Transcripts For CSPAN3 Justice Dept. IG Testifies On Origins Of FBIs Russia Inquiry 20240713

Hard work. The bipartisan support youve received is well deserved and i share the sentiments. The release of this report is an important step to answer the questions that have festered for far too long. The scope is narrow and many important questions remain unanswered. Much attention has been paid to the reports conclusion that the crossfire hurricane investigation did have adequate predicate. But that inaccuracies and omissions in the fisa application and renewals call into question the integrity of that process. Yesterdays order by the presiding judge is a dramatic rebuke and underscores how serious a fisa warrant abuse is. I would argue that based on what the report reveals about early knowledge within the fbi, we should be asking more fundamental questions. At what point should the investigation into the possible collusion between russia and the Trump Campaign had been shut down. Although the ig concluded the investigation was properly initiating, consensual monitoring of Trump Campaign officials conducting the first six weeks did not result in, quote, a collection of any information. Rather than shut it down or use the least intrusive methods, the fbi ramped it up. Confidential human sources became fisa wiretaps. Top fbi officials argued by disagreeing with the cia on this for the inclusion of unverified steele dossier. Finally, the fbi investigation ballooned into the special counsel investigation. As a result, the Trump Administration was tormented for over two years by an aggressive investigation and media speculation, all based on a false narrative and our nation has become even more divided. For anyone willing to take the time to read the report, the report is a devastating account of an investigative and prnegli by the fbi and department of justice officials. Most disturbing revelations include reports of doctoring and using an email to mislead the fisa court. Ignoring the fact that exic exculpatory evidence was provided. Planting an fbi investigator in abintelligen an intelligent briefing and withholding known and significant credibility problems related today the steele dossier. With these abuses in mind and what became known early in the investigation, i strongly believe the crossfire hurricane should have been shut down the first few months in 2017. Had the public known what the fbi knew at the time, its hard to imagine public support for continuing the investigation, much less the appointment of a special counsel four months later. Investigations into russian hacking, paul manafort, Michael Cohen should have continued using normal fbi and department of justice procedures. An informed public and an fbi and department of justice which rigorously followed their own procedures, this National Political nightmare could have been avoided. Which raises the question, why wasnt the public properly informed . Some of the reasons are now obvious, some are speculative. What is obvious is that certain officials were not truthful or scrupulously accurate in their filings. Also, is this committees majority staff report on leaks in the first four months of the Trump Administration shows, an unprecedented number of leaks, 125 in the first 126 days in the administration helped fuel the false narrative of Trump Campaign collusion with russia. The media was either duped or complicit in using those leaks to perpetuate this false narrative. The role of our Obama Administration officials is murky and unknown. But legitimate suspicions remain and must be answered. For example, who initiated the context between joseph mifsud, alexander downer, and George Papadopoulos . John brennan, james clapper, orchestrated to provide the justification for the news of publication of the steele dossier . It remains murky and unknown after an 18 month long Inspector General investigation. Its not criticism of his work but speaks to its the statutory limitations. Another question that needs to be asked is who will be held accountable . During his investigation of the fbis handling of the clinton email scandal, the Inspector General uncovered a treasuretrove of bias in the forms of texts between peter strzok, lisa page and others. Were it not for the discovery of these texts, would we even be here today reviewing the ig investigation . I have my doubts. The officials involved in this scandal had plenty of time to rehearse their carefully crafted answers to the igs questions or used times and excuse for the lack of recall. For example, on significant issues described in the record, Andrew Mccabe told investigators 26 times he did not recall. Some involves are claiming vindication as a result of the ig report. I appreciate mr. Horowitzs testimony last week in which he stated in the report, it doesnt indicate anybody in the fbi who touched this, including the leadership. Finally, i would argue that the process for investigating and adjudicating alleged crimes within the political realm is backward. Congressional oversight end up being the last step in the process instead of the first. Once a criminal or special counsel investigation begins, those investigations become the primary excuse for withholding information and documents from congressional oversight and public disclosure. In order to avoid a repeat of unnecessary special counsels or political scandals, i would suggest that congress increases its demands for obtaining evidence, concurrent with criminal investigations if necessary and hold hearings early in the process. This is a result of the transparency while preserving the process. If possible criminal acts are found in congressional oversight, it can be referred to the Justice Department for further investigation. If conflicts of interest that prevent a fair adjudication by the Justice Department, then a special counsel can be avoided. Only as a last resort, not a first. Im sure well spend most of the day discussing the investigators report. Regardless, this committees oversight on the events involved with and surrounding the fbi midyear exam and crossfire hurricane investigations will continue until im satisfied all important and relevant questions are being answered. Senator peters. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Horowitz, thank you for being here today and for your testimony. Inspectors general play a vital role in conducting oversight. Offering independent assessments of how programs are working and Holding Agencies accountable when errors are made. The Justice Department Inspector Generals department conducted a thorough 19 month investigation interviewing more than 100 witnesses and analyzed more than 100 million pages of materials to complete the report well be discussing here today. This record found that the fbi investigation and the coordination between individuals affiliated with president Trumps Campaign and the russian government had a proper legal and factual basis and found no evidence that the investigation was affected by political bias. Politically motivated investigations are a betrayal of our bedrock democratic principles, and this institution should speak with one voice to say it will not tolerate them no matter who is in power. In this case, the report found that the investigation was rooted in identifying any federal criminal activity or threats to American National security. The Inspector General verified that politics played no role whatsoever in opening this investigation. Importantly, the report did find that there are areas that do need improvement. Including the process used to obtain fisa warrants. Identifying these areas for improvement is a key part of an Inspector Generals role and i applaud the Inspector Generals robust and thorough work to shine light on the fbi as well as the Justice Departments shortcomings. Its this independence and commitment to the rule of law that sets our institutions apart. The fbi director wray has received this report and agreed with its core conclusion that political bias played no role in opening the investigation. Director wray also accepted the Inspector Generals findings that errors occurred in the fisa process and ordered more than 40 corrective actions to improve this important process. I hope todays hearing provides this committee with an opportunity to carefully examine this reports recommendation and determine whether there are areas we can help strengthen as well. However, the most important fact that we should take away from this report and this hearing is that a foreign adversary engaged in a sweeping and systematic effort to interfere in the 2016 president ial election and that the fbi was right in investigating those who may have been involved. The russian governments effort was an attack on our democracy and our National Security and its happening again. The russian government is intent on sowing distrust and undermining democracy and theyll pursue these efforts at all costs. Members of both parties must come together to strengthen Election Security and insure no foreign adversary can meddle in our elections again. I had the opportunity to work with chairman johnson and senator langford to strengthen cybersecurity standards for our voting machines. I hope we can continue to Work Together to protect these steps which will protect the heart of our democracy. Inspector general horowitz, id like to thank you and your team for your independence, integrity and hard work in completing this report. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, senator peters. It is the tradition of this committee to swear in the witnesses. If you would stand and raise your right hand. The testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god. Please be seated. Mr. Michael horowitz has served as Inspector General since april 16, 2012. He chaired the counsel of the Inspector General onintegrity. Prior to joining the office, mr. Horowitz worked in private practice. Mr. Horowitz. Thank you, mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today. The report that my Office Released last week was the product of a comprehensive review that examined over one million documents and conducted over 170 interviews involving more than 100 witnesses. All of which is documented in our 417 page report. It also includes a 19 page consecutive summary, which id encourage people to read the 19 page consecutive summary. I want to commend the team that did this. They worked rigorously through long hours to complete this review. The investigation thats the subject of our report, the crossfire hurricane investigation, was opened in july 2016 days after the fbi received reporting from a friendly Foreign Government, stating that in may 2016 Trump Campaign Foreign Policy advisor George Papadopoulos said it had received information that would be damaging to candidate clinton and president obama. We determined the decision to open crossfire hurricane was made by the fbis then Counterintelligence Division assistant director and that this decision reflected a consensus reached after multiple days of discussions and meetings between fbi officials. We reviewed policies, and concluded the exercise of discretion and opening of the investigation was in compliance with those policies. You reviewed his emails, texts and other documents and we didnt find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. While the information in the fbis possession of the time was limited, in light of the low threshold, we found the crossfire hurricane was opened for an authorized purpose and with sufficient factual predication. This decision to open crossfire hurricane was under department and fbi policy a discretionary judgment left to the fbi. There was no requirement officials be consulted or notified prior to the fbi making that decision. Consistent with the policy, the fbi advised the departments National Security division of the investigation days after it had been initiated. As we detailed in our report, advanced Department Notice and approval is required in other circumstances or investigative activity could substantially impact civil liberties, allowing in advance of these activities. We conclude advance notice should be required in circumstances such as those present here. Shortly after the fbi opened the crossfire hurricane investigation, the fbi monitored meetings and reported several conversations between fbi confidential human sources or chss and individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign. Including a high Level Campaign official who was not subject of the investigation. Not a subject of the investigation. We found that the chs operations received the necessary approvals under fbi policy, that an assistant director knew about and approved of each operation. Even in circumstances where a first level fbi supervisor could have approved it. And that the operations were permitted under department and fbi policy because their use was not for the sole purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the constitution or laws of the united states. We did not find documentary testimony evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decision to conduct these operations. Additionally, we found now evidence that the fbi attempted to place chss within the Trump Campaign or report on the Trump Campaign or to recruit members of the Trump Campaign to become fbi chss. However, were concerned that under applicable fbi and department policy, it would have been sufficient for a first line supervisor to authorize the sensitive domestic chs operations undertaken in crossfire hurricane and that there is no department or fbi policy requiring the fbi to notify Department Officials of a decision to task chss to record conversations with members of a political president ial campaign. We concluded the Current Department and fbi policies are not sufficient to insure appropriate oversight and accountability of such operations. One investigative tool for which department and fbi policy expressly requires advance approval by a Senior Department official is the seeking of a court order under fisa. When the Crossfire Hurricane Team first proposed fisa order targeting carter page in mid august 2016, fbi attorneys assisting the investigation considered it a close call and a fisa order was not sought at that time. However, in september 2016, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane Team received reporting from Christopher Steele, containing allegations regarding pages alleged activities with certain russian officials. Fbi attorneys advised the department it was ready to move forward with a request to obtain fisa authority to surveil page. We concluded that the steele reporting played a central and essential role in the decision to seek a fisa order. As we described in our report, the fisa statute and the department and fbi policies and procedures have established important safeguards to protect the fisa application process from irregularities and abuse. The requirements that every fisa application contain a full and accurate presentation of the facts and that all factual statements are scrupulously accurate. We found that investigators failed to meet that. We identified emissions in each of the four applications, seven in the first fisa application and a total of 17 by the final application. As a result of these significant inaccuracies and omissions, the fisa applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was stronger than it actually was. We also found basic fundamental and serious errors during the completion of the fbis factual accuracy reviews, known as the woods procedures, which are designed tod ensure that fisa applications contain a full and accurate presentation of the facts. Department lawyers and the court should have been given complete and Accurate Information so they could have meaningfully evaluated probable cause before authorizing surveillance of a Person Associated with a president ial campaign. That did not occur and as a result the surveillance of carter page continued, even as the fbi gathered evidence that weakened the assessment of probable cause and the fisa applications were less accurate. We concluded that as the investigation progressed and as more information was gathered to undermine the assertions of the fisa applications, investigators did not reassess the information supporting probable cause. Further, the agents and supervisory agents did not follow or even appear to know certain basic requirements in the woods procedures. Although we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or the missing information. And the failures that occurred. We are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate handpicked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive fbi investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the fbi, even though the information sought through the fisa authority related so closely to an ongoing president ial campaign, and even those involved with the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be subject to close scrutiny. This circumstance reflects a failure, not just by those who prepared the fisa applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the crossfire hurricane chain of command, including senior fbi officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed. Oversight by these officials required greater familiarity with the facts that we saw in this review. Time again during oig intervo interviews, officials displayed a lack of understanding or awareness of Important Information concerning many of the problems we identified. That is why we recommended the fbi review the performances of and hold accountable all individuals, including managers, supervisors, and senior official whose t who had responsibility for the approving of the fisa applications. Additionally in light of the significant concerns we identified, the oig initiated an audit last week that will further review and examine the fbis compliance with its woods procedures when fisa applications target u. S. Persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. The oig report made a number of other recommendations we believe will help the fbi more appropriately use this highly Intrusive Surveillance Authority and it will also strive to safeguard the civil liberty and privacy of impacted u. S. Persons. Well continue as an oig our rigorous independent oversight as these processes move forward in the months and years ahead. That concludes my prepared remark and i look forward to answering the committees question. Thank you, Inspector General horowitz. These greek names are hard. You made the same mistake i did. I started saying George Stephanopoulos but meant george papadopoul papadopoulos. My apologies to George Stephanopoulos if thats what i said. I did want to provide some clarity. I think its best to quickly exchange here. In the midyear exam, you have a similar statement im going to quote we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence, political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions fill in the blank. This is a number of cases now. I know we talked earlier about your confident theres no political bias in the opening of the investigation with bill prestaff. We did not find evidence and as to him, we knew who made the decision, we could focus specifically on him. But you definitely both these investigations, you found political bias . We found through the Text Messages evidence of peoples political bias, correct. Also, political motivation, for example, bruce ohr talked about how Christopher Steele was desperate to make sure that the President Trump didnt become president . As to mr. Steele that was an important part of the discussion as when they understood his motivations and potential bias and we have the november statement from mr. Ohr that he had been told by mr. Steele he was desperate to so youre not denying theres certainly evidence of bias, evidence of political motivation. But what youre saying, this is what i want to clarify. This has been misused, depending on where you put it, that youre not saying that bias did not potentially influence, youre saying you had no evidence that it did. Is that an accurate statement . We have no evidence that it did. We laid out here what we did to find bias or evidence of bias. We put this report out here so the public can read it. Look at the facts for themselves. But we did not find exactly what we said, documentary or testimonial evidence of bias, nothing more, nothing less. Youre not saying you did not. That it did not. You didnt find any evidence it did, but you didnt find evidence youre not saying that this bias or motivation did not influence, youre not making that declarative conclusion, correct . Again, i want to carve out the opening and the predicate prestaff versus the others. Because were because that decision was isolated, was made by one person, we knew who made the decision, understanding that there were questions raised by people above and below him. As to the other decisions, for example, the fisa decisions and the errors and the problems, we dont reach a motivation conclusion precisely because of the concerns we have on that. So i just think its important for readers to read the report themselves. We talk about this before the hearing. Our job as inspectors general is to do what i know all of you expect, transparency. Gets the facts out there. And thats what weve tried to do. Youre leaving it up to the reader whether the bias and motivation you have uncovered, to what extent that that potentially influences decisions throughout this process . Were drawing the only conclusions we felt comfortable drawing here and the public an informed public is very important for all of us. One final follow up. What kind of evidence . Literally an oral confession or a text saying i so hate this guy that im going to choose this path versus the others . So it was very hard to look at all this evidence and obviously as we all know get in peoples minds. What was the motivation for decisions to be made . What we looked at was who touched the decision, did we find evidence through the Text Messages, emails, witness interviews, we sometimes do get not in this case but we do sometimes get whistleblowers and other people coming to us and saying i think so and so made the decision for improper purpose. We as igs look at that. We were looking for that kind of evidence. As you noted as to some people, we had concerns about that. Our last report lays out not just, for example, mr. Strzok or ms. Page but as to others, concerns about certain Text Messages. What we were trying to figure out is what was the evidence, who was involved in the decisions, and was there evidence linking those biassed texts or other evidence connected to decisions . Could we bring them together . That was what we were trying to do. I know in your report, the Text Messages were not only indicative of a biassed state of mind, even more seriously implied a willingness to take official action to impact trumps electoral prospects. Stop the clock. Is it fair to say there are fbi agents who were pro trump and antitrump, including some people who made it clear they were . We found in both reports evidence of political views disassociated from action. And i think thats very important i tried to emphasize this last year, as well as last week. Were not concluding that someones biassed simply because they supported one candidate or another. Frankly, they shouldnt be using their devices for any purposes that are political. It raises hatch act and other issues that are not biassed, but other legal issues. What were looking at are were the comments so significant that it concerned us that they might have caused them to influence decisions they made . Thats where we particularly in last years report where we had far more evidence of text messaging. We had some people who had expressed political views, but didnt act on them. Again, here we have some members that we have in here that referenced their political views, but no information and theyre not the kind of written texts that suggests a potential state of mind that would cause thank you. I think we have that covered. So my first question, im not asking you to speculate. Based on your knowledge of fbi policies regarding investigation closures and basing what you found out the fbi knew early in the process of that consensual monitoring and what they found out once they finally interviewed the primary subsource. Would it had been consistent with guidelines to close crossfire hurricane shortly after the fbi first interviewed steeles primary subsource in january 2017 . Would that have been a reasonable discretionary decision . Certainly one of our criticisms that weve laid out here is that as the team is gathering this evidence as to the carter page fisa in particular, they werent reassessing including primarily the information from the primary subsource that was consistent with the steele reporting. We even have in here in the report a reference on page 212 where weve got agents talking with one another about why is page even a subject anymore, to your question of why are they still looking at him. They were actually asking that question, not just as to the fisa, but the foundational question of carter page, were not finding anything as to him. Why arent we reassessing . Would have been writhin thei guidelines. If they had done that, its a reasonable decision to close this thing down. As someone who has done this and working withgen agents, if youre getting information that isnt advancing or simply undercutting your primary theme or theory as was happening here with carter page and you look at the carter page file and say should i keep going on this carter page related matter . I believe this is going to be outside i think i understand i know what your answer is going to be but i want to ask the question. In the course of your investigation did you ever find out George Papadopoulos was put in touch with mifsud, downer, halper or turk . It was not within the scope of our review. If we would have seen something in fbi records about that, we would have assessed it. But we were focused, as i so you saw nothing in the records that would we did not find anything that would connect all of that from the fbi side of information. According to james comeys may 28th, 2018, oped, joseph mifsud, unnamed at the time was a quote, russian agent. Did you find anything in the fbi documents that would support james comeys conclusion about that . I want to be careful in that because i think if i answer either way i might be touching on information im not sure i can speak to in this setting. Okay. Let me be clear, you know, we certainly would have looked to see what the fbi were follow up in a different setting. Did you ever determine why on april 1, 2016, fbi headquarters directed Fbis New York Field Office to open a counterintelligence investigation on carter page . Did you ever get to the bottom of why that happened . Im sorry . April 1, 2016, fbi headquarters directed the field office of new york to open up a counterintelligence investigation on carpetter page. Did you ever figure out what caused that . The primary purpose was not to look at that investigation. We did get some testimony we described here about that investigation and what prompted them to open it . It grew out of a Southern District of new york case. But we didnt go beyond that and dig into the files. You never found out why fbi headquarters directed it should not be a sensitive matter . Again, we didnt know into the specifics of how they precisely decided to open it, other than interviewing some of the witnesses to understand a little bit for background purposes. Neither Peter Strzoks immediate bosses wanted him to run the investigation. Mainly because the relationship with lisa page as well as kind of a tendency to go around and go right to mccabe. But Andrew Mccabe overruled that decision. Did you ever find out why . We talk about that in the report, page 64 and 65 about that very issue. He recalls that issue, described mr. Mccabe, we have his explanation in there. Didnt precisely recall certain events, remembered other events. We laid out in terms of selecting he described it having mr. Strzok stay on the investigation. On august 25th, he was directed to contact the new york office for helpful information. It turned out the helpful information was the steele reporting. Did you ever get to the bottom of how Andrew Mccabe was so far ahead of the rest of the fbi in that . Again, we asked witnesses about that, including mr. Mccabe and we had ultimately werent able to get to the bottom of exactly what caused that delay or what prompted that call. Mccabe told people he didnt remember doing this. In fact, mccabe told your team he did not remember details about 26 significant events in your report. Did you find his memory lapses credible . He seemed to be pretty involved in this investigation. I mean, making sure that peter strzok would be name the director, contacting the new york field office. He seemed to be pretty involved, and yet on pretty significant issues in the report hooee just doesnt recall. Do you find the memory lapses credible . We did find he was briefed on the investigation and there were several points at the beginning where he was involved. We dont make a determination or credibility finding on that issue. Okay. Senator peters. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I just want to clarify after some of the line of questions just so were clear for the record and you can answer these first couple of questions with a yes or no if that works for you, mr. Horowitz. Did you find any documentary or testimonial evidence that the decision to open the investigation was political . We did not. Did you find any documentary or testimonial evidence that the decision to open the investigation was motivated by bias against President Trump . We did not. Your report states that in mid 2016, the fbi was investigating attempts by russia to hack into political campaigns, parties, and election interference, is that correct . We put that in there for background purposes. Correct. Your report also states that the fbi received information from a friendly Foreign Government that russia offered to assist the Trump Campaign, is that correct . Correct. We lay out the precise words that mr. Papadopoulos reportedly stated. Okay. Your report does outline a number of problems with the fisa process as youve elaborated on. My question, particularly when it relates to questions from the chairman regarding carter page. My question is did the fisa errors affect the investigations, other three subjects in your analysis . We did not see information from the carter page events and the fisa is infecting the others, in fact, part of the concerns that we outline here is the lack of developing the information as to mr. Page. So it wasnt developing, advancing the investigation precisely for the reasons we outlined here. And by definition, therefore not being of assistance or impacting the others. Had no impact on the other investigations . As to the other three, we didnt see any connection between this and the others ill say this caveat which is the papadopoulos information was being used in the page fisas. So the extent to which the page fisas were not advancing information as to mr. Page, they arguably were advancing information as to mr. Papadopoulos because that was the linchpin fact initially at least to go for, you know, opening all of the cases. Okay. So as youve identified a number of issues related to how the fbi used the fisa process, certainly those are things that need to be addressed . The director has said hes working to address. My question is, is there do you have any idea if, as you are quoted as saying, there were basic and fundamental errors that were made in this process. Is there any idea that this is just kind of a systematic problem in the fbi . Or did this only occur with this particular investigation or do you think its much broader we have to deal with on a broader sense. As an ig, ill speak to what we found here and thats frankly why we started the audit. The concern is this is such a high profile important case. If it happened here, is this indicative of a wider problem . We all know that when we complete our audit. Or is it isolated to this event . Obviously we need to do the work to understand that. So you mentioned the audit. Could you describe the scope of the audit, please . What were going to do in the first instance, we dont know what we dont know. To our knowledge this is the first deep dive anyone has taken with the fisa. What were going to do is have our auditors do some selections of counterintelligence and counterterrorism, this was a counterintelligence fisa. Weve heard lots of concerned about counterterrorism fisas about targeting and other issues there. Were going to take a sampling, look and compare and see how the woods procedures plays out. And those fisas by comparing the woods binders to the fisas and seeing if the same errors are occurring there. If they are, then what well do is well make further selection to do deeper dives as appropriate. First we want to get a window into these we have limited resources and we want to make sure were targeting the right places. So if i recall from your testimony here today is that the errors that were occurring, the fundamental errors and basic errors related to the fisa process, you didnt find evidence there was political bias there. The errors occurred, and those are troublesome, but you didnt necessarily link those to any political bias, is that accurate . I want to draw a distinction. We did not what we didnt find was they were considering in august and september whether to seek a fisa. We didnt see evidence there in those communications. But as to the failures that occurred, we didnt find any of the explanations that were satisfacto satisfactory. In the absence of satisfactory answers i cant tell you as i sit here whether it was gross incompetence i think with the volume of errors, you could make an argument that that would be a hard sell, it was just gross incompetence to intentional or somewhere in between. And what the motivations were. I can think of plenty of motivations that could have caused that to occur, but we didnt have any hard evidence that i can sit here and tell you why did these occur. I can tell you they occurred, but i cant tell you why. But its conceivable those bad explanations are a result of systemic problem with the fisa process. Probably extremely difficult to answer that question until you complete your further audit to see whether or not this is a systemic problem within the fbi that has to be corrected. It wasnt something just with this particular case, is that accurate . We certainly wouldnt make any conclusion about systemic or not. As to the failures here, in the absence of the satisfactory answers and given how basic some of these were,ist n its not anr because it was too complex or you didnt understand the facts you gathered here was inconsistent with the facts you were relying on there in the fisa. These should have been told i think you see this in the fisa Court Opinion yesterday. These should have been told. These were basic fundamental errors. Its hard to figure out what the rationale is. Im not were not sure what the motivation is. But i want to clarify, the way youll know that is if youre looking at other cases through your audit and you find these are occurring on a pretty regular basis that may be something that why we have to crack the fbi. The reason why theyre fundamental is because theyre making these fundamental errors in a lot of other cases and we need to make some reforms . Right, if you look at the others and you find similar errors and bad explanations there, it may be one answer. Frankly, if you find no other errors there, that would be particularly concerning, right, as to this one. Why then in this one . And so i think thats why we need the audit . Thank you. I want to just quick consult with Committee Members here. The votes been called. We could continue in this the next questioner is rand paul and then rick scott. Or we could recess, go vote and come back so we dont miss any of the testimony. One vote. So its very easy for us to manage this. Were going to keep going . Okay. What i would suggest is rand, you stick around. Certainly rick, maybe all of you skedaddle and get back, okay . Then ill go vote. Senator paul . Thank you for coming. And much has been said of bias and a town thats full of politics and opinion, its kind of hard to be anybody without bias. I appreciate you and your team try to avoid having bias in your reporting and try to be as objective as possible. I appreciate that. I think you and other some specter generals do a Great Service to our country trying to make things better and root out where there are problems. I would say that when we look at bias, i guess the first question would be a short question just to reiterate and make sure its very clear. You did find evidence of biassed individuals who were involved with the investigation . Thats correct. Okay. I think thats very clear. And is it difficult to determine what peoples motives are or whether theyre biassed or not . Its very difficult. Just because you didnt find it, doesnt mean it didnt exist, you just cant prove it. We couldnt prove it, we lay out what we can. One specific instance id like to ask you about. The ogc attorney is the one i think youve referred for criminal evaluation, correct . Weve referred to the attorney general and fbi. For possible criminal evaluation. He also had Text Messages that said viva larusistance. Does that show he might have had bias against the trump vgz investigation . He was one that we i guess my question would be if you saw that he was biassed, hes obviously made errors you think actually may have been intentional. Why in that instance would you not be free to say theres documentary evidence of not only bias but malfeasance . Thats why we dont say that, the errors and the naffailures the fisa process. Could you say the opposite, in this instant there was evidence of political bias and record changing that looks like malfeasan malfeasance . There is evidence of both. But we will let i want to make sure theres a fair process. Thats fine. And i think the chairman is very correct that the media has misinterpreted what you said and drawn conclusions i dont think are accurate and people should read the report. The report is very damning as to the process, whether its bias or not. There are problems. Getting to your solutions, you suggested that i think youre attempting to make valid suggestions as to how process would be better. I would make the argument that the process cannot be corrected and the reason i would say this is that the fisa court system requires this high scrupulous nature for the agents and they are both the prosecutors and supposed to be defense at the same time. There isnt anybody on the other side. And this is not the standard of the constitution, and weve allowed this to happen because were going after foreigners and we frankly said were not going to have all the constitutional protections for listening to gaddafis phone calls or saddam hussein. Were not going to have all these protections. My point is, were now getting into something thats at the root of our democracy or of our republic and that is political debate and discourse and the First Amendment. I dont think the tweaks to the fbi will work. I frankly think what we have to understand is the fisa court is at a lower than constitutional level. So i guess my question to you would be do you think its within the realm of the reforms we should consider, whether or not political campaigns should be investigated using a secret court when there is no representation for the defense. You raise excellent questions here. One of the things were careful not to do when we make recommendations is make recommendations to congress on statutory changes. So we try and work with the process as you noted. There will be a lot of debate that goes well beyond what were recommending to try and fix whats existing. Theres going to be a legislative look. The fisa court is going to look at some of these issues now. I do think, and were prepared to come meet with legislators and talk through these issues as you consider things that go beyond the four corners of what exists. I think one of the issues here and we referenced this having been a prosecutor where you go ex parte to a court for a search warrant and wiretap in the criminal process, but you also know that at some point the defense lawyer is going oo get those if theres a case made. And theres is going to get those and theres a potential for a case and an open lawyer before the judge and the defense lawyer kpos kpaminning and that has some effect. I agree. I think if you dont have that in the fisa system, no matter what you do, you tweak the system, when youre telling me it requires fbi agents to always be scrupulous and never have bias, were trying to prevent bias from entering it, i think its a standard thats too high for individuals to take. And there will always be people on both sides of the political spectrum who may let their biases enter into that. And the check is to have a defense attorney, a public trial. And secret courts really were not intended to examine crime in america or to examine political campaigns. And i think thats the thing that needs to come out of this, is that we dont and this is, while i dont fault your recommendations for fbi process to make it better, theres a big danger that we take that politically and say thats the end answer. No, the lesson to me is and i do believe both sides could be equally cul pabl of this we should not subject our political campaigns to secret courts and to secret warrants and secret sur advantage. And there are all these questions of, were all these encounters that papadopoulos had just if they did thats troublesome to me that our own government would be sending informants into campaigns to try to have chance encounters with different people. Im very, very worried about it. I hope other members of the committee will consider as we look at fisa reform, that what we have to do is as americans shouldnt be caught up in this. American citizens were not the target of this. Even american citizens who talked to foreigners. Can you imagine in campaigns moving forward, if youre pointing to a highlevel Foreign Policy position, is there a likelihood that you may have talked to russians or chinese . Youve talked to many russians. To say youre an agent, he had 16 conversations with different members of the russian government. Is that enough to open like a fisa process into that he might be a Foreign Agent . Its not the constitution. Its for its showing that you have evidence that someone may be related to a government. It isnt evidence of a crime. And so i think we ought to really consider as we move forward that this is not the appropriate vehicle for investigating political campaigns. Thank you. And if i could just add on that, senator, i think one of the things also here that we uncovered and learned as we did this, for example you mentioned the confidential human source issue separate from the fisa, the absence of rules there applies whether this was counterintelligence or criminal. There did not need to be notice to the Department Even had this been criminal investigation. So i think there are some issues here that are that cover broader than just the fisa issue that youve raised concern about. Senator, im assuming you voted . I did. So were doing this as the vote is going. I asked senator scott to stay. Id like to give it to him. Senator scott. Recorded more than 40 changes in hour the fbi secret sur vains warrants after you pointed out a series of flaws in the efforts to monitor a Foreign Campaign adviser. I think its important that safeguards be put in place, prevent rogue agents from being able to manipulate any processes to pursue their own agenda. You know, we had the parkland shooting down in florida. We lost 17 wonderful individuals there. And after that fbi director did the right thing, held individuals accountable at the fbi. And i had the opportunity to go out to West Virginia and i saw some of the processes that theyve worked really hard to improve. Now the errors committed by the fbi and abuse of authority should alarm every american. Federal officials motivated by political bias and hatred for our president abused the fisa process in order to affiliate with the campaign of President Trump. Thats wrong. Were talking about liberal fbi officials abusing their power in attempt to undermine legitimacy of a candidate and his campaign. We should be greatly concerned. Where was the oversight . Where was the oversight when the fbi didnt bother to confirm any of the claims in the steele dossier before presenting them to the court as evidence to surveil carter page . Where was the oversight while the fbi was making 7 keyerors in omissions and ten more in the three subsequent applications . Again, where was the oversight . It wasnt there at the decision whether to open this investigation. It was a discretionary judgment call left to the fbi. To your knowledge has the fbi ever spied on any other president ial campaigns and if so, which ones . We didnt go and look, senator, historically at what other investigations the fbi conducted of various campaigns, so im not in a position to speak to that. Do you know of any other investigations that ever happened to see if president ial campaigns of spying . Im not aware of any sur advantage that was done or use of Confidential Sources but i cant say it didnt happen. Some people dont like the word spying but i think thats exactly what comeys fbi did. Its similar to the obamas irs targeting organizations. I think weaponizing for political purposes is dangerous. I cant imagine any sane person wanting to go down this road. I dont know anybody i work with that wants that do this. Can you go through some of the recommendations you think that are the most important ones that the fbi has got to do to make sure this doesnt happen again . I think first and foremost there needs to be a change in practice and policies that involves consultation and discussion with the Department Lawyers before moving forward, whether on opening a case or involving these kinds of constitutional issues or sending in confidential human sources. The level of discussion i did public Corruption Cases when i was a prosecutor in new york many years ago. And you would want to talk through very carefully before moving forward on a case like this and on all steps, both the opening and investigates. On the fisa side there has to be a fundamental understanding that decisions about evidence that is undercutting inconsistent with the theory of the case has to go to the lawyer. The lawyer whos handling it for the department and has to move up the chain in the Justice Department. Because they have to make the judgment calls. Theyre the gatekeepers. Theyre the ones that are there to understand, is there enough for this fisa or isnt there . And if there is, weve got to make sure this application fairly represents to the court all the evidence and all the information. That is what didnt happen here and thats why i think you see the court order yesterday. Do you think the fbi is going to make the changes that they need to . I certainly understand that from director wray that that is the plan. Do you think hes committed . Yes, everything i have heard he has made clear he is committed to it. Given the abuses found during this investigation, what should the vetting process be for assets and criminal informants . What do you think well, clearly on the fbi side needs to be a Better Process or a more effective process and understanding in place on how to vet individuals and how to make sure that managers are supervising. And the reason we made the referrals for accountability of the survivors is, this is not only a failure of the line agents. This is a failure of management from the first level all the way to, to ensure hard questions are being asked. When youre running Something Like this, youve got to ask insightful kaurgted questions. Youve got to know the answers and make sure managers understand what their responsibilities are. So on the easier end is training. On the harder end is making people realize that they cant be making all these discretionally judgments for themselves. Other people need to know about it. Mr. Horowitz, to your understanding, was Christopher Steele ever poly grafd . I dont believe we saw any evidence that. Does that surprise you . Id probably want to talk further with my team about making sure i understand what the rules are in terms of doing it. But presuming its within the rules of the burrow to do that, its certainly a reasonable question to ask. So when the fbi finds an asset that they determine not to be credible, what should they be doing . What should be the process . They should cut that fern off as a confidential human source. Do they have an obligation to go back and tell everybody that was provided information based on that now not credible source that they were wrong . They have an obligation, close the person, put it in the delta file so its in the fbi system so every person whos relied on that can see that. Its one of the criticisms we have here, not all information went into the delta system as they were learning information about mr. Steele. And as needed, they should be alerting not only the agents who relied on it, but if its criminal they should be also telling the prosecutors what theyve learned. Thank you. And thank you, senator has kin, for letting me go. My pleasure. Thank you, Inspector General horowitz for being here. Im grateful to the chairman and the Ranking Member for having this hearing. And mr. Who are owe wits, i also just wanted to thank your team for all of they are extraordinary hard work, because i think the role of Inspector General is incredibly important. So let me just start with a couple of general questions about the tools that you all have to work with. And really the function that you perform. First of all, i believe you all do a Great Service to the country. Inspectors general not only evaluate programs and spending to ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent but also confront wrongdoing that threatens to undermined our institutions. Congress has to do everything it can to support the work of inspectors general and establish safeguards to protect their work against agency interference or political influence. So mr. Horowitz, can you discuss the importance of maintaining the independence of the office of the Inspector General as it reviews the agency and makes recommendations . And in particular how does main thanu taining that indence help you do your job . Its foundational to what we do. This report has credibility because the folks who work on it behind me and whove worked on other reports go at it in just a down the middle of the road way, completely independent. We want to put forward information so the public can make its assessment of what happened with the government or program. Whether its fisa, whether its a taxpayerfunded program of another sort. But were all about transparency, putting information out there, and not being swayed by what may be the fbi or the Justice Department leadership, want to see happen or want to see a particular outcome. Weve got to be completely independent of that, be able to lay out what we think. The attorney general disagrees with our finding on predication, thats fine. I didnt take this job to always agree with the leadership of the Justice Department. Thats not what this job is about. And that has to be built into the system and theres got to be respectful disagreements, but theres got to be that ability to have disagreements. Thank you for articulating that so well, something we need to stay focused on. Now lets get to a couple. Tools id like to ask you about. The Inspector General act gives igs tools to conduct their investigations in a thoreau way. Additional tools may be required to be performed whats important work. One of these is the ability of the ig to subpoena witnesses who operate outside of the agency or its programs including former federal employees. How would the ability to compel testimony from these witnesses enhance the investigative abilities . Its a critical tool that weve advocated for. This committee has been supportive of us getting it. As an example, in this review we had two witnesses who would not speak with us, mr. Simpson and mr. Winer, and we had no ability to get their testimony. Most importantly also, though, partly the reason this took 18, 19 months, is because many witnesses initially declined to speak to us and only towards the end of the investigation we engaged and said now they were interested in speaking with us. We werent going to turn down their testimony. Right. That required us to extend our timing. Having subpoenas not only would have allowed us to get evidence we didnt get but would have allowed us to move this more rapidly to a conclusion. Very importantly on programs that cost the taxpayers money, grant resipience, con trackertors of the federal government, those are people who are not federal employees, who dont have an obligation to cooperate. Right. That would be very helpful in that regard. Former employees, i could go over and over and over with you, and weve sent many examples to the committee, of individuals who engaged in misconduct of the Justice Department and retired on the eve of us questioning them. Right. And then they dont come in. And valuable evidence is lost. Sometimes they are the subject someone sometimes theyre the critical witness. Right. They retire. They have their pension and move on. If they become contractors they can come back and work for the federal government and we cant subpoena them in that position. Wow. There are a lot of reasons thats important. By the way, the Defense Department ig has that authority that was been used very sparingly in all the years because when you have the Authority People work on vol tarry arrangements. Thank you for that thats something i hope we can work on in a bipartisan way. Another one of the tools that could aid your office in particular is the ability to investigate misconduct of department of justice attorneys. Can you provide us with more background on why this particular policy is in place and whether in your view its an appropriate exception to your authority . Absolutely. Thank you for asking about that. This has been something weve advocated for 30 years since we came into existence in 1988. The deal that was struck in 1988 that allowed the Justice Department to have an ig with the attorney general at the time was to carve out lawyers and actually at the time to carve out the dea from oversight by the Inspector General. We largely oversaw the Immigration Naturalization Service which was at the department at the time and a few other entities. In 2001, at the time it was within the discretion of the attorney general to change that, attorney general ashcroft, after the all zrij aims scandal gave us authority over the fbi and dea. Congress legislated that a year later. Lawyers continue to be carved out. The discretion to change that is no longer with the attorney general. Its congress that would have to change the law, where the only Inspector General office that im aware of that doesnt have authority over misconduct by any employee in the agency they oversee. If the misconduct is by the line in the courtroom prosecuting someone criminally, to the attorney general we dont have the authority to look at that. That goes to the office of professional responsibility, which doesnt have the statorly protected independence and traunz pairncy that we have. Thank you. Its my understanding that legislation is kbrierd to provide these tools. I look forward talking with you to explore this further in order to find a bipartisan way. You do important work. Were grateful. Id add on that bill, our ability o oversee prosecutors, the house has passed the bill unanimous, senator lee has a bill pending in the senate with bipartisan cosponsorship, i know this committee cares deeply and look forward to working with you. Thank you. Senator holly. Mr. Horowitz, i see that the fbi continues to persist in characterizing the problem in related to the surveillance issues here as limited. I see the fbis director statement makes it sound as if there was a limited problem. Lets talk a little bit if we could about the scope of this problem at the fbi and how it is that the fbi came to be interveening in a president ial election while the election was ongoing in the fall of 2016. When it comes to fisa warrants, surveillance warrants, are the targets given an opportunity to defend themselves in court . No. So the court relies on who to establish the facts . The fbi and the Justice Department. Theres nobody there to contest the facts . The court only hears from one side, is that correct . Is it normal in your experience, your knowledge, for the fbi to use as the principal basis for a surveillance warrant Political Opposition Research paid for by a Major Political party . I cant say that wieve lookd at any. Have you heard of it . I cant tell you. As we lay out here among the lawyers involved as to that question. Indeed the fbi knew very well the nature and source of this steele dossier after they were asked three times by a doj attorney they responded that steele had been paid to develop Political Opposition Research. This is right at the time that the fbi was going to the fisa court and asking for a surveillance warrant in the middle of a president ial campaign, correct . Thats correct. The fbi absolutely knew where this was coming from. What about the number of people involved . How many people at the fbi were involved in misleading the fisa court by your count, estimation . We dont have a precise number of who knew what and when, but there were four different fisas. Theres a case agent, supervisory agent, some overlap, so its not eight, i think its six or seven, who had both of those responsibilities. Some of which, to be fair, were more egregious than others in terms of the mistakes and the failures that occurred. And then of course as we note here, the reason we refer people up the chain is, there is information flow up the chain, and even though those individuals didnt have direct responsibility under the woods procedures, as managers and supervisors, we believe they had a responsibility to ask the probing questions they should have been asking and followed up on information they were getting to make sure they were in a position to effectively supervise. I want to come back to the information flow up the chain in a second. You say on page 65 there were over a dozen agents, analysts, staff agents, specialists in the original Crossfire Hurricane Team which would have included at least nine agents over seeing the carter page investigation. Were talking probably at least a dozen individuals who were directly involved in the carter page warrants, the four times. Does that sound approximately correct to you . That is. In fact theres the org chart here, people can see and follow this for themselves, but so weve got about a dozen people at the fbi directly involved. Thats a lot of people. The fisa court pointed out yesterday that an electronic sur vaims application under federal law must be made by a federal officer in writing upon oath or affirmation and those individuals swear to the facts of the application. Yet we now know that in october and then three times october 2016 and three times in 2017, these individuals deliberately, knowingly mislead the fisa court. Thats the nicest way to put it. They lied to get a Surveillance Court of an american people. Why would so many people do that . We lay out here the reasons as i said, there are multiple teams, some more senior, more junior. We try carefully to lay out who knew what when and which people. Were they just all incompetent, all of these people . They just couldnt they were competent enough to deliberately mislead the fisa court, change submissions, alter emails. It doesnt sound like theyre stupid to me. Why over time would all of these people four times over the space of half a year deliberately mislead a federal court . So we ultimately make we dont make a conclusion as to the intent here. So i want to be clear about that. But that was precisely the concern we had is what you lay out. There are so many errors. We couldnt reach a conclusion or make a determination on what motivated those failures other than we did not credit what we lay out here were the explanations we got. So it certainly wasnt the reasons they offered to you . We didnt credit that. Frankly this is one of the reasons we didnt werent able to but didnt reach a conclusion, we now have the court weighing in and wanting to know what happened here as well. I think the scope here is what really alarms me. The number of people involved directly involved at the fbi, the repeated decisions to mislead, outright lie to the fisa court, and the total implaz inlt that the explanations these people offered you, again, maybe theyre income tept or had an agenda here. I want to put a fine point on that. Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the page investigation, any part of crossfire hurricane . We i know for a fact ive heard that today from this committee, but thats not your conclusion . We have been very careful in connection with the fisa for the reasons you mentioned to not reach that conclusion, in part, as weve talked about earlier, the alteration of the email, the Text Messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand or get good explanations so we could understand why this happened. I think were left with really two possibilities here. You have three different investigationive teams as you testified earlier, youve got a dozen people at the fbi, decisions made over time to mislead the fisa court. Either these people were really incompetent and bad or had an agenda that they were pursuing. And having an agenda, i dont care what word you put in front of it, political, personal, whatever it is, it is antithetical to democracy. Let me ask you about the information flow up the dhan. We see that director comey, we know he was briefed about crossfire hurricane in august of 2016. Who else knew about this . In october 14th of 2016, we know tempdy director mccabe gets a text message saying the Deputy Attorney general wants to be part of a meeting and the white house has asked the department of justice to host. Who at the white house knew about the crossfire hurricane investigation . So as know, were not the ig, the Inspector General over the white house or the executive office of the president , and so what we have access to are the records that the fbi and the Justice Department. So i cant answer questions unless about that as to who knew or who was involved beyond people in the Justice Department and the fbi. I just find it very hard, ill say in closing, mr. Chairman, i find it very hard to believe that the Deputy Attorney general of the united states, the fbi director, all knew about this, but that the senior leadership, the attorney general herself, or for that matter the president of the united states, would not know about a Surveillance Program of a major Party Candidate in the midst of a president ial campaign. I mean, that just boggles the mind. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Holly, by the way, good line of questioning. I want to take this opportunity to put a little meat on the bones. You talked about midoctober. October 11th and 12th, Christopher Steeles meeting with kath line cob wek and Jonathon Winer who refused to cooperate, its also the same day stew evons is going, where is that coming from, three times asked the question, did not get a satisfactory answer three times. Its also i think the next day, october the 11th and 12th, lisa page is texting struck and mccabe, saying that theres problems with stu evons and oh, by the way, in order to break down as a resistance, my words, not hers, basically she might have to use mccabes name to get stu evans to agree to letting this fisa warrant go through. Talking about information up the chain, you got mccabe, you got struck, you got page, that little cabal, i know they didnt schol themselves a secret society but it sounds like they had a little bit of a cabal going here and thats being influenced. You can see it in those texts. Thats why the timeline is so important, line up these unvaurnished trukts that these texts reveal, its pretty revealing. Senator langford. Mr. Chairman id like to ask unanimous consent we enter into todays record the foreign intelligence Surveillance Court order they put out yesterday. Without objection. Its pertinent today. Thank you. Thanks for your leadership, obviously what youre doing there and doj. I appreciate your whole team and the work that you continue to do. You used the term when talking about the mistakes that were made saying there were so many mistakes this was either somewhere between either gross incompetence to intentional but you didnt try to determine the motivation of all of these. It gets harsh when the fisk responds back to this in the letter they sent out in the order yesterday. They said because the conduct of the ogc attorney gave rise to serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to the fisk in any manner in which the ogc attorney was involved, the Court Ordered the government on december 5, 2019, to among other things provide certain information addressing those concerns. Then this. The fbis handling of the carter page was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor. The frequency of representstations turned out to be unsupported or contra dicted by their possession in which they withheld information debt rimal to their case calls into question information and in other fbi applications is reliable. One of the reasons this is important is because what this group did at the fbi not only took our nation down years of turmoil but theyre now calling into question every fisa application and im confident every attorney is going to bring this case up and say we cant rely on the fisa now. The Crossfire Hurricane Team not only did nation to our nation, our Justice System and potentially what were doing in counterintelligence and tournt terrorism. We appreciate your work. Can you spare tcompare the qual work as you went through the interviews with the Crossfire Hurricane Team at headquarters with the Washington Field office and those agents and the quality of their work . Did you see the name number of mistakes made in what was done between the Crossfire Hurricane Team and the Washington Field office team . So many of the problems that come up here flow from the earliest parts of the investigation which were the headquarters based team, as you know, the teams got mixed as they went along. It went out to the field then it came back at various times, which is a problem we identified here. The most of the problems were occurring at the headquartersbased times when the teams were together. Its not exclusive because it goes to the field as well. The Washington Field office seemed to handle documents and procedures better than headquarters handled it . I think on balance, thats a fair comment. Although frankly we dont go into youre not trying to compare the two. Im asking for an opinion after you have gone through the process . There are so many problems we decided not to separate out . Where things might not have been as problematic as others. Let me talk about Johnathan Winer. The meetings are curious to me, that steele somehow initiates or he says was invited by state Department Officials on october 11th to be able to come down and sit down with officials at the state department. He made clear hes trying to get documents into the public eye before the election, and to try to get all these things made public. That meeting happens on october 11th. On october the 19th, steele delivers to an fbi handling agent what he received from Johnathan Winer from the state department. Steele is coming to make his case to the state department. Apparently Jonathon Winer gets things to steele, and he sends that out. So someone from the state department is trying to get out into the public what he described as a friend of a wellknown clinton supporter who served this from a turkish businessman with strong links to russia. So apparently someone from the state department is taking a foreign document or a foreign source, getting it to steele, who he knows is trying to get it out into the public. Were you able too close the loop on what that document is, how that happened, where it came from . We did not. Partly the issue as you know is the inability to talk to mr. Wiener about where the document came from, that meeting, those connections, but also our access and review was focused on fbi conduct and by personnel. Just to clarify on this, this is very apparent to your team, someone in the state department trying to take a foreign source document and get it into the public to affect that campaign against mr. Trump . I can tell what you we gathered here. We didnt have a chance to talk to people. Youre just saying what you saw at that point . Right. Brew orr is very curious in this process. The fbi cuts off relationship with steele early november and then makes it official the 17th of november of 2017 saying were going to have no more contact. But the next day the fbi pulls steeles file, and then within days, bruce orr is then doing back Channel Communications with steele. Was steele cut off as a source or was the crossfire hurricane continuing to use him as a source, just not officially . We concluded the latter. While he was cut off officially in fbi records they continued to meet with him through bruce orr. Why would he be able to continue to meet with him and be tasked to do that . Well, let me just be clear, he wasnt tasked to do it. There was as he said, he understood what the fbi was looking for from him. But he was able to do it because there were no clear rules that prohibitinged him from doing it. And he intended and desired to do it. Was there nothing that he mained taind that. On page 188 of your report you make this comment that steele tasked his primary sub source after the 2016 election to find crob raiks for the election reporting in the primary sub source, but he could find zero. He reported that to the fbi and Washington Field office when they met with him in may of 2017. Im trying to figure out, steele is tasking his sub source to go find corroboration after the election was over. This was at least a month through this process from cutting off from the fbi. Who is tasking steele to continue to chase down more information . We dont have evidence as to anybody specifically tasking steele to go chase down evidence. But its pretty clear from what were laying out here that the fbi from day one was asking questions about the corroboration for the steele reporting and not getting it. So it wouldnt be surprising that steele was still trying to see if anybody could find corroboration so he could demonstrate that there was support for his reporting, when in fact that wasnt what was happening. It was zero and no one meetly by the fbi there was zero corroboration. In fact the state department noted he had his facts wrong, even when he was presenting at that point, and though knew it all immediately . They referenced the miami conslute that there was no such miami consulate. Just real quick, your ne of questioning, again, revooulz the shortcomings, again not because horowitzs fault but the fact he is constrained in what information he can gather. Which is why im basically reaffirming to you, our committees investigation have kind of combined senator grassley in finance and senator graham in judiciary and this committee. Weve begun the progsess of requesting voluntary interviews on a host of different issues. This is just one of the areas. Our investigations started with the clinton eye mail scandal and morphed. As i said, im not going to stop our oversight. Our investigation until i get all the answers to all the questions, the ones you and senator holly raise are valid but again the constraints of Inspector Generals the way they are pretty well siloed in their departments prevents those questions be answered, even those on 18, 19month investigation. Well continue our efforts. Senator carper. Thanks. Good to see you. Thank you for your service to our country for how many years. Seven and a half. Does it seem longer. Seems longer but its seven and a half. Were glad you here. We appreciate the work and your leadership. Some of the folks, are they part of your team . Yes. Would you all raise your hands please . All right. Thank you very much. I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said if the people know the truth they wont make a mistake. Think about that. If the people know the truth they wont make a mistake. Sergeant joe friday on the tv show dragnet said it differently. My sister and i used to love that show. He would be making a visit to someone try to get information from them, a man or woman, crime or investigation, and he would always knock on the door. Hed suggests the facts, maam or sir, just the facts. Thats what were interested in. For a long time, theres an older methdist minister in the southern called receive ert. When i was elected governor in 92 he was nice enough to visit me and give me advice. And one of the pieces of advice he gave me, governor, just remember to keep the main thing the main thing. I said pardon me . He said the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. And it took me about two years to figure out what he was talking about. But im reminded of those words today. As we try to figure out the truth. And to figure out what is indeed the main thing as it flows from your investigation and your work. In preparing for this hearing i was speaking of methdist minsters i was reminded of stripture, that warns those who see the speck in their brotherss eye but dont consider the beam thats in their own eye. And over the past few years the media and some of my colleagues have focused extensively on text exchanges between fbi officials lisa page and peter struck or cited it as proof of political motivation behind the crossfire hurricane investigation. But mr. Who are owe wits, your report i believe notes that other agents exchanged protrump text in instant messages during the course of the investigation. For example one supervisory special agent wrote in november 2016, i think this was just after the election, that he was, this is a quote from him, was so elated with the election, closed quote and compared election coverage to quote watching a super bowl comeback. He later explained his comments by stating he didnt want a criminal to be in the white house, closed quote, referring i presume to hillary clinton. Mr. Horowitz, this agent was supervising the use of a confidential human source in the investigation. Is that correct . So the individual was in a field office with a confidential human source, who provided certain information but wasnt ultimately used by the crossfire hurricane investigation. And you found other examples of protrump exchanges between fbi personnel, is that true . Yes, generally. Mr. Horowitz, did you or your team find any evidence that the agents who were exchanged protrump messages were influenced by political bias . We did not find evidence of action there. And again, you know, as i mentionsed earlier, we were very careful to separate out general statements, pro or anti a candidate, compared to Text Messages that went a step further and suggested some intent potentially to act on them or that had wording that was concerning. Fbi employees like any other employee in the federal government are allowed to have personal views on which candidate they support or dont support. What they cant do is act on them. Theyve got to check them at the door before they get to work. Thats what we were trying to sort through here. I think that is the main thing. All of us have our political views. We certainly have them on this committee and in the body where we serve. And the question is, to what extent do they impede or pro moit our ability to get things done. Did you or your team find any evidence that the agents who exchanged protrump messages were influenced by political bias . No, we did not. All right. Thank you. And this is consistent i believe with the standard of behavior one would expect from fbi professionals, is that right . Thats correct. Similar, did you find any evidence that political beliefs affected the work of mr. Struck and miss page . We, on this investigation, what we looked for very carefully was whether they had the ability to impact a decision specifically. And on the issues we looked at, the confidential human source decisions, the fisa decisions, and the opening, we found that they were not the decisionmaker on them. So that we could segregate out their views and their activities from those decisions. All right. Thank you. Let me just follow up. During your appearance before i think it was the Senate Judiciary Committee Last week, mr. Struck and miss page were described as the people in charge. But witnesses that your team interviewed stated that mr. Struck was not the primary or sole decisionmaker on any investigative step in crossfire hurricane. Witnesses also stated that miss page, quote, did not work with the team on a regular basis. Is it fair to describe mr. Struck and miss page as the quote, people in charge, closed quote . Of the crossfire hurricane investigation . So miss page was not in the chain of command at any point in time. Mr. Struck was in the chain of command so he did have Supervisory Authority for a period of time. He rotated off the organizational chart in roughly january when the second team came into being. And there were a series of problems that occurred after that as well. And so i think hes in a different position in terms of the chain of command certainly than she was. In march 2016, President Trump alleged that quote, obama had my wires tapped, closed quote, in trump tours just before the victoim. He said they put a spy in the Trump Campaign. Attorney general bar repeated these accusations when he testified he thought spying did occur on a Trump Campaign. I would just ask mr. Horowitz, did you find any evidence that the fbi engaged in spying on the Trump Campaign . Were very careful to use the words, the legal words that are used here, which is surveillance. There was the carter page surveillance that weve identified here. We did not find evidence of other courtauthorized surveillance. We found the confidential human source activity that we detail here, and didnt find additional confidential human source activity prior to the election. If i could close with this. Did the report find that the fbi engaged in surveillance of trump tower . We did not find evidence of surveillance on trump tower. And did the report find that any monitoring of Trump Campaign officials occurred without necessary approval . All were approved. Is it fair to say that the statements by President Trump and attorney general general barr that ive described are incorrect . Again, we dont use the term spying. Were not looking at whether there was court authorized surveillance or not. All right. Ill stick to what we have here. Thank you very much p. I want to go back to october 11th activities. After being asked three times by department of justice stu evans the fbi responds that the steele had been paid to develop political opposition resooich. You write that struck has advised page support might be needed to move the fisa application forward. Struck texted page currently fighting with stew for the fisa. Lisa texted mccabe i communicated you and i got things, your, and bosss green light earlier. Ive not heard back from stu in an hour. I will invoke your name to say you want to know where things are. Isnt that pretty highlevel pressure by peter struck, lisa page and Andrew Mccabe . There was certainly that effort exactly as you described. What ultimately happens is mccabe speaks with the head of National Security division about it. So they ultimately dont need to do what theyre talking about here. But that is absolutely what theyre talking about. I want to go back to pick up a little bit what senator langford was talking about with bruce orr. These are quotes in your report by Senior Department of justice and fbi officials describing orrs interactions. These are descriptions of how these officials thought about. Outside of orrs lane, they were stunned, they were uncomfortable with it, out of the norm, bad idea, raced red flags, flabbergasted. Fbi should have alerted doj. Shocking. Inconceivable. Those are a lot of Senior Department of justice fbi officials. Whats interesting is how Andrew Mccabe respondped. He said heres the responsible thing to do. How do you explain that discrepancy from most of the fbi and department of justice officials and Andrew Mccabe thinking, not a problem, its the responsible thing to do . Look, i cant explain why that view would be there. I think its perfectly understandable why if you are in the Deputy Attorney generals office, whether youre the Deputy Attorney general or right below the Deputy Attorney general, to have someone on your staff doing what was going on and not telling anybody. Its highly problematic. As we point out here, the net result of that is the Deputy Attorney general was signing a warrant that did not include Key Information that someone on her staff knew and had told the fbi, but the fbi had not come back and told the Justice Department. That was the net outcome of that. Thats a problem. Again, im seeing Andrew Mccabes fingers all over this thing. Im also seeing him say he cant say he cant recall 26 times. Let me go back to state department. I realize youre limited. Are you aware of why high level state Department Officials meetings with steele and forwarded to the fbi, why were they . The only thing i can say is from speaking with miss cava lak, it was because they thought she had to tell them, because they needed to know. But as to the others, why they were doing what they were doing, i dont know the answer. Did you obtain any information, meeting notes or any other documentation based on those meetings and con dakts, we obtained certain information including her notes and were able to speak with her. You did request interviews with Jonathon Winer . Correct. Do you know why he refused . I dont snow. What information did he have that you wanted to know . Because of his interactions of with mr. Orr and steel, we wanted to fi off an understanding as to what was happening between the Justice Department and state department. On september 30th, 2016, peter struck texts lisa page, remind me tomorrow what Victoria Nuland said. Did you ever find out what she had told her somewhere around then . I dont recall as i sit here whether we heard about it. Id have to follow up with that, senator. Senator peters, do you have im going organize my thoughts here. Do you have some other questions . I do. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Horowitz, in addition to your role as the dog, you also serve as the chair of a council of inspectors general on integrity and efficiency. A question, i know youve addressed this somewhat with a previous question, although i was out voting. If you could speak again to the importance of the Inspector General independence and in particular why siggy is important to the work and what we need to do to strengthen that organization as it ties into the general theme of why independence is so important that would be helpful . Absolutely. The foundation is our ability to both report to our agency heads and congress about what we find. Were not very importantly untegtered from the departments were in. But rather serve that dual purpose and that ability to report to both. And the independence is critical because we have the ability to get information like we did here, to use our own judgments, un without influence from the leadership of the Justice Department, the fbi or others, but to make unbiased decisions based on our historical reviews of department activities. And thats critical. Weve the Foundation Also is our ability to be transparent and our ability to produce reports like this so the public can decide for themselves what they think of our factual findings which hopefully are 100 accurate. And i note here no one is taking issues with our factual findings but rather enfor instances drawn from them. Weve got to be able to do that, have robust dialogue approximately the fact that i may disagree or the attorney general may disagree with me isnt the problem. In fact it in some respects demonstrates our independence. Some of the things that siggy does and the council inspectors general does thats important is pull together all igs and bring us together for common goals, purposes, issues we should have oversight of, training, but most importantly being able to advance independence and transparency in the government, represent the taxpayers in our agencies, support the ability to get information out there to the public, so that the taxpayers know where their money is going, how their money is being used, whether programs are authorizing, in this case fisa, that are highly intrusive programs are being used wisely or not, and making recommendations to fix them, and then doing followup to make sure thats done. And being able to domp come up here like i did for many years before the committee on access to records and other issues we were having problems with so we could do our jobs. In fact this committee, this report wouldnt have been possible but for the ig imparmt act that you all passed because this is one of the areas we were being hamstrung on in being able to oversee. So thats the kind of independence we need. We need for the reasons i mentioned earlier, testimonial subpoena authority. We cant get relevant evidence including when individuals resign, contractors who get sometimes, tens, hundreds of millions of dollars, at some agencies billions of dollars in contract potentially, and grant recipients who get considerable amount of money. There are a lot of tools we need to further our efforts. The committee has been supportive of our work. I certainly appreciate it. I know as chairmen and Ranking Members youve both led the way on that for us. Mr. Horowitz, as our committee states in questionnaires we present to every nominee who comes before us, protecting whistleblower confidentialality is of the utmost importance for us, something is vital to us. Why are whistleblowers important and why is protecting whistleblowers of critical importance . Precisely for the reasons you indicated, snoot. We get a significant amount of our information from individuals who are willing to blow the whistle. Some call themselves whistleblowers. Some dont. Theyre willing to come in and blow the whistle on wrongdoing. We issue a report, its on our web sooitd, about cases that move forward precisely because whistleblowers were willing to come in and report to us. Many are willing to come in, use their names, have their identities known, arent afraid to do it. Theyre incredibly courageous for doing it. Many are afraid and dont want their names known. They want to be anonymous. Others send us information through our hot lines and we never know their names. Doesnt mean you cant follow up on it. But what weve got to do in those instances is see if we can corroborate the information. And thats really what were charged with doing. We want information. We want people to come in. We get in my office over 10,000 calls to our hotline a year. Weve got to sort through them. Not all of them develop into leads. Not all of them when we investigate them develop into findings. But theyre critically important. And that ability to come in and without fear of retaliation or the threat of retaliation is critical. And we as igs have to do our job not only educateding people so they will come in but also making sure if anybody is threatened with retaliation, we do our jobs to ensure that there is accountability if that occurs. I certainly get this from your testimony but i want to reiterate and get your response. It seems to me based on the importance of confidentialiality and the fact you dont act just bases on a confidential report, you have to corroborate it with evidence, but how you mentioned how important confidentialiality is. I suspect that identifying the identity of a whistleblower without their consent would likely have a very significant Chilling Effect on whistleblowers generally. Is that an accurate statement, if you could expand . Thats a fair statement. And in fact, congress and the ig act has told us were not allowed to disclose whistleblower identities precisely because that have reason. Unless theres a legal requirement that we do so. Unless were unable through other means to protect their identity. So look, people who come forward, it takes great courage. My first involvement in this as ig was when i walked in and fast and furious was ongoing. We had courageous whistleblowers from atf come in and report that to us. Most of those individuals put their names with the information. But people shouldnt have to do that. That doesnt mean their information is no less important that wed consider. But it doesnt mean we dont act on purely uncorroborated information. The abilitigation is for us to corroborate the information and be able to move forward. But it takes great courage to come in as a whistleblower. Weve got to protect identities as the law reyooirz us to do and maker sure if there was retaliation or threat, we take agotion. In accept the dojs Office Issued an opinion that atemtded to inappropriately im sure youre very aware of. What is your view of the office of Legal Counsels opinion in that case . So in response to that, one of the things we did as the counsel of inspectors general is put together a letter we sent to the office of Legal Counsel on behalf of the ig community. Its postsed on our website, that expressed our serious concern about an igs inability in that instance to be able to present the information that he believed should go to congress in that circumstance. And thats something that concerns all of us in the ig community. Again, the law as its set up provided a mechanism by which an allegation to get to congress. It required a judgment by the ig. And then it required congress to be given that information. And then frankly its up to congress to decide what to do with that. It doesnt have to act on that. It can. It can make it makes its own determine naifgs. But thats a process that congress carefully considered and put in place in the law. And im of the view and we were of the view as the ig community that thats the way the process should have played out. So the letter you preference from october 22nd, if i can enter that. Without objection. Thank you. One final question. I understand that the office of Legal Counsel has responded to the responded on october 25th to this letter. What are you satisfied with that response fwb you could elaborate . They ultimately responded in the way they did. We had a respectful dialogue back and forth. As i said earlier as an ig, i didnt take this job to be in agreement all the time with everybody. We disagree as our letter says. We stand by our views in our letter. They have their point of view. Ill let readers those are both public. Again, the public should make their own determination. Thats really what we are foundationally about as igs, putting out information and letting the public and educating and informed public read them and make their own decisions. So, i gather, if i may summarize, as a professional, highly trained ig, you were not satisfied with the response, is that i stand by our letter that and our legal position and our views. Thank you. Senator peters, let me quick talk about whistleblowers. I would share senator peters, i think everybody on this committee and your desire to for those whistleblower protections. Theres no doubt about it. Im shocked, quite honestly, coming from the private sector the level of retaliation of those coming forward. I want to talk about the law. Statute does contemplate if somebody is accused of something by a whistleblower and theyre in a court of law, it actually contemplates the person being accused to confront the whistleblower, is that correct. Its by operation of law. Its up to the judge to make a consideration of that. But certainly let me if it was in a criminal case and you intended to rely on the witness, the witness would have to be there. What you would try and do in police Corruption Cases ive had this issue. You have some people willing to come forward and some people not willing to come forward. If theyre not willing to come forward, you have to figure out how that information, if possible, and it not only is, if possible can be translated into the federal rules of evidence allowing that evidence in the courtroom. Again, theres not absolute statutory protection in terms of whistleblower confidentiality. The act says right. Unless the law requires us to do otherwise. I want to tie up a few loose ends. I have a lot of questions, which we will submit as questions for the record, and we appreciate you being responsive on that. Real quick, going back to the bruce ohr activity being a conduit between Christopher Steele and the fbi, peter strozk in your report has handwritten notes when he knew about ohrs activity but in his report he denied he knew what he was doing. I would have to refresh my recollection on the notes versus what he told us. I want to double check on the breadth of what he knew because bruce ohr having 13 meetings. He clearly knew about the manafortrelated meet lgz because he was at some of the manafortrelated meetings. Well put that in questions in the record. I do want to talk about monitoring or surveilling the you know, what is the euphemism, a consensual monitoring. In other words, youre wiring somebody to surreptitiously record someone associated with the Trump Campaign versus the Trump Campaign. I think its a different thought of distinction but theres a distinction because there is a difference in terms of what authority, what approvals the fbi would have to get, correct . Correct. Thats the reason for the distinction, but i agree with you, theres varying degrees here of what occurred. They were trying to be scrupulous saying, were not surveilling the campaign, just People Associated with the campaigns. What ended up happening here, what they did was they took individuals, informants that were signed up informants for the fbi, wired them up so they could be recording conversations they had without the person they were speaking with knowing that they were being recorded. Thats, in essence, what a consensual monitoring one party sounds close like youre monitoring the campaign. Again, just lay that aside. Thats my own personal opinion. Did you ever determine why the fbi changed its opinion . I think early on when they interviewed again, this was not exactly done above board, but they interviewed Michael Flynn, at that point in time i think the agent did not feel Michael Flynn was, you know, dishonest with him. Somehow that changed. Do you have any idea why that opinion changed . I dont know. Ive heard that, but we actually no insight into what happened there on that case specifically. Quick followup on senator pauls line of questioning. We spoke about this a little earlier, too. There really are a lot of controlings in current law that have they been followed . The woods procedure. I mean, other requirements that the fbi and Everybody Knows this, they have to be scrupulously accurate. So theres a lot of controls over the fisa application, correct . There are a lot of controls. You have to stay within your lane of the Justice Department, but do you really think another layer of controls is going to fix this problem . Because this was caused by people circumventing right. Theres certainly some controls additional controls that could help. For example, you know, on some of the informant activity and others. With regard to the fisa, i agree, i think theres and this at the hearing last week and this week, real questions about are there does there need to be legislative activity here . Theres also now the fisa court has put out its order and theyre going to have some involvement in that decisionmaking as well. Thats well beyond the executive branch figuring out my own personal opinion, for someone who has definitely supported the fisa court, largely because we were told, well, show us where their abuse has been, that these applications are approved at such a high level because it is so rigorous, it is so scrupulously accurate. Now, thats been completely blown. I think the fisa court is in jeopardy, personally. And i view that as a very serious issue in terms of our National Security. And i think it was James Langford talking about that. So i agree with his concerns. The final two questions really speak to the limitationses you have in terms of conducting an investigation like this. So, a real quick, who couldnt you investigate . I mean, or what couldnt you investigate . Who couldnt you talk to, that if you had been able to, you would have been able to tell a fuller story here . Theres still a bigger story to be told. Our review as we made clear here is about the Justice Department and the fbis handling of the opening of the crossfire hurricane investigation and the carter page related fisas as well as the fbis activity on their confidential human sources and surveillance the fbi did. We did not go and look at or try to assess allegations about what the state department so, you would have kind of liked to have known that, right . But you cant do it. We certainly wanted to know from the state department side, which is why we went to mr. Weiner, what bruce ohr and mr. Steeles activities were with them. What we werent trying to figure out is what the state department were doing on their own or their own interests if they had any. I dont know as i sit here today if they had any. People ask questions about what did other intelligence agencies know . If that information was sitting in the fbis files, we had access to it. If its something they did separate and apart from the fbi, thats beyond the scope of this review. You would kind of like to know how George Papadopoulos met all these individuals that just happen to be connected in different ways . I think youd want it would be interesting to know a lot of pieces of information that are strands here. I dont necessarily believe it would have based on the access we had at the fbi, and the information at the fbi, in terms of what affected the fbis decisions, i have no reason to think theres Something Else there we didnt see. Okay. This is very similar, but what other Big Questions are outstanding . Well, it depends. At the fbi, im not sure what other questions are out there other than what i mentioned earlier, which is how did all of these failures in the fisa process thats layered with all of these controls happen and why . And i know thats a big question for people to know an answer to. And i understand why. But at this stage, we didnt get good explanations about and that was something we frankly would have liked to have gotten good explanations about. Again, i want to thank you and your team for an extraordinarily good piece of work here. Understanding the limited nature of the scope, we will be providing additional questions for the record. Weve obviously been looking for this to guide our actions. One of the reasons i asked those last two questions is that also help guide our future oversight as well. You are obviously steeped in this, you have the details. So, i would just ask your entire team, who else would you have wanted to interview that you didnt have access to . What other questions do you think remain . Ill throw that as an openended question for our questions for the record. Again, i want to thank you for your integrity, for all your hard work and efforts. In is unbelievably important, what youve revealed. And weve got a lot of work ahead of us. Senator peters, do you want with that, the hearing record will remain open for 15 days until january 2nd for submission of statements for the record. This hearing is adjourned. The house is debating two articles of impeachment against President Trump today. With votes expected later this evening. You can follow live house impeachment coverage on our companion network, cspan. Coming up this afternoon, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham will talk to reporters about the impeachment proceedings in the house and the expected impeachment trial in the republicanled senate. Well have live coverage at 2 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3, online at cspan. Org, or listen with the free cspan radio app. Sunday night on q a, wall street traderturnedphoto journalist chris arnade on his book dignity. It was a sunday morning or saturday, it was empty because the all the they were gone and she was in the industrial part of huntspoint. And immediately her intelligence just kind of came right through and we spoke for about an hour, half an hour or so. She told me her life which is just like a cliche of everything wrong that can happen to somebody. And eventually i asked her what i ask everybody i photographed, which is, you know, whats one sentence you can how do you want me to describe you . Give me one sentence to describe