and all recounts and election contests concluded. So what happened yesterday is they decided to upend that policy and start getting on this train that there was something wrong with this election when, in fact, the republican secretary of state in georgia has stood by their election and says there isnt systematic fraud. The republicans in arizona, the governor there, this is a state where joe biden basically has won with a few more votes to be counted. You look at what happened in pennsylvania. So my concern is theyre upending this longstanding policy right when the election resulting in a career prosecutor mr. Pilcher, i dont know if you know him, resigned yesterday, because he saw this clearly this is the reason for his resignation as political interference in the work of the Justice Department. So you spent decades in public service, mr. Mccabe, and i want to ask you, what does it mean to you to see a career Justice Department employee resign like that . Well, i think its incredibly concerning, as undoubtedly, senator, you know from your own experience that people in the department of justice are typically committed to long and noble service. Its not just a job, its a calling for what you choose to do with your life. So when people start resigning in protest over decisions that leadership makes, i think we should all take a very, very close look at that. In terms of Election Fraud generally, any time you change a wellknown established policy regarding the political process in the middle of the political process, i think it raises some very legitimate concerns about what the motivation for that change was, and i think in the least case, it shines a very dim light on the department and its impartiality. And with a new president coming in, what steps do you think we should be taking to restore Public Confidence in the department and improve morale in the department . I look back on my own experience and some of the decisions we made in the fbi, and of course, many of the things that have happened since. I think a return to the timehonored principles in the department and in the bureau of being very careful about how what we do and how we do it around the political process is i think thats something that most people in the department and the bureau would really embrace. Thank you, mr. Mccabe. Thank you very much. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccabe, welcome. Id like to start by discussing the flynn investigation. As you know, the fbi Team Investigating general flynn prepared a memo dated january 4th, 2017 to close the investigation into flynn as bas to continue. The fbi had investigated and failed to find any derogatory information about general flynn and determined he was no longer a viable candidate for investigation. But then, according to peter struck, the seventh floor, the top brass at the fbi intervened to keep the investigation open. Were you the one who made the decision to keep the investigation open . I dont remember making that decision but i certainly supported keeping the case open. I dont remember being the person that made that phone call, but i think that it was the right move to continue investigating once we had uncovered the information we found. So despite the fact that the career investigators concluded there was no basis and no derogatory information and recommended closing it, you made the decision or at least you agreed with the decision to keep the investigation open. On what basis . Well, i dont know that i dont recall that the investigators determined there was no basis to continue. My recollection from the conversations we were having about the flynn case the memo is a memo to close the investigation because it could not find any, quote, derogatory information about flynn and he was, quote, no longer a viable candidate for investigation. Thats not ambiguous, is it . Thats not the same as what you said before. I, of course, dont have that memo in front of me. But our feeling at that time was that we had found very little, if any, incriminating evidence about general flynn until, of course, we found potentially very incriminating evidence about him. Are you referring to the logan act theory . No, sir. Im referring to the fact that we uncovered that general flynn was having the sort of direct contact with the government of russia that we were looking for in all of the first four cases of cross fire hurricane. Did you support using the logan act as a basis to go after general flynn . The logan act was not used as a basis to go after general flynn. We opened the case youre aware of the white house meeting where the notes show that Vice President biden at the time directly suggested using the logan act to go after general flynn. Im not aware of that. Those are notes from your colleagues. I dont mean to interrupt, but i do senator, i can say what the the reasons i agreed with and approved opening the case. That was because we thought that general flynn might be having inappropriate contacts with russia. Thats why we opened the case. Inproappropriate, so the onl basis this is a decorated threestar general. The only basis put forward for what i think was a bogus political persecution and prosecution was an alleged violation of the logan act which has never been used to prosecute anybody in the history of the department of justice, true . No. I dont believe thats true. I think name one person thats ever been prosecuted under the logan act. No, i was referring to why we opened the case against general flynn. Im not aware of prosecutions of the logan act. For those who are listening, were talking about a conversation between general flynn and the Russian Ambassador after the election while hes the National Security advisor in waiting. Is that correct, senator cruz . We are. Hes the incoming National Security advisor and mr. Mccabe, yesterday on msnbc, ben rods the former deputy National Security advisor to president obama said that foreign leaders are already having considerations with joe biden, quote, talking about the agenda theyre going to pursue january 20th. Mr. Mccabe, based on that testimony, do you believe joe biden is violating the logan act . Im not aware of ben rhodes statements take it on faith he said what i read. Assuming that quote is accurate, its a verbatim quote, is that a violation of the logan act under any plausible theory. Im not pre pa prepared to take your statement on faith. Or take a legal analysis youre a lawyer. If it is correct that im accurately quoting something the department of justice frequently did wrong in this investigation if that is what ben rhodes said, if joe biden is talking with foreign leaders right now, does it violate the logan act . Yes or no . Im not going to opine on a hypothetical question he is talking with leaders and it doesnt violate the logan act because its unconstitutional, which is why its never been used to go after anyone. I can give you the answer, hell no joe biden is not violating the logan act. The reason you wont say it, that was your flimsy basis to go after a deck indicated war hero because you disagreed politically with President Trump. Sir, none of that is correct. Which part . Pick any aspect. We didnt investigate general flynn because we were concerned that he might violate the logan act it is your testimony the logan act was not a predicate for the fbi and doj investigation of general flynn. Really . There were no discussions of the logan act there were no discussions of the logan act at the fbi, that is your testimony under penalty of perjury. And i warn you, there is abundance evidence there were. If youre not going to let me finish my answer im not going to be able to accurately answer your question. What is your testimony . Is your testimony you just said there was no discussion of the logan act. Does that remain your testimony . No, senator thats where you cut off my testimony. Please continue. I would like to finish my answer. Please continue. Thank you. Thank you. When we initiated the case against general flynn, it was not initiated for or as a result of any discussion mr. Mccabe youre being nonresponsive to the question. I didnt ask about the initiation. The logan act was a late pretext that was adopted after you investigated him and couldnt find anything in the career investigator z recommended closing it. My time is expiring. The chairman took a little bit of my time so im going to take a little bit of it back. Did james comey authorize you to disclose information about the Clinton Foundation investigation to the press . I didnt need james comeys authorization i didnt ask if you needed it. I asked if he authorized you to disclose it. Thats a yes or no question. I authorized the disclosure youre not answering my question. Did james comey know about it . Did he authorize it . Did he know about it. To my recollection, sir, yes, he knew about it. Did he authorize you . Did he, in any way, give you the green light, explicitly or implicitly . I didnt ask jim comey. Im not whether you asked. According to the Washington Times mr. Mccabe insisted he told his boss he authorized disclosure about the clinton investigation but mr. Mccabe denied this claim and mr. Mccabe told investigators that mr. Comey knew he authorized disclosure and agreed it was a good idea. Is that accurate . Is that your testimony to this committee . That is my recollection. So youre aware that your testimony is 180 degrees opposite mr. Comeys sworn testimony to this committee in which he insisted he has never authorized anybody to leak to the press. I dont im not going to say what director comey said or didnt say to you. However, your characterization of a leak is not accurate. The fbi has records that will establish whether youre telling the truth or mr. Comey is telling the truth. Do you believe the fbi should make the records public so if youre telling the truth you can be vindicated and if mr. Comey is telling the truth, he can be vindicated . Im not sure what records youre referring to, senator. Any and all emails, corresponden correspondents, records, whatever sob indicating mrmr. Mr. Comey knew of your leaks. I would like to see those records. As would i. I just want the American People to understand that was it wrong for general flynn to talk to the Russian Ambassador since he was going to be the new incoming National Security advisor . Is that a question to me . Yes, sir. Our concerns about general flynns contact with ambassador kislyak was that the general might be maintaining some sort of hidden or deniable contact in that he might have been the person in the campaign who coordinated efforts with the russian government. The fact that general flynn lied about his contacts with the russians made it doubly concerning to us. The fact that general flynn then lied to his boss, the Vice President , about those contacts also was greatly concerning to us. Let me just say this. General flynn told the fbi agents, you have the transcripts you know what i said. The fbi agents came back and said they didnt think he lied. The problem is, this is after the election is over. The National Security advisor has every right in the world to be talking to Foreign Governments, foreign ambassadors. Its going on as i speak. Im sure the biden administration, believing they have won is beginning to reach out to Foreign Governments to talk about their agenda, whether it be china or anybody else. This whole idea that you surveilled the incoming National Security advisor after the election, after the professionals in the field said theres no therethere. Bothers a lot of us. Senator blumenthal. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccabe let me give you an opportunity since you were interrupted by my colleagues in the midst of actually threats of perjury to clarify or expand on the answers that you would like, if theres anything you have to add, id welcome your remarks, if not ill turn to my questions. Thank you, senator. I think its important to keep in perspective that the fbi opens counterintelligence cases sometimes when they suspect that someone may have had inappropriate or improper or illegal contact with foreign power. During the course of that investigation, if you confirm that that contact has taken place, and then you learn that that person is also actively n concealing the contact, in general flynns case, concealing it from the fbi, the white house chief of staff, the White House Councils office and the Vice President , your fears about possible threat to National Security are justifiably elevated. Thats what happened in this case. And so, questions about a logan act prosecution that never took place, i think, are misplaced. Thats a really important point, mr. Mccabe. I regret that my colleague isnt here to hear it, but im sure hell review it. You should note i think at the beginning that we are now in the midst of a fourth hearing to investigate both the 2016 election and the investigations and investigators who themselves have already been investigated. So were spending all the time in the world to look back at 2016 as families and businesses in connecticut, and i think in the states of every one of my colleagues, are hanging by a thread due to the Public Health and Economic Crises caused by covid. This crises has been ignored and d disregarded by this administration, which is the reason that President Trump was defeated. It is a dereliction of their duty to constituents and to the American People, to continue to focus on a 2016 investigation. In the conversations between potential Trump Officials and the Russian Ambassador are very well taken. I also want to say that i am deeply troubled, as my colleagues are, by the statements made by attorney general barr, who, again, is acting apparently as a puppet of the president rather than a lawyer for the American People. Is throwing gasoline on the fires of false claims of fraud, fuelling doubts and undermining faith in the integrity of our election process. There are no facts or evidence that justify an investigation. He knows it. But he is giving a patina of credibility to baseless and destructive accusations. I would suggest, respectfully, that attorney general barr has taken his office to a new law and the ramifications are profound and dangerous for our country. This kind of fear mongering is no substitute for the truth. The fact is, the votes have been counted. And some are being counted. And they have shown and will continue to confirm that former Vice President biden is, in fact, our president nixon. In fact our president elect. But in the meantime the litigation challenging the integrity of our election process will continue, frivolous and base less as it is and now apparently given more credibility by the attorney general of the United States regretfully and up fortunately. I want to ask you about a threat to our country that is real. Just a few months ago, the fbi director publically testified to the House Committee on Homeland Security that, quote, racially motivated violent extremism, end quote, constitutes a majority of threats. In fact, White Supremacists in particular were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016. Thats more than any other extremist movement. Recent attacks include the april 2014 mass shooting at a Jewish Community center in kansas the june 2015 shooting at the Emmanuel Church in charleston and others. Mr. Mccabe, let me ask you, how long have we known that White Supremacists and other far right wing extremists pose significant domestic terrorism, National Security or Public Security and safety threats to the United States . Weve known about the threats posed to this country by domestic terrorists since, specifically, White Supremacists and right wing groups for many, many years. Certainly long before i even joined the fbi. One of the seminal moments in my desire to join the organization was when i, like the rest of the country, sat in horror on the day that the Federal Building was destroyed in oklahoma city. So this is not a new threat. I think whats new, the fbi right now is the focus and intensity of bringing on the problem set, which is absolutely called for and necessary. And when the president makes the kind of comments that he did, im sure youre familiar with them, that a particular right wing group should stand back and stand by, do those kinds of comments have an effect on those groups in encouraging them . Fringe groups have the effect of confirming their beliefs. They interpret these comments as signals and signs of approval and support. And really can risk putting more momentum and kind of fervor behind what theyre planning to do. Thank you, mr. Mccabe. My time has expired. Thank you very much. I think were senator graham . Yes, sir. Im sorry, sir, would it be possible just to take a break . Absolutely, sir. Five minutes, is that okay . That would be great, thank you. Well take a fiveminute break. Thank you