Transcripts For CSPAN2 Hearing On Origins Of FBIs Russia Inquiry Part 2 20240713

The hearing will come back to order. And for the outstanding work you have done, thank you this has to be one of the hardest jobs in government to be the impartial watchdog and with those Government Agencies as important as department of justice and fbi i want you to know how much we appreciate your work and your teams work likewise it is important even though we are critical of the leadership of the fbi during the last administration the way they mishandled this counterintelligence investigation and the colleagues need to know that we are there for them and support them in the faithful discharge of their responsibilities. I served that there is no more ardent supporter. And i believe that general hayden when he wrote his book had it right it is called playing to the edge not over the line but up to the edge so that also makes it important for us to root out the illegality and the exercise of those that are given to the Intelligence Community. So let me ask you about that. Because i cannot think of anything more damaging to the Intelligence Community than what you have uncovered in this 400 page report on what we have seen here. Its very troubling. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as you have pointed out is a warrant for the fbi working with the National Security division with the department of justice do you believe the court knew what you knew now that it ever would have issued the fisa warrant in the first place quick. We are careful not to find probable cause i know they would not find a warranty if they were not told all relevant information was included. And certainly if they were lied to. Is the court currently considering this matter that they have a report and a followon letter about this matter. Because this misbehavior i agree with senator graham it is the end of the authorities that congress has granted that would be damaging to National Security fisa includes the word surveillance you cannot surveillance an american citizen except under specialized and exacting circumstances. Because the right to given to the american citizen are laid out in the bill of rights and there is a higher standard to wiretap to investigate than a foreign agent. There are circumstances. So the whole exception with the surveillance of mister page is based on some proof or indication he was an agent of a foreign power. They had to show probable cause. As you pointed out it was incomplete and misleading information in the process. In inaccurate and incomplete. What is the difference between surveillance and spy clack. Surveillance and the term that i will use in the report is what is in the law of fisa. I will stick to what we do as ig is look at the law. To my mind there is no difference although it is legally authorized according to fisa it is an act of Covert Intelligence gathering against a foreign power or any agent of a foreign power. Let me ask you about the defensive briefing can you explain in response to senator graham to the counterintelligence investigation and at some point during the last few years Loretta Lynch said defensive briefings were routine and counterintelligence investigations. Would you agree quick. I dont have enough experience. I have heard that said that i dont know specifically. You have no reason to disagree. So if they are routine as the attorney general lynch is correct then head of the Counterintelligence Division but that briefing to candidate trump and his campaign would be unusual. If it is usual not doing it it is unusual. Even more is the fact when the director of National Intelligence had a perfunctory briefing to the Trump Campaign lasting 13 minutes that they had implanted and fbi agent part of the Investigative Team for crossfire hurricane. Correct they chose the agent from the counterintelligence investigations. Instead of providing that candidate trump and campaign to arm them with information so they could prevent the russians from infiltrating the campaign this briefing had a dual purpose. The agent on page 342 prepared himself going through mock briefings led by lisa page. Correct. This wasnt just an incidental sort of thing there were plans made for the agent to go in as part of that defensive briefing and get general flynn to inadvertently offer information helpful to the fbi in their investigation. It was dualpurpose for what anybody said in response to the briefing that would be useful across for crossfire hurricane but also for purposes of the future interview of mister flynn. So he was clearly the target. He was the only one of the three that was the subject of the fbi investigation. And he was told he was under investigation or the agent was there hoping to providing crematory incriminating information or had no admonishment of his miranda rights. It looks like director ray was so concerned and said this will never happen again. Thats correct. Mister horowitz are you familiar with the fact director comey had a meeting with President Trump january 2017 to talk to him about the teeten quick. We did and we reference that in response to the preparation. Why should we believe director comey defensive briefing if you want to call that of the president january was anything more than an attempt to fake the present with incriminating information useful to the fbi and counterintelligence or future investigation quick. I have no information one way or another but as mentioned earlier the concerns with doing that here resulting in the possibility it could happen elsewhere. It is fraught with danger just like general flynn for the director to go into the white house not to tell the president anything he uses could be used in the investigation with criminal charges. The final thing i would say is i agree with the chairman if this happens to a president ial candidate what kind of protection that this power could be put up against them and ruin their lives . That is a concern with your investigation. Picking up on that editorial comment talking about the fisa court we now have ample record in this case in 2002 the court identified 75 cases it was misled by the fbi internal fbi review has dozens of inaccuracies and the list goes on so lets have a fulsome conversation about the future of the fisa court thank you for being here. The chairman gave the uncharacteristic heated opening that went on for 40 minutes and produced a lengthy record of emails from lisa page and peter struck of statements of hostility toward candidate trump to say these are the people in charge when i read the summary of your findings you find either to be in charge. Did you clack. Not on this investigation. When it comes to expletives you found some agents at the fbi had opposite viewpoints and was positive toward candidate trump and was open and that use of expletives to demonstrate that. And those individuals. I hope we can all concede the point in this capacity with lifechanging decisionmaking that would be so politically biased to call into question. Thats correct and i made the point last year that the Justice Department can have their political views they are allowed to be engaged citizens that they cannot tie their personal views. Im sure thats what you chait on shared with director ray. Talking about the fact the Trump Campaign was not notified of this Ongoing Investigation and tell a much later date. Be careful what you wish for because there are those of us that look at the comey declaration of the Hillary Clinton investigation to be deadly in terms of the outcome of this election so the notion to the fbi publicizing can cut both ways its good to know im sure but as more people come to know it it becomes public knowledge. We wrote about that last year and what director comey did in that regard to control information information director comey did in that. Let me go back to the era principle everpresent Rudolph Giuliani becse heres something during the 2016 campaign Rudy Giuliani was a Trump Campaign circuit and bragged about having access to the investigation in Hillary Clintons emails. He knew h in october 2016th 16 that the surprises coming in after director comey sent a letter reopening investigation giuliani said and i quote i expected this. Today hear about it . Are darn right he heard about it he said. How can we be dealing with those kinds of statements that long ago and still not have resolution as to whether or not he was just bluffing or in fact he had molson at new york office. One of comeys rationales for his public announcement was i couldnt do it through the new york t office because it leaks sieve. Is there no investigation or has there have been no investigation into this . So as i mentioned last year when i released her information on the clinton email this occasion we are looking at still that question and the challenge of that investigation i mentioned that then and i will mention again is proving who spoke to whom and when based on records of the fbi and understanding that theres rarely going to be substandard information we will get works both from records and others but we will find out conducts. We will follow up we will followup in we continue to that follow up and we continue to that the grief issued two reports so far about findings we had of weeks of misconduct and we have investigations ongoing. Mr. Giuliani professes to be mr. Trumps lawyer and now the president acknowledges that and sometimes he doesnt. Or the concerns mr. Giuliani may bebekn attempting find informatn that is not authorized to . Im not going to speak to what we have learned what we know about our ongoing itinvestigation but im not investigating matters related to the ongoing ukraine issues that i think you are referencing. With me ask if i can on this question of the problems within this case particularly as they relate to the treatment of individuals who are engaged in it and im thinking particularly the ongoing questions about whether or not one particular individual was treated fairly. Is it your conclusion that he was not a russian agent or i should say did not have important context that were not in the best interest of United States with the russian leadership . And not in a position to assess that. What i can assess is looking at the evidence that the fbi put forward to the fisa court. Significant numbers of pieces of evidence did not support that thats the case and i was never told to Justice Department lawyers who are the ones who are the gatekeepers and have to know that information to make that decision. They are the experts. Can we speak for a moment to the steele dossier. I believe you have a definitive statement about what impact that steel file had on the initiation of this investigation. What was your conclusion . In terms of the initiation of theth u. S. Investigation it hado impact. It was not known to the team that opened the investigation at the time they opened it. Gave concluded in several different ways that there was no evidence of political influence at the opening of this crossfire hurricane investigation. Is that correct . Correct. On this fisa reform issue and ill get back to that later but one thing thats interesting here and senator lee is not with us at this moment but these introduced a bill which would give the Inspector Generals Office in the circumstance the authority to investigate attorneys in the department. Right now thats not allowed under the law. That is correct. It is not in thank you for cosponsoring the bill as of several other members of the committee. E. It seems the obvious question do you know what the theory is behind them being separated and not subject to this investigation . This is a legacy ing history in the 1988 when the ig was created attorneys with be carved out and so would the fbi and we would have jurisdiction. After the Aldrich James spy scandal attorney general ashcroft change that it gave us the authority over dea and fbi. Congress codified it in 1992 but attorneys were the only ig they cant review conduct of all the employees in our organization including attorneys. And attorney general ashcroft was authorized to give you that . Under the statute as it existed he had the authority to do that. The statutory change took that away. Mr. Chairman i hope you understood that as youre putting together an agenda. Just 30 seconds here. Does anybody in charge with working with the russians illegally working with the russians that were part of a Trump Campaign that you know of . Not that i know of. Senator lee. Thank you very much mr. Chairman. I find the conclusion that some have raised that your report mr. Mr. Horowitz somehow exonerates the fbi in this matter to be crazy. Absolutely crazy. To the point that it almost makes me wonder whether those who are making this argument have read the same report that we are talking about today. Perhaps they are talking about a different report. There is no planet on which i think this report indicates that things were okay within the fbi in connection with this investigation. They most certainly were not in yet stunningly former fbi director jim comey took to the pages in the Washington Post to declare that this report, youres report show that quote te fbi protected the American People and upholding the u. S. Constitution. I dont understand that. I find it absolutely stunning that he would reach that conclusion. This is nonsense. I dont care where you sit on the political spectrum, if you are a politician or if you are a nonpolitician, if youre a liberal or conservative a republican or a democrat or regardless of your age, your views you should be deeply concerned about what is in your report mr. Horowitz. This report is a scathing indictment of thero fbi, of the agents that were involved and i want to be clear about that because the fbi is an institution that has a long history of respect in this country and as a federal prosecutor ive worked with the fbi and i found many of his agents to be people of the most integrity and thoroughness. Thats part of why im so concerned by your report and its findings and the facts stated therein. I think this really damages that. Theres a lot of good in this country that comes not just from mese fbi being good but also beg understood to be good. The behavior outlined in your report is at a minimum so negligent. I actually would say so reckless that it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire fisa. Rogram i dont say that lightly. I say this of course is someone who has long questioned the fisa program and how it could be abuseded. This really pushes over the edge and i will get back to that in a minute. The report concludes way to generously in my view that the report quote did not find testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the agent who were involved in investigating the Trump Campaign. But the report goesca on to call the conduct of the agent and the supervisors involved to be quote serious performance failures which you noted were failures for which you did not receive a satisfactory explanation. Is that right . That is correct. Serious performancere failur, failures without any type of satisfactory explanation. This is the failure that jim comey stunningly irresponsibly considers a fulfilled mission, mission that includes among other things protecting the Constitutional Rights of the American People . I think notul. Hithis is what the former head f the fbi considers protecting the American People and upholding the constitution. I just cant understand it. Its simply not good enough. Maybe its good enough for mr. Comey but its not good enough for the American People. Every american should be terrified by this report to the fbi team that investigated the Trump Campaign was as has been pointed out handpicked. After all they couldnt and wouldnt and wasnt the case that they would just. Any ordinary investigators to investigate a president ial campaign especially the president ial campaign of a major party nominee. What was acknowledged in the report have been one of the most sensitive if ai investigations his agents were supposed to have been the best m of the best ande wouldnt expect any thing less in that circumstance. They are supposed to be the highest character and professionalism committed to protecting the Civil Liberties of all americans. Our privacy is not with their security. Our privacy is inextricably intertwined with an inseparable part of our security. We cannot be secure unless our privacy is guaranteed. We certainly cant be secure in a republican form of government if after all a republican form of government is imperiled by people who politicize the intelligence gathering and Law Enforcement apparatus that our federal government has. They are basically two possibilities. Either one, fbi agents purposely used the power of the federal government to wage a political war against a president ial candidate they despised or two these agents were so incompetent that they allowed a paid foreign political operative to weaponized the fisa program into a spying operation on our rival campaign. Al political im not sure about you but im not sure which one is worse. I am sure that neither conclusion is acceptable. They are both horrifying for slightly different reasons. Im not sure theres a substandard distinction and im not sure that one can conclude that the biasf evidence between some of these investigators, the fact do you said there wasnt a causal connection between them and the council changed between those medications in the opening of the investigation itself is beside the point. The fact is these were agents who made their bias clear and they went after someone in part because they did not like his candidacy and thats inexcusable their port in the fbis abuse. I believe its longstanding abuse and i believe its inevitable abuse of pies and the fisa court to surveilled american citizens should in this sense not be a tremendous surprise to us. James madison warned us against this very kind of thing when he said if men were angels they iduld need a government. If we had access to angels to govern us we wouldnt need rules about governing but we dont have access to angels governance so we have to have auxiliary precautions and checks and balances to make sure no one person or one entity gets too much power and added to those and balances we have substandard limitation like the fourth amendment. We have things that are there protect us. I believe for some time as has been noted earlier this hearing and they teamed up with people of the opposite of the political ideological spectrum that fisa carries with it an unacceptable risk. Thats why he teamed up with senator pat leahy would for the nine years of a served on the Judiciary Committee because i believe these programs are subject to abuse. Ive been warning for years that inevitably it would result in abuse. Its not a question of if but when and how soon will government officials get caught doing it. It actually surprises me in some ways that took us this long to find an instance but again thats what happened. When you take a standard that is malleable that requires virtually no public accountability you render all but a small handful of the Intelligence Committee lawmakers in the house and the senate, you render all other citizens other than them and the Intel Community itself ineligible to review their work and then you make it possible for them to gather information. This kind of thing of course is going to happen. Its never not owing to happen and that scares me to death. Now inspect or general horowitz you stated several times in your Opening Statement and in response to questions that you did not findd documentary testimony or evidence of bias including the fbis decision to conduct these operations. But mr. Horowitz, is not the lack of evidence that you are talking about itself evidence of bias . Isnt the lackde of evidence unbiased evidence that we really should take his bias. In any event its certainly not itself indicative that no bias occurred. Isnt that correct . As to the opening which is in a different place than fisa issues that you have identified and i talked about earlier these are two very different situations. On the fisa side we found a lack of documented testimony on the legality and the lack of satisfactory information and leave open the possibility that as you t indicated its unclear what the motivations are. In one hand gross incompetence and negligence and on the other hand intentionality. As a team we werent in the position with the evidence wee had to make that conclusion. Seen at theh lack of evidence is here theres not a lack of evidence that there was no bias. The actual evidence that we have thank you very much. Mr. Horowitz you actually did make a finding of that very question did you not . I direct you to page 14 of the executive summary were you describe this to management and supervisory failures that were not specific to this case but that were potentially endemic. Is that not correct . Im sorry. You say so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate teams they raised a significant question regarding the fbi chain of commands management and supervision of the process. You then go on to describe it as a failure of managers and supervisors and you go on to say your remedy is an oig audit not only in this case but another case nothing to do a the Trump Campaign and nothing to do with politics. You do make the funding to the then you attribute failure to failure of management and supervision that could well go beyond this. Correct although not just management. They made very serious errors. To make you make no point that its a tribute to bowl to a state conspiracy or political conspiracy or annie such type of motivation. We make no finding. We explain in their that we did not have documented testimony or evidence that was intentional and we also point out the lack of satisfactory explanations and from there i cant draw any further conclusion. Other than if you do what you go out as there is a failure of management and supervision over the process. From top to bottom. Whats the timeline on the attorney general getting notice on thisha report . How long did it take from when he first saw this and when he credited this and said your investigation is a credit tore e department of justice . We first provided the draft at the end of september. Said he and his teamat had or , well over a month. With the markings we did the normal process and incorporated the markings and then. Produced at back in november. The director of the fbi would have dictated in that timeframe. Seen at the same time. He complimented on you on your professionalism. With plenty of time to review it rates correct. See that let me get to mr. Durham. Did mr. Durham have access to this report during the same time . We did not give it to him at the end of august and september precisely it was for classification purposes. We were very careful as to who could see it in who couldnt. We had a list of who could see it in who s couldnt see it. We provided it to him in november as part of our factual accuracy. Plan, do you remember . I could check but it was roughly november. Are you familiar with what he has undertaken at all . I am somewhat but i wouldnt pretend to be familiar with it. He notes that he does not agree with some of your reports conclusions as to how the fbi case was opened. What information do you think he has access to that you did not have access to. I have no idea. When you look at director wrays letter he his organization the fbi provided broad and timely access to all information requested by the oig including highly classified and sensitive material. He acceptsnd your crossfire hurricane investigation was done with adequate predication. Im trying to find where it exists about predication that you didnt have access to and fbi director wray would not have access to. Where could jon durham be going for information that is outside of the scope of what you have access to or would fbi director wray have access to. I dont know and youd have to ask the attorney general mr. Durham. Hypothetically is there an area of information you have access to . We have not. We have a million records. We g asked the fbi for all the materials in their possession even from other agencies. I couldnt say if i knew. Didi you go over fees to the brief foreign agents an actress . Utep to talk with them. Okay. Predication involved a threshold, do not . Correct for opening investigation. When you hit your predication threshold more evidence as long as the evidence is adequate more evidence doesnt take it away, correct . Correct. Im also trying to figure out how it is that even if you had more evidence that you did not have that takes away from your conclusion that predication was adequate. Again you would have to ask the attorney general. You cant think of way a way to get there can you . As i said earlier we stand by our findings. You describe serious performance failures in the fisa process. Those are likely to lead to either disciplinary actions or to sanctions by the court or at least be considered for those. Positioned me two options. In that process and individuals will have a chance to defend themselves with due process. We are not adjudicators. That goes to the department for the court or any other entity. We may find out more as the process to go forward in that context. Correct. Lets look at the intelligence briefing. At the time of the intelligence briefing what did the fbi know about how favre russian interest in penetrated into the Trump Campaign . Esight dont know as i sit here the level of the dis knowledge. We were looking at then origins of the crossfire hurricane investigation. They clearly knew there was an investigation going on. We lay out some of what they knew. They knew the concerns about carter page and he was associate with the trumpmp campaign. They have an investigation going on into Michael Flynn. Do you know they if they knew about the trump tower meeting two monthsof before with the russian agent . I dont know one way or the other. M okay and going into it would be reasonable wouldnt it to expect that the fbi did not then know how far russian penetratin into the trumph campaign went. I have no idea what stage their investigation was that at that point in time. Ive no reason to doubt what you are saying but i dont know. There was no way they could rule out people present people present on the intelligence briefing on the Trump Campaign may have been involved in aggressive investigation. Sick said i have no knowledge of that. All ie know is they had the location of mr. Flynn. They could rule out that he was actually in that reefing . As a potential participant in the matter they were looking into and assisted crossfire hurricane was bigger than just the pieces we were looking at. I cant tell you what else the fbi may or may not know. While we can agree that putting operation and crossfire hurricane agents in to the intelligence briefing of the Trump Campaign might have been overaggressive. For the fbi to be in that intelligence briefing would be perfectly appropriate, correct . In fact absolutely appropriate for them to be there. That was the debate to that went on internally with the fbi which is what to do and the state did not discuss it with the apartment the department. If they should than it that briefing for intelligence purposes. It also would have been perfectly appropriate for crossfire hurricaneen agent to d briefed the fbi agent present at the intelligence briefing to see if Michael Flynn had sent anything relevant to the investigation or anybody else for thatng matter on information potentially relevant to the investigation, was it not . Depending what occurred there. You could see a hypothetical with that. Erase a serious policy questions and frankly the fbi director the leadership of the department because that briefing and those briefings are for purposes of protecting campaigns and to allow it to occur. He participant in that briefing on the part of the Trump Campaign the subject of the fbi investigation. That is correct but it raises a significant policy question. We should not draw the conclusion that there is no way the fbi should have been given access to evidence that arises in the context of an intelligence briefing related to counterintelligence. Director wray and b respondig to her recommendations. Thank you. Senator. Chris for 30 seconds. In the january meeting with the primary source providing all of the information wasnt there a department of justice official president . Guess what make their file map. There people present were the primary sub source his lawyer and to fbi crossfire hurricane people and parts of the intervieww were from the nationl Security Division. They were there not knowing the background necessarily. They were there because the suspect to a lawyer. The fbi wonder lawyer there. We are beating up on the fbi to the department of justice were in the room too. They were in the room but the reason is there are a number of instances where people get drivebys. Someone tries to tag your sump thing. That was our concern. Fair enough. One point from page 341 the fbiss mr. Baker told the ig ad is reported as saying that the agent and that investigative briefing quote was not there induce anybody to say anything. He was not there to do an undercover operation or for statement or testimony. Representative cruz. Thank you mr. Chairman and mr. Horowitz thank you for being here but i want to start by taking a rich and need to think that only you but the men or women every team that are gathered here in the work youve done in the Inspector Generals Office is incredibly important. Reading this report this is a 434 page report that lays out what i consider to be a stunning indictment43 of the fbi and the department of justice of a pattern of abuse of power. I will say both the Department Justice and fbi for decades have had a great many honorable principle professionals with the ability to rule of law. This indictment im an alumnus of the department of justice. This pattern of facts makes me angry that makes anyone who expects Law Enforcement to be nonpartisan and faithful to the lot law it should make them angry as well. The press has focused on were specific conclusion that you did not find evidence of political bias. I disagree with that judgment. But i think that judgment is in many ways the least significant component of this report. Think the facts are in this report and need to be understood than they should be deeply chilling to anyone who understand the facts of this report and people can draw the inference as top why that patten of abuse occurred. Do you agree with that . Im sorry do you agree aplenty to set . The purpose of this report is to lay out the facts for the public and everybody can debate andd decide this information. I absolutely agree. This foreigner and 34 page reportre outlines 17 major erros and misstatements that were my made by the fbi or doj in securing fisa warrants. A number of them are deeply deeply troubling. These are not typos. These are not small inadvertent errors. This is a grotesque abuse of power. Lets focus on a couple of them. The primary substance and to deed the first error you note in the second third and fourth application for the fisa warrant is the primary sub source of hoarding raised serious questions about the act or see up the steele dossier which we now know was a bunch of malarkey to use a term thats been in the news lately. And the fisa court was not informed of that. Lets get specifically to the races of the steel report was what is referred to in your report is the primary sub source. I was the principle basis and the fbi interviewed that primary sub source not once, not twice but three times january and march of 2017 so the basis of this dossier of what is the primary sub source they as the oig reports as the interview of the primary subdo source raised quote significant questions about the reliability of the steel report. What do the sub source they specifically . A report goes report goes on to say steel ms. Biggert saturated multiple sections of the report. Portions of it particularly the more salacious and sexual portions were based rumor and speculation. Says some of the aces of that came from conversations with quote friends over fears and statements that were made in quotee just. In the primary sub source also said the other sub source is to be taken with a grain of salt quote or the fbi had that information in databases of this dossier was saying itsn unreliable and what did the fbi and doj do in the renewal application number two and number three they advise the court quote the fbi found the russian base sub source to be truthful and cooperative with zero revision. You note that is the most significant state and then that is going in front of a court of law relying on facts that you know are unreliable without any basis. That was the number one. Number two major air in the applications was amending carter pages prior relationship. We now have evidence the carter page function as a source for the United States intelligence. Thats a pretty darn importantrt fact. If you are telling the fisa court hey the fact that this guy carter page two i dont know this guy carter page with the fact these talking to russia is really suspicious but the fact that the servingut as a source r you if u. S. Intelligence agent is regarded relevant to why hes talking to russians. We have lots of people there talking to the bad guys and we dont tell the court that you are deceiving the court. Its worse than justin deceiving the court. Because the oig report details and assistant general counsel in the fbi altered an email, fabricated it and reading from the oig reports but the words and not a source had been inserted into the email that email was sent on to the officials responsible for making the decision to go forward and as the report said, that may read on page 256 of oig report the final paragraph consistent with the Inspector General act 1970 and following aigsep discovery that the attorney had altered the email when he said to the supervising agent who thereafter relied on t it to ferret out the final fisa applications of the men or women dont need to know whats happening. Lawyer at the ai creates fraudulent evidence, alters an email and that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court. Am i stating that accurately . That is correct. You have worked in Law Enforcement a long time. Is the pattern of the department of justice employee altering evidence and submitting fraudulent evidence that gets submitted to aen court is commonplace . It that typical . I have not seen an alteration of an email and in passing a Court Document like this. In any ordinary circumstance the private edison fabricated evidence by the way what you assert it was not just slightly wrong it wasti 180 degrees opposite of what the evidences of the Intelligence Agency says this guy is a source and he inserted that this guyt is not a source. If a private citizen did that and any Law Enforcement investigation fabricated evidence to reverse what it said in your experience with that private citizen be prosecuted for fabricating evidence or be prosecuted for perjury . He would be considered for that if there was an intentional effort on the corporate unless im going to defer because as you noted in the sentence we referred that over to the attorney general and the fbi director. The third Major Mission that the department of justice and the fbi did not tell the court is that this entire operation was funded by the dnc, funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and democrats. At some level this is the most Effective Research dump in history because the department fbi weree and perfectly happy to the hatchet men for this research dump. Throughout every one of the files doj and the fbi does inform the fisa court that this was being paid for by the dnc and Hillary Clinton campaign. Is that right . They didnt tell the court that. And its not like doj didnt know. Indeed one ofy the Senior Department of justice officials as wife work a fusion the Research Company being paid by the dnc and he became the principle liaison without telling anyone at the department of justice that he was essentially working on behalf of the clinton campaign. Who at the department of justice and by the way several democrats senators wanting to defend this abuse of power. Several senators senator feinstein and i wroteh this down the fbi didnt spy in the Trump Campaign. Similarly he said something similar. That may be true that he didnt spy in the Trump Campaign their breeding from your report page for the executive summary your report says there after the Crossfire Hurricane Team used the intrusive techniques including confidence of human sources that interacting consensually record multiple conversations with agent papadopoulos before and after the Trump Campaign as well as one location where highlevel Trump Campaign official who was not a subject of investigation. They testified to record senior members that campaign in the middle of a president ial campaigngn went back candidate s a nominee for the other major party that was there imposing party the one in power. That right . P they send confidential Human Resources and to do those. Who it doj knew about this . To the attorney general know about this . Did the white house know about this . Nobody had been told in advance. The only evidence that somebody new were the attorneys and an s. B. National Security Division when they were told very selective portions of what had occurred. Nobody knew beforehand and frankly that was one of the most concerning inc. Fears that Nobody Needed to be told raids a until you for my time at the department of justice and on Law Enforcement and irresponsible leader when hearing you are talking about sending in spies and sending in a wiretap on any president ial nominee should say what in there hell are we doingt by the way the people up the chain who were saying we didnt know if you have responsible leadership there is no more important decision. When i was at the doj and someone said lets attack Hillary Clinton or bill clinton or jon kerry thee people would have said what in the hell are you talking about . This was not the court. This was beavis butthead. I want to tone things down a little bit here. To express my gratitude for the thousands of men and women who work everyday on the frontline with the fbi. I come from a background as a prosecutor and are local Law Enforcement work with the fbi everyday in our local office in minnesota and in the senate ive had the privilege to work with many people in the fbi. The inspectorop generals job is incredibly important. It keeps everyone honest but i do think its important for those agents and for those in Law Enforcement that are watching today that people understand and people appear that understand they are simply doing their job which basically there were some suggestions and recommendations for change in what the Inspector General found in this report. Before i start our questions i think its important to put this discussion in context with what happened in the 2016 election which is why we are here today. Its now undisputed by our intelligence agencies that russia invaded our democracy nw with bombs, jets or tanks but with a sophisticated cyber undermine the underpinnings of our very democracy,ph the democracy that hundreds of thousands of men and women have lost their lives on the battlefield defending for our democracy and democracy abroad at the mach is a bit for little girls at the height of the Civil Rights Movement losta their lives in a church in birmingham alabama. We are trying to hold onto that democracy and make sure its extended to people in this country but lets remember why we are here today. This remember the words of dan coats the former director of the National Intelligence agency who served in the senate well respected. My colleagues on both sides of the apathy sete facts rush has been emboldened to do this again. I did appreciate senator grahams words and he made clear that it was not ukraine that invaded this election. It was russia and it was the words of fiona hill and the impeachment hearings over in the house that i thought were important to remember. She said anyone that is repeating this lie back is basically peddling in russian pop her again propaganda. Lets remember that this is not about one election or one party. It isga about our democracy. What can we do . We can be honest and we can stop making political hayay out of ts and we can actually take some actions that would detect their election in 2020. That includes finishing the work that senator lankford and i have started tap not on the money to help secure a license but to also put in place requirements to push those dates that dont have backup paper ballots only 11 of them to get those backup paper ballots and make sure we have wanted and we have better communication between federal and state authorities. Do something about thets propaganda by moving forward on the bill that senator graham and i now have the honest act that requires social media and i have no idea why we dont do that. They play byni the same rules of the road for paid political ads that greatly help us with this propaganda problem. So here wead go. You wrote thiss report inspector horvitz after interviewing more than 100m. Witnesses and reviewg over 1 million documents. Is that right . P thats correct. Under Department Guidelines and investigation had been authorized and it has opened to obtain information about or prevent or protect against federal crimes or threats to National Security or collect foreign intelligence. The investigation at issue today was open to determine whether People Associated with the Trump Campaign were coordinating with the russian government. That is the reason the fbi provided. Again to be clear you did not find that the fbi acted improperly when it opened the counterintelligence investigation that you viewed in writing in this report. Thats right. The Department Guidelines requires the decision to open an investigation supported as you describe in your port allocations reports for circumstances that indicate the possibility of criminal activity or National Security threat. Found the fbis investigation wass predicated on a report from our friendly Foreign Government that heard that the Trump Campaign had received some kind of just and the russians would help them by releasing information was damaging to Hillary Clinton. Is that right . P that is correct. As a former prosecutor i know that it is critical that the fbi is able to take action like you did here to investigate threats to our National Security. Do you think interference in our elections by a Foreign Government constitutes a National Security threat . Yes, i do. This anything in youron repot call into question the finding in the special counsels report that the russian government interfered in the 2016 president ial election and a sweeping and systematic fashion . No it doesnt and in fact we read the special counsels report released on that issue. Does anything in your port call into question chairman burrs statement republican chairman burrs statement that quote russia is waging in Information Warfare campaign against the u. S. And didnt started and didnt end with the 2016 election. This anything airport call into question the assessment by fbi director wray that russian interference in our election is ongoing and interference in the midterms were quote to dress rehearsal for the 2020 election. Does anything in your report call into question the finding of special counsels report that reote the russian government perceived it would benefit from a term presidency and worked to secure that outcome. We dont think that issue is t , no. Did you find any evidence that political bias or other improper consideration affected the fbis decision to open the investigation into George Papadopoulos . No we dont. He defined in athens that political bias or other improper considerations affect the decision to open the investigation into Paul Manafort . No, we dont dont. Did you find any evidence of political bias or improper considerations affecting the decision to open the investigation to Michael Flynn . No we did not. Did you find an investigation of political bias or other improper considerations affected the decision to open the investigation into carter page . No documentary testimony or other evidence. So we are clear did your report uncover systematic political bias by the fbi . As to what we look dad in the openings we did not find documentary testimony of evidence to support a fundamental bias. Can you talk about why its critical that the American People have confidence in the rule of law and independence of the Justice Department . Absolutely and i also was a former prosecutor in public Corruption Cases in the Southern District of new york and the whole foundation of the Justice Department Law Enforcement at the federal level and at the state and local level is a political, not political decisionmakingen made by prosecutors and agents working together to protect communities. I want to followup on your discussion on the issue you briefly discussed on whistleblowers with senator feinstein because its so important and i know the senator grassley cares a lot about this issue. Can you speak generally to how often in your career information provided whistleblowers has proven important and led to uncover wrongdoing . I will speak to my experience in the seven years as an ig in the first instance from the getgo t. Fast and furious, critical that the agents came forward there. Wet found numerous inconsistencies in our audits with whistleblowers coming forward and reporting evidence and going back 30 years tots my chris of prosecutor new york doing police Corruption Cases w had an incredibly brave and Courageous Police officer who saw corruption in its midst and came forward and reported it and allowed us to make a very substantial Police Corruption case that would have continued but for that courageous officer. Thank you very much. Thats really helpful. Our last come after your report was released onk monday attorny general barr stated his opinion that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of the u. S. President ial campaign on suspicion. When the fbi decided to opentr s investigation to u. S. Intelligence committee was already aware of russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 election. Is that correct . Im actually not sure at the time. Within thath context that the i received information and moving forward into standards of the fbi received information from a Foreign Government and no reports came from annd australin diplomat and it was a part of the Trump Campaign official suggested that the Trump Campaign had received some kind of suggestion from russia that would assist the campaign by releasing information that would be damaging to Hillary Clintons campaign. That correct . It thats correct your report quoted in chief of the National Security division David Lachman said there would have been a quote dereliction of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to submit the appropriate sources as urgently as possible to run these facts to the ground and find out whats going on. That correct . Thats correct. In light of all of that occurring at the time and hindsight to look back at things at that time do you agree with attorney general barr that the investigation was predicated on suspicion . Im not going to get into a comparison. Hes free to have his opinion we have for finding and as i said earlier he stand by your. Your conclusion again is . Thank you a sufficient predication open investigation based on the low threshold by the department. Sad thank you very much. We talked to lout about papadopoulos. I want anybody to believe that anybody named in the initial investigation has been convicted of being an agent of the russians. Did anybody in the Trump Campaign been charged in a russian collusion. He would know by now. Mr. Papadopoulos was being surveilled by the fbi. That correct . If youre talking about the content of Human Resources on operations, yes. They considered but did not receive the fisa application. He was being wiretapped and he didnt know it. An undercover operation and having a wire. If youre talking to somebody that has a wire. I just want to be careful because a wire you think of a court order. I just want to be clear. Say that this is done the coast they can do it and they dont have to get anybodys permission. They need supervisory approval and thats it. I just pointed no what iopapadopoulos said when he did know hes been ortell. We dont want to work with the russians. He summarized it would be. Reason senator sasse. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Horowitz thank you for being here and youve done important work and thank you to all of you as well. There are ato number of things that are really troubling but some of them have been unpacked ready fully so far and i want to pick up on some loose ends. Who is he in what is his role at the department that i have a question about the bizarre pathway but i which he became involved in this investigation. The time of these events even associate Deputy Attorney general of heavy organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task force working out ofte the deputies of us. Sampath connected to election at a dfi friends by the russians . It is not. What the hell was he doing there . And i was precisely the concern that we lay out here. He had no role in any of the election interference matters. We have a bunch of people in the media who wanted to read this as a rorschach test and they wanted a predetermined answer on how to interpret each piece of the sosa chairman began today he said a predicate of investigationpr appropriate but some minor mistakes and errors were made. You have outlined in this point in 34 depending on what we count the romannumerals page report 17 significant errors in this investigation. Bruce gore who has a very significant senior role for those who dont know the office of the deputy at attorney general had primary oversight of all Law Enforcement agencies in america so if you are in the fbi and you might make a mistake in your investigation the people you would be in trouble with are the attorney Generals Office and heres a guy at the Deputy Attorney Generals Office who ultimately gets in involved inserts himself in his vacation is important to records we have a massive cultural systemic very if a guy who should be doing oversight in this case if he warned of another assignment about organized crime and Drug Trafficking if you are going to get involved in this he should be checking the work of the people who were doing the work and they are a whole bunch of department protocols and provisions that were violated throughout this. Bruce or ultimately decides to get extra information about Christopher Steele after Christopher Steele or his employer fusion gps have been cut off by the fbi. Why did the fbi to decided to no longer listen to Christopher Steele . He was closed in november of 2016 after the fbi learned of his disclosure to mother jones magazine that he had been mrking with the fbi previously and we know from the evidence that senator cruz went through there were a whole bunch of sub sources that Christopher Steele was summarizing and the fbi was believing he might be ae credie guy and the ultimately realized it was a bunch of and his sub sources are saying is that some of this and just in some of the stuff i overheard in a bar. None of the information i have firsthand knowledge of so fbi decides mr. Steeles information is credible. Tonight they cut them off because he talked to the press at mother jones magazine. Bm other information and until anybody about it. You are disagreeing with me only to send the problems with mr. Steele were twice as bad as i summarized. Im just saying thats why they cut him off. Thats the concern. Bruce ohr who doesnt have any responsibility in this area ndecides he will insert himself and investigation and get Additional Information from or about Christopher Steele. Can you remind us who is bruce ohrs married to . O bruce ohrs spouse millie oren started interacting with steele had been a former independent contractor for fusion gps. In other words bruce ohr inserts himself into the investigation after they said mr. Steele isnt reputable and his incredible and has been talking to the media so we arent going to talk to Christopher Steele anymore. He meets with these people who are the employers of Christopher Steele who is also bruce ohrs wife. As of september 2016 she had no luck or been in an appendix contractor. Also i think its important to be clear this is relevant to this significant of the inappropriate actions here. The fbi was not a reluctant participant in this relationship it was the conduit from bruce ohr to steal as we lay out here so i just want to be clear. They are not saying we dont want to deal with them. They are saying essentially if you have something we would love to hear fromm you. I want to say that im in wish mike lee werent sitting to people away from me right now because as the National Security hawk i had argued with mike lee in the four or five years that ive been in the senate that stuff like this couldnt possibly happen at the fbi and the department of justice so somebody who is embarrassed on behalf of the fbi about your port because i believe its critically important that we have the fisa statute i think its an impressively incredibly important court. Approval to come before the fisc are off the charts. A couple of your site go issa 97. 9 . Roughly 98 . Rating of applications that come before the fisk. Why would it be that high . Im asking you to answer that. Im saying that the good answer is, in an ex parte, but in an ex parte proceeding before the court, when you the american citizen who might be being sur veiled or suspected of something that would open a surveillance warrant against you, the assumption would be if you cant be there to defend yourself, its because the departments lawyers are so superscrupulous if there was any information that might exonerate you or counter act the view that had them pursue the case, they would say the bar is so high here, hell air on the side of privacy. And so mike lee has warned me for 4 1 2 years the po they defended the integrity and the professionalism of the bureau and the department thatn you can have Something Like this. Lets move on from bruce and moved to the renewals. Renewals, the first one, we have a debatefr about. Whether there is political bias in the opening investigation. The second and the third and the fourth, they werenthe against e proceeding against carter page. But based on an assumption the quote has, they hate with a bunch of information the first time i heard this case, as we thought it was legitimate to open a caseat into the sky, the bureau news going to have so much integrity in the departments going to have so much integrity ifu theres evera reason for them to doubt it for the opening application to make, dont bring up information for its own originals, 23 and four, bring none of this information right. Thats correct. Theyre not telling the department so that the lawyers can know what to include pretty. So i think we face a massive crisis of public trust in american live in general. Probably because of an open society news going to be susceptible to the kinds of influence operations at restaurants against us on a daily basis and a clunky way let the china is eventually going to run against us in a very sophisticated way. In the real debate we should be having on tv and in the journalist community, about moments like this has brought fundamentally about making this month 48 or not month 40 united the 26 teen president ial election, they will never die. We should be happening in advanced conversation about 2024 and 2028 and 2032, when china with defect runs influence operations against us that will be far more sophisticated, dangerous than this. Functions thisu poorly, during a moment like this, when we actually have a sophisticated attack against us, well have a much bigger problem in the American People they dont dont they can trust. So whether or not people are going to agree with your opening headlines within the political bias is in the opening investigation there is no doubt that there is a massive cultural feeling inside of the object at the if you have allowed renewals to come in the second and third and the fourth case that went out anybody ever thinking that the work is going to be scrutinized again. Is this what happens and arguably the second third or fourth most investigation in the history of the fbi, if this is going to happen investigation where they would expect theres going to be a lot of subsequent scrutiny, what is your suspicion about what happens in the regular priceu application. Or a renewal process. If the American People here and this is just going to happen gets a companion president of unisys, what happens in an ordinary case. Sooner thats exactly are concerned in this what we started this new review and audit to look at others, not only in the intel site, but on that counter and terrorismud si. And on u. S. Persons, what else is going on there, we dont want to be based on this but wouldbe fair and for the end reasons you indicated and was happening on elsewhere. One somber something you see on page 1400 news to this. Because many people are just reading this here report listening too this hearing do that through the lenses of their favorite red or blue jersey team was in the 2016 election. Using something really fundamental about the culture and the drug needs to go. There are so many basic and fundamental errors and that so many will made by three separate handpicked teams on one of the most sensitive fbi investigations that was bricked at the highest loophole within the fbi and that the fbi officials expected what would eventually be subjected to scrutiny, raise significant questions regarding fbi tenant commands management, and supervision of the fica process. Jump ahead in our view, this was a failure of normally operationalnt team but also of e managers, the supervisors including the senior officials in the chain of command. And for these reasons, we recommend that the fbi review of the performance of these employees and the responsibility for the preparation, and the whats reveal, which essentially recheck you working safe to have any footnotes and can we collaborate this if we have to, or again approval of the fisa applications as well as the managers and supervisors in the tannic man of the page in the station including senior officials and take appropriate action deemed appropriate this seems potentialch disciplines in addition given the extent of compliance failures we identified in this review, we believe that additional oig oversight work is required to assist apis comply with the department fbi fica related policies that see tont correct e Civil Liberties of the u. S. Persons. Po also known as a whole fourth a minute accordingly we have today initiated, is the big headline folks, accordingly today we have initiated oig audit i will further examine the fbi news compliance with the woods procedures application that target u. S. G persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigation. That is a big headline. And you aredu staying, there isa systematic cultural failure of accountability at the bureau related to the fica process. Michael he doesnt drink but i buy him whiskey right now if he did. Because there are a whole bunch of things weve argued about for a long time. Hes right about things that i think ought not tong be right ad if we had another ten minute round, some going silver ellis by 25 seconds, but if we had time for another man, we can ask some relief in the middle questions about defensive briefing as well. In the american system, when the people, expect politicians to represent them for a time, they are better people than the bureaucrats within the one to hold certificates of election. When the people are elected, those politicians and coming dont know as much is the bureaucrats of the top levels of the agencies. Because the agency news experts have been there for a long time. Thats with the defensive briefing should be about. Nnot investigatory trojan horse. Thank you. Spak inspector horwitz, im impressed bag of s team news wo, have you reviewed a million documents and have conducted interviews for the hundred witnesses including on several multiple occasions i think there was a hundred and 70 interviews. What you agree with me that this is a testament to the role of the transparency of our system and that your office can produce such a surfing and throat report that contains some criticisms of the most powerful federal Law Enforcement agency in our nation. Absolutely can agree with you and more and his attachment for the Inspector General. This is why we have your office to provide an independent assessment of fact if not the in particular partisan agenda. Fbi director said in his response to your report that the fbi except the report news findings and embraces the need for thoughtful and meaningful remedial action for a limit just begin by expressing my persuasion to you in a directory for big dying and by the facts rather than some the most breathless conspiracy theories that have been spread recently. President trump has called the entire pressure investigation was shut and hoax but your report found that the fbi had an authorized purposet when it opened its investigation into whether individuals associated with the campaign, will coordinating with the russian government run efforts to interfere in her 2016 president ial election. Note which was granted in protecting our National Security. Do you stand by that conclusion. Posted by it. Snack time but we all know what happening in the 2015 and when this investigation began. Russian intelligence hacked the committee and the clinton campaign. Does your report disprove that party of the Russian Investigation. No i dont disproveca any of the findings. We know that russian intelligence was restricted only acting to release wikileaks with the intention to try to help them from two president ial campaign and you dont disprove that pretty. We dont disagree that. Research internet donated influence campaign on social media, to try and tear part American Society and discord, and your report doesnt disagree with that. Correct. In summary, when the fbi opened this investigation and cost by a hurricane, russia was at thehe time, engaging in an unprecedented and broad scale attack on our election inhu our democracyme. Then candidate trump news response wasnt to denounce precious actions, it was to see and i quote that the candidate russia if they are listening, i hope you are able to find hilary news email. And it was to praise wikileaks for leaking soil email and it was even to suggest that russia was not responsible as might be someone weighing 400 pounds sitting on a bed in the mothers home. All this was happening while the fbi was trying to protect our elections and our democracy. I wouldve preferred to see our president criticized then, the russians who will attacking our election. Lets see report from i. Bill was an assistant director newse fbi counterIntelligence Committee. He approved the opening of the fbi investigation. In a possible connection between the top campaign and russian interference. He told her office there was a counterintelligence concern that the fbi was obligated to investigate. E. Did you find any evidence at all, to suggest mr. Precepts actions will motivated by bias or his political views, bipartisanship rather than a sense of obligation to protect the country. We why not print. On march 4th, 2017, President Trump treated terrible, just had a obama had my wire stepped in trump tower before my victory. They found, this is mccarthyism. Did your investigation identify any evidence president obama rordered the fbi to tap donald trump news phone. Assume i couldnt find any evidence the fbi had tapped any other homes or anything else other than the fisa we address. But you did find a doctor demille in order to support vice application. Correct pretty. Product produced. And they have said, im here yed to retake the inexcusable. We must hold federal Law Enforcement to the highest standards even those of us who support federal Law Enforcement. I may ask a question about the oresponse to the agency. Who appointed fbi director chris. President trump. Smith ended director rick except all of the findings of your exam ossetian pretty. He did. Including related investigations will open orth authorized purpose that it equipped predication. Did he agree with that pretty. Thats correct printed. The report identified errors that fbi made in conjunction with the paint fisa application. We should minimizes errors but think its critical to put them in context. Your report doesnt speculate as to what whether fisa wouldve been authorized for mr. Pages official and considered all of the relevant information in a timely way. Is that correct. We that is correct we dont speculate. Smith. He was not indicted. Not as far as i understand pretty. Let the campaign manager, National Security adviser, Foreign Policy advisor, personal attorney, and nontimber strategists will all either convicted of crimes or pled guilty in federal courts. Is thaton correct. I think i followed the list i understand what you are staying. I wont disagree with you. Its connected to identify fisa errors with regards to many other how Campaign Officials who have been on investigation pretty. The only fisa we found existed was one route written about herep. So in the broader context and the Trump Campaign and investigation and outcome, i just thought it was worthth repeating that the more investigation produced 37 and guilty pleas and convictions and none of those arert called into question bag of part is that correct pretty. We dont address this has brought at all pretty. At one point some bipartisan agreement today, one of the only points, is the renewed interest in reforming the fisa process. And while weal continue to consider this as a senate where authorizing sections of the patriot act, and welcome suggestions from fbi director rick, as a statutory reforms to ensure the errors saw here in the page, process dont happen again, while ensuring the fbi as thee authorities it needs to protect our nation. Im encouraged director to fully accept your specific recommendations but i think congress should alsoro consider reforms to safeguard civil liberty in this regard, and more incentive delays can then senator says. Horowitz do you believe some of the problems you report uncovered your report uncovered with benefit from congressional action to inform the fisa process. We make recommendations to the department. If we make recommendations to congress. Congress though has make important issues to think about in this report. As to how this process can be improved and ensure that these kind of errors are addressed. Moving forward. I am grateful for your service and for your work. We just conclude with one last question. President trump has repeatedly claimed that fbi agents and officials will biased against him. In order to favor the campaign of his opponent heller clinton. In your investigation if you find that the fbi took any investigative steps based on political bias against now President Trump printed. Im going to be careful on that because of the referral we made for the id act on the altered email. And some of the other issues we found in the pie separated. Define any substantive investigative steps that was imposed by bite and pretty. Again im going to be careful because we have a situation where we have the alternateti email on the individual who has ebeen no, and footnotes and Text Messages concerning two identified last year. So im going to defer on what that rational might of been. But that one separate rationale mightve but overarching your conclusion was the initiation of this investigation was well predicated and for a lawful president purpose pretty. Going back to the opening yes. Thank you for your part. Theres a lot of concerns following the opening. I have a lot of concerns about the fisa process. Confidential informant issue, raises significant policy questions but we found that they complied with the fall policies pretty peter work forrm who. Tiover time he moved up the cha. But as some of the key times, recent. Okay. Senator foley. We start with where senator could look up. They have said give significant concerns about the authorization for the application for the fisa wars. You said earlier when it came to politicall bias things get murkier. That correct. Because you can open an investigation and i see this to the former Law Enforcement official myself. You can open at pretty easily. He testified today beacon to be done with it easily we do start actually taking steps and surveys lane. Thats when actually real questions arise in your testimony today has been in this report, is that when that happens, there is potential conservator about political bias. Is that correct. Connections, there are not consistent withs the practices and policies and what we couldnt reach a conclusion on is what motivated that printed. Things very significant. Heres the question. Which is worse. Is it worse to have a Foreign Government trying to meddle in our elections or is worse to have our own government meddling in the elections. I think thats exactly what this report shows. It shows that our government, theis most powerful Law Enforcement agency in the nation, the fbi, effectively metal in an ongoing president ial campaign. The think that gets me is you expect it from Foreign Governments. Another think is good, but you expected. Theyve been doing it for years. Frussias been doing it for years. We know that we didnt love iphone trend is doing and others have been doing it. Wewe know what steps to take. We can take more effectively. When our own government does it, when we do. And theres one actor here who i thinkan is unkind and the credit they collectively deserve nested Democratic National committee. I just think i am or my friends on the other side of that complaint about Hillary Clintons campaign and how ineffective it wasnt at the dnc didnt a good job. I beg to differ. This is the most incredible, the dnc, pays for the dossier, solicit the still dossier and then gives the federal bureau of investigation to go get fisa warrantr, surveilled an american citizen, surveilling president ial campaign, on the basis of this manufactured garbage that they pay for. Coming that is extraordinary. Its gotta be a first time in history. Let me just as you. Are you aware ever, another president ial Committee Campaign being targeted by the fbi during the campaign for the trump one was to your knowledge. Has this neverl happened. I would suggest am an expert. But to your knowledge no pride in correcting and thinking that this still dossier was solicited by and paid for by the d c. This correct . Lookin him clinton campaign, ultimately learned by the fbi there was a case printer that the bully. News we still dossier, and sent to the fbi, fbi goes and finds he sufficed that lawrence was house all of the problems that you articulated if my colleagues have gone out including sometimes outright fabrications of evidence fisa allegations then not only does the fbi get a Surveillance Program ongoing effectively, the president ial campaign during cycle but, they also get the d c also gets, new stories written during the campaign about the Surveillance Program in september of 2016. There is a story about possible counterintelligence of the trum campaign. In october 2016, there is a story about the fbi and missed getting the Trump Campaign and we know that last one, still himself was involved. Is that correct. The fbi actually ultimately knew he was imbibed in september when as well. And it actually what did the fbi do. In november because him. But in the Crossfire Hurricane Teams steps did they take. What happened is because him as a source in november thats when the meetings with mr. Will start with in the conflict. So the fbi still takes the information via doj, which is its own separate unbelievable problem. Yet still entertaining all of this information on board from silane and after they know hes totally incredible to me it is the untold story of the 2006 and campaign. I dont know who the d c caches, but i suppose the, maybe take those victory lap but certainly they should be remembered for it. Get the fbi, to launch pursue surveillance of arrival president ial campaign and then into the newly elected person president. I think its just extraordinary. We ask you this. These individuals whose misdeeds that you have documented here in this report, let the members, think of the cases of other vendor members of the i crossin, and they still see your knowledge, working at the fbi. Some are in my understanding. Connect and why the still there for those who are there. E i think youd have to ask the director. And did i think we should. What about the ones who directly misled the intelligence attorney about our page relationship with other intelligence agencies and ourr government. He directly. To my knowledge that person is still there. Actively working. So mike youll have to aspirate a statement of. Your knowledge what is changed at the event today to prevent Something Like this from happening. Followed that im aware is whats in director raise letter thats attached here. But certainly there are far more reforms and changes that are need it to address all of our recommendations that the beginning, theres a lot more to be done. Is it tooed much i will just see in closing mr. Chairman, i think it is an extraordinary think when the most powerful Law Enforcement agency in the country, maybe the world, is able to effectively intervene and influence in president ial election at the behead and with the incorporation of another flpolitical party. Im in sync with a long time that there is no collusion in the 2016 campaign. Maybe im wrong but i think the collision was between the dnc and the fbi and if we dont change something here, and he doesnt think that this indicates the fbi and no problems, iphone, dont, dont know how any american can have confidence in that institution and in the integrity of our elections of things like this can happen. So thank you mr. Will was for the work you have done. Thank youou mr. Chairman. Thank you for behaving here. Thank you for you and your team for your work. Do you agree that the fbi meddled in the election. What i found is whats in this report. Give evidence that they fbi purposefully intervened to affect the outcome of the 2016 election. Written about what they did here in last year news report in all seven of those findings and those findings alone. And find any conclusions the fbi meddled for interfered with the election to affect the outcome. E. We did not reach that conclusion. He didnt reach a conclusion about the epi by intervening in the election are acting out of political bias. Park. Im going to stick by this report and last year news major election report and what it did because there are specific findings and to specific individuals. Me ask you about some of the findings but let me just see at the very outset, i know your career official. On pay tribute to all of the Law Enforcement officials between the fbi, because i can see how some of whats been said about them, be severely and unfairly demoralizing. Have yourrbe back. When you are out there enforcing the law, with weapons pointed at you, and sometimes they are firearms and sometimes they are political weapons, we should have your back. So some of what has been said here, but also in the larger realm of public comment, i think has been severely a disservice to our Law Enforcement into the United States because where discouraging able and dedicated young people from joining the rank and we need them. I see that as a former United States attorney in the state attorney general. Put some of the best and some of those less than. Let me ask you a few questions about those findings. President trump, has said repeatedly that the fbi quote try to overthrow the presidency. Did you find any evidence that the fbi tried to overthrow the presidency. Y. It. Know what we found was again, laid out here in this report. His back molars there any evidence that you found that the fbi tried overthrow the tesident. Know we found the issues. Did you find any evidence of the fbi tried to entrap anyone. Is the legal matter, we dont see any actual cases come out of this, i think the answered is no phrase no income is. Did you money evidence that the fbi tapped phones at the trump tower. No im the only wiretapping or the surveillance we found was what they out here. You money evidence that the fbi hunted informants in the trunk campaign. No. To join any evidence that the fbi tried specifically to entrap any of the individuals for the focus of their investigation namely metaphor when papadopoulos periods or page. Dramas is illegal turn. We didnt see that in this case. No evidence human entrapment. Let the president has claimed that there was entrapment and the phones will tapped on her page may have been used as a spy you find evidence that the fbi asfound spies was wise and trunk campaign. I am going to speak to the terminology used with the department that we oversee, which is confidential human sources and we did not find evidence with fbi saw it on to praise confidential human sources inside the campaign or place them inside campaign. Would youce agree with the contention that the russia investigation including the molar investigation, was a quote unquote, bogus narrative. We dont address the russian or take issue with scaling at all. Soon i can thank you found or agreed with muller that the russian government attacked our democracy and a sweeping and systematic way. Correct. With a couple of pages to reference on the Mueller Report and other reports as well. Did you show this report to attorney general and more before it was released. As a standard process we foprovide this to the attorney general, and to the fbi rorector. Expect to be suggesting changes. And suggest anyhe changes. Any questions questions we found a few typos and suggested we might want to think about greatest. She mustve been surprised by the attack on you and your team. Know is some idea it wasnt completely supportive of that. You think it was fair. His stomach either cases where there have been disagreements of the cone on its pretty. Only give you a chance to defend yourself and your team. Tom done a highly professional job here. Hundreds of witnesses, hardo work, do you think this attack on you and your team is fair. Said this. My defense of our team and work that was done by the report. Nothing ever heard of us change our view, the department and the attorney general the day beauty attorney general news free to disagree with my conclusions. I didnt take those deep job to be popular and have my feelings hurt. Assuming i simply would not agree with the characterizations that the agency involved in this work, and the investigation of the russian attack on our democracy or quote calm,. I would not call people names like that. I welcome my colleague newfound a new nation about the potential reform of the fica, and the process, and you will know im sure the reforms have been suggested in fact, i authored these quote reform act. It was in 2013. Aging cosponsors. All democrats. The legislation wouldve created a special advocate, it wouldve created other checks because of the fisa process, is secret. Ordinarily we dont want our adversaries to know when investigating. There still needs to be checks and balances and screaming to make sure that Accurate Information is presented to the fisa judges. Unfortunately, some got lost in some did it. There into pet thousand 15. I know not your job to make recommendations about fisa quote reforms but you think that your report indicates the need for the kind of reform that i proposed in the reform act of 2013. I think thats very important to have consideration of reforms like that. Andin we dont make the recommendations but we are always available to help with legislation drafting or other. I hope we can make use of your expertise in this area and i hope my republican colleagues, vocal about the dangers about potential fisa abuse will join me in looking forward and reform of that quote. He shows report United States attorney ford them. In november he received a he of the report. During the process, according to our usual practice. Assume that there been public records of their work references at least one, to the United States attorney doran in this report. Is that correct britishen stomah im not going to get into what was in an earlier draft for comments and the whole reason we do this with the drafts, is to allow for us to engage with individuals. In the department and the fbi, make changes only get things wrong. Make changes if they think we need to clarify. I would rather not get into an autographed reports might might not have said. They make western changes. Told us what he disagreed with. We consider is, so what you see here is our final things that we stand by. I mentioned earlier and nature of our conversation. If you remove any reference to him and his work again, i dont believe i can get into or sinking into alertness unit inside. Rose made that is made to the review process. We dont make many think we Start Talking about it being comments on it wouldbe a challenge of these which is partly why was advised by the press release. Did you conclude in his report that your findings shared a grotesque abuse of power. We did not. Would not see that in the report. Which we knew would you agree that characterization prints met we did not reach a conclusion like that so i would agree with that at this. From my standpoint, people can have that viewpoint, but that was not our conclusion. One last question. Those fisa warrants. They were renewed a number of times. Correct. Three times. Based on your experience may be her record, theres a reason why warrants are renewed. There are renewed because they are producing useful information correct. They should be producing useful information. In your review of those warrants would indicate they were producing useful information correct. Smack not sure thats entirely correct i dont know how much i can see about that in the setting. They were producing information. Yes but would not like to see whether they were helpful or not. E the Russian Investigation produced 37 individual indictment seven and five prison terms, and hopefully, they will send a message to adversaries, the russians and other nations, the mr. Moeller warned about it will be action taken against them and i hope that we can continue come together in a bipartisan basis to reform the fisa prospect just as importantly forestall the ongoing attack on our democracy. I think that maybe the most important. Here. And that your report, in every possible way to alarm americans on about the ongoing attack on our nation by the russians and the nations. Thank you. How would you describe the behavior here and knowing that that some sort in the dossier that was the primary reason you got a mark. In finding that a lawyer dr. Email, investigation going away unfair to mr. Page, this has brought routine. This is would you agree with that pretty. Is certainly better not be retained innocently i think it is routine. This payment is kind of off the charts bed pretty. It prettyy bad. That is good prelude to where i wanted to head mr. Chairman. Mr. Horwitz thank you for writing here. Lets do a great work. I commend your staff for the top notch effort here. I dont think anybody is questioning the quality of your work. Im not an attorney, ive never argued the case before the Supreme Court. Im not a prosecutor or solicitor general. Im a business person so i have been trying to figure out how the average citizen would look d toat this at this hearing andy to understand what we are trying to get to hear. We mentioned wont or twice that when people ask you about local motivation, it has to do with the renewal request for the fisa warrants, is murky. I just decided means i used to do a lot of organization charts, that i tried and explained to the American Peoplei wipe it couldnt get a little bit murky. I will focus mainly in the doj chargers and roughly the Organization Structure that was in place at the doj. Hard to lets get some of the characters who will not on the doj work chart on a very vote with those who are afraid so i want to get this we started with a dossier, those before to be prepared by gps. By the d c. Estate was a part of that process. Is that correct. That was parked pretty. And his primary sensors was somebody who was when he was finallyha questioned, so they misstated or exaggerated our statements, that the alleged sexual activities will rumors speculations. That the conversations will having with friends of our beers and so on and so forth. So that was something after the dossier was used in this debate for moving forward, i was information that came out that was known to people in this organization chart. Those before they attempted to the quote that the fbi found that the russian based support to be truthful and cooperative. Thats an accurate statement. But if they had included it, all the truthful and cooperative, see wouldbe made, seems to me that wouldve had in a different effect on the renewal. It seems to me. And the omission of something as profound as this, to not infer from that, that it was a political motivation, lets take politics and agenda, this is something we want to get renewed. Want to continue to be an investigative. I dont understand how that doesnt carry a fair amount of weight. Now want to get to this organization are. So here you can see about it is on record with the doj. So have this guy appear reports into the office. When steel, was no longer allowed to speak with the fbi because he was shopping the dossier i guess to make money in whatever or for reason. In the fbi, conveniently accepted for. From and instill somebody who works for dps on behalf of the d c to get the dossier which is now been proven largely proven, false. His wife actually works for dps. None is nearly when the investigation was going on, but you can read to simply that she had relationships there. But when they why not steal as a source of information for the fbi, to hear you are right that multiple times on the fbi seems to warmly received feedback from steel through or printed. Identified 13 occasions. So this guy the org chart, debbie attorney general, he never committed a catered with any of his staff or any of its securitiesp that he was doing this pretty select the spread pretty. Probably because he asked for approval,h he wouldnt have gotten it. Essentially is pretty. So he wanted to apologize sms for approval. So the american need people enough, these are people that are walking down the hallway and into the meeting with the director of the fbi. This page right here, and on the store chart, shes a special counsel to any mechanic. As a matter of fact, it looks slike so been page, or in the office and roughly the timefra timeframe, this is very important. This somebody here on the org chart. It worked for the director of the fbi. Hes never going to be president right. This guy on the heart, is in the future this other guy, future Text Messages talks about meeting with mckay, says no he wont we will stop impregnating is on the site want to believe the path that you throughout for consideration, that andy. Ellipsis mccabes office that there is no way he gets elected. Im afraid we cant take that risk. Second insurance policy, in the unlikely event that you die before your party. These are all people that are walking the hallways involved in this investigation having the source of discussions about the president of the United States. The candidates and that the president of the United States. Is that one of the reasons why you are being fairminded and staying that it is murky as to whether or not it was political motivation might some of these behaviors in a false premise for the renewals of the fisa warrant. The cert concern grows out of the fact that all ofa the failures in the information that should been given and wasnt given, and the question being what was the intent, was their intentions are motivation here. What we determined was we couldnt definitively see what the motivation was pretty stomach is the pretty smart people. Great fairly well educated. Its as well educated. I assume so. I was going to see, yes pretty. A lot degrees. Some of them do pretty. So these are for people at this loophole of the organization,. To be clear, this incident happened with basic stuff. You didnt need to be deeply experienced fbi agent. Sooner thats my. So wouldnt you that all of us be muscle memory for people going through this process to know that they had an obligation to go through that braided stomach they clearly should have. One and also seem reasonable that if they did it, castro news question but to me seem like if something is the standard that process before you go to the fisa quote, to not do it, but something that they intend enough to do it then wanting a threat. And seem to be a logical conclusion. In the u. S. Yourself. Well because we dont want this guy to be elected president. And if he does, sounds like they want to impeachment. I cant understand anybody working in this organization understanding the scrutiny that we have placed on the fisa courts and by the way, count me in, because we now have seen the abuses you warned us about pretty good sparking you because you are right. I mean, it seems to me, that this organization, this closely held organization of highly educated and experienced people, have to believe they were handpicked for this process. They were picked because they had some of the best reputations in there. They had to know that this was going to come to this. There is going toth be scrutinized. Regardless of who the subject of the investigation was, if the names will changed and the parties will change, we would still be here. And it looks like they were trying to stay along this edges and get away with something to me. And i can imagine they did it ikfor any other reasons that a political motivation and i dont expect you to respond that because you are doing a great job at only to the scope of your report but nobody can tell me that the at this caliber, with the records of partisan, this profanity about this president , to see whats, we just forgot to do a standard procedure for review. You would probably w expect onef their staff to her three levels notice that you need to do it. It doesnt make sense to me. On ask another question. Be gotten a lot of questions today there is nothing to do with your report. And i think youve done a very good job about staying im sticking to the report. You can do other reports. Would you agree that you a lot of questions today that had nothing to do with what you are here to talk about today. Certainly had several pretty smug so i also wonder if that is also politically motivated. What i found interesting was that we do have people are using this as a platform on the other side of the business, when we need to revise and look at the ofisa process. In a way you would use this as a platform to do that unless you thought physical guys with the fisa process was abused. Then if you look at this information, this ecosystem smart people, who i think turned a blind eye to damning evidence to serve as a basis for renewal of the fisa report, it is just beyond my comprehension. In the weight of this a evidenc, and your report, i think is pretty strong. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the oh, when we take of impeachment up next month, that same standard for the weight of evidence that will going to be asked to look at. Thank you mr. Chair. You identified significant issues for the fisa application process for conducting surveillance on page. Frozen vacation, really where problems with the use of the fisa . No but we have done report since united 11 my office. Assuming we consider and tell us that there was only current with regarding to this fisa application process. Its met with identified problems in the past. I will so weve never donees did into one as deep as this pretty. And have a number of us, several of the and we understand that. There are issues that are hard to process and back have you pointed out, the errors etc. And the director acknowledged your findings in fact he is moving ahead to make improvements to the fisa process and is devoted to make it yet a much stronger institution. Thats correct. Would you agree thats a major decision to see authority to conduct surveillance on american. I agree. Its met to the fbi world politically motivated to want surveillance, limit the decision to see fisa it could affect it. Yes pretty. And be a pretty good time for any kind of political bias manifest itself. Mary found no evidence of political bias in deciding to see fisa approval. We did not find such evidence. Its met clearly to report on monday, let the attorney general enter in, immediately issued public statements the challenge of finding the report. Attorneyrn general and more stad that they now makes clear that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of u. S. Residential campaign on the suspicions that in my view will insufficient to justify. Can you. To the page or pages in your report that found the fbi launched an intrusive investigation on the system suspicion that will insufficient to justify the fbi news actions. Samantha cleef that there was sufficient predication. Would you consider words like intrusive investigation, mutual words. Im going to let others answered. Stick to what says everyone is entitled but i think we all know what constitutes fair. I would see has brought fair. Yesterday attorney general and more went on tv to challenge the validity of the findings in your report and suggested, in its own fbi agents acted in faith, or improperly motived. And itva was premature to concle otherwise. In these insinuations are inconsistent with your report and one justification that he gave for regarding the key finding inner part was that unlike the investigator handpicked, mr. Durham, you could not connect this morning. Interviewed more than a hundred witnesses investigation in your report, you are unable to compel testimony from two people. And jonathan when you are pretty. He started only two people for who you couldnt compel their testimony or who wouldnt testify or talk to you. Its about this with only two people we ask to interview turned to stone. I do think that the fact that you did not interview these two witnesses, undermined the conclusions in your report. That you found no documentary for testimony and political bias in opening the investigation signifies authority. I dont believe any of our esconclusions and i wouldve ben good to have evidence. Like is normally pretty. Do you think that findings a report you wrote or are inaccurate because he lacked the authority to compel witnesses. Not in this instance no. In april 2019, the attorney general bar told congress how i think spike did it for and im talking about the fbit investigation of the Trump Campaign ties. With the russian government and the 2016 investigation. And yesterday he reiterated that sse Trump Campaign was clearly, spied upon. He claimed the fbi news investigation, actions which you defense in your report, onto stew, spying. In order spying, carries him as negative connotation, dont you think. It sounds like Law Enforcement is doing something they are not authorized to do. They were spy on us. Its in this way, we used in only real in the word that is then the law which is surveillance pretty. Yet we have the highest Law Enforcement person in our entire country using word not just one but hes using the word spying. Clearly, your report sounded that the fbi news investigation was born authorized inadequate predicate and you would not characterize that spying did you not use such a word in your report. So that we dont use that. Do you think questioning the motives of your staff, or possibly imbibing choosing them of spying, wouldbe demoralizing to your people. I would not speak my folks about them acting in that manner. You think thats a way to characterize them. We do all do in your professional capacity. I think thats a rhetorical question. So, Law Enforcement staff investigation is intrusive and based on the suspicions are the professionalism of your people. I think that is probably also not terribly edifying. Or supportive. Does the attorney general provide you with any evidence that support his claimls that te fbi agents will spying. In terms of evidence, wouldnt get any evidence from the attorney general, we did meet with mr. Durham and had a discussion with him, but we as i said, are standing by our conclusions. Doesnt bother you you have the attorney general using words like spying to characterize what they have acted on an authorized process. Inspector general, going to stick what do, and what weve said. And not try to guess the motives of ideas or thoughts are of anyone else out there pretty soon if ir need you jumping up and down. Leaving on. On november 21st, doctor phil hill, the former National Security director, for one that russia had you not to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. Even as we speak, thats what theyre doing. She also warned congress against promoting the fictional narrative that you plan rather than restaurant appeared with the 2016th u. S. Election. In these conspiracy theories she said, clearly advanced russians Interest Rates if the director restated on monday, let the fbi has no information that would indicate ukraine try to interfere with the 2016 president ial election. We talk about and fear. Talking about the kind of systematic government sanctions, interference with our electiono process in russia engaged in. Theres no way that ukraine can engaged in that kind of systematic interference. In all ofan the documents that u reviewed, hundred witnesses, defining evidence that contradicts fbi director race statement that the fbi has no information that indicates ukraine try to interfere in the 2016 election question and more. Wouldnt see any such evidence but emphasized that was the purpose pretty. I know you would think that you are looking looking for a million documents. Fortunately not me. The team. If. Something here that redwood reference ukraine that would interfere that russia didm question and more i know enclosure, husky about this and i want to make it clear. Is there anything in the report causing the concussion and the conclusion of the more report that russia interfered. In a sweeping and systematic fashion. No. Tonight and you know that the Mueller Investigation six convictions of comp associates and 37 indictments. Is there anything that calls intoio question, and the molars conclusione that the trump only knew about the russian interference with the intrusion and expected it to benefit electorally from it. No. And he received a lot of requests from republican and democratic members of congress to do certain investigations and a minimum bowsprit i realize you had to take certain factors into certain. The only sma resources. We just ask you to invest it was weather attorney general bar handling of the Mueller Report was misleading and did he demonstrate bias and dealing with the Mueller Investigation. In live of the fact that i am sure you consider, we take a look at the request that i am my colleagues sent you to see whether your ever able to investigate any of them pretty. So that, and be happy to come up and meet with you in person. That conversation with some of the members of the committee. The letters asking us to look at the conduct of senior lawyers at the department, directly implicate section 80 of the Inspector General act. That prohibits me from looking at conduct of lawyers in the capacity as lawyers. Senator lee has sponsored the bill past has unanimously bipartisan pending here several members of the committee of cosponsors started. That provision prevents me from undertaking investigations of misconduct by senior Department Lawyers. Briny Department Lawyers. This is one time when actually, i think i agree with senator liebman we need to make that kind of change to enable you to make the kind of investigation that we arere askg you to make. Thank you. I be happy to talk with you further about that. Has anybody been convicted of the crime of working with the russian government associated with the Trump Campaign. That you know of. Not that i know of. Distractible they have. So whatever committees has got nothing to do with what is colluding with the russians. That is what got us here. And about what happenedve here. If the government is surveilling an american citizen, pursuant to a fisa warrant, and the government comes in and the information is given to the government i question the foundation of the warrant, is there an obligation to tell the corporatist aboutt absolutely. Is manifest they lie to the quote about the information i had. Gave misleading and inAccurate Information. At what. In a surveillance become illegal. Can become an authorized, depending. I would let others who have ability to address some of these issues to decide with the precise loophole of intent was. News number is a. I may have started lawfully. Got off ofen the real quick. Became a credible criminal conspiracy. The fraud defies the quote. Mr. Pages gone through hell. And continue to surveilled President Trump after he got elected. And have somebody pays a price for that. We news you certainly have done your part. Mr. Chair thank you very much Inspector General coming here today presenting this information. I know that a couple of others have focused on this. I would like to dive back in. The first, there is a lot of respect out there. There hasd been for the fbi. And i remember as a kid, i think movies are sized the portray the fbi and i thought well because of the good guys. And i think what we have seen through the vast number of yea years, number of months is that a few bad actors have really squandered that away and think the American People look at the fbi and think, author doing this to president ialaw candidate, wht they did to me. Just a normal american citizen. Are they really there for me. Im just so sorry that this has led to this. That is not a mistake, it just reeks of ill wishes to do harm. So again, i think the fbi, with always thought of it is such a great institution, and now im looking at all of this information, weve all reviewed the report, and i think for gods sake what isns going on here . So thank you for doing this work, i think its really important we look at whats going on why it happens, and id like to focus a little more on the discipline aspect of this. These mistakes were made by some people who really wanted to do bad harm to an individual. Wa illegally. So peter strzok was fired from the fbi. Is that correct . That is correct. So he still has a merit system protection board that is not yet adjudicated is that correct . Thats my understanding. Does that mean thats determination is final or not final . Im going to get ahead of my legal him liabilities if i give you the my opinion on his legal rights. It seems that there is one individual referred for possible criminal prosecution. Based on the ig review. Andpo thats the person who altered the email to imply carter page was not or was never a source for another agency. So with that apparent concealment of facts from the fisa court, especially as it relates to the accuracy of steeles reporting, can you explain why there were no more criminal referrals . Will be ultimately decided was the conduct here warranted sending the entire reports to the fbi and the department for review. For review from the line agent all the way to the top of the people who were still at the fbi. And as we said, we did not see documents and testimony of intent. But we also did not hear good explanations what left us with an open x blood nation on what the state of mind was, in the adjudicated process the fbi will now assess that. So, we dont know if anyone else that has been fired or reassigned . I dont know as i sit here, that would have to come from that of the department. Okay, so with that, how many case agents and filed with fives the applications in a report are still active case agents today . As i sit here i cant tell you the precise number. There are several who still are. That are active . That are still active agents whether they are still in certain roles or not, i do not know. Okay, because you dont know specifically if they are still working his case agents, do you believe if they were working his case agents, that the information contained in your report as it relates to those case agents should be released to other criminal defendants under the departments policy . I think this raises those kinds of issues for the department to review and consider what they have to do to remedy any wrongs here. Andid for those folks who are watching this back at home in iowa, can you talk a little bit about the giglio policy . So in criminal cases for example, when an agent is found to engage in misconduct, whether by a judge or by the department of justice, there is an obligation under Supreme Court case called the giglio case to notify the defendant of the wrongdoing or harm or miss contact impeachable evidence those sorts of things and that obligation is taken seriously. It has to be taken seriously. I have done Law Enforcement Corruption Cases is the ausa in one of the first things we do, including now is ig will me find issues is to notify prosecutors the department and Law Enforcement to ensure that they take appropriate steps in a timely way. To make sure those agents or prosecutors but we are talking but agents here, arent continuing to pursue cases, or iarent allowed to stay in those positions if they violated the trust that they have been given. I think that is important, the reason we are talking a low bit about this in discipline, policy and procedures is because the American People, again when they look at an institution like the fbi, they want to know that they are the good guys. And if they are not good guys, they need to go. I think the American Public gets tired of seeing bad actors with no repercussions. Very important from our standpoint as the Inspector Generals Office that there be accountability for all conduct acrosstheboard but certainly for misconduct. In performance failures, and those need to be taken into account. Yes performance failures, lying, theres a lot going on in the department. They were not just mistakes that somebody casually mention. These are not just mistakes. This was bad conduct. It was intentional. So i do think that as we see this move on, move forward, that anybody that was involved in those malicious activities os gone. So, a little bit about policy and procedures just very quickly. The igs office is previously identified a pattern of leaks and improper contact between fbi employees in the media. Part of the decision to work in the crossfire hurricane case out of the fbi headquarters, it does seem to be due to the fear of leaks if it were actually worked out in the field. So can you characterize how much of a problem leaks are . And those unauthorized contacts between the media and members within the fbi . So we identified this last year end our clinton election report, the number of contacts and we have seen it as we have donee these reports subsequent to that and finding inappropriate, improper contact between agents in the media. Since a report last year, director ray has put out a new policy and take a new training to deal with that. To try to address that interchange the culture, which is what we talked about a year ago. The culture and the viewpoint in a federal criminal investigation, fairness to the defendant, the subject of the investigation. Fairness to the victims if t there are victims. Fairness to the process requires people, agents work in these cases to keep their head down, work the case, and not disclose information to outside parties whether its media, friends, relatives, neighbors, or whomever. That information has to say in the office. Pa and so there has been a policy changed. But one of the repercussions if someone is found guilty . If they are found guilty and engaging in those unauthorized contacts with the media. That is on the things are gonna follow up with the fbi on. Soupas we referred them, whats actually been the penalty thats been imposed. What is happened to those folks and how has that message getting out, not just publicly but internally. That they are going to be consequences for that. Because without the consequences the deterring effect goes away. Absolutely come in there is no restoration of trust in the agency if they are not repercussions to those that are maliciously pursuing these types ofre activities. So i appreciate your time, i appreciate your team, and the work they put into the report. And in all fairness, weve got to do better. And we have a long ways to go to restore trust int. The fbi and anyone working with the fbi. So again, i appreciate it thank you so much. Thank you mr. Cherry yelled back. Mr. Hair welcome back. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Horwich thank you for conducting your thorough investigation into the Russian Investigation. So your report makes clear that the fbi had a legitimate reason to investigate the Trump Campaign is that correct . Yes. And your office found no evidence that the fbi launched a politically motivating investigation is that correct . Sumac yes. And the fbi had several errors in their applications to surveilled carter page. And maybe some more than several. And ends ray had serious misconduct and directory also say that the fbi fully accepts your investigation and findings. Is n that correct . That is correct. On the other hand attorney general bar has been highly critical of your findings. During the final stages of your investigation, he even embarked on his own personal investigation. He did that by meeting with foreign late meters in foreign lands. In the search of evidence that contradicts the fact that russia interfered in the 2016 United States president ial election. That was to benefit trump. Clearly, bars investigation was launched to do the bidding of President Trump has two objectives. One, to undermine the integrity of our Intelligence Community, the goal to cast doubt ontw the finding that russia interfered in the 2016 election in order to benefit the Trump Campaign and two, to intimidate the men and women of our Intelligence Community. They did that by suggesting our National Security professionals will face serious consequences if they investigate wrongdoing on the part of this president or his operatives. The horwitz i appreciate your extensive work in the time your office is devoted to this investigation. But in addition, you have the power and the duty to investigate misconduct committed by the attorney general of the United States who is doing the bidding of the president , to undermine our Intelligence Community. And i trust you take that duty seriously. I do, and i would just like ri add that under the law, under the Inspector General act, it carves out for my authority the ability to look at misconduct by Department Lawyers from the line all the way to the top and the attorney general. But histories also shown us that the Inspector General can participate in an investigation of the inserted general and that in fact happened with general gonzalez, you recall that. That happened and its worth noting that happened after the attorney general said our office was not going to get the case, it was going to go to the office of professional responsibility and the choice for our office was whether to join that investigation or not. But that was not initiated through us. Thats the important. The law has to change, senator. So youre recommending law change so if i propose legislation to change light would support that . Yes senator lee has has cosponsored, the houses passes unanimously. And you would support that . Absolute. And it was recently reported rudypo giuliani has ukrainians to search for dirt on the rival president and stands for help he offered to Fix Community cases against him at the d. O. J. Giuliani and two of his associates have been indicted in federal custody had allegedly reached out to you creating energy types couldnt face legal problems in america. In exchange for helping find dirt on the president s political rivals, giulianis associates reportedly connected the ukrainian with lawyers who could get a toplevel meeting at the United States department of justice. In essence, giuliani scheme was an attempt to trade a get out of jail free charger for political favors. As part of giulianis plan, attorney general bar met with ukrainian lawyers, who asked at the department of justice h withdraw evidence in the tycoons bribery prosecution. Earlier today, you said you are not investigating matters related to ongoing ukraine issues. Does that mean you have decided not to investigate these incidents . No, as i think i was mentioned in a recent letter, and i have been in touch with the fellow igs who have been asked by members to look at those issues, we have been in communication with each other. I think is mr. Fine, the Defense Department ig wrote to several members of congress, he was forgoing at the time undertaking any work while the house investigation proceeded and any matters here in the a senate. As i mentioned we will look accordingly at any action we have jurisdiction to review getting back to the section 80 discussion. No other ig has that limitation by the way. So they can investigate their secretary, deputy secretary, administrator, whomever. I just. That out because thats important to keep in mind as wese get requests and why are we different than the state department ig. The ep ig. Mp i couldnt agree with you more. Do you agree that if giuliani scheme is alarming . I think anything like that would be very concerning. And mr. Giuliani recently searchd to ukraine in of dirt on the president s political rivals. Apparently in order to cook up a dossier of his own. Yesterday told reporters President Trump asked him to brief the Justice Department and Senate Republicans on what if anything he finds. Do you and are you concerned that the Justice Department would coordinate with the president s personal lawyer on a scheme clearly designed to benefit the president Political Campaign . I am going to look at the evidence myself and the facts ive learned before taking any action to not just rely on news reports or other allegations, but to actually spend the time to look at them. So i would ask to take a look at that and again be happy to commune to meet with you and talk to you. Please do i would happy to do that. Is it appropriate for the attorney general anyone at the department of justice to take actions that are solely designed to benefit the president politically . I think that would create questions on various rules of the department and practices of the department. Us during attorney general bars last appearance before this committee, i asked him has the president or anyone at the white house ever suggested that you open an investigation of anyone. After pondering the word suggests, the attorney general declined to answer. The attorney generals nonresponse suggested to many that he has open politically motivated investigation. Indeed we know that during a call with the president of ukraine, the President Trump said that attorney general bar would follow up regarding the favor the president demanded. N did the attorney general or anyone at justice followup of the president s call . I do not know the answer that question. Is any light in your office know the answer that question. I dont think anyone in my office knows about that. And then get to the weather we open investigation or not. But that would fall squarely on the prohibition of my jurisdiction. Sumac President Trumps phone solicitation of a interference in the 2020 election. And the call involved officials of multiple agencies including the department of justice, the state department, the office of management and budget and others. Are you working with the inspectors general of these various agencies on that issue . As i mentioned, allegations that come in we will talk to our fellow igs. On that specific one are you working with other igs . I dont have any ongoing work at this. Rkhe my legal,whatep if i would have Statutory Authority to look at actions by lawyers at the Department Related to misconduct. Have you been approached by any other igs to work with them on an investigation that relates that phone call . Obviously bighead discussions generally. I dont know what other igs have or do not have Ongoing Investigations. You had conversations generally about thisi uncle . About generally ukraine related matters and discussions, generally. Helped specifically about this uncle . I dont recallrs as i hear discussions about it but i need to reflect my my recognition on this. I spent a great deal of time dealing on the 400 plus page report we are dealing with today. Involving a crane . Yes. The american system of justice was founded on equal justice under the law and that principle obviously means that there cannot be one system of justice for one group ofce people and different system of justice for others. And ive spent my career fighting for equal justice and i will tell you that everybody in the department of justice obviously has a duty to make sure people have a fair shot. Unfortunately, recent reports suggest the action stays by the Justice Department leaders fell far short of their obligations to pursue equal and evenhanded justice. For example in 2011, the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that pave the way for states to legalize online gambling, this opinion was opposed by Sheldon Nadel sent his major donors donors spent millions of dollars to support President Trump. And his lobbyist also sent a memo to the top d. O. J. Officials asking that the opinion be reversed. And of course then the lcdki reverse the 2011 opinion in january. It has your office investigated what political however how it adjusted that . Sumac im pretty sure we be barred from addressing that with the prohibition. I dont think we would have legal authorityty of why the office of Legal Counsel made a decision one way or the other unless there was a criminal it. Gation connected to my time is up, thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman and again i joined pfister horwitz and thanking you and your team for the work that you have done here. Im going to go back to an issue that is him and talked about many of my colleagues today and that is his question of bias. And actually want to start about going to june of 2018 when you were last here before the committee. When i ask questions of you at that time, i talked about your findings then with regards to bias. The specific focus that i recall was peter strzok and lisa page. And the information that had already been well presented here about what i considered to be the undeniable bias that they had against ther president , President Trump. At that time, you made similar statements to those she made today. Did not find bias in the decisions that you are evaluating in that report. But as i went through that with you, i think you also confirmed that you are not saying that there was no bias bym those who were involved in making decisions. Rather you are saying you cannot prove that that bias was a factor in their management of the activities they engaged in on behalf ofha the fbi. As i understood it, you said that there was bias but in fact that you had asked them whether they are biased influence there just work performance and they told you that it did not. You had no contrary evidence to dispute that, is that correct . Let me clarify and explain. We found that those Text Messages evidenced by us, but we ultimately found was that other people were involved and made many of those decisions, not them. And that was the base and not because we didnt know if they were bias most tech show that evidence. A question is those other individuals that did not have Text Messages for there is biased by those individuals. Theyll be consistent with what your report here today says. As im reading from the executive summary, Deputy Attorney general think thats his title assistant director i depend on the time period. He is the one who made the finalsi decision to open each of the four investigations. Correct. He did that in consultation with a number of others including peter strzok. Correct. You dont necessarily know what advice was given in those conversations do you . I dont. But he made the final decision and because you had no common youve used the phrase very consistently the you did not find documentaryte or testimonial evidence that political biased improper motivation influence the decision to open these four investigations. Did you asked mr. Estep if he had bias . We asked all the witnesses not just him whether bias or other improper considerations had any impact. But we also looked for emails, Text Messages, documents that could show what we found frankly what was there. That is how you find evidence in bias. Beyond that im stuck trying to understand what is in somebodys head. I understand i just want to make it really clear what you are saying it whatth you are not saying. When this case what you are saying is you could not find any documentary or testimonial evidence toot contradict the statements of the investigators that they were not letting biased influence their decision. Correct. Do you believe thats an open question . I can only speak to the evidence we found. I think the important. Here, and i made that. Earlier, all the evidences here. People are free to consider, evaluate, ultimately what they think peoples motivations were. We dont. We dont make that decision. We dont make the decision on ultimately information evidence we dontno have. And that it that somebody may have acted on. But is my opinion i think the opinion of most of us on this side of the aisle least of talk you today, i think there is tons of evidence of bias here. In fact you have referred for further action to the attorney general one case for criminal prosecution, if i understand it right. In other cases of how many other individuals . But are we tied with the fisa, and there is a distinction of. [inaudible] there is a demonstrate the conduct. Correct ive tried to separate those. I pressured that of separation. Looks to me like there is intense bias, and i understand you are not making that judgment. You are referring that to the attorney general, correct . Yes into the fbi. And i to agree with senator ernst comment, similar hilarity if you cannot contradict their statements, that leaves an open question as to what the fbi or the attorney general will find with these referrals. There are significant serious fails years here on the operation of the physis weather is sheer gross incompetence that led to this versus intentional misconduct and what the motivation. Or anything in between what the motivations are, i can tell you. I cant tell you as i sit here today, because i dont have enough evidence to reach a conclusion. But if someone is trying to characterize what youre trying to say is your telling us theres bias or not . There is not to the operation of this size. Okay understood. And i didnt want to get to this question though, about the operation, of the physis. And again you may not answer this comment fine. But t it seems to me if we goe beyond the bias question to intentional versus grossly negligent, it seems to me the kind of misconduct that has been presented by you and reviewed by our chairman and many others here today, is mindnumbing to consider that it could just be accidental. Can you reach a conclusion like that . I would be skeptical, but i understand why people would be skeptical about. There is such a range of conduct here thate is inexplicable. And the answers we got s were not satisfactory that we are left trying to understand how could all of these errors have occurred over a nine month period or so on three teams, handpicked. One of the highest profile ith is the highest profile case and the fbi going to the very top of the organization of the president ial campaign. Understand and i appreciate that. I think it is explicable, and i understand that you cant or at least are going to make that jump. You are going to refer these cases. And i appreciate that. His criminal prosecution a possible action in the cases other than the ones you specifically referred . I would not want to prejudge her prejudice anything. Ill leave it to the department to speak to you on that. All right. Let meud go on for just a moment, lets move to the whistleblower question. Just once more. I know im shifting topics completely. This is come up several times today and i understand your. That a whistleblower is entitled to anonymity. Explained to me how it happens that the person accused when Whistleblower Makes an accusation, canhe have the right that most americans think they should have two confront those testifying against them. How is that accomplished . I will speak to what we do. We get anonymous allegations frequently. We get people coming forward who are reporting misconduct who want to be anonymous. They want to stay anonymous. We get them both ways we got people walking and saying keep me anonymous and we get anonymous complaints. We move forward on both think they are sufficient to move morward on, and are predicated and have support. But we then have to prove the orlegations and get cooperation for because you are right, the individual if there is a finding of misconduct, has a right to ultimately challenge the evidence found. But it doesnt necessarily mean they get all the way back to where the nugget started, if that information is cooperated through other means. In the ig act requires us actually, the congressional law says, and senator grassley several in this, makes it quite clear. Unless we are legally obligated to provide the information, the law requires us to do so. Its our obligation is ig to keep that information. Why appreciate that because we may face that question here in the senate relatively quickly. And last but question im running out of time, like a quick answer if you could. Im trying to find out who wrapped the steele dossier to the attention of the fbi for the investigation . Was it and your mccabe or was that. So it was steel in july 5 of 2016 going to his handling agents, the agent, there is a dispute weathers a confidential source or not, theres another number of pages on that. Its the agent steel had a relationship with is the agent he went to with some of his reports. That agent then took put it through a process at the fbi. And then it took from july 5 to september 19 to get the information to the Crossfire Hurricane Team. Eventually in that meandering over the two and a half months, there is information we conclude and hear mr. Mccabe was referring over to the Crossfire Hurricane Team. Okay thank you. Long day general, youve got 30 kidneys,. For 20 more minutes. Im in a try to land this plane early. I believe the fbi is the premier Law Enforcement agency and all of human history. Would you disagree with that . I would not. Lisa currently have some bad apples, i want to thank you on i want to thank your team for your usual superb job. After i i have not read the entire report of about 70 of the way through and im going to finish it. But it is tedious. And i dont mean that a node negative sense it is supposed to be tedious. After about 15 of the way through it made me want to heave. After about 25 of the way through, i thought i had dropped acid. It was surreal. I mean i just could not believe it. I have read it multiple times, and every time i read it. Let me ask you this, howe many members comprised the misfire Hurricane Team . There were three teams over that period of time. I would venture to guess, again depending on how you count them,. Just roughly. At least a half a dozen to a dozen on each of those reiterations. In my somewhat close . Does that include their supervisors . Half a dozen to a dozen . Probably a little more if youre going to go all the way up the chainrv through the bureau. You and your team have a feel for how many of these folks are still at the fbi . I know you tried to answer that you know that . While the higher level people have changed over. In the last year so the director, deputy director, the assistant director of the Deputy Assistant director. A lot of the upper levels are nono longer there. Are at thest agents . Are they still working on phis applications . I wouldre encourage you to speak to the fbi about that. I think they have taken some steps in that regard. I think we will, its easier to divorce your spouse on her than to get fired. Thats clear. Releases theeg fbi. As mr. Or still at the Department Justice . Is my understanding he is. He still there . Its my understanding. How long withinhe the fbi, and i know you just issued your report, but how long when the fbi has this been knowledge. So we sent the draft for classification. Notth the document just the fact that there is a major screw up here . It evolves over time. They did not know a lot of this until we found it. What they know now right . The altered email, thats the thing as of the end of august. Does your report indicate mr. Comey . It does notou indicate anybody at the fbi. , mr. Mccabe, ms. Page . A little different there it we found out she wasnt involved in this. So she largely was not involved in this. She participated in. She did some discussions but was not in the pfizer chain. On that note who briefed the agent thated was sent to surveilled Michael Flynn during the meeting with President Trump . That was discussed up and down the chain at the fbi. So that was not a hidden factor hidden information. All right. I like the fact that you and your team are very precise in your language. I mean ive wish i wrote as well as you and your team do. And i notice that you are careful to say it im not a quote hear hear we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influence the decisions to open the four individual investigations. Your words . Correct. No documentary evidence of testimonial evidence. So you didnt find any documents that said we did this to get trump . Dright . Or Text Messages. And nobody who is involved in this circus without a kent, look to in the eye and said yep i did it to get trump. Nobody did that. Or for example a whistleblower other people commit and tell us. But none of these ages you talk to look to in the eye and said that that i did it to did trump. And nobody came in and set i have a problem with whats going on. You do not have to qualify as a mensa material to know not to do that to the Inspector General, right . So yes look at some of the Text Messages we found. So im not sure, that may be a counter narrative to that. I understand, i dont want to mince words up is the absence of evidence always the evidence of absence . No it isnt. So can you rule out categorically, unequivocably and unconditionally that there was no bias here . By the fact that you didnt find anything in writing and none of these chuckle heads looked you in the eye and said yeah i did it to get trump . It is rare, i could tell you at any. In time and unequivocally 100 say this actually happened. So i get it. I will say somewhat the difference on the opening is, we concluded that mr. Prestep opened it. We have not seen in lasters investigation or this investigation looking through text, emails et cetera talking to other people, any evidence that he did it for an improper purpose. Can i tell you a thousand anmebody wont walkin in a a week and set you miss this . Lets talk about the people involved in the initial phis application and the renewals. These are experienced people, right . In this case these were experienced people. Many of them had professional degrees and many had law degreeses right . I dont know what theyre degrees where. They knew the law . They should not only know the law but everything a policy that a deal. They were handpicked by right . Abe it was they were handpicked. It wasnt their first rodeo . Ed certainly wasnt with an exception to the ender we had some new agents coming on board. But that should not have been an excuse just so were clear. So it just seems to me it has to be one of two things. Either incompetence, or intentional conduct. I agree. Its either sheer incompetence intentionally or something perhaps in between . So which you think it is . We have so many different peoplein here, first of all it wouldnt be fair to lump everybody into one, because they are Different Actors coming at different times. Some people have more touches of this and others. I think it is fair for people to sit there and look at all of these 17 events and wonder how it could be purely incompetence. Well i want to thank you again, i know this puts you in a tough spot, and i hope you will tell your colleagues back of the fbi that we appreciate their work. Absolutely. But this has to be fixed. In somebodys gotta be fired at a minimum. There will be a change in culture as well. Thank you, mr. Chairman in general i know you are happy to see. The end of the day come in at ship. You are going to get out of here. Let me pick up right where senator kennedy left off. Because i will tellng you that perception by the American People, from readingdy your report, and weve all put up links so people can read it, is that this was intentional, that it was deliberate, that it wasp malicious, it was premeditated, and wellthoughtout. And it is conducted by people who are desperate. In essence it is the opinion me of the swamp. It is murky, and muddy, and people work in a get their way, and this guy who is going to win and then did win, didnt deserve to win. And it does have the appearance of intentionality. Because you would not have this series of unfortunate coincidences, that is not what it is. It is the Surveillance States at work. This is what they did. And they took their professional place and those tools that they had at their disposal, to go spy on a campaign and on u. S. Citizens. Which is unbelievable, and you have heard it from several today that people cant believe this happen. And you can say yes, theres a sense of omission here, but there are also a sense of commission. And they were deliberate and intentional and very malicious. In the way that they went about this. I want to talk a little bit about Christopher Steele. I was looking in appendix a. I think its page 419. And it says in there he was paid 95000 over a threeyear period of time, i believe. Correct. And what was that many paid him for . Said that would have been for various pieces of information that he gave to the fbi for being a chs in 2013. But not related to beor clear to be rated not related to crossfire hurricane. He was considered a trusted source and thereby he was paid. And then he began working with fusion c. P. S. In 2016, and that really should have raised some alarm bells with you all. November comes along of that year, and you drop steele as a source. Is that correct . The fbi drops him. Thats right the fbi drops him and he wasnt trusted anymore and thats because he blew his cover. Correct. He startedt talking to the media and they should have stopped relying on him at that. Correct . Under fbi rules once you are close your close. You need certain reading to be reengaged. But the fbi kept using him, correct . They met with him through blue soar. And they used him for information after he was cut off. They receive that information. 13 different times. Correct. Correct, so then we get this dossier, it is used as a big parts of setting up this entire process for the fisa application. And Christopher Steele, people the fbi no Christopher Steele was untrustworthy, wasnt untrustworthy foreign actor, he was a political hack, he did like term, he was being paid by the clintons, but they still pushed forward with using him and exercised extremely poor judgment, correct . Certainly once they found out he had done, they had decided to close him, they should have followed the rules if they wanted to reengage with him. But they had plenty of information to question the validity and the bona fide of some without wording. Should he be held criminally response offers conduct . We make our recommendation for the s department. And thats for others to make . Let me ask you a couple of times, weve heard about lower level fbi agents and lawyers. They have generated some of these inaccuracies, these 17 inaccuracies. So what is the process for supervisors Fact Checking . So under the woods procedure the factual accuracy procedures put in place in response to prior instances found of the failure to accurately relay information, the first line supervisor supposed to go through and recheck the process. To make sure is done. And that did not happen here. In on multiple occasions. And why did that not happen on these multiple occasions that this work was not checked . Because we were given explanations ranging from a lack of understanding of the process to. So they were trying to skirt not only the rules but the law . We got a lot of explanations we did not find satisfying. Because they were skirting the law. I think what they did to carter page, as you have heard is just unbelievable. Let me ask you this Customer Account many times, how often do you find mistakes and fis application . Well, this is actually the first time my office is that a deep dive into a particular application. Weve done higherlevel reviews on the fisa process and if found various issues at a higher level. But this is the first time weve actually been able to delve in in this way to fis application. Hi is a fairly initial occurrence . I would hope so. If it is not an unusual occurrence, there are more cultural problems than you know about with the fbi, correct . That is correct. I would say so too. I want to touch on the accountability and the short amount of time that i have left. Because i think it is absolutely just infuriating to the American People, that those who executed this exercise which should have been called exercised takedown trunk. Because that is what they are doing. But they are still getting a taxpayerfunded paycheck, they are still getting taxpayerfunded benefits, and vacation time. When they take off forr christmas, they are going to be on the taxpayer dime. And you know around here, sometimes you hear people talk about those that went after the late senator stevens. One of them still working for the u. S. Attorneys office up in anchorage, and others working in spokane, senator stevens was found to be innocent. And they are still getting a government paycheck. So we want to make certain that disciplinary action is taken. And i know you are asked about case agent number one. He is still there. What about ssa one . He did the security briefing is he still employed . Its my understanding. So he is still using our money to fund his lifestyle. And the lawyer we know is going to face criminal referrals, correct . I am just going to stick with what we say inherence which we referred it to the attorney general the fbi director. Okay, the fbi sent a supervisory now i dont ask that. We know, i think we know the answer. Peter strzok approve the request to expedite the first fisa application and he along with lisa page push for the expedition of the first application with d. O. J. Officials, correct . Correct. So we know that she was in an answer to what can senator kennedy asked you, she was involved in the line of communication and the set up of this . She was involved at least in the one meeting we identify the report. Okay, and i found it curious in your report, this is the reason i ask it, you said that they had no role in the preparation of the approval of any of the four fisa warrant applications. So i guess if youre saying not putting pen to paper giving a nodic up or down . There is a substantial chain of approval, they were not in the chain that had to sign off on it. Ai but they did get involved as you indicated in pushing the department to get answers to move forward. They were involved in the process but not the final approval. They did not have responsibility any step of this signing. Okay working to get you outta here may be a few seconds early. I just want to thank you and your team very much for the patients, for being here. For the report that you have given, i think many of us look forward to what general journal and general dermas gonna say when he takes up some of this. But i think it is important to ote also, this is not the first time something has happened like this. In one of our federal agencies, and the reaction when im home in tennessee from people as they cannot believe the absolute maliciousness that took place with this. It is not unfortunate coincidences. It is the surveillance state, yelled back. If i could just also thank you to talk about senator stevens and the bill senator lee has sponsored a new cosponsor and i appreciate your support of our work. We are truly near the end senator has one more question. Thank you much mr. Chairman. Mr. Horwitz you are investigating for 19 months hundred witnesses, a million documents, you even have a hotline for whistleblowers, so did any whistleblowers come forward doing your investigation . Did they have any concern that errors were made intentionally or out of bias against trump . I mean for quite example im looking at the footnote on page 339 of your report and it recites some of the very colorful pro trump tweets athere made by some of the fbi agents. One would think if they knew anything, they would have contacted you and the 19 months of this investigation. Did anyone come forward . We did not have any such evidence. Io coso no documents, no testimonies, known coming forward to complain that would be another way of gauging motives . Correct . Correct. No one came forward, thank you so much. Thank you so much we talk about the Geneva Convention today, he sat there for hours and i did not give you a bathroom break. I appreciate all you did this is a welldocumented report. Theres kind of a blue teampr red team view, its too some extent but i think all this come together this should never happen again. For the fisa system to survive it has to be reformed to the fisa court. We are looking to you to take corrective action. If you take corrective action, that will give us some confidence he should stick around. If you dont, i think all of us are now thinking differently about checks and balances in that regard. The country will be stronger. Let me just and with where began. Rather than debating whether or not there was a legal predicate predicates, reasonable articulation which is a very low standard, to open up a preliminary investigation, durable have his view of art really happens. He may o know more than you, i dont know, i trust him to be fair and i trust you to be fair. The fact that three lawyers disagree is okay. No one has ever suggested you all did a bad job. Hr youve done a great job, you can reach your conclusion about the legal predicates, and you have. In my respect it. And im going to assume for a moment thats the right conclusion. That doesnt mattered all to me. Because after it was opened, it became a nightmare. It became something that can never happen again. It became something over time a criminal conspiracy to defraud the court. It became an effort by lawyers to doctor evidence. It became a conscious effort to deny the court discovered tory information about an american citizen. They should have stopped at least in january of 2017. When the russian sub source said everything in a dossier, i disavow. Poor carter page. Two more renewals after they were all noticed that the dossier was unreliable. All i can say is that why they did it, you can make your own decision. But its pretty clear to me that this was a lot of things, but it was not a counterintelligence investigation to protect donald trump. This was open as a counterintelligence investigation, and it kept going, and going, and going after it should have stopped. Because theoi last thing on their mind was to protect donald trump. A lot of the key players here, or upset with the outcome of the 2016 election. And man they had a lot of power. And thats what worries me the most. You may not like what the American People do, but you should honor their decision. And the reason the investigation survived and kept going after so many stop signs, is because people wanted it to keep going. The reason nobody briefed donald trump that he may have people working for you connected to russia, as they could give a damn about protecting him. This is just my view. Its kind of on that in a counterintelligence investigation, you never briefed the person who is the subject of the foreign influence. Like you did Dianne Feinstein and like they did Hillary Clinton. So the bottom line here is i hope we never have a defensive briefing or intelligence briefing or you send in an fbi agent to do with three or two on the people your briefing. This is some really scary stuff. I think i know what their motivation was, but it doesnt matter. They did it. I hope somebody holds them taccountable. And i hope it never ever happens again. To my democratic friends, this could happen to you one day. Mr. Horwitz do you agree that every politician in america should be concerned. About what happened here . Im afraid every american wants to make sure the fisa process works the right way. Fi finally to those of us in politics, how easy it is for somebody to come in our lives and our campaigns, as volunteers and i would hope that the fbi would tell me if theyve got a reasonable suspicion that somebody in my campaign is a bad actor. So i can do something about it. What scares me the most, is that the power to open up a counterintelligence investigation is almostt unlimited. The power to abuse its, is exactly what your report tells us about. Thank you, the hearing is adjourned and finally this is the beginning, not the end of this committees involvement in this matter. Much more to follow. Thank you. [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [background noises] [inaudible conversations]