Transcripts For CSPAN2 Justice Dept. IG Testifies On Origins Of FBIs Russia Inquiry 20240713

Subject of our hearing today the what you have received for your efforts is already deserved and to share those sentiments this is an important step to provide the answers to many questions that have festered for far too long. That the scope is narrow and most non more important questions remain unanswered. Much attention has been paid to the inclusion the hurricane investigation did have adequate predicate yesterdays order by the presiding judge is a dramatic rebuke how serious those are. And then to ask more fundamental questions at what point should that investigation collusion between russia and some campaign has been shut down . And then when officials of the first six weeks now a result in inclusion of any inculpatory information rather than shut it down or the least intrusive mesh in one methods the pfizer taps the fbi officials argued with the cia with the salacious into the body of the Intelligence Community assessment and finally the fbi investigation blooming on ballooning into special counsel investigation as a result the administration was tormented over two years after the aggressive investigation based on a false narrative and the country is more divided for anyone willing to take the time to read the report, it is a devastating account of prosecutorial negligence and misconduct and abuse of the fisa Court Process by the fbi and department of justice officials the most disturbing revelations are doctoring and using an email to mislead the fisa Court Ignoring the fact exculpatory evidence was obtained during recordings of investigation targets not to provide defensive briefings to the Trip Campaign investigator in the intelligence briefing had tromped under false pretenses had credibility problem problems related to the steel dossier with these abuses in mind in light of what became known as early in the investigation it should have been shut down within the first few months of 2017. Had the public known what the fbi had known at the time its hard to imagine public support to continue the investigation much less than a special counsel for ms. Later investigations into russian hacking Paul Manafort should continue using normal fbi procedures we would be sufficiently informed the fbi and department of justice to rigorously follow their own procedures in this nightmare couldve been avoided which raises the question why wasnt the public properly informed some are now obvious summer speculative but what is obvious Certain Department of justice officials were not truthful for or scrupulously accurate also as the report leaks the present dented number of leaks 125 in the first 126 days of the administration help view the false narrative the media was duped or complicit in using those leaks to perpetuate the false narrative. The role of other Obama Administration officials and members of the Intelligence Committee is murky and unknown but legitimate questions remain that must be answered. For example initiated the contact stefan helper when George Papadopoulos january 6 intelligence briefing given to john james comey and clapper orchestrated to have a justification of the steel dossier . The fact the involvement of others outside the Justice Department is murky after an 18 month long Inspector General investigation is not criticism of his work but speaks to the statutory limitation of inspectors general that should be evaluated and assessed for reform another question to be asked who will be held accountable . During his investigation of the handling of the clinton email scandal Inspector General had a treasure trove of unvarnished evidence of bias between peter strock and lisa page and others if not for the discovery of those text would we even be here today reviewing the ig investigation of these abuses of prosecutorial power . I have my doubts officials involved had plenty of time to rehearse their answers to the question or excuse for example on significant issues Andrew Mccabe told investigators 26 times he did not recall some of those involved claim vindication as a result of the report i appreciate ms. Horowitz testimony last week reporting it doesnt then dictated anybody at the fbi that touch this including the leadership are finally i would argue the process for investigating and adjudicating alleged crime is completely backward. The oversight of Public Awareness is the last step of the process instead of the first. Those investigations are the primary excuse for documents of oversight and Public Disclosure with the improper investigation of those scandals congress should increase the stance and early in the process. This would result in more timely transparency while having this adversarial process with balance and fairness they can be referred to for further investigation to prevent the fair adjudication by the Justice Department to be appointed only as a last resort, not a first im sure we will spend crossfire hurricane investigation and inspector journal generals report i hope we can discuss the other issues i just raised regardless the oversight on the events surrounding the fbi exam and crossfire hurricane investigations continue until i am satisfied all important and relative questions are being answered. Senator peters and i thank you for being here today and your testimony playing a vital role with those independent assessments and Inspector Generals office and more than 1 million pages and unequivocally into coordination to have a proper legal factual basis and that was affected by political bias those are a betrayal of the bedrock principles and didnt even tolerate in this case and rooted in identifying as the rest of National Security that politics played no role to open this investigation. And to obtain pfizer warrants and i applied the Inspector General to shine light on the fbi as well as the adjusted want us Justice Department shortcomings. Fbi director ray has received this report and the conclusion that political bias plays no role to open the investigation director ray and accepted the findings the pfizer process more than 40 corrective actions to reform this process i hope that todays hearing provides the committee with the hearing to examine the reports recommendations to determine if there are areas we can strengthen as well however the most important fact we should take away from this report and hearing is that russia a foreign adversary engaged in a sweeping and systematic effort to interfere in the 2016 president ial election and they were right to investigate those involved it was an attack on our democracy and National Security and its happening again the russian government is intent on sowing distrust and spreading misinformation and undermining democracy and they will pursue these efforts at all cost members of both parties must come together to pass legislation related to Elections Security so no foreign adversary can metal in elections again i have the opportunity to work with chairman johnson and senator lankford on Bipartisan Legislation to strengthen those Security Standards and i hope we can continue and independence and integrity and your hard work and i look forward to your testimony. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear to give the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . As the Inspector General since 2012 he also chairs the council of Inspector General of inspectors general on integrity and efficiency. Working in private practice before working in department of justice. Members of the committee thank you for inviting me to testify today. The report my Office Released was a comprehensive review over 1 million documents and 170 interviews more than 100 witnesses all of which is documented in the 117 page report. And with that executive summary and i encourage people to read the 19 page executive summary. And working rigorously through long hours to complete this review and the subject of our report was july 2016 days after the fbi said that in may 2016 the trunk Campaign Foreign policy advisor suggested the campaign would be damaging to clinton and then obama. And with crossfire hurricane with a Counter Intelligence division director. After multiple days of discussion and to review the policies exercise of discretion and that was in compliance and we also reviewed his email and text and other documents with deck it documentary or testimonial evidence of improper motivation. All the information in possession at the time was limited of the low threshold established we found it was for an authorized purpose and with the fbi policy and there was no Requirement Department officials were notified prior to the fbi making that decision. And with the National Security and days after it was initiated. As we detail in our report it was required in other circumstances investigative activity to impact certain Civil Liberties allowing officials with the implications in advance of these activities we concluded advance notice should be required in circumstances such as those present here. Shortly after the fbi opened the crossfire hurricane investigation to record several conversations between fbi confidential resources and those affiliated with the trunk Campaign Including a high Level Campaign official that is not subject to the investigation. We found chs operations had necessary approvals that the assistant director approved of each operation given circumstances where they could have approved it and the operations were permitted under policy because the use was not for the sole purpose to monitor activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights of the United States. We did not find documentary evidence political thought bias or motivation influence the decision and we found no evidence it took place within the trunk campaign or on the trunk campaign to become fbi chs but we are concerned under applicable policy would be sufficient for a firstline supervisor to authorize the sensitive operations under crossfire hurricane and that there is no policy requiring the fbi to notify Department Officials of a decision to task chs to record conversations with members of the president ial campaign. We concluded the policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability of such operations. One investigative tool that expressly requires advanced approval by a Department Official is seeking court order under fisa. When the Crossfire Hurricane Team first targeted carter page the fbi attorneys that a pfizer order was not ordered at that time but in september 2016 immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane Team received from Christopher Steele containing allegations to move forward with a request to have the pfizer authority. We concluded it was a central role in the pfizer order t10 order to protect the fisa process from irregularity and abuse the requirements that every application have a full and accurate presentation of the facts and all factual statements are scrupulously checked. We found investigators failed with the pfizer applications we have significant accuracies seven and the next teeten and a total of 17 as a result of these applications it was appeared as though the evidence supporting probable cause was stronger than it actually was. We found basic fundamental and serious errors on the factual accuracy reviews which are designed to ensure the teeten applications have a full and accurate presentation of the facts. Department lawyers should have been given complete and Accurate Information so they could have meaningfully evaluated probable cause before with us person associate with the president ial campaign so the result continues and then with the adjustment of probable cause was accurate. We concluded as the investigation progressed and more information was gathered to undermine the assertions of the teeten applications they did not reassess those applications of although we did not find documentary misconduct we also did not receive satisfactory explanations and the failures that occurred we are deeply concerned so many basic and fundamental errors with the handpicked investigative teams one of the most sensitive investigations after the matter raised to the highest levels within the fbi even though the information sought to the teeten authority was so closely to a president ial campaign that the actions were likely to be subject and ultimately by the managers and supervisors of the crossfire hurricane chain of command including fbi officials briefed as it progressed. And with those interviews and fbi managers and supervisors and senior officials to review the performance of and hold accountable all individuals senior officials who have responsibility for the preparation of approval of the teeten applications and procedures. Additionally in light of those identified the oig initiated an audit last week to further review and examine the fbi compliance with its procedures and the teeten application to target us persons and Counter Intelligence and counterterrorism investigations and then to appropriately use is highly Intrusive Surveillance Authority and also have a safeguard of liberty for us persons. We will continue as independent oversight as this moves forward in the months and years ahead this concludes my prepared remarks. These names are hard you made the same mistake i did George Stephanopoulos but papadopoulos. Mine as well. Left left but this is quickly not only with the ig report that the midyear exam similar statement i will quote we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence political bias or improper motivation to influence the decision and then used a number of cases. And to be sure there is no political bias. We did not find evidence we know who made the decision we can focus specifically on him. With both of these you found political bias. Through the Text Messages evidence. Also motivation talking about and Christopher Steele is desperate of course that was a very important to say he understood the motivations to have the november statement that he was desperate. But talk about medical motivation. But then youre not saying that tobias did not to have no evidence that it did. Is that an accurate statement . We have no evidence that it did. We laid out here what we did to find bias or evidence of bias. We put the report out here so the public can read it. Look at the facts themselves but to have documentary or testimony evidence. But you are saying that it did not you found evidence that it did but you are not saying this bias did not influence you are not making that declarative conclusion, correct . I want to carve out the opening because that decision was isolate made by one person we know who made that decision understanding there were questions raised above and below him as to the other decisions and the errors with that motivation conclusion because of those concerns we have on that. Its important for readers to read the report themselves before the hearing our job as inspectors general and to get the facts out there. Year leading on leaving it up to the American Public for that bias you have uncovered to what extent that influences the decision throughout the process. The only conclusion we felt comfortable drawing and the public can read and inform the public. One final followup what type of evidence was required . And oral confession or i hate this guy i will choose this path versus the other . It was hard to look at this evidence and get into peoples minds and what was the motivation for the decisions to be made. What we looked at was who touched the decision, did we find evidence through Text Messages or emails or witness interviews but sometimes we do get whistleblowers or others to say i think so and so made an improper purpose and we were looking for that kind of evidence we had concerns about that. And then others so what was the evidence who was involved in the decisions and that other evidence. Could we bring this together and not only to have a state of mind even more seriously implied to take action through the process. Will you yield for just a moment . Of those were pro trumper anti trump. And just with those political views disassociated from action and last year as well as last week, we are not concluding someones bias with one candidate or another frankly they should not use their device for any purpose that is political or other issues that are not biased or other legal issues where the comment so significant to influence the decisions they made. And of this evidence of text messaging and those express political views but did not act. And the crossfire hurricane after the seal sub source was interviewed one of our criticisms that we have laid out as with the carter page teeten they were not reassessing it as well as a primary sub source inconsistent with reporting. With a reference on page 212 we have agents talking with one another and we are not finding anything and within the guidelines and with that investigation is that reasonable to close it down . Working with agents if it isnt advancing in with the primary theme or theory as happening meeting with carter page the file should i keep going on this . I think i know what your answer would be but in the course of your investigation did you ever find out how George Papadopoulos . That was not up to the scope of the review with the fbi records about that we would have assessed that but we were focused. But you did not see anything . We did not find anything from the fbi side of the information. According to james comey oped in the Washington Post at the time a russian agent did you find anything in the fbi documents to support james comeys conclusion . Their stuff that i cannot address in this setting but let me be clear. We will follow up in a different setting. So did you ever determine why on april 1st 2016 fbi headquarters and opening that investigation with carter page. Why did that happen . And opening counterintelligence investigation over carter page what caused that . And with that testimony with that investigation and that it grew out of a Southern District of new york case but we did not go beyond that. And should not be a sensitive investigative matter. And then precisely decided to open that with the witnesses to understand a little bit of background purposes. Peter struck neither of his bosses and to run the investigation mainly because with mister page tendency to go around Andrew Mccabe. But he overruled that decision did you find out why . We talk about that in the report page 64 and 65 that very issue and as you describe we have his explanation in their precisely he recalled other events and we way that out what he was involved in in terms of selecting or as was described to have him stay on the investigation. And with the new York Field Office it turns out and 25 days before the reports did you ever get to the bottom how Andrew Mccabe was so far ahead of the fbi . We asked witnesses including Mister Mccabe and ultimately we could not get to the bottom exactly what caused that the layer prompted the call. He said he doesnt remember doing this and he does remember significant events did you find that memory absence credible . He seemed to be pretty calm in the investigation peter struck to be named the director of the new York Field Office but he just doesnt recall we did find he was briefed and there were several points at the beginning where he was involved. We dont make a determination or credibility finding on that issue. I just want to clarify after that line of questioning so if we could do yes or no did you find any document or testimonial evidence that the decision to open the investigation was political . We did not. To divide any document or testimonial evidence that it was motivated by bias to President Trump . We did not. The report in mid 2016 the fbi was investigating russia hacking into political campaigns of parties and election interference. We put that in there for background purposes. Corrects we make it states receiving information from a friendly for a government that russia offered to assist the Term Campaign is that correct . Correct. Mister papadopoulos reportedly stated. Report does outline a number of problems as you have elaborated on particularly as it relates so did it affect the investigation of the other three subjects. We did not see information from the carter page events and part of the concerns that we outline is a lack of developing from mister page that was in developing or advancing the investigation precisely for the reasons that we outlined and by definition not being of assistance. It had no impact on the other investigations. With the other three we did not see any connection between this and the others, a caveat the papadopoulos information used so the extent that they were not advancing information that was linchpin fact. So as you have identified how the fbi uses the fisa process those are things that need to be addressed so my question is those are basic and fundamental errors made this is a systemic problem in the fbi or does this only occur or is it much broader to deal with . As an ig i will speak to what we found here and thats when we started the audit it is such a high profile and important case if it is indicative of a wider problem or is it isolated and we need to do wo understand that. Describe the scope of the audit. We dont know what we dont know to our knowledge the first ever dive to look at teeten. We will have the auditors do some selections of counterintelligence and counterterrorism we have heard longs of concert one a lot of concern about targeting and other issues we will look and compare how those procedures played out to see if the same basic areas are occurring there and if they are you will make further selection to do a deeper dive into be target in the right place and from your testimony here today those fundamental basic errors in the teeten process she did find evidence of political bias or documentary evidence. Those errors occurred when they are troublesome but that was not political bias . I would like to draw a distinction. That as the failures that occurred we didnt find those explanations satisfactory and in the absence of satisfactory answers we cannot tell you if i say here if it was gross incompetence which i think with the volume of errors you can make that argument or somewhere in between of the motivations i could think of plenty of motivations that could cause that to occur but we didnt have any hard evidence that i can tell you why it occurred and to get good explanations but i cannot tell you why. It is conceivable those explanations are a result of a systemic problem with the fisa process is extremely difficult to answer the question until you complete the further audit if this is a systemic problem to be corrected not just particular case is that accurate . We assumed would it make any conclusions systemic or not but the failures in the absence of the satisfactory answers given how basic these were and fundamental to be too complex to not understand that the facts you gather here is inconsistent with the facts you were relying on in the teeten these should have been told and you see this in the teeten Court Opinion these should have been told they were basic fundamental errors its tried its hard to figure out the rationale. Were not sure the motivation. But the way that you know that is looking at other cases through the audit that this occurs through a regular basis we have to say they are fundamental because theyre making fundamental errors in and a lot of other cases that we need to make some reforms. If you look at the others and find similar errors and explanations that may be one answer if you find no other errors than that is particularly concerning then why then did this one . Thats why we need the audit. I want to consult with the members the votes have been called we could continue this with rand paul and rick scott or we could recess come back. I would like to get mine done and then continue. Keep going . Then i would suggest rand paul stick around and then you go vote and come back. Thank you for coming much has been set of bias in a town in full of politics is kind hard not to be anybody without bias but i do appreciate you trying to avoid bias and be objective as possible. You any Inspector General do a Great Service to our country to make things better to root out where there are problems. I would say when you look at bias just to reiterate it is clear you did find evidence of bias for those involved with the investigation. Correct. I think thats very clear. Is a difficult to determine their motives . It is difficult. So just because you didnt find it 60 people could have been very biased you just cant prove it. We could not. One specific instance the og c attorney you talk about the evaluation. Refer to the attorney genera general. Of possible criminal violation he also had Text Messages what was your interpretation that he may have had some bias against the Trump Administration . The to make sure there is a fair process. And i think the chairman is correct the media has misinterpreted what you said. People should read the report and it is standing in the process whether it is biased or not their problems. They are attempting to make valid suggestions. I would make the argument that the process cannot be corrected and the reason i would say this is the system requires this high scrupulous nature for the agents and they are both the prosecutors and supposed to be defensive at the same time. There isnt anybody on the other side in the process and the standard of the constitution and weve allowed this to happen because we are going after foreigners and we are not going to have constitutional protections for listening to the phone calls. Political debate and discourse in the First Amendment i dont think it will work. Its at a lower than constitutional level and so my question to you with the do you think it is within the realm of the reforms of their political campaigns should be investigated using a secret court where there is no legal representation for the defense. And you raise excellent questions here. To make recommendations to congress that we try to work with the process as you noted there will be a lot of debates that go well beyond what we are recommending to try to fix its existing. There is going to be a legislative that is going to look at some of these issues now and i do think that we are prepared to meet with legislators and talk through these issues as you all consider things that go beyond the four corners of excess. Where you go export either to record with the wiretaps but you also know that at some point the defense lawyer is going to get those if there is a case made and there is a potential for the litigation in the open court room before a judge crossexamining. And that alone, understanding that could happen have some effects. No matter what you do, you tweak the system and when you are telling me that it requires fbi agents to always be scrupulous i think it is a standard that is too high for individuals to take and there will always be people on both sides of the political spectrum who may let their biases enter into that and it is to have a defense attorney, to have a public trial and secret courts that are not intended to examine crime in america or to examine political campaigns, and i think that is what needs to come out of this and i dont hold your recommendations for the process to make it better. There is a danger that we take a sip as the end answer to that. The lesson to me is coming and i do believe both sides could be clickablcoupled with this is the shouldnt subject our political campaigns to the secret courts and secret warrants and theres all these questions of these encounters to instigate these encounters and if they did that is very troublesome our own government would be sending informants to try to have the chance encounters with different people. So, im very worried about it and i hope other members of the committee will consider as we look at the reform we have to do as americans shouldnt be caught up in this. American citizens havent been the target of this and even if american citizens who talked to the foreigners can you imagine the campaigns moving forward but if you are pointed to a higher level position youve talked to Many Russians and so to say that you are an agent there are 16 conversations with different members of the russian government. Is that enough to open a process that he might be a Foreign Agent and schilling have evidence that may be related to the crime and as we ought to consider as we move forward but this isnt the appropriate vehicle. If i can add to that, one of the things also hear that we uncover and learn as we did this for example. The absence of rules applies to whether this was counterintelligence or criminal. There didnt need to be noticed for the department eveto the ded been criminal investigation so i think there are some issues here that cover broader than just the fisa issue that youve raised. Speed to a series of false to monitor. From being able to manipulate any process to pursue their own agenda. We had the parkland shooting down in florida and we lost 17 wonderful individuals there and after that the fbi director did the right thing and held them accountable and i had the opportunity to go out and i saw some of the processes that they worked hard to improve. In the abuse of authority in the report. Federal officialfederal officiay the abuse of the process in order to serve a people with the campaign of President Trump and thats wrong. We talk about the attempts to discredit and undermine the legitimacy of the candidate and his campaign. We should all be greatly concerned about this. Where was the oversight while they were making the original fisa application and ten more in the subsequent applications. Again where was the oversight . To look historically what other investigations the fbi conducted of the various campaigns so im not in the position. Do you know of any investigations that have happened . Im not aware of any surveillance that was done or the use of Confidential Sources. I certainly cant say that it didnt happen. In deciding to target the organization i think the business of organizing the bureaucracy for the political purpose is a danger and disastrous. Can you go through some of the recommendations that are the most important once the fbi has to do to make sure that this doesnt happen again . First and foremost, there has to be a change in practice of policies that involve consultation and discussion with a department of lawyers before moving forward with her on thein opening the case or involving these kind of constitutional issues or sending in confidential human sources. You would want to talk through very carefully before moving forward on a case like this both athe opening and investigations. On the fisa side there has to be a fundamental understanding that decisions about evidence that is undercutting inconsistent with the theory of the case has to go for the lawyer, the lawyer handling of the department has to move the department because they have to make the judgment call they are the ones who are there to understand is there enough or isnt fair and if there is, weve got to make sure this application fairly represents the court all the evidence and information. That isnt what happened here. Do you think the fbi is going to make the changes that they need to . I certainly understand that that is the plan. Do you think that he is committed . To make everything ive heard, he is committed. Given the abuses that were found in the investigation, what should the processes for the criminal informants, what do you think . There needs to be a better or more effective process and understanding in place in healthand howthey individuals oe sure that managers are supervising and the reason that we made referrals is that this is a failure of management from the first level all the way up to ensure hard questions are being asked and youve got to ask insightful targeted questions and you need to know the answers and make sure the managers understand what their responsibilities are. So on the harder end is making people realize they cant make these discretionary judgments for themselves. Other people need to know that. If you are understanding that he was of her polygraph . I dont believe we saw any evidence of that. Does that surprise you . I want to talk further with my team to make sure what the rules are in terms of doing that, but you could see. As a confidential human source. Do they have an obligation to go back and tell everybody that providing the information based on that source that they were wrong . They have an obligation to put it in the delta files that is in the system so every Single Person that has relied on that and see that. Its one of the criticisms we have here. As needed they should be alerting not only the agents that have relied on it for if it is criminal they should also be telling the prosecutors what they want. Senator, thank you again for letting me go. My pleasure. Thank you Inspector General for being here. Im grateful to the chairmen and rankinchairman andranking membes hearing. Mr. Horwitz, i want to think your team fothankyour team for r extraordinary hard work, because i think the role of Inspector General is incredibly important. So let me start with a couple of general questions about the tools that you all have two work with end o and the function thau perform. You do a Great Service to the country. Inspectors general they also confront wrongdoing that threatens to undermine our Democratic Institutions in this specific mission of the agency that they served. Consequentially, congress has to do everything it can to support the work of the inspectors general and establish safeguards to protect their work against agency interference or political influence. Can you discuss the importance of maintaining the independence of the office of the Inspector General as it reviews Agency Actions and makes recommendations and in particular how does maintaining that independence hope yothe ino your job . Is foundational to what we do. This report has credibility because the folks work on it behind me and the others go at it in a different just down the middle of the roadway completely independent. We want to put forward information to the public can make its assessment of what happened whether it is a program of another sort your old transparency, putting information out and not being swayed by what may be the fbi or the Justice Department leadership. We need to lay out what we think. The attorney general disagrees with our finding on the predication. Thats fine. I didnt take this job to always agree with the Justice Department. That isnt what this job is about a. And that has to be built into the system and there has to be respectful disagreements but it has to be the ability to have disagreements. Thank you for articulating so well. Its something we need to stay focused on. Now lets get to a couple of the tools i would like to ask about. The Inspector General act as tools to conduct their evaluations and investigations in a thorough and objective way. However additional tools may be required to adequately perform with important work. However the ability to compel testimony from witnesses enhanced investigative capabilities of the ig Community Clinics we have two witnesses but wouldnt speak for us and we had no ability to get their testimony. Many witnesses initially declined to speak to us and only towards the end of the investigation we engaged exhibit now they were interested to speak to us. That required us to extend our timing so it would have allowed us to move this more rapidly to exclusion. Grant recipients, contractors for the federal government, those are people that are not federal employees that do not have an obligation to cooperate. I could go over and over with you for the individuals that engaged in misconduct of the Justice Department and retired on the eve of us questioning that and valuable evidence sometimes they ar are the subjet and the sometimes prickly there is a critical witness. They retire and have their pension and move on. And they can come back and work for the federal government and we cant subpoena them so theres a lot of reasons why that is important and by the way, the Defense Department ig has the Authority People work out of the voluntary arrangement. The ability to investigate misconduct of the department of justice attorney. Can you provide us with more background on why it is the particular policies are in place and within your view i it as an appropriate exception to the authority . The deal was struck in 1988 that allowed the Justice Department to have an ig with the attorney general was to carve out lawyers and actually have the time from oversight by the independent Inspector General so when we started we largely oversaw the service at the department of the time and a few other entities. In 2001 at the time that he was in the discretion of the attorney general to change the outcome of the attorney general after the scandal gave us authority over the fbi and congress with us later that later and the discussion is what congress would have to change the law. We are the only Inspector General office that i am aware of that doesnt have authority over misconduct by any employee prosecutor in the courtroom, prosecuting someone criminally to the attorney general we dont have the authority to look at that. That goes to the office of professional responsibility which doesnt have the statutorily protected independence and transparency that we have. Thank you. I look forward to talking with you to explore this further in order to find a bipartisan way to strengthen the investigative capabilities of the community. You really do important work and we are grateful. I would add on that though of responsibility and the ability to oversee prosecutors, the house has passed a bill in the voice vote bipartisan unanimous, senator leahy has a bill pending in the senate with bipartisan sponsorship and i look forward to working with you. Thank you mr. Chair. Thank you mr. Chairman as they continue to persist and characterize the problem related to the surveillance issues is limited, and i see the statement yesterday the statement yesterday makes it sound as if there is a limited problem, so lets talk a little bit if we could about the scope of the problem in the fbi into what is the fbi came to be entertaining in a president ial election while the election was ongoing in the fall of 2016. First, let me just ask you when it comes to fisa warrants, or the targets of those given an opportunity to defend themselves in court at the time . Said, the court relies on who to establish the fact . The fbi and the Justice Department. There is nobody there to contest, the court only hears from one side, is that correct . Is it normal for the fbi to view that the principal surveillance warrants political opposition researcresearch paper that a mar Political Party . I cant say that we have looked at any other have you hear have you heard of that being done before . I can tell you here at the Justice Department among the lawyers. And the fbi of course knew very well with the nature and source of this dossier in 2016 after they were asked three times by the attorney the fbi he responded, and im quoting, they had been paid to develop the political opposition research. This is right at the time that the fbi was going to the court and asking for a surveillance warrants in the middle of a president ial campaign, correct . Of the fbi absolutely knew where this was coming from. What about the number of people involved . How many people in the fbi were involved in misleading the fisa court by your count, your estimation . We dont have a precise number of who, what or when. Some of which to be fair or more egregious than others and then of course as we know here that reason that we referred up the chain if there is information. On page 65 of the report. By my count what you said in the report looking at the chart. Does that sound approximate . Here in Chapter Three they can see and follow this for themselves. Sebago directly involved and that is a lot of people. Surveillance application under the federal law must be made by a federal officer under oath or affirmation and those individuals squared to the facts and we now know that in october and three times in 2017, they deliberately, knowingly misled the fisa court. That is the nice way to put it. To get a surveillance. We try carefully to know who laid out what and when. All of these people they were competent enough to why would they delay the federal court . We dont make a conclusion we want to be clear about that that ibutthat is the concern we haves there are so many errors we couldnt make a determination what motivated the failures other than we did not credit on the explanations we got. We now have the court weighing in the scope here is what alarms me. The total impulse of the body of the explanations people offered you, again, maybe they are incompetent or maybe they have an agenda and i just wante wantt a fine point on that. I could have sworn i know for fact i heard that today from this committee but that isnt your conclusion. We have been very careful for the reasons you mentioned either people were really incompetent and that of their jobs or they have an agenda or political agenda but whatever it is. In august, who else knew about this in october 14 to 2016 we knew that the Deputy Director gets a text message saying that the Deputy Attorney general wants to be part of the meeting and the white house asked the department of justice to host. Who knew about the crossfire hurricane investigation . What we have access t to further records aforthe recordse Justice Department, so i cant answer questions about that as to who knew or who was involved beyond people in the Justice Department and fbi. I find it very hard to believe that the Deputy Attorney general of the unite united stad the director all knew about this, but thats the senior leadershithat the seniorleadersy general herself or for that mattematter to president of the United States wouldnt know about a Surveillance Program is a major Party Candidate in the midst of a president ial campaign. That just boggles the mind. Thank you mr. Chairman. Grip line of questioning. I want to take this to you quickly to put more meat on the bones. October 11 and october 12, the meeting at the state department they refused to cooperate this investigation and its also the same october 11 raising questions about where is this coming from. Three times asked the question and he didnt get a satisfactory answer. Lisa paige is texting saying by the way, in order to break down resistance in my words, not hers, she might have to use the name to get them to basically agree to let this go through periods of talking about information up the chain youve got that little cabal and i know they didnt call themselves the secret society but it sounds like they have a little bit coming here and that is being really influenced. You can see right there in the text to display th that is why s so important to take a look at these unvarnished truths the text reveals combines with the timeline of what is happening is revealing. Senator langford. Mr. Chairman i would like to ask unanimous consent that we enter into database record the Surveillance Court order that we put up yesterday. Without objection. Its pertinent obviously to the conversation today thank you for your leadership and also for what you are doing there at the doj. I appreciate your whole team and the work that you continue to do. You used the term when talking about the mistakes were made saying that there were so many mistakes bu that this was either somewhere between gross incompetence to intentional to try to be able to determine the motivation of all of these it gets a little more harsh when they respond back to this in the letter that there was no order yesterday. They said because the conduct of the gc attorney gave rise to serious concerns of the accuracy and completeness of the information provided in any matter in which the attorney was involved the Court Ordered the government on december 5, 2019 to among other things provide certain information addressing the concerns. And the then the scum of the fbi handling of the applications as portrayed in the report is antithetical to the heightened duty as described above. The frequency with which the representations made by the fbi personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other fbi applications is reliable. One of the reasons this hearing is so incredibly important is because what this group did the fbi not only to our nation down years of turmoil, but they are now calling into question every fisa application, and im confident every attorney is going to bring this case up and say we cant rely on the fisa process right now and it will cause turmoil for a very long time. Some of the crossfire hurricane automated image to the system could also potentially to what we are doing in the counterintelligence and counterterrorism, so we appreciate your work because this is incredibly important to get to the bottom of the process. Can you compare the quality of work as we went through the interviews with the Crossfire Hurricane Team at the headquarters with the Washington Field office and those agents into the quality of their work did you see the same number of mistakes made in what was done between the Crossfire Hurricane Team into the Washington Field office team . So, many of the problems that come up here flow from the earliest parts of the investigation which as you know, the teams got mixed up as they went along and went to the field and then came back at various times, which is a problem that we identified here. Most of the problems were occurring at the headquarters based times when the teams were together. Its not exclusive because it goes to the field as well. The Washington Field office seems to handle documents and procedures better than the headquarters handled. I think on balance that is fair although frankly we dont going to try and asking for the opinion after youve gone through the process. And there are so many problems here we decided not to sort of try to stop him exactly where things might not have been as problematic as others. Let me follow on to the chair was talking about with jonathan warner. The meetings in the state department are very, very curious to me. But somehow these either initiated or he says was invited by state Department Officials on october the 11th to be able to come sit down with officials at the state department. He made very clear hes trying to get documents into the public eye before the election and to try to get all these things made public. That meeting happened on october the 11th. On october 19, they deliver the fbi handling agents that he received from the state department, said hes coming to make his case at the state department. He makes his case and apparently jonathan then takes a document and gives it to him since hes getting things out into the public and he sends that out so someone from the state department is trying to get out into the public what he described as a friend of a wellknown clinton supporter who received this from a turkish businessman with strong links to russia. So, apparently someone from the state department is taking a foreign document or a foreign source getting it to steal who he knows is trying to get it off into the public. Were you able to close the loop on what the document is, where it happened and where it came from . We did not come and part of the issue as you know is the inability to talk about where the documents came from and the meeting and the connections but also our access here an hour review here was focused on fbi conduct and conduct the fbi personnel. To clarify this, it is very apparent to the team if someone in the state department trying to take a foreign source document into trying to get it into the public to affect the campaign against mr. Trump. I can only tell you what we gathered here. We didnt have the chance to question people on this. We didnt reach conclusions you are just saying what you saw at this point. Right. Bruce is curious in the process. The fbi, quote unquote cut off the relationship with steel early november and then makes it official on the 17th of november 2016 saying we will have no more contact with him at all but then the next day the fbi for the first time as this file and they are still going through this after they com thee unquote cut him off and within days, bruce is than doing back Channel Communications with steel and they continue to maintain the back Channel Communications with them. So, was he cut off as a source or was the crossfire hurricane continuing to use him as a source but not officially . We concluded that while he was cut off officially in the fbi records, the fbi continued to meet with him through the source of the conduit on 13 different occasions. Why would he continue to meet with him and why would he continue to be tasked to do that . He wasnt tasked to do it. As he said, he understood what the fbi was looking for from him but he was able to do that because there were no rules that prohibited him from doing it and he intended and desire to do it. He maintained that. On page 188 of your report, you make this comment that he tasked his primary some source after about 2016 election to find corroboration for the election reporting in the primary some source that he could find a zero. He reported that the fbi and to the Washington Field office when they met with him and may of 2017. What i am trying to figure out as he is tasking has some source to go find corroboration after the election is even over. This was after a month of the process cut off from the fbi. Who was tasking him to continue to chase down more information . We dont have evidence as to anybody specifically tasking him to go to find evidence but its pretty clear from what we are laying out here that the fbi is from day one asking questions about the corroboration for the reporting and not getting it, so it wouldnt be surprising that he was still trying to see if anybody could find corroboration so he could demonstrate that there was support for his reporting when in fact that wasnt what was happening. It was zero it was not immediately by the fbi at that point that there was zero corroboration in fact the state Department Personnel even when they met with him noted that he had his facts wrong and even what he was presenting at that point and they knew it all immediately. The reference i think it was the miami consulate that there was no such. Thank you mr. Chairman. Your line of questioning again reveals the shortcomings not because it was his fault but the fact that he has been con strained in the information that he really gathered which is why i am not reaffirming. Our committees investigations are kind of combined. Senator grassley and finance and senator graham and the judiciary committee. We have begun the process of requesting voluntary interviews on a host of different issues. This is just one of the areas began our investigation started with the clinton email scandals and kind of morphed into this cast of characters so as i said in my opening statement, i am not going to stop the oversight area to our investigation on theinvestigation andmentally gee answers to all of the questions. The constraints of the Inspector Generals the way that they are silent within their departments really prevents the questions are being answered even in the investigations, so we will continue our efforts. Senator carper. Thinks mr. Chairman of course thank you for your service for how many years . Seven and a half. It seems longer. We are glad you are here and we appreciate the work that you are doing and the leadership that you provide. The folks here are they a part of your team and can you raise your hand please ask thank you very much. Thomas jefferson once said the people of the truth they wont make a mistake. Think about that. If people know the truth, they wont make a mistake. On the tv show dragnet they said it differently. My sister and i used to love that show. He would be making a visit to someone to try to get information from a man or a woman on crimes and stations and he would always knock on the door, the open door and he would suggest the facts so that is what we are interested in. For a long time i was a in order there was an older methodist minister named reverend reynolds and he was nice enough to come and visit me and give me some advice. One of the pieces of advice he gave me sent just remember to keep the main thing and i said pardon me and he said the main thing is to keep the main thing. It took me about two years to figure out what he was talking about. As we try to figure out the truth and what is the main thing is that flows from your investigation and work. In preparing for this hearing i think it might be in the book of matthew that warns of those that dont consider in their own eye and over the past few years the media and some of my colleagues have focused extensively on the exchanges between the fbi officials and its been cited as proof of political motivation behind the investigations. Your report i believe notes of her age and sex changed texts and instant messages during the course of the investigation. For example, one supervisor special agent wrote in november of 2016, i think just after the election and this is a quote from him that he was so elated with the election and compare to the coverage to watching a super bowl come back. He explained the comments by stating that he, quote, didnt want a criminal to be in the white house referring to i presume hillary clinton. This agent was supervising the use of the confidential human source in the interest occasion. Is that correct . So, the individual was in a field office with a confidential human source who provided certain information that wasnt ultimately used in the hurricane investigation. And there were other examples of these exchanges between fbi personnel. Yes, generally. Did you or your team find any evidence with the fees exchanged messages or influence by the political bias . We did not find evidence of action and again as you mentioned earlier, we were very careful to separate out general statements pro or anticandidate compared to Text Messages that went a step further and suggest that some intend potentially to act on them or that ha have a wording that was concerning. Fbi employees like any other in the federal government are allowed to have personal views on which candidate they support or dont support. But they cant do is act on them and they have to check them at the door before they get to work and that is what we were trying to sort through. I think that is the main thing. All of us have our political views certainly on the committee and in the body where we serve and the question as to what extent the duvet and pete or promote against getting things done but i just ask the question again and want to make sure that i understand that your team find any evidence of the agents that exchanged these messages were influenced by political bias . No we did not. Okay, thank you. And this is consistent with the standard of behavior one would expect from the fbi professionals, is that right . That is right. And did you find any evidence that the Political Police inducted to the work of this . On this investigation was we looked for very carefully is that if he had the ability to impact the decisions specifically in on the issues we looked at, the Confidential Sources codifies the decisions and the opening, we found that they were not the Decision Maker on this so that we could segregate out their views and their activities from the position. Thank you just to follow up before the Senate Judiciary Committee Last week that was described by some of my colleagues as the people in charge,. But the womens team interviewed say that he was in fact not the primary or sole decisionmaker on any investigation happening in the crossfire. Witnesses also stated this page didnt work with the team on a regular basis for making any decisions that impacted the investigation,. Is it fair to describe as the people in charge, or crossfire hurricane investigation . Newspage wasnt in the chain of command at any point in time. He did have a Supervisory Authority for a period of time. He rotated off of the work of the chart in roughly january when the second team came into being and there were a series of problems that occurred after that as well. So i think that he is in a different position in terms of the chain of command. March 2017 President Trump alleged that obama had of the wiretap and just before the victory,. Later he said a statement doj put a spy on the campaign. Attorney said he thought it did occur on the campaign. I would ask mr. Howards did you find any evidence that the fbi engaged in spying on the campaign . We are very careful to use the words the legal words that are used here which is surveillance. There was a carter page the care surveillance that weve identified here. We didnt find evidence of other court authorized surveillance. We found about confidential humathe confidential humansourcl here and didnt find additional confidential human source activity prior to the election. The report finds that the fbi engaged in the surveillance of trump tower. We didnt find evidence of this on the trump tower. And didnt find any monitoring of officials without necessary fbi approval . All of the monitoring activities were approved. Is it fair to say President Trumps statements into the attorney general barras statements are incorrect . Again, we dont use the term spying. We are looking at whether there was court authorized surveillance or not. Thank you so much. That is what we have here. I want to go back to october 11 activities. After being asked three times by the department of justice they finally responded, quote, that they had been paid to develop research. In your report you write that support might be necessary to move the application forward and struck the text page currently fighting for this the following day they paged mccabe and communicated the green light and ive not heard back from him in an hour i wont vote your name to say you want to know where things are. Is that pretty highlevel pressure on students by peter struck, lisa pag lisa page and a mccabe . There was that effort exactly as you described. What ultimately happens is that he speaks with that of the National Security division about it so they ultimately dont need to do what they are talking about here. But that is absolutely what they are talking about. I want to go back to pick up a little bit of what senator langford was talking about. These are quotes in your report describes going to go ongoing investigations in the fbi and these are just basic descriptions of how these officials thought about it. But outside of the lane they were stunned, they were uncomfortable with that come out of the norm, that idea, raised red flags, flabbergasted. Fbi should have alerted the doj. Shocking. Inconceivable. Again, those are a lot of senior officials. Whats interesting is how he responded to the activity and said it was the responsible thing to do. How do you explain the discrepancy from most of the fbi and department of justice officials and Andrew Mccabe thinking not a problem its the responsible thing to do . I cant explain why that view would be there. I think it is understandable why if you are in the Deputy Attorney Generals Office or right below the Deputy Attorney general to have someone on your staff doing what was going on and not telling anybody. Its highly problematic and as we pointed out here, the net result is that is the Deputy Attorney general was signing a warrant that did not include Key Information that someone on her staff knew and had told the fbi that the fbi hadnt come back and told the Justice Department. That was the net outcome of that. That is a problem. Imc in his fingers all over this thing. I am also seeing them recall 26 times on significant issues. I am not buying it. Let me go back to the state departments involvement. I know you are limited, but i want to ask some questions. Are you aware of wha the high se Department Officials meeting, why were they . The only thing i can say is from speaking with them it was not she thought she had to tell them because they needed to know that as did the others why they were doing what they were doing, i dont answer. Did you obtain any information, notes or other documentation based on those contacts . We obtain certain information including for example the notes and we were able to speak with her. You did request interviews with jonathan, right . Correct. Do you know why he refused to cooperate and why did you want to interview him . What information did you feel he had that you wanted to know . His interactions much like we wanted to talk to know to tie off and understanding as to what was happening between the Justice Department and the state department. On september 302016, peter struck texted lisa page, quote, remind me tomorrow at victoria newland says. Did you ever find out what victorian england had told her on or about september 30 . I dont recall whether we heard about it. I would have to follow up with the senator. Senator peters im going to organize my thoughts here do you have other questions . I do, thank you mr. Chair. In addition to your role as the dot are general, you also serve as the chair of the council of Inspector Generals of integrity and efficiency. So a question i know that you have addressed this somewhat in the previous question while i was not voting at the time. If you could speak to it again on the importance of the attorney general of independence and in particular why its important to the work of the inspectors general and what we need to do to strengthen the organization as it ties into the general theme of why independence is so important and helpful. Absolutely. The foundation of what we do is our independence its our ability to both report to our agency heads and congress about what we find. We are not very importantly untethered from the departmentss that we arof the ardennes, but e serve the dual purpose and ability to report to both. And the independence is critical because we have the ability to get information like we did here to use our own judgments without influence from the leadership of the Justice Department, the fbi or others, but to make unbiased decisions based on our historical reviews of the department activities, and that is critical. The Foundation Also is our ability to be transparent in our ability to produce reports like this so the public can decide for themselves what they think of our fact findings which hopefully are 100 accurate and we know here no one is taking issue in the factual findings but rather inferences drawn from them and thats critical, so weve got to be able to do that and have robust dialogue as i mentioned earlier. The fact that i may disagree with the attorney general or he may disagree with me isnt a problem. In fact, in some respects it demonstrates the importance of our independence and dependence. Some of the things they do with the council of Inspector General thats important is put together all federal igs and bring us together for the common goals and purposes and issues that we should have oversight of. Training, but most importantly being able to advance independence and transparency in the government, represent the taxpayers and our agencies. Support the ability to get information out there to the public so that the taxpayers know where their money is going, how their money is being used, but the programs are authorizing in this case, fisa that are highly intrusive programs are being used wisely. And making the recommendations to fix them and then doing a followup to make sure that its done and being able to come up your frankly like i did for many years before this committee and the chairman on access to records and other issues we were having problems with so we could do our jobs. In fact, this committee as it is aware of this report wouldnt have been possible but for the ig empowerment act that you all passed because this is one of the areas that we were being hamstrung on and being able to oversee. So, that is the kind of independence we need. We needed for the reasons i mentioned earlier the subpoena authority. We cant get over that evidence in the key timeand the key timen individuals resigned on the eve of being questioned by the ig. Contractors who get sometimes tens, hundreds of millions of dollars in some agencies billions of dollars in contracts potentially. And grant recipients, so there are a lot of tools we need to further our efforts into the committee has always been supportive of our work and i certainly appreciate mr. Chairman and ranking members. Youve both lead the way fo leds on that. Our committee states and the question of the present t that o every nominee that comes before us, protecting the whistleblower confidentiality is of the utmost importance of the committee something that has to know is vital for us to do our work in oversight. But why in your words, why are the whistleblowers important and why he is protecting the whistleblowers of critical importance . Precisely for the reasons that you indicated. From the individuals that are willing to blow the whistle, some call themselves whistleblowers and some dont call themselves whistleblowers, but they are willing to come in and blow the whistle on the wrongdoing and misconduct. July we issued a report on the website about cases that go forward precisely because they were going to come in and report to us. Many of them are willing to come in and use their names, have their identities known and quite afraid to do with your incredibly courageous doing that. But they do it. Many are afraid and dont want their names down. They want to be anonymous. Others send information offline and we never learn their names. It doesnt mean we cant follow up on it. But, what we have got to do in n those instances in particular is see if we can corroborate the information. And that is what we are charged with doing. We want information, we want people to come in, we get in my office over 10,000 calls to the hotline cheer. Weve got to sort through them. Not all of them develop into leeds or when we investigate them develop into findings. But they are critically important and that ability to come in and without fear of retaliation or the threat of retaliation is critical. And we have to do our job not only educating people so that they will come in, but also making sure that if anybody is threatened with retaliation, we do our job to ensure that there is accountability for that. I want t to to get to the testimony but i want to reiterate and get your response. It seems to me based on the report of confidentiality and the fact that you dont just act based on the confidential report, you actually have to corroborated factual evidence. You mentioned how important the confidentiality is. So i suspect identifying the identity of the whistleblower without their consent would likely have a very significant Chilling Effect on the whistleblowers generally. Is that an accurate statement if you could expand . That is a fair statement, and in fact they told us we are not allowed to disclose the whistleblower identities, precisely because of that reason. And unless there is a legal requirement that we do so. Unless we are unable through other means to protect their identity. So, people who come forward, it takes great courage. My first involvement in this is when i walked in and fast and furious wasnt going. We had courageous whistleblowers from atf come in and report that information to us. Information to us. But it takes great courage to come in as a whistleblower we have to protect identities when the law requires us to do that weve got to make sure if there is retaliation or threats we take action. In september the dojs office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that one opinion to inappropriately withholding whistleblower exposure from congress. What is your view of the opinion in that case . In response to that one of the things we did is put together a letter that we sent to the office of Legal Counsel on behalf of the ig community its posted on our website and expressed our serious concern of the ig inability to present information that he believes should go to congress in that circumstance. That something that concerns all of us in the ig community but the law as it is set up provides a mechanism if an allegation requires a judgment by the ig then congress to be given the information and then frankly its up to congress to decide up to do with it it doesnt have to act on it it can make its own determinations but that is a process that congress put in place and we are of the view thats how it should have played out. Referencing october 22nd. I have one final question i understand office of Legal Counsel has responded on october 25th are you satisfied with that response . Ultimately they responded in the way they did we had a respectful dialogue as an ig im not in agreement all the time we stand by our views in our letter we will see their point of view and it is public and again the public should make their own determination we put out information and let the public the educated and informed public read them. So if i may summarize as a professional highly trained ig you are not satisfied with the response. I stand by our legal position interviews. Thank you. Let me talk about the whistleblowers i think everybody in this committee and the desire with those whistleblower protections i am shocked quite honestly coming of the private sector the level of retaliation as Inspector General you are by law from basically with confidentiality from identifying the whistleblower but it does contemplate if somebody is accused of something in a court of law then the person should be able to confront his diffuser one accuser. Its up to the judge but certainly if it was a criminal case and you intended to lie one or rely on the witness they have to be there what you would try to do in corrupt cases you have this issue some are willing to come forward and some are not if theyre not willing to come forward you have to figure out how that information is possible and not always is with the federal rules of evidence. But its not statutory protection with confidentiality . No. It says thats the law. I have a lot of questions which we will submit for the record we appreciate you being responsive. Activity as a conduit between Mister Steele and the fbi peter struck in your report has handwritten notes which pretty well demonstrates he knew about the activity but yet in his interview he denied what war was doing to you by the denial . I have to refresh my recollection on the notes what he told us. I want to double check on what he knew after having 13 meetings he clearly knew for example manafort and where he was at. So for the record i do want to talk about surveilling what is the euphemism a consensual monitoring . Someone associated with the Trump Campaign versus the Trump Campaign but there is a distinction because there is a difference in terms of what approvals the fbi has to get. Thats the reason for the distinction but there are varying degrees of what occurre occurred. They were trying to be scrupulous we are not surveilling the Campaign Just people associated. So what happened what they did, they took individuals and informants signed up with the fbi, wire them up to be recording conversations they had without the person they were speaking with knowing they were being recorded. It sounds close like you are monitoring the campaign but thats my personal opinion. Did you determine why the fbi changed its opinion earlier wasnt aboveboard but interviewing Michael Flynn at that point in time they did not feel Michael Flynn was being dishonest. How did that change . I have heard that but we have no insight into what happened on that case specifically. A . Follow up and we spoke about this earlier there are a lot of controls in current law that have not even been followed the woods procedure the other requirements Everybody Knows them to be scrupulously accurate there are plenty of layers of control over the phis application. There are a lot of layers. And you cant recommend legislation but do you really think another layer of controls will fix this problem . It was caused by people circumventing. There are additional controls for example with that informant activity and others. With regard to the fisa real questions if there needs to be legislative activity and they will have some involvement that is well beyond the executive. For somebody who is supportive of the fisa court because that is where the abuse has been these applications are approved at such a high level because it is so scrupulously accurate now that has been blown i think the fisa core is in jeopardy honestly so i heard James Lankford talking about that and i agree with his concern. The final speak to the limitations that you have in terms of conducting an investigation like this so real . Who couldnt you investigate . Who couldnt you talk to . There is a bigger story to be told. We made clear that Justice Department and the fbi handling of the crossfire hurricane investigation and carter page file along with the fbi activity of Confidential Sources. We did not look at or try to assess allegations of the state department. You would like to have known that . We certainly wanted to know what were Mister Steeles activities but separately trying to figure out what the state department was doing on their own if they had any people ask questions what did other intelligence agencies do . If that was sitting in the files we had access if its something they did separate from the fbi that was beyond the scope. That you would like to know how George Papadopoulos and these individuals happen to be connected. It would be pressing to know a lot of these pieces of information. I dont necessarily believe based on the access we had at the fbi with their decisions i have no reason to think there Something Else out there that we did not see. What other Big Questions are outstanding. At the fbi . Im not sure what other questions are out there other than what i mentioned earlier which is how did all of these failures with all of these controls happen and why. I know thats a good question to know why but at this stage we didnt get good explanations and that something we would like to. I want to thank you and your team for an extraordinarily good piece of work we will be providing additional questions for the record. We are looking for this to guide our actions does this help guide future oversight as well . You have the details so who else would you want to intervene . I will put that out there as an openended question but thank you for your integrity and your hard work and efforts and we have a lot of work ahead of us. With that the hearing will remain open for 15 days with the statements and questions for the record. We are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]