Transcripts For CSPAN3 Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe Testifies On Review Of FBI Russia... 20240711

Welcome, everybody. I think we have some republicans that have a leadership election, but theyll be coming in. Can you see me . Can you hear me . Is it working . Well, the election is over. Theyre still counting the votes and making legal challenges and once all of the legal challenges are made and the votes are counted, well have that done. We still have two outstanding races in georgia to determine the control of the senate. And the committee will keep moving forward doing its work. We have next week social media oversight. I cant wait to have the social media ceos come to the committee and explain themselves about their platforms. I think theres a lot of bipartisan support to take a hard look at social media platforms. The earned act is still a business pending before the committee and after the hearing well have markup. But today, we have mr. Mccabe, the number two at the fbi during crossfire hurricane. I think hes going to appear remotely. I appreciate him coming. And what ill do is make a brief Opening Statement. Crossfire hurricane has been looked at in many fashions. The Inspector Generals report found 17 policy violations regarding the way the crossfire hurricane operation was performed. The fisa court basically rebuked the fbi and the department of justice regarding the warrant application made against carter page. Every person that we talk to been able to get a hold of, has said if i knew then what i know now, i would not have signed the carter page warrant application. Well take that topic up with mr. Mccabe. And counterintelligence investigations of political people, the committee needs to look long and hard at creating new rules of the road. This wont be the last time Foreign Governments try to interfere in our election. And the russians did, for sure, try to interfere in the 2016 election. Well see what happened in 2020. But also you got to make sure that those involved in investigating campaigns have an even hand about it and that whatever biases they have dont seep into the system so that one candidate gets treated differently than the other and were going to talk about that today with mr. Mccabe. That every allegation of a campaign being involved with foreign entities or trying to create an impression of involvement with foreign entities needs to be looked at, not just one side of the ledger. And i look forward to asking mr. Mccabe, did the fbi live up to that when it came to crossfire hurricane and try to find out how the system got so off the rails when it came to mr. Page and the warrant application. So with that, ill turn it over to senator feinstein. Thanks very much, mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comments on the election. I think we all should be heartened by the record participation and the dedication of our poll workers and state Election Officials and certainly on this side of the aisle and i hope on the other side too in the results. We thank you for calling this hearing. Its part of our examination of crossfire hurricane and thats the fbi investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. Special counsel mueller took control of that investigation when he was appointed in 2017. He concluded that there was foreign interference in the 2016 election. He found that russia interfered, quote, in sweeping and systemic fashion, end quote. He also uncovered numerous contacts between members of the Trump Campaign and individuals linked to russia. And he determined that the campaign knew about, welcomed and, quote, expected it would benefit electorally, end quote, from russias interference. The Senate Intelligence committee confirmed muellers findings in a bipartisan report. The report details russias 2016 interference and how Trump Campaign members were involved. That includes Campaign Manager Paul Manafort whose ties to russia made him, in the committees words, quote, a grave counterintelligence threat. These investigations make clear that the fbi was right to investigate Russian Election interference and the Trump Campaigns ties to russia. Inspector general Michael Horowitz also confirmed that the fbi was right to investigate. After a twoyear investigation, he concluded that the fbi was justified in opening crossfire hurricane and that there was no evidence that the political bias impacted the bureaus work. None of the 14 witnesses, the committee has heard from, during the chairmans investigation, have provided evidence to the contrary. Where are we . More than four years have passed since the fbi opened crossfire hurricane and multiple investigations have confirmed that the fbi was correct to do so. So i think, mr. Chairman, its time to turn the page on crossfire hurricane. Im grateful to fbi director wray and the career men and women of the fbi who worked hard to secure our country and its elections. They include fbi Deputy Director andrew mccabe, who i look forward to hearing from today. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much senator feinstein. Mr. Mccabe, are you with us . Mr. Mccabe . Could you speak up, please, sir . Were not getting any sound. Bear with us, mr. Mccabe. Well see if we can fix this. Hello, can you hear me now . Yes, thank you very much. Very much. Loud and clear, please. Could you raise your right hand. Yes, sir. Do you swear that the testimony youre about to give this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god . I do. Thank you. Would you like to say anything or are you just yes, sir, i have an Opening Statement that i would like to read. Please. Go ahead. Okay. Chairman graham, Ranking Member feinstein and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today. I had the privilege to serve as an fbi agent for over 21 years. I worked with the greatest people on earth. Men and women who have dedicated their lives protecting the country as agents, analysts and professional Staff Members of the fbi. I know fbi people as hardworking, dedicated patriots who are committed to the rule of law above all else, the jobs are hard, sometimes dangerous, and often they are pushed beyond the limits of their experience into volatile, unpredictable situations. Fbi personnel are not perfect. When they make mistakes, they submit to the rigors of oversight and remain committed to learning and getting it right the next time. I was honored to be one of them, i was honored to lead them, and im honored to discuss our work today. Ive agreed to testify today about my knowledge of events related to department of justice report entitled review of four fisa applications and other aspects of the fbis crossfire hurricane investigation and the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 president ial election. Because i was not permitted to consult the documents that may have refreshed my memory, to include my personal notes and my calendar, i may not be precise and accurate as i otherwise would be. I appreciate the committees flexibility in conducting this hearing virtually rather than in person. I continue to be an inperson appearance is a better vehicle for a oversight hearing, the current status of the covid19 pandemic compels me to be cautious about where i go and what i do. My wife is a frontline First Responder who takes care of children and families in our local emergency room. I try to avoid unnecessary chances of exposure and put her in endanger of continuing to care for our family. In july of 2016, the fbi initiated an investigation code named crossfire hurricane to determine whether an individual or individuals from the trump president ial campaign might be coordinating with the russian government to interfere with our 2016 president ial election. The concerns that led to our initiation of this case are well known. In the fall of 2014, the fbi had begun tracking cyberactors affiliated with russia who were targeting u. S. Political institutions, academic think tanks and other entities. In the spring of 2016, the activity intensified as new russian cyberactors invaded Computer Networks at the dnc. In july 2016, russian intelligence agents published hundreds of thousands of emails and other information stolen from the dnc with the intent of damaging Hillary Clinton on the eve of the Democratic National convention. This malicious use of stolen information signaled a new level of hostility directed at the heart of american democracy. Several months before this release and unknown to the fbi at that time, a Foreign Policy adviser to the Trump Campaign, George Papadopoulos, informed a diplomat from a friendly Foreign Government that the Trump Campaign had, quote, received indications from the russian government that it could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton, closed quote. It was after the information was publicly released in july that the diplomat communicated the content of his conversation with papadopoulos to the United States government. So what did we know in july 2016 . We had known for almost two years that the russians were targeting our Political Institutions in cyberspace. By the spring of 2016, we knew the russians stolen information from the dnc. By july, we knew the russians had used that information in a manner designed to hurt Hillary Clintons chances in the election. And then we learned that before the russians attacked us, an individual from the Trump Campaign may have known the attack was coming. Fbi policy sets the threshold for opening a fullfield investigation as the moment you have information or facts that indicate a threat to National Security might exist or that a federal crime might have been committed. In july of 2016, we had both. Russian Intelligence Services attacking our democracy process in coordination with a president ial campaign. We opened a case to investigate and try to mitigate that threat and to find out what the russians might have done. Let me be very clear, we did not open a case because we liked one candidate or didnt like the other one. We did not open a case because we intended to stage a coup or overthrow the government. We did not open a case because we thought it might be interesting or we wanted to drag the fbi in into a heated political contest. We opened a case to find out how the russians might be undermining our election. We opened a case because it was our obligation and our duty to do so. We did our job. The review of four fisa applications and other aspects of the fbis crossfire hurricane investigation details a significant number of errors and failures related to the fisa applications in this case. I agreed to be interviewed in connection with the igs investigation and i have reviewed the report. I was shocked and disappointed at the errors and mistakes that the omg found. Any misrepresentation were errors in a fisa application is unacceptable, period. The fbi should be held to the standard of scrupulous accuracy that the court demands. Fisa remains one of the most important tools in our countrys efforts to protect National Security. The fbi is the custodian of that tool. I fully support ever effort to ensure the fbis use of fisa maintains the high standards that the court and the American People demand and deserve. This commitment to the rule of law acknowledging our mistakes and doing Everything Possible to ensure that theyre corrected, these are the reasons im here today. Theyre the same reasons i have cooperated fully with every interview, hearing and Oversight Effort requested of me both while i served and since ive left the fbi. I have provided testimony to four different congressional committees on these and related matters. I had been interviewed in connection with the special counsels investigation as well as three separate doj, oig investigations. In an effort to provide this committee with the most complete, accurate testimony possible, i requested the fbi allow me to review some of my former materials, including my calendars and personal notes. That request was didnt. Fortunately the broad scope of these matters makes many of the details of our work hard to remember. I will not speculate or guess about details and facts that now remain beyond my reach without the benefit of refreshing my recollection. Based on the recent testimony of the current fbi director and other intelligence initials, it seems that many of the same signs of russian targeting that concerned us in 2016 were seen in the runup to the election we just completed. As a former career Law Enforcement officer and a Senior Intelligence officer mr. Mccabe, you had a fiveminute Opening Statement. Were at 8 46. Could you please wrap up . Yes, sir. I cannot stress enough the importance of focusing your efforts and the attention of this nation on the dangers of foreign influence on your election. The russians were successful beyond their wildest imagination at accomplishing their goals in 2016. Their successes serve as an encourage to other hostile nations intent on undermining our security, safety and stability. The russians and others will be back. Please do not let the recent calm of the 2020 election lure the nation into a false sense of security. It is up to you to ensure the nation recognizes the magnitude of the threat posed by foreign actors and take sufficiently aggressi aggressive steps to address it. One of the reasons hes not able to review his notes is that the fbi did not want him to have access to classified information. I promised mr. Mccabe, we would not go into details of his dismissal. But i dont want anybody to have the belief that this committee chose for him not to have access. It was his former employer who made that decision. Now, very quickly, did anyone from the Trump Campaign wind up being prosecuted for colluding with the russians . Senator, its my understanding, the results of the Mueller Investigation that no one was prosecuted for criminal conspiracy involving activity that would include mr. Papadopoulos, is that correct . Mr. Papadopoulos to, the best of my recollection, was prosecuted for making false statements to fbi agents. Thank you. All right. Lets make sure that the fbi treated both sides fairly. Senator feinstein suggested it was right to open up the investigation against the Trump Campaign. You say it was right. It was your duty. Lets look at the entire record of the 2016 election and see how evenhanded the fbi was. On september the 7th, 2016, the cia not the australian ambassador to the United Kingdom in london but our cia sends an Investigative Lead over to the fbi and they inform the fbi of u. S. President ial candidate Hillary Clintons approval of a plan concerning u. S. President ial candidate donald trump and Russian Hackers hampering u. S. Elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail service. How many agents were assigned to investigate that . Senator, if you are referring to the memorandum, the raw intelligence memorandum recently declassified by the dni yeah, yeah. I have read that memorandum and i dont understand it to be a request for investigative activity. Im not aware that any agents were assigned to investigate the information timeout. You get a memo, an investigate lead is what the cia calls it, alleging that Hillary Clinton had just signed off on a plan to tie trump to russia for political purposes. How many people looked at that . How many agents were assigned to see if it was true or not . Did you know about it . I was not aware of that memorandum wait a minute. Timeout. Timeout. Timeout. You get a cia memo suggesting that the democratic candidate for president , Hillary Clinton, is trying to divert attention from her email server problem by castings castings a pir sigss against the Trump Campaign being connected to russia and you didnt know about it, how is that possible . Senator, i would like to explain to you how thats possible who did it go to . Who did it go to . I will, i want to make sure he understands who it went to. Who did the memo go to . I read the memo recently and my understanding, it went to the to director comey and was also to the attention of peter strzok. That memorandum that youre referring to, as i read it, is in response to an fbi request, oral request, for an update of the sort of information that the crossfire Hurricane Task force was reviewing about russian activity in the campaign. Thats from my best recollection, thats what the im here to tell you that thats not what happened is that the cia and weve got the documents sent to the fbi information suggesting that Hillary Clinton had approved of a plan to link donald trump to russia for political purposes and it went to peter strzok. Do you believe peter strzok was fairminded when it came to the Trump Campaign . Senator, my experiences working with peter strzok, yes, i believe he was fair and the decisions that he made in the work that he did. Do you object to mueller relieving him from the investigation because of the emails show that he hated trumps guts . My recollection stirs that removed peter from that team because of the Ongoing Investigation did you remove him or did mueller remove him . We had conversations on the evening that i was first shown the Text Messages between mr. Struck and ms. Page and we made the decision to remove him and we reached out to director muellers team and they agreed with that. Thats my recollection. So you believe that peter strzok was on the up and up. Were you ever was it ever suggested to you by mrmr. Precep that mr. Struck should not be involved because of his relationship with lisa page . Senator, to the i remember discussing with both mr. Pretap and mr. Steinbach. He suggested that strzok not be involved. You overwrote him and here is what we know about strzok and page. Page, march 3rd, 2016, god, trump is a lowsome human. Oh, my god, trump is an idiot. Hes awful. Hillary should win 100 million to nothing. August 2016, page, hes not going to become president , right . Strzok, no, no, he wont. Well stop it. Is it your testimony under oath that you think peter strzok had no biases against trump . Senator, it is my testimony under oath that the work that i saw peter strzok do on the crossfire hurricane case and on other cases why didnt he did not indicate go ahead. Im having a hard time finishing an answer. I dont know if its please, please finish. Please, finish. I was simply stating that the work that i saw peter do on this case and other cases from that work and the decisions he made, i did not see any indications of political bias. Did you how do you explain to the American People that when the fbi received a memo from the cia alleging that Hillary Clinton had signed off on a plan concerning u. S. President donald trump and russia hackers hampering u. S. Elections as a means from distracting the public from her use of a private mail service that you did nothing. Should peter strzok have told you about this . I cant explain to you, senator, what peter strzok or director comey thought about that memo at that time. What i can say wait a minute, wait a minute. Please, i want to get into this. Everybody is saying that you had the right to open up an investigation against trump based on the u. S. Ambassador excuse me, the australian ambassador to the United Kingdom who heard a conversation in a bar. What youre telling the committee, when the cia informs the fbi about a plan signed off by Hillary Clinton to link trump to russia, nothing was done, is that what youre saying . There was no investigation of that allegation at all . What im saying, senator, is its not clear to me that theres an allegation of criminal conduct in that memorandum. Thats based on my current reading of it. I did not see it at the time its not a counterintelligence investigation is what was opened up against trump, not a criminal investigation, is that true . Papadopoulos was a counterintelligence investigation. The case against mr. Papadopoulos was a counterintelligence case, thats correct. If youre going to have a counterintelligence investigation opened up against a Trump Campaign based on a conversation by the australian ambassador to the United Kingdom based on a bar conversation, youre telling me thats legit and you put all of the resources for 2 1 2 years to run that down, but youre telling this committee when our own cia suggest that Hillary Clinton signed off on a plan to link trump to russia for political purposes, you didnt do a damn thing, is that your testimony . No, sir, thats not my testimony. What happened . My testimony im happy to explain to you how we thought about issue with mr. Papadopoulos thats not my question, no. My question is, why did the fbi not open up an investigation based on the cia input . The cia is telling the fbi that they have information Hillary Clinton signed off a plan to deflect attention from her and put trump in a bad light regarding russia. That came in september 2016. You didnt know about it, apparently. Can you explain to this committee and the American People why the fbi did nothing regarding that allegation . I cannot, sir, explain to you what peter strzok or anyone else thought about that at the time. But i can explain to you that mr. I expect that you believe that mr. Papadopoulos should be looked at. Im not arguing you. I dont understand how you can tell how the fbi operated. Youve got a tip from an australian ambassador of the United Kingdom talking about a bar conversation with mr. Papadopoulos about russia hacking and that leads to 2 1 2 years of turning the country upside down. Your own cia informs the fbi in september that they have information that Hillary Clinton, herself, signed off on a plan to divert attention from her email problems to trump by linking him to russia for political purposes. And mr. Strzok never told you about it, the fbi never opened up an investigation, they never hired one agent. That really is disturbing to a lot of us. Now, lets go to the warrant. In june 2016 excuse me, 2017, did you sign off on the carter page warrant application . In june of 2016, yes. 17 im sorry. Im sorry. 2017. Did you know at the time that the cia warned the fbi on numerous occasions to be careful of using the dossier, it was internet rumor . I did not know that at the time. And im i dont know that now. Okay. Well, we got a list of lets see. A list cia informs the fbi that carter page had been approved as an operational contact from 2008 to 2014. Did you know that the cia had told the fbi that in august of 2017 . No, sir. The reason thats important, that would explain why mr. Page was actually talking to people he claimed to be talking with. Did you know i. D. You havedi conversation about the reliability of Christopher Steele . I had a conversation in october of 2016 about with mr. Orr about his interactions with mr. Steele. Did he tell you you should be concerned and be careful . I dont remember him saying i should be concerned or be careful, no. In the fall of 2016, this is his testimony to the committee, you put mr. Mccabe on notice, you need to watch this and verify. I gave him the same caveats and the caveats were that steele hated trump. What did he say when you told him that you were concerned about you need to be careful for lack of a better term . I think he understood because he also worked on russia criminal matters. We have mr. Orr under oath saying that he expressed concerns to you, strzok, and others about the reliability of mr. Steele. You dont remember that . Senator, i dont remember the specifics of our conversation. However, we were engaged in trying to determine and verify the statements in mr. Steele s reporting at that time. Were you aware of the subsource interview in january and march to the fbi . I was aware that an individual who our team thought of one of the primary subsources had been identified and they were interviewed. Did they tell you about the substance of those interviews . Not in detail. So you didnt know that in january, the subsource tells the fbi he had no idea where some of the language attributed to him came from, his context never mentioned the information contributed to him, he said he did not know the origins of other information that was supposedly from his contacts, he did not recall other information contributed to him and contracts, use characterizations for the primary subsources contacts that in march he said he never expected steele to put his statements in reports or present them as facts. The statements were word of mouth and hearsay conversations have with friends over beers or statements made in guejest and should be taken with a grain of salt. Was that communicated to you . No, sir. 2017 against carter page . No, sir. Finally, who is responsible for ruining mr. Carter pages life if its not you, its not rosen stein, its not comey and its not sally yates. Who is responsible for putting together the information provided to the fisa court that was completely devoid of the truth, lacking material facts, completely represented what mr. Page did and how he did it. Who should we look to for that responsibility . Well, sir, i dont agree with the way you characterized. Thats what the court said . I think as the ig who is responsible . Everybody is responsible . Is nobody responsible . Sir, it would help if you allowed me to finish my answer. It would be easier to understand. The question is who is responsible . I think we are all responsible for the work that went into that fisa. I am certainly responsible as a person in a leadership position with oversight over these matters. I accept responsibility fully. Did you mislead the fisa court . I signed a package that included a numerous factual errors or failed to include information that should have been brought to the court. And what should be done to you and others . Well, senator, i think we are doing that with this process . I think our efforts should be focused on figuring out how these errors took place and ensuring that doesnt happen again. That starts with those that committed the problem to be held accountable. Senator feinstein . Well, mr. Chairman, i hope, you know, this is difficult forces once hearings open and then they get open and then reports get done and then they get castigated for doing it, and in his 435page report i. G. Horowitz confirmed that the fbi had a legitimate reason to open the crossfire hurricane investigation. Attorney general barr disagreed with the i. G. s finding and has since referred to it as the bogus russiagate scandal. So this is the first time i have heard this kind of thing happening and one witness told the i. G. , quote, it would have been a dereliction of duty and responsibility of the highest order not to investigate. Do you agree with that . Im sorry. Senator, i absolutely agree that it would have been a dereliction of duty for us to not initiate the cross fire hurricane investigation in the way that we did. Now, as i understand it, it was a counterintelligence investigation into Trump Campaign ties to russia. You opened a counterintelligence investigation into trump himself after he fired former fbi director comey, and linked comeys termination to the russia investigation. I dont know whether thats true or not. Id like to know. You have said that if the fbi failed to open an investigation into trump under those circumstances, we wouldnt be doing our job. I believe you said that on 60 minutes. So i think its pretty clear opening a counterintelligence investigation into a president is an extraordinary step. Why did you see it as necessary under those circumstances . Senator, there were a lot of things that were concerning us as we went through the opening and the process of investigation please say what they were. I think it would be helpful to this conversation. Sure. So we knew that the russian his been targeting us. We had reason to believe because of the friendly Foreign Government information that the campaign had been aware of that and might have coordinated with them in those activities so thats why we initiated the crossfire investigation. After, as we proceeded with that investigation, we had a series of alarming director comey had a series of alarming interactions with President Trump in which it became pretty clear to us that he did not want us to continue investigating what the russians had done. He actually asked at one point that we stop investigating general flynn. He then fired director comey. They also asked that we state publicly that he was wanot unde investigation. We didnt do that and we didnt close investigation on general flinn and he fired director comey and he stated publicly that hed fired director comey thinking about the russians. He then told the russians that hed fired director comey and that that had relieved a lot of pressure that had been on him. So we had many reasons at that point to believe that the president might himself pose a danger to National Security and that he might have engaged in obstruction of justice if the firing of the director and those other things were geared towards eliminating or stopping our investigation of russian activity. So what was found on that point . Well, thats the point, senator, which we handed the investigation on the first four people and the investigation of President Trump and the investigation of former attorney general sessions over to the special counsel team, and i think, you know, we all know what happened. The conclusion of that investigation and the details that are provided in the Mueller Report, i think, provide pretty solid results that that verify and that are valid. So im very confident in the work that the special counsel did, and i think it proved this our concerns at that time were legitimate. Would you go into some of those concerns and what the report showed . Sure. So we opened the initial crossfire hurricane investigation because predominantly the state with George Papadopoulos which indicated that mr. Maybe mr. Papadopoulos, maybe others affiliated with the campaign might be coordinated with russia. My recollection of the results of the special counsels investigation is that they found over 100 different connections between people affiliated with or a part of the Trump Campaign and russians or people affiliated with the russian government or russian Intelligence Services. So clearly, our concern that there might be connections here that they might be looking into to ensure theres no danger to National Security was proven true. On the obstruction of justice side, i think it is well known director mueller concluded that he could not indict or seek an indictment of a sitting president due to department of justice policy. However, the volume 2 of the Mueller Report lays out in pretty excruciating detail. At least ten different categories of behavior or activity that the president engaged in, and i think to the best of my recollection, in at least eight of those categories, the elements of the offense of obstruction of justice evidence to prove each element of the obstruction of justice are present in those categories of behavior. So its a bit legalistic, and i apologize for that explanation, but it is a fairly compelling case that the president was, in fact, engaging in behavior that you could easily categorize as obstruction of justice. Once again, our concern that the president might be obstructing justice was verified by the results of the mule are repoell. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman . Senator cornyn . Mr. Mccain, i revere the department of justice. I revere the fbi, but whats happened over the last four years has revealed an fbi gone rogue that has interfered with not just one candidate, but with two candidates for president of the United States starting with Hillary Clinton. And then, of course, the investigation of the current president donald trump. How is it that the fbi decided to interfere in the election of not just one, but two candidates for president of the United States . Well, senator, i dont agree with your characterization of our work as having gone rogue, and i would also say that at no time while i was in the fbi did we make a decision to interfere in any president ial election. Did you participate in the discussions leading up to the july 5, 2016 press conference that director comey held on the email investigation . Did you agree with that and did you support his decision to go public with that announcement . Senator, i was a part of those decisions at the time. I supported it at the time and i feel very differently about it now. Im happy to go into detail about that, if youd like. And you understand that while you thought that firing the fbi director may be some evidence of russian involvement with President Trump, you are familiar with the Rod Rosenstein memo which was, at least in part the reason why director comey was fired, correct . I learned of the yes. Yes. I became familiar with that that day director comey was fired. What i dont understand, mr. Mccabe is your relationship with director comey. Did director comey know everything you knew or did you selectively tell him or report to him about the things the fbi was doing . Well, i cant say, senator. I cant say what director comey knew, but i can tell you that correct director comey and i attended numerous meetings together, briefings every day, that it was my practice to discuss all of the major issues that i was dealing with with director comey. So we spoke frequently about most topics. I cant tell you with perfect accuracy what we talked about, so we talked a lot and he was pretty up to speed on what going on at all times. Did you or director comey consult with Deputy Attorney general lynch or sally yates about the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign . Yes, sir. Our team met with the folks, the doj and the leadership of the National Security Division Within a day or so of opening the cross fire hurricane investigation and informed them of what we had done and what we thought about the case and the people who were being investigated, and then director comey and i, well, i wont speak for director comey. I it followup investigations with leadership in the days that followed and many times during the course of the investigation. Mr. Mccabe, who should be held accountable for the submission of a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act application that contained a lie about carter page with regard to his activities on behalf of another agency of the federal government and who should be held accountable for relying on the nowdiscredited steele dossier . I think thats the question people would like an answer to. Who should be held accountable . Senator, i think all of the people involved in this work should be and have been held accountable. I feel like the oversight process that were engaged in now, the participation and cooperation and the efforts of the Inspector General. I think all of these elements are the work that the fbi has done internally to address everything from individuals to processes involved and those are all essential steps to ensure that this these errors are fixed and that we take appropriate steps not to make them in the future. Well, its 2020 and these occurred back in 2016. I dont think the i certainly dont have any confidence that the people who were responsible for this debacle over the last four years will ultimately be held responsible. I hope im wrong, so i dont agree with my friend from california thats now a time to turn the page. We need to make sure that nothing like this ever, ever happens again to any candidate or any president regardless of their political party. I have to tell you my biggest concern, mr. Mccabe is that the fbi, under james comey and under your leadership as Deputy Director of the fbi can do this, what they did to Hillary Clinton, a candidate for president of the United States and can do it to donald j. Trump both as a candidate and current president of the United States. What chance does an average citizen have if theyre under investigation by an fbi led by leaders in the fashion that you and mr. Comey led during the time of these investigations. What confidence can an average citizen have that they would have any chance at all . Senator, i disagree with you. I think that all americans should and do have great confidence in the fbi today and during the time i was there and before that. The fbi conducts tens of thousands of investigations across all programs every single day, and the fbi goes to Great Lengths to ensure that the rights Constitutional Rights of those subjects of investigations, witnesses we come across and the sources of information that we work with are protected during the course of those investigations. That doesnt mean that we dont make mistakes. We do. We are an organization of human beings and people make mistakes. What that happens i think we go through a rigorous process to ensure that we dont make mistakes again. When you make mistakes other people pay the price apparently. Let me just ask one final question, mr. Mccabe. On march the 16th, you were terminated by the fbi following an investigation of the office of Inspector General and the office of professional responsibility which found that you had made an unauthorized disclosure to the news media, and you lacked candor including under oath on multiple occasions, isnt that correct . Senator, it is correct that i was the subject of a biased, deeply flawed and unfair investigation by the department of Justice Office of Inspector General, and ive been pretty clear in my vigorous objection to that investigation and its findings and conclusions and filed a federal lawsuit, and i think i would refer you to the specific comments in that lawsuit. Its not proper for me to discuss the details of that investigation now that its in front of a federal judge. Mr. Chairman, anyone across america who tuned into this hearing has a right to be confused. If you were told this is a hearing on a president ial election, its true, but not the one that occurred a week ago. We are talking about a president ial election and campaign four years ago. Yes, we are focusing on a president ial election, but we are examining for the fourth time the role of russians in the 2016 election four years ago, and more importantly, we are discussing President Trumps conclusion, despite intelligence evidence to the contrary, that the russian collusion was a hoax. For this Senate Judiciary committee its all about hillary and outgoing President Trumps bizarre theories of justice. This is a lastditch, desperate undertaking to deal with President Trumps grievances about that election. Weve call concede the the point that carter page was not treated properly. Both sides of the aisle have said as much. How man times do we have to say it . Ill say it again today. What are we facing here and the Senate Judiciary committee might be interested in . Lets take a few items. We did have an election, a landmark moment in history, a sitting president , donald trump who has routinely disrespected the rate of law, put his own interest ahead of the interest of the American People and ignored Public Health and in unprecedented number a clear majority of americans voted to say, thats it. Were finished with you and replace him with president elect joe biden and Vice President elect kamala harris, two senators who served honorably on this committee. The election sent a clear message. Its time to stop relitigating issues of the last election. Its time finally to put behind us the divisiveness and vitriol of the trump era and to bring our country did together to address covid, number one, and put our country back on its feet. Here we are today, seven days after that election and our committee is holding another partisan hearing to advance president s theories. This is the fourth hearing this year on the last administration, the previous administrations Justice Department in response to President Trumps repeated calls to investigate the investigators and to try to rewrite the story of russias involvement of the 2016 campaign, meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary committee that we sit on here hasnt held a single oversight hearing on the Trump Administrations Justice Department in this congress. Any issues we might want to raise . I can think of a few. Perhaps we not even investigate the department of Homeland Security and the zerotolerance policy. I regret what happened to carter page. Ive said so before, but i also regret what happened to 2,200 infants, toddlers and children who were physically removed from their parents by the zerotolerance policy of the Trump Administration and the fact that 545 of those children are still in an abandoned status today. Thatla, so my question is who should be held responsible . Why would not the immigration surp submit me on, even one hearing that issue, pon woen one, and there are some timely issues who might have considered today. Let me give you one. Bill barr authorized federal prosecutors to pursue quote, vote tabulation irregularities prior to the elections. The memo represents another instance of his sacrificing the reputation of the department of just toys ser justice to serve the political interests of donald trump. Attorney general barr is clealys attempting to fabricate a veneer of legitimacy for the baseless claims made by President Trump and his supporters and hes doing so by overriding Longstanding Department of justice policies that were put in place to prevent this very type of political interference in an election season. Let me tell you what the previous guidelines and the previous attorneys general honored said, quote, Public Knowledge of a criminal investigation could impact the adjudication of election litigation and contest in state courts. Accordingly, it is the general policy of the Justice Department not to conduct overt investigations, end of quote. Attorney general barr jettisoned that standard yard. The barr memo prompted the department of justice director of Elections Crime Branch to resign from his position, no. Im sorry. Were going to go back ailor again, man a fifth time rather than, mr. Rich raard pilger hade noninterference approximately see for fraud allegations in the period prior to allegations becoming certified, end of quote. When general barr came before me in my office i asked him points blank, why do you want to be Donald Trumps attorney general . He said you should have seen the other list of people who was considered. I thought i should step in at that point and secondly, he said i want to preserve the reputation of the department of justice. Is there anyone on or off this committee who believes that general barrs actions yesterday preserved the integrity of the department of justice where bearless claims are being made about voter fraud . Do you know what the litigants record is in court since the elections . Protesting the outcome of the election . 0 for 10. They have no evidence whatsoever of election fraud. If they did, they would certainly bring it forward. I want to close by think thatting former george w. Bush of texas for stepping up and doing the honorable thing and acknowledging to now president elect joed bien that he did win, that he will be the next president and that he, president bush, is a proud republican. I thought that that was time for him to step up for the good of the republic. I yield. Thanks, senator durbin. Id like to respond about the comments you made about the committee. What were doing and why. Number one, we will investigate how the carter page a application was submitted numerous times to the fisa court with inaccurate information. Think it is very important to have every person to say if knew then what i know now i wouldnt have signed it. In the committee, they received information from director ratcliffe that in september 2016, september 7th the cia informs the fbi that knd at Hillary Clinton approved of a plan concerning u. S. President ial candidate donald trump and russia, hackers hampering u. S. Elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server, and if you go look at the classified information theres more there. I guess what were saying is you accept without any doubt that the fbi should have looked at all things trump based on papadopoulos, what were suggesting is that when the cia informs the fbi that Hillary Clinton may have signed off on a plan to link trump to russia for political reasons nobody did anything. There wasnt an investigation opened. Mr. Mccabe didnt even know about it. The fbi director says it didnt ring a bell. The person it went to was peter strzok who was incredibly bias against President Trump. So i guess what were saying, if you believe it would have been a dereliction of duty not to look at trump based on a statement by the australian ambassador of the United Kingdom regarding a barr conversation in london that led to everything weve dealt with for two and a half years, we were wondering just out loud here, how could you ignore the ceo information provided by the cia that the democratic candidate for candidate signed off on a plan to link trup to russia for political reasons which would explain some of the garbage across fire hurricane. Youre okay with that. Were not. You area absolutely fine that e candidate for the president of the United States for 2016, to lefr link the republican candidate to russia for political purposes. Nobody did anything. That is a big deal to me because this is not the last election well ever have and you cant live in a country this way. You cant live in a country where they take a cia lead and put it in the garbage can, and nobody do anything. Thats just not fair to this country. Thats thats got to stop. You cant have two standards and will you help me mueller doesnt get fired . Yes. Mueller got to do his job. Heres what were upset about. Nobody took allegations from the cia seriously about Hillary Clintons effort to sign off on a plan. It may not be true, but somebody should have looked at it. Nobody cared over there. I think most people on this side of the aisle believe that when it came to clinton and trump, in the crossfire hurricane shut off anything that would change the narrative that trump was being involved with the russians and they ignored every stop sign about carter page, they kept ignoring information because they wanted the outcome and they didnt lift a finger to investigate a lead from our own cia. Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairman, may i respond . Yes, please. Mr. Chairman, what you just said is so alarming that we should have had somewhere along the way a thorough, nonpartisan investigation of this whole crossfire hurricane. Well, it turns out we did. Inspector general Michael Horowitz in december 2019 found that the fbis cross fire hurricane had actual fabrication and not with bias. That isnt what President Trump or attorney general barr or members of this committee wanted to hear so they opened an independent i. G. Investigation in every partisan way imaginable and this is the fourth try in this committee. Enough. With all due respect, senator durbin, does it not bother you at all that the cia tells the fbi of a plan that Hillary Clinton may have signed off on and nobody looked at that time . May i jump in . Please. Actually, it doesnt and ill tell you why it doesnt. The fbi is an agency of limited and specific jurisdiction. It has the ability to pursue predicated criminal investigations, and i think weve all agreed that a Political Campaign choosing to tie politically, the opponent to a foreign country is not a criminal act. The Trump Campaign tried to do that to joe biden with china throughout this campaign. Its not a criminal act and if youre looking at this as a counterintelligence investigation the obvious difference is that the information that the fbi was receiving about carter page and the Trump Campaign is that there were contacts contacts between russian intelligence operatives and Trump Campaign operatives when you have contacts going on that does light up a flag on a counterintelligence front, and i dont see how anybody could disagree that thats the case, but when you have a Campaign Making its internal Campaign Policy to try to say biden is too close to china and you cant trust him, or trump is too close to russia and you cant trust him, i dont think the fbi has a lot of business interfering in that type of Public Campaign political debate and i would bet you that if the fbi was looking into what the Trump Campaign said about biden with respect to china and whether they had a strategy to tied by tone trump, you would be beside yourself with irritation and anger that the fbi had taken that step, and yet here youre excoriating the fbi for staying away from taking that step with respect to an internal political strategy of the hillary campaign. I dont see how that get dwros o criminality or the type of contacts with a foreign power that raised counterintelligence concerns. So thats my you keep asking this question. There is my answer. Let me give my reply to your answer and well get to senator lee. In this case there was no criminal investigation opened. It was all counterintelligence based on a conversation by the australian ambassador to the United Kingdom with papadopoulos in a bar and we got the tapes and papadopoulos said on tape, no, im not working with the russians. That would be treason. They used that snippet to what is now called the cross fire hurricane in the investigation. The one thing youre overlooking here is that the steele dossier was prepared by Christopher Steele who is on the payroll of the democratic party. He was working through fusion gps that was being paid by the democratic party. He created a document that was a bunch of garbage. The state department calls over to the fbi and says this guy wants trump not to win in the worst way. Bruce orr and a bunch of other people warned the fbi that the Christopher Steele document is suspect, at best. The cia informs the fbi it is internet rumor so this is a situation where if the Clinton Campaign in fact, created this impression that trump was working with the russians through Christopher Steele who was on the payroll that yeah, maybe it makes it all make sense and maybe that explains that this dossier was prepared by a political person and a person on the payroll that was used to get a warrant against an american citizen. This is the first time i know of that Opposition Research winds up being used by the fbi to get a warrant against an american citizen, and a member of the other campaign. I am very sad that the cias information about Hillary Clinton signing off on a plan to link trump to russia wasnt looked at because if you looked at it that may have explained Christopher Steele in the dossier. Senator lee . Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. According to bill presteps handwritten notes from the january 24, 2017 meeting, a meeting mr. Mccabe attended, the fbis strategy with general Michael Flinn was to, quote, get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired and also, quote, if we can get him to admit to bricking the logan act, give the facts of the department of justice and have them decide, closed quote. Mr. Mccabe, is it typical for leadership at the fbi to strategize as to how to get subjects of an investigation to lie as in this case in an informal interview without counsel present . Well, i cant im not going to speak for mr. Presteps notes im just asking you whether its typical. I can tell you that it is common to discuss before an interview the many different ways that that interview might turn out and one of those ways is the subject or the witness that youre interviewing might be deliberately deceptive and it is common to think about how you would handle that. In this 302 interview, peter strzok stated before the interview, mccabe, the fbi, general counsel and others decided agents would not warn flinn, that it was a crime to lie during the fbi interview because they wanted flinn to be relaxed and they were concerned that giving warnings might adversely affect the rapport, closed quote. Is it normal for fbi leadership to instruct agents to not inform interviewees of their rights in investigational interviews . There is no requirement to tell any witness or interviewee that it is a crime to lie to the fbi. It is very common for agents and their supervisors to discuss how theyre going to handle these different elements of an interview before they go in and do it. I assume you dont do that all of the time and one the reasons you dont do that all of the time is you rely on informal interviews and if youre constantly warning them in advance and and making them feel like theyre targets thats a problem, but it can also become a problem and it invariably does. When people are lured into an informal interview with one set of expectations that you created for them and you routinely bash them. When scheduling the meeting with general flinn you threat end to elevate the issue of his call to ki kislyak if he appeared with counsel. Statements made by general flinn during this very same interview where you advised him to appear also was used as the basis for his prosecution . Is it Standard Practice for the fbi to threaten highlevel officials if they refused to appear for interviews without counsel or at least without someone from the White House Counsels Office . Well, the premise of your question is absolutely false. I did not threaten general flinn with anything. General flinn and i during a very short conversation, i asked general flinn if he wanted to have a representative from the White House Counsels Office and i simply told him that if that were the case that i would need agents to also bring an attorney from the department of justice, general flinn very quickly replied that he didnt want to bring an attorney to the interview which is certainly right and we proceeded in that way. Im looking at your notes regarding your conversation with general flynn, and i explained to Lieutenant General flynn that my desire was to have two of my agents interview him as quickly, quietly and discreetly as possible. He agreed and offered to meet with the agents today and i ultimately agreed to conduct the interview in his office at the white house at 1530. I thought the quickest way to get this done was to have a conversation between him and the agents only and i stated that if general flinn wished to include anyone else in the meeting like the white house counsel, for instance, that i would need to involve the department of justice and he stated this would not be necessary and agreed to the agents without any additional participants. To me, at least its on suggestion. Based on sally yates 302, director comey admitted that he would have informed the Obama White House chief of staff, dennis mcdonogh, if this were occurring under analogous circumstances with president obamas National Security adviser so why this disparate treatment. And why not, where you would inform the chief of staff in one instance, but not another administration . Sir, i cant speak to jim comey. We talked about the crossfire hurricane investigation in front of this committee. So far we havent been able to get a single straight answer to some critical questions including the leadership of the fbi or the department of justice knew about the serious flaws contained in the carter page fisa warrants before the original application was submitted on october 21, 2016. Also, who knew by the time that the first renewal was submitted on january 12, 2017 or how about the second renewal on april 7, 2017 and most importantly for todays purposes, who knew when you signed the third renewal on june 28, 2017 . Nobody seems to be telling us anything. Back in august, Deputy Attorney general sally yates told this committee that she had no idea that factual errors on the initial application, she had no idea those were there. A few weeks ago director comey said he didnt know about the errors when he signed the initial publications and subsequent renewals and now you told this committee what . What is your answer to these questions . Tell me what you were aware of as of those dates. Well, ive been pretty clear that i was not aware of the errors that are identified in the i. G. s report or any other errors that were present in the package that i signed in june 2017. Mr. Chairman, my time is expiring, can i get an additional two minutes . I think i can wrap this up in that time. Thank you. You stated in your testimony that fisa remains one of the most important tools in our countrys efforts to protect National Security. The fbis the custodian of that tool. I fully support every effort that the fbis use of fisa maintains the high standards of the court and the American People that they deserve. Thats all well and good. I like the statement as far as it goes, but i would note mr. Mccabe that ive heard this line before. Not just once. Ive heard it more times than i can possibly count over the last ten years while ive been sitting on this committee. Your comments are nearly identical to the ones that ive heard from fbi official after fbi official from basically every fbi official who has testified in front of this committee on this issue. Trust us, were the good guys and we need the secret surveillance authorities in order to keep you safe and furthermore, you dont need to keep them. These arent the droids were looking for because were the good guys and require a high level of approval. It turns out none of the people that are involved in the high level of approval. The same people over and over again in the last decade that they were reviewing them and that thats why its okay and none of them can answer these questions so thats why were here again, so im asking you now, how are we supposed to tell the American People to have confidence in the secretive fisa process if, mind you, this is hard to believe, no one in the fbi leadership, no one in leadership of doj or fbi wants to admit that they were aware of serious flaws in a very highprofile investigation and what assurances could you possibly give us that fisa applications targeting everyday americans, just u. S. Citizens not foreign suspected terrorists and not evenhighfr highprofie United States, and the fisa process must be reformed. We cant ask americans to continue to give the give the medic federal government and only to have the people accountable for it is a they have no idea how these things happen. I can assure you that your abuse of the fisa process has cost you the trust of the American People and i dont use those words lightly. What is more tragic is they caused a great agency and one that i worked with as a federal prosecutor and one for which i have Great Respect and theyre countless, hardworking honest men and women who earn the fbis good name every day. Their reputation has been sullied, and the bureaus ability to do its job has been seriously impaired by these missteps, thats why this structure must change. And i wont rest until it does. Mr. Mccabe, would you like to respond . Sure. I certainly cant respond to what other things that people have said over senator lee over the next ten years. I do agree with you that this process, the i. G. s oversight and the report that they delivered has uncovered that there are problems with the way potentially with the way that the fbi is handling its fisa responsibilities. I think im fairly confident in saying that this experience has exposed to me, at least, that we have been over confident in the process that weve been using for years. Weve been overconfident in the oversight that weve been subjecting each fisa package to, and i think we need to go back in very thoroughly look at how do we change that process to ensure that the errors and omissions in these packages thatthat we know about dont happen again. It wont change. We have to change it. Its the law thats the problem and it gives an unfair amount of discretion to human beings that proved once and again they cant be trusted. First of all, let me just say that given the errors and omissions that everybody concedes and knows were in the fisa warrant, no official would say now that theyd sign that warrant knowing that it had errors and omissions. So thats an obvious question. What i want to make sure of is that it doesnt lead to the wrong implication that because officials wouldnt sign a warrant that they knew to have errors and omissions in it that had they found out there were errors and omissions in it, they would have ended the investigation. That is not a logical leap and that is not a correct assertion or direct implication. You go out and clear out errors and omissions and you take whatever is necessary against the people responsible for those errors and omission and you proceed with the correct warrant. So lets make sure thats clear. I want to clarify that. I have no objection pursuing endlessly the question of this crossfire hurricane investigation, but it does irk me that we do this at the expense of other things we could be looking at and should be looking at. If you havent read judge gleasons brief for a federal judge in the flinn case, its one of the most astonishing first of all, its just an amazingly good piece of legal writing so if youre a law student out there or a young lawyer go read it just to watch the skill of a terrific advocate at work and the retired federal judge on behalf of the sitting federal judge has made about the department of justice are unpress debted au unprecedented and what attention have we given that . None. There is mischief behiebd tnd t antitrust letter that was sent out to Auto Companies who had the nerve to try to interfere with the fossil fuel industry scheme to undue vehicle emission standards. Theres no support for that. Its since been withdrawn. The hearing continues to be postponed, and i still have got zero zero evidence or information in relation to my requests about that. We have what appears to have been a tanked fbi investigation in the cavanaugh hearings and ive asked questions about that to which ive had no answer whatsoever and weve had multiple resignations and protests by career doj officials under attorney general barr and we cant get any answers to whats going on behind those resignations in protest, and now two federal courts have written official opinions, decisions excoriating the work of the office of Legal Counsel and nothing on that. So were highly directive in what we choose to look into and weve been extremely slis us to of the stonewalling and nonresponsiveness of this department of justice. Well, guys, were about to go into a Biden Department of justice, and if the standard you want to set is that the department of justice doesnt have to answer any reletters an doesnt have to answer any qfrs, congratulations because youve done a good job of setting that precedent in this committee. You have allowed an effective policy at the department of justice and the fbi of nonresponsiveness and ill tell you how bad it is. The chairman actually brought the Deputy Attorney general into a meeting with me, thank you for that courtesy, at my request because we were getting no answers to qfrs, no answers to letters, just a complete blowoff. If i recall correctly that meeting was in june. You know how many answers ive gotten since june after the meeting about the Deputy Attorney general about Unanswered Questions . None. Zero. So you all have set one heck of a precedent if you think youre going to come back with questions about the Biden Department of justice. You have set a precedent that the department of justice and the fbi dont have to answer our questions and if youre in the majority, thats cool. Youre just going to let that ride so i have it take this opportunity to can back questions to a former fbi official because we dont have that. So let me ask mr. Mccabe, are there the fbi does pretty much everything by policy and procedure in my recollection as attorney working with fbi agents and were there fbi policies and procedures related to how a tip line operates . Yes, sir. There are policies about that. And where would i go to find those policies and procedures . I was able to find one statement on the internet. Are you aware of other places that we should go to look more specifically since we havent been able to get straight answers . I dont know if i can give you the Perfect Place to look, but the tip line the way the fbi handles tip lines has changed a lot in the last five or so years. So theyre all managed centrally out of our facility in West Virginia that kind of handles all of the incoming calls and then sends leads or information, directs it to the field offices that would be responsible for following up on those things. Who has authority to set one up . Who makes the call . If i want a tip line, where does that decision travel through the fbi . You dont get a tip line in every case. You get tip lines in some cases. Why . How does that work . Typically, the office of Public Affairs would be involved in that suggestion, in that hey, if its a particular case that we think requesting the publics active involvement will help. So the agent would ask his agent in charge and the agent in charge would lear it with the Public Affairs office and then the process for a tip line would keck in. Thats once the tip line is up and running and the information stars to come in. What obviously a lot of them are nutty people calling in and some will have particular evidence and youll have to look into that, who oversees that to mack sure that is evident and the information is being dug out of the tip line call . So these call, once the line is set up, those calls will go into the criminal Justice Services commission in West Virginia and the telephone operator, the specialists who answer those calls have a process for how they memorialize the information that comes off that tip and who it gets sent to and whether it should be brought to someones attention if it involves possibly a threat to life. So there are kind of detailed policies around that. Im not really in a position to be able to tell you great detail off the top of my head. Im over my time so let me ask a last, short question and that is if an fbi tip line were set up, and information were collected through the fbi tip line and then nobody looked at what had been brought in it was just all dumped in a file and there was no further investigative work at all, would that be consistent with fbi policy or procedure . From the way youve described the situation, sir, id have to say no. Im not aware of a specific situation that fits that model, but presumably the information that comes in through the tip line is put into the guardian system and thats how the incoming tip information is managed and assigned and investigated at its most kind of, initial level. So no, information that comes into the fbi should never be put aside and not followed up on. Absolute she youve been talking about, the committee deserves to have a hearing on that. We had the barrett nomination, so im going to get with senator lee to make sure that we can in a reasonable fashion get answers to the questions youve raised and i we we owe that and we will look into that as to justice kavanaugh, and from my point of view its pretty good scrutiny. So senator tillis no . Wh who have we got . Grassley. I overlooked the soontobe chairman. During the course of the cross fire hurricane, the administration juiced fisa process as a weapon against candidate trump and later President Trump. Doing so undermined his presidency from the start. We voted in the senate is legislation that would repair many of the short comings in the current fisa court system, striking a balance of increasing accountability, transparency and ensuring fairness while protecting our National Security interest, ask Congress Must ensure that the fisa process is an abuse for the Obama Administration. Now mr. Mccabe, to my first question, the Inspector General found 17 error and omissions in the carter page fisa application. There were also 50 errors and omissions in the woods filed for the fisa application. In light of these overwhelming mistake, the obvious lack of evidence and the failure to fully appraise the fisa court of relevant facts, the investigation simply didnt have foundation to proceed. If you were diligent doing the job, how did you miss all of these critical mistakes and failures that turned to the fbi for probably years to come. I dont agree with your characterization of the investigation being illegitimate or flawed. There are clearly the flaws that you have referenced, the ones pointed out by the i. G. Should not have taken place in the fisa application which was only one part of an overall investigation into mr. Page and three other individuals, an investigation that i would point out the i. G. Indicated was for an authorized purpose properly predicated. According to the Inspector General, the steele dossier was central and essential to the carter page fisas. However, according to your testimony before the house Intelligence Committee the dossier wasnt fully vetted and cooperated before it was used in the fisa application, why didnt you ensure that the fbi performed its Due Diligence before the dossier was used to justify invasive surveillance on an american citizen . The fbi is not required by the court to only present information that has absolutely verified and proven true. We often use information that we have not yet gotten to the bottom of. We are required to provide information about the source of that information so that the court is adequately informed about how we think about them and the verification. In this case, we were in the middle of a very long and extensive effort trying to prove the many allegations in the ste steele reporting. In 2017 they noted derogatory information was identified and the same day mr. Strzok interceded to keep it open. Did you order strzok or anyone else to keep it open . If not, who did . I dont recall ordering peter to keep or mr. Strzok to keep that investigation open i think that obviously, thats what happened, but i dont know who gave that that order. Okay. Did anyone ever structure you to keep the flynn case open . If so, who . No one ever structurinstruct keep the flynn case open. We had conversations about the flynn case toward the end of 2016 and whether or not we should keep it open. There was some thought that we had not developed much information during the course of the information and it might be appropriate to close the case. However, those thoughts changed as soon as we became aware that we had evidence of general flynns conversations with the russians. Our initial concern that general flynn might be the point of contact between the Trump Campaign and the russians was elevated when we found evidence that he was in fact in touch with the russians. During your time at the fbi, how many logan act investigations were you a part of . I do not recall ever having been a part of a logan act investigation. Based on the evidence i have seen, much of which has been made public, the fbi was out to get flynn and they broke every rule in the books to interview him and try to entrap him. What the Obama Administration fbi did to flynn under your watch is a textbook example of the power of the federal government can be abusive and hurt the American People. Now, going to leaks, the subject leeks, leks. I asked then director comey, in may 2017 whether he ever served as an anonymous source in news reports about matters relating to the trump investigation or clinton investigation. His response, quote unquote, never. So next question to you, Deputy Director mccabe, was that a true and Accurate Answer based on your experience working for him . First, senator, to be clear, i strongly disagree with your characterization of our investigation of general flynn. But with respect to your question about mr. Comeys testimony to you about being the source of anonymous leaks, i dont have any i dont have any information about that. Thats in that i dont know. In that same may 27th 2017 hearing, i asked then director comey whether he authorized someone else at the fbi to be an anonymous source in news reports about the trump investigation or clinton investigation. His answer was no. So, mr. Mccabe, was a true and Accurate Answer based on your experience of working for him . I am not aware of director comey authorizing or directing people to be Anonymous Sources for the media. The Justice Departments Inspector General report on your disclosing of information to the media lack of candor or lying under oath contained references to a Clinton Foundation or investigation. Specifically that report said you had a conversation with a Justice Department official about the clinton investigation and in that conversation you reportedly stated, quote, are you telling me that i need to shut down a valid predicated investigation, end of quote. Why did you believe the Clinton Foundation investigation was validly predicated . Well, im not sure i can answer that question because its beyond the scope of what we were told to i would be questioned about today and it would call for me to reveal information that im not sure the fbi i havent been authorized by the fbi to discuss. But i would point out, senator, that the director and the Deputy Director of the fbi are the only two fbi officials who have the authority and the responsibility to authorize the release of information to the media. And so i think thats your questions are overlooking that important distinction. Thats it. Thank you. I just want to based on what you said, you say that you present information to court sometimes its not fully proven. Is that right . When it comes to a warrant. Thats correct. We often present information in warrants that we have not yet finished verifying. Do you have an obligation when you find information that is exculpatory to provide it to the court . In the fisa process, agents are obligated to present information that might cut might cut against the you know, the veracity of a source. Youre obligated to present information that puts the court in a position to accurately assess whether they believe, you know, the Source Information presented. So thats why if you alter an email from the cia saying that mr. Page actually was a source, thats misleading to the court and thats why mr. Clinesmith is being prosecuted, is that correct . Yes. When you have information in january and march where the subsource disavows the legitimacy of the dossier, a lot of his bar talk and hearsay, can you tell us how that never made it to you by june of 2017 . How could that information have been gathered in january and march of 2017 and not known to the system as late as june 2017 . Do you know . Did you talk about this at all . Im not sure i dont im not sure who that was you just referred to excuse me. The june march interview of the subsource was conducted by agents and thats when the subsource told us, basically, that a lot of it was bar talk, hearsay, gutted the reliability of it, and my question is, youve said if you had known then what you know now, you wouldnt have signed the warrant application. Do you have an explanation as to why that information never made it to you and others . No, sir. But i think the team theres no question that the Crossfire Team should have had a much more thorough conversation with the department of justice attorneys who were responsible for preparing that package. They should have had full visibility and made an informed decision as to whether or not they should have been included in the package. And your testimony is that no one told you about these interviews, the substance of them, is that correct . Thats correct. Staenator klobuchar. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. Welcome back. Good to see you. This hearing was set up before this election, i know that. But since we got the notice on this hearing, we now know that we have a new president , president elect biden, and a new Vice President that we will see in washington and that is Vice President elect harris. And i just want to make clear to anyone watching this right now out there in the virtual land that this is all about what happened before the 2016 election. Is that correct, mr. Mccabe . Around that time period. Thats correct. Okay. And in the 2016 election, donald trump won and Hillary Clinton lost. Is that correct . Thats my understanding. Okay. Thats the correct answer, right. Now we move forward to this election in 2020. And we have a situation where our very democracy has spoken, weve had the greatest number of people that voted ever in a president ial election. Are you aware of that, mr. Mccabe . Yes, maam, im aware of it. Do you think there were some improvements made on how we handled foreign interference in the election . I think it seems of course, im not privy to all of the information about what folks know and what steps they took. But it does seem to me that the efforts to bring greater security to our elections at the state level was time and effort well spent. Yes. And i personally think theres a lot more that needs to be done, senator graham and i have the honest ads act which i think would be really helpful for ads that are political ads that are taken out to make sure, i think, youre aware of that bill, and i think theres a lot more that can be done. But i think its really important to note that the subject that were talking about predates the 2016 election. And i want to talk about whats happening right now with the Justice Department and our election. And i really do it in light of what Vice President biden said on saturday night to the nation. He asked that the grim era of demonization be behind us. Im sure that might have resonated with you a bit, mr. Mccabe, and that we understanding that some people didnt agree with him and voted for donald trump, but he literally reached out to people who voted for donald trump and he said, look, ive been disappointed before. Ive lost elections. But im asking you to give me a chance and ill give you a chance. And so that is the approach that i take here. And i know that its hard to lose elections, but i think that we need to move on as a country, a pandemic, everything that we have before us, and really the integrity of our justice system. And i was actually very disheartened yesterday when attorney general barr told sent out a memo to the u. S. Attorneys throughout the country asking them to examine voting irregularities even before the states had certified their results. And i had actually done a letter back on october 23rd when he started questioning mailin ballots early on and asked him to look at this because the federal prosecution of elections, the Justice Departments policy says, quote, criminal investigation measures should not be taken, quote, until the election in question has been concluded, its results certified and all recounts and election contests concluded. What happened yesterday is they decided to up end that policy and start getting on this train that there was something wrong with this election when in fact the republican secretary of state in georgia has stood by their election and said there isnt systematic fraud. The republicans in arizona, the governor there, this is a state where joe biden basically has won with a few more votes to be counted. You look at what happened in pennsylvania. My concern is, theyre upending this longstanding policy right when the election resulting in a career prosecutor, i dont know if you know him, resigned yesterday because he saw this clearly this is the reason for his resignation, as political interference in the work of the Justice Department. You spent decades in Public Service, mr. Mccabe, and i want to ask you, what does it mean to you to see a career Justice Department employee resign thli that . I think its incredibly concerning. As undoubtedly, senator, you know from your own experience, that people in the department of justice are typically committed to long and, you know, noble service, not just its not just a job. Its a calling. Its what you choose to do with your life. When people start resigning in protest over decisions that leadership makes, i think we should all take a very, very close look at that. In terms of election fraud, generally, any time you change a wellknown, established policy regarding the political process in the middle of the political process, i think it raises some very legitimate concerns about what the motivation for that change was and i think in the least case, it shines a very dim light on the department and its impartiality. With a new president coming in, what steps do you think we should be taking to restore Public Confidence in the department and improve mothralen the department . From my own experience, i look back on my own experience and some of the decisions we made in the fbi, and, of course, many of the things that have happened since, and, you know, i think a return to the timehonored principles in the department and in the bureau of being very careful about how what we do and how we do it around the political process is i think thats something that most people in the department and the bureau would really embrace. All right. Thank you, mr. Mccabe. Thank you very much. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccabe, welcome. I would like to start by discussing the flynn investigation. As you know, the fbi Team Investigating general flynn prepared a memo dated january 4th, 2017, to close the investigation into flynn as lacking any basis to continue. The fbi had investigated and failed to find any derogatory information about general flynn and determined he was no longer a viable candidate for investigation. But then according to peter strzok, the seventh floor, the top brass at the fbi, intervened to keep the investigation open. Were you the one who made the decision to keep the investigation open . I dont remember making that decision, but i certainly supported keeping the case open. I dont remember being the person that made that fophone call, but i think it was the right move to continue investigating once we had uncovered the information that we found. Despite the fact that the career investigators concluded there was no basis and recommended closing it, you made the decision and or at least you agreed with the decision to keep the investigation open on what basis . Well, i dont know that i dont recall that the investigators determined there was no basis to continue. My recollection from the conversations we were having about the flynn the memo is a memo to close the investigation because it could not find any, quote, derogatory information about flynn and he was, quote, no longer a viable candidate for investigation. Thats not ambiguous, is it . Thats not the same as what you said before. I, of course, dont have that memo in front of me. Our feeling at that time was that we had found very little, if any, incriminating evidence about general flynn until, of course, we found potentially very incriminating evidence about him. Are you referring to the logan act theory . No, sir, im referring to the fact that we uncovered that general flynn was having the sort of direct contact with the government of russia that we were looking for in all of the first four cases of crossfire hurricane. Did you support using the logan act as a basis to go after general flynn . The logan act was not used as a basis to go after general flynn. We opened the case youre aware of the white house meeting where the notes show that Vice President biden at the time directly suggested using the logan act to go after general flynn. Im not aware of that. Youre not aware of that . Well, those are notes from your colleagues. I dont mean to interrupt senator, i can say what the reasons that i agreed with and approved opening the case and that was because we thought that general flynn might be having inappropriate contacts with russia. Thats why we opened the case inappropriate so the only basis this is a decorated threestar general. The only basis that was put forward for what i think was a bogus political persecution and prosecution was an alleged violation of the logan act which has never been used to prosecute anybody in the history of the department of justice, true . No, i dont believe thats true. I think name one person thats ever been prosecuted under the logan act. No, i was referring to why we opened the case against general flynn. Im not aware of prosecutions of the logan act. I think for those who are listening, were talking about a conversation between general flynn and the Russian Ambassador after the election while hes the National Security adviserinwaiting, is that correct, senator cruz . We are. Yesterday on msnbc, ben rhodes, said that foreign leaders are already having conversations with joe biden, quote, talking about the agenda theyre going to pursue january 20th. Based on that testimony, do you believe joe biden is violating the logan act . Im not aware of ben rhodes statements take it on faith he said what i read. Assuming that quote is accurate, is that a violation of the logan act under any plausible theory . Im not prepared to take your statement on faith. And im also not prepared to conduct legal analysis youre a lawyer. Have you ever answered a hypothetical in court . If it is correct that i am accurately quoting it, something the department of justice frequently did wrong in this investigation, if that is what ren rhod ben rhodes said, if joe biden is talking with foreign leaders right now, does it violate the logan act . Im not going to opine on a hypothetical question hes talking with foreign leaders. The logan act act is unconstitutional which is why its never been used to prosecute anyone. You used it i can give you the answer. Hes not violating the logan act act. The reason you wont say it is because that was your flimsy political basis to go after a decorated war hero because you disagreed politically are President Trump. Sir, none of that is correct. Which part . Pick any aspect . We didnt investigate general flynn because we were concerned that he might violate the logan act it is your testimony the logan act was not a predicate for the fbi and doj investigation into general flynn, really . There were no discussions of the logan act there were no discussions of the logan act with the fbi or doj, thats your testimony under penalty of perjury in front of this theres abundant evidence that you were if youre not going to let me finish my answer, im not going to be able to please go ahead. What is your testimony . Is your testimony you just said there was no discussion of the logan act. Does that remain your testimony . No, senator. Thats where you cut off my testimony please continue. I would like to finish please continue. Thank you. Thank you. When we initiated the case against general flynn, it was not initiated for or as a result of any discussion mr. Mccabe. Youre being nonresponsive to the question. The logan act was a late pretext that was adopted after you investigated him and couldnt find anything in the career investigators recommended closing it. Since my time is expiring, im going to take a little bit of my time back. Did james comey authorize you to disclose information about the Clinton Foundation investigation to the press . I didnt need james comeys i didnt ask you if you needed it. Did you authorize you to disclose it . Thats a yes or no yes. I authorized the disclosure youre not answering the question. Did james comey know about it and did he authorize it . Did he know about it . To my recollection, sir, yes he knew about it. Did he authorize you . Did he in any way give you the green light explicitly or implicitly . I didnt ask jim comey im not asking whether you asked. Okay, according to the washington times, mr. Mccabe insisted that he authorized that and mr. Mccabe told investigators that mr. Comey knew he had authorized disclosure and agreed it was a good idea. Is that accurate . Is that your testimony to this committee . That is my recollection. So youre aware that your testimony is 180 degrees opposite mr. Comeys sworn testimony to this committee in which he insisted hes never authorized anybody to leak to the press . Im not going to say what director comey said or didnt say to you. However, your characterization of a leak is not accurate. The fbi has records that will establish whether youre telling the truth or mr. Comeys telling the truth. Do you believe the fbi should make those records public so if youre telling the truth, you can be vindicated and if mr. Comey is telling the truth, he can be vindicated . Im not sure what records youre referring to, senator any and all emails, correspondence, records, whatsoever, indicating that mr. Comey new of your leaks and authorized them. I would like to see the records as well. As would i. Thank you. Senator blumenthal. I just want the American People to understand that was it wrong for general flynn to talk to the Russian Ambassador since he was going to be the new incoming National Security adviser . Is that a question to me . Yes, sir. Our concerns about general flynns contact with ambassador kislyak was that the general might be maintaining some sort of hidden or deniable contact and that he might have been person in the campaign who coordinated efforts with the russian government. The fact that general flynn lied about his contacts with the russians made it doubly concerning to us. The fact that general flynn then lied to his boss, the Vice President , about those contacts, also was greatly concerning to us. Let me just say this, general flynn told the fbi agents, you have the transcripts, you know what i said, the fbi agents came back and said they didnt think he lied. But the problem we have here is this is after the election is over. The National Security adviser has ever right in the world to be talking to Foreign Governments, more thforeign ambassadors, its going on as i speak. Im sure the Biden Administration is beginning to reach out to Foreign Governments to talk about their agenda, whether it be china or anybody else. This whole idea that you would surveil the incoming National Security adviser after the election, after the professionals in the field said theres no there there, bothers a lot of us. Senator blumenthal. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccabe, let me give you an opportunity, since youve been interrupted by my colleague in the midst of actually threats of perjury, to clarify any of the answers or expand on them any way you would like, if theres anything you have to add, i would welcome your remarks, if not, ill turn to my question. Thank you, senator. I think its important to keep in perspective that the fbi opens counterintelligence cases sometimes when they suspect that someone may have had inappropriate or improper or illegal contact with a foreign power. During the course of that investigation, if you confirm that that contact as taken place and then you learn that that person is also actively concealing the contact, concealing it from in general flynns case, the fbi and also from the white house chief of staff, the White House Counsels Office and the Vice President , your fears about possible threat to National Security are justifiably elevated. Thats what happened in this case. And so questions about a logan act prosecution that never took place i think are misplaced. Thats a really important point, mr. Mccabe. I regret that my colleague isnt here to hear it. But im sure hell review the record. We should note, i think, at the beginning that were now in the midst of a fourth hearing to investigate both the 2016 election and the investigations and investigators who themselves have already been investigated. Were spending all the time in the world to look back at 2016 as families and businesses in connecticut and, i think, in the states of every one of my colleagues, are hanging by a thread due to the Public Health and economic crisis caused by covid, this crisis has been ignored and disregarded by this administration which is the reason that President Trump was defeated. Its a dereliction of their duty to their constituents and to the American People to continue to focus on a 2016 investigation that already has been investigated and i think your point about the reasons for that interest in the conversations between potential Trump Officials and the Russian Ambassador are very well taken. I also want to say that i am deeply troubled as my colleagues are, by the statements made by attorney general barr who, again, is acting apparently as a puppet of the president , rather than a lawyer for the American People. Hes throwing gasoline on the fires of false claims of fraud, fueling doubts and undermining faith in the integrity of our election process. There are no facts or evidence that justify investigation. He knows it. But hes giving a patina of credibility to baseless and destructive accusations. I would suggest respectfully that attorney general barr has taken his office to a new law and the ramifications are profound and dangerous for our country. This kind of scare mongering is no substitute for the truth. The fact is, the votes have been counted and some are being counted. And they have shown and will continue to confirm that former Vice President biden is in fact our president elect. But in the meantime the litigation challenging the integrity of our election process will continue frivolous and basis, though it is, and now apparently given more credibility by the attorney general of the United States regretfully and unfortunately. I want to ask you about a threat to our country that is real, just a few months ago, the fbi director publicly testified to the House Committee on Homeland Security that, quote, racially motivated violent extremism, end quote, constitutes a majority of domestic terrorism threats. In fact, White Supremacists in particular were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016. Thats more than any other extremist movement. Recently attacks including the april 2014 mass shooting at a Jewish Community center in kansas, a shooting in charleston and others. Mr. Mccabe, let me ask you, how long have we known that White Supremacists and other far rightwing extremists pose National Security or Public Security and safety threats to the United States . Weve known about the threats posed to this country by domestic terrorists and specifically White Supremacists and right wing groups for many, many years. Certainly long before i even joined the fbi. One of the seminole moments in my desire to join the organization was when i, like the rest of the country, sat in horror on the day that the Federal Building was destroyed in oklahoma city. So this is not a new threat. I think whats new for the fbi right now is the focus and intensity they are bringing on this problem set which is absolutely called for and necessary. And when the president makes the kind of comments that he did and im sure youre familiar with them, that a particular rightwing group should stand back and stand by, do those kinds of comments have an effect on those groups and encouraging them . They absolutely do. Favorable references and shoutouts and comments to these Fringe Groups have the effect of confirming their beliefs, they interpret these comments as signals and signs of approval and support and really can risk putting more momentum and kind of fervor behind what theyre planning to do. Thank you, mr. Mccabe, my time has expired. Thank you very much. Senator graham, would it be possible just to take a break absolutely, sir. Five minutes, is that okay . That would be great, thank you. Well take a fiveminute break. Thank you. Mr. Mccabe. Can you hear me now . Yes. Are you with us . Yes, sir, thank you. I apologize for not any time you feel like you need a break, you just let me know. I apologize. Its been over two hours and i apologize for not remembering that. Senator hirono. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to associate myself with the comments made by my colleague senator durbin on the democratic side on why were here for the fourth time to go over ground already covered by Inspector General whorowitz report. The witness was asked questions about Text Messages between peter strzok and lisa page when it is clear that they did not impact the validity of the russia investigation. When we have real facts about National Security concern, such as President Trump calling the president of ukraine, my republican colleagues dont think thats a big deal. I can understand why President Trump wanted to get dirt on his potential political opponent, especially as the as joe biden in fact defeated President Trump divisively, a fact that many of my republican colleagues have yet to be able to acknowledge. And so we are here for the fourth time for many more hours of hearings on grounds that we should have weve already covered instead of dealing with the real questions of the day. For this witness, you were asked by senator blumenthal about the recognized danger of white supremacist and is i want to reiterate. I think its very important for the for our country to understand the dangers posed by these persons. In september 2020, fbi director wray warned that White Supremacy is one of the biggest domestic terrorism threats. News reports also indicated that the department of Homeland Security have reached a similar conclusion that White Supremacists are the deadliest domestic Terror Threat facing the country. I would like to ask you, again, given your extensive experience in counterterrorism issues, do you believe that the threat posed by White Supremacists is a serious concern . Senator, i know that it is a serious concern and i certainly take director wrays assessment that it is the most serious concern on the counterterrorism side that we face right now. It makes a lot of sense in light of the fact that as our foreign terrorist targets appear to be in a state of Less Organization and their operational activity and recruitment has seemed to tailed off a bit, i dont have any access to the classified information, but it certainly seems that way, theres no question that the domestic terrorist scene has not tailed off. If anything, its increased over the last few years. You indicated that the words used by the president simply seems to fan those flames of domestic terrorism activities. Thats correct. Thats correct. I believe you responded that way. Yes. Before the election, President Trump and attorney general bill barr repeatedly made false claims of mail in voter fraud. Fbi director wray testified before the senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee, quote, we have not seen historically any kind of coordinated National Voter fraud in a major election whether it was by mail or otherwise. Now that millions of americans have voted without evidence of fraud, President Trump and the republicans and refused to recognize the results of the election and instead they have gone to court, many times at this point, losing pretty much every i think theyve lost every single one of these voter fraud cases, to prevent validly cast votes from being counted. President trump continues to claim that hes won the election with no evidence. Given your extensive experience at the fbi, are you aware of anywhere evidence indicating that widespread mail in voter fraud is a problem in our country . Im not aware of any information to that effect. Director wrays assessment is consistent with my own experience in the fbi, that ive never seen information that would substantiate an effort of voter fraud. While my republican colleagues are busy talking about how the president has a right to go to court, that still puts a burden proving that theres actual fraud on him and so far hes been losing at every turn. Just because one has a right to go to court does not make it right to go to court and one would hope that the president would have figured that out by now. But apparently not. When you mention in your opening that it was an honor and a privilege to work for the fbi, there are concerns from many of us about the politicizing of the fbi and doj. Since taking office, President Trump has repeatedly called on the Justice Department at his many rallies where they chant lock her up to investigate his political opponents and leaned on attorney general barr to treat his allies more favorable. Under attorney general barr, the Justice Department reversed a sentencing recommendation for roger stone prompting all four career prosecutors to withdraw from the case and protest. You have, sir, for 21 years at the fbi. In your memory before President Trump, how many times has a president called for the investigation or arrest of a political opponents to aid him in his Reelection Campaign . Never. Not in my experience. Ive never seen that before. In june 20, they testified about how trump political appointees interfered to advance the interest of President Trump. What have do you think it says about the severitity of the politicizing of the Justice Department that two career doj lawyers came forward to testify about it before congress and all four career prosecutors made the extraordinary move of withdrawing from the roger stone case . As ive said, senator, career prosecutors dont walk away from cases that they believe in and cases that theyve spent a lot of time and effort trying to move forward. So when you have any member of the department of justice who feels compelled to resign from a case or the department, for ethical reasons, thats a very concerning thing. When you have four on one case resign, i think its the sort of thing that we cant possibly ignore. Its quite extraordinary and i would like to commend all of the career doj people including, of course, all of the people at the fbi for doing the jobs theyre supposed to be doing and not making political decisions. Now we know that hate crimes against the community has gone up and especially with the president calling the virus, the china virus, the wuhan virus, members of his administration have also referred to it as kung flu. Given your extechnsive experien at the fbi, do you think the fbi and Justice Department are zodog enough to address hate crimes in our country, including against asianamericans and Pacific Islanders and do you know of a prosecution by the doj on any of these hate crimes . Im not aware of recent prosecutions of hate crimes. Again, i dont have access to all of the information that the fbi or doj has. And so i cant speak to whether theyre doing that work or not. It certainly seems that those sort of incidents just from what i hear in opensource reporting seem to be on the rise and i would expect that the bureau and doj should be looking at those things very closely. I should hope so. So far, i dont have of any indictments coming down on these kinds of cases. I believe my time is up. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, senator. I think we have senator hawley on the line. But i have a brief inacquiinqui here. Mr. Mccabe, what is a defensive briefing . A defensive briefing is typically when we reach out to an individual who we think might be the subject of some sort of, you know, maligned activity from a Foreign Government or a foreign power and try to make them aware of the threats that they might come across. An example would be, i think, senator feinstein had a staff member that was suspected of being connected to the Chinese Intelligence Community and she was briefed about that, is that correct . Would that be an example . That sounds like the sort of information or the sort of situation in which we would and she took corrective action by dismissing that person. Was there ever a defensive briefing given to Hillary Clinton about concerns about her campaign being reached out to or interfered regarding foreign actors . Im not sure, senator. I saw some of the documents on the committees website. But i dont have an independent recollection of that. I can just assure you that she was. There was a suspicion that a Foreign Government may have been trying to aid her campaign. She was briefed about it. Counterintelligence investigations are designed to protect entities from foreign influences, is that correct . Im sorry, could you repeat the question. Counterintelligence investigations are designed to protect the american interests against foreign influence, is that correct . Thats right. Counterintelligence investigations are designed to mitigate threats to National Security. So, like, senator feinstein could fire somebody that was on her staff to mitigate it, is that a good example . That could certainly be one way to mitigate. At any time during the multiple counterintelligence investigations that were conducted against Trump Campaign officials, was there ever a defensive briefing given to President Trump about the concerns you had about mr. Papadopoulos, carter page or anyone else, including general flynn. Not that im aware of. Why . Well, senator, we typically dont provide defensive briefings when we feel that they could run the risk of compromising the investigations that were undertaking. Before we provide a briefing, we try to determine whether or not that briefing will ultimately get communicated back to the target or somehow obstruct our ability to shed some light on whether or not theres actually a threat to National Security. When it came to papadopoulos, you never told the Trump Campaign, you may have a problem with him . Thats correct. And when it comes to carter page, you never said to President Trump, we have concerns about carter page . I do not believe that happened. Thats correct. Senator hawley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to start by saying that i heard, i think, my democrat colleagues wondering aloud why it is were here today. Have to say, i would have thought that would have been obvious by now. Were here because, looking at maybe the biggest scandaling of the history of the fbi. Were looking at the use of the fbi to interfere in a president ial election. Were looking at the use of the fbi to lie to the fisa court to misrepresent facts, statements and other material to this court that the court had to issue a statement saying they could not trust the fbi not only in this case, but in potentially every other case going forward. Absolutely unbelievable, unprecedented for a court to issue a rebuke of this nature and the fact that my colleagues want to shrug and move on in the face of this kind of interference, this kind of inappropriate behavior, the abuse of power, which is what it is, its extraordinary, and the individual we have before us today has a report written by the ig about how he lied repeatedly. Thats why were here. By the way, now that were in the middle of another election, the outcome of which is still disputed and unknown, and people are wondering why is it that so Many Americans dont have trust in the electoral process, this is why they dont have trust in the electoral process. Weve seen instance after instance of the abuse of institutions of this country to try to interfere with the voice and the will of we the people and were looking at it today. Thats what this is about. If anybody has any question, thats what this is about. Lets talk a little bit about that line to if fisa court which the fbi did repeatedly and doj signed off on. Mr. Mccabe, let me come to you now. Ive had something of a personal quest here to try to find somebody who will take some responsibility for these warrants that they signed off on for these applications that they personally signed off on. You signed off on a renewal application for the carter page fisa warrant on june 28th, 2017, isnt that correct . Thats correct. By january of 2017, the fbi had identified and interviewed Christopher Steeles primary subsources, is that correct . That is correct. And those interviews cast serious doubts on the accuracy of the steele dossier to put it mildly, isnt that correct . I know that now, yes. The fisa package that i signed contained the same contained the errors that are laid out in the ig report. And by december of 2016, this is months before the renewal application, the Crossfire Hurricane Team new that the subsource was suspected of being a russian asset, isnt that correct . I cant i dont believe thats correct. I dont know that to be the case. Your testimony under oath is that the crossfire hurricane did not know that the primary subsource was potentially a russian agent as of december 2016 . I cant tell you what the members of the team thought about the primary subsource in december of 2016. If youre referring to the recent footnote from the fisa report that was declassified by the attorney general, no, i dont know that they knew that then. I cant say what they knew. The fisa application that you signed contained none of this, though, correct . It contained no new disclosures to the court, it contained no information that the fbi new of, it contained nothing to give the court any pause about anything that you previously certified, isnt that correct . Well, i think you need to be we should be specific about no. Did the application that you personally signed, did it disclose the interviews, back from january of 2017 that you just said that you were aware of, that the fbi was aware of, the oig report details this, you can go look it up, you can look up that ig report. They say that the fbi knew of the problems Christopher Steeles primary subsource and did not disclose it to the court. Isnt that correct, yes or no . The ig report, its my understanding, sir, details 17 errors that were present in answer my question. Did the report that you personally sign, did it disclose the fbis interviews in january of 2017, you signed the new application in june of 2017, did it disclose the interviews casting serious doubt on the primary subsource. Yes or no . We both know the answer is no. Why dont you just say it, no, right . It did not disclose serious concerns with the primary subsource. Why didnt it . Why didnt you notify the court of this new information . Is it because you wanted to continue to undermine the election of donald trump . Let me ask you this, didnt you send a text message on june 24th, 2016, saying that i hope the brexit vote doesnt predict a similar outcome here in november. Why did you i would like to answer your question, sir, but im going to need a little bit of space to get in a complete answer. Why did you send that text message . Sir, as you know, ive not been able to review my texts. I do not have any texts in front of me here. I requested access to my materials. I was denied that access sorks im not prepared to answer your questions based on my Text Messages. Because you dont recall them heres what it says, quote, i hope it doesnt predict a similar outcome here in november, end quote. June 24, 2016. Do you deny sending that message . I dont know, sir. I havent seen any of those Text Messages you have no memory of it . I would like to be able to continue i would like to give you a complete answer, but im having a hard time when you speak over me, it cuts off my ability to respond. Why dont you answer my question. Do you have no memory of that text message of june 24, 2016 . Sir, i dont remember Text Messages i sent in 2016 that i havent seen since then. Yes, i dont have a recollection of Text Messages from four years ago, thats correct. Very convenient. I notice that everybody it would be i would have been convenient to review those materials before today. Its really extraordinary. Really extraordinary. Let me ask you about this text message. Peter strzok sent this to lisa page on august 15th, i want to believe the path that you threw out for consideration in andys office, thats you, that theres no way he gets elected, thats trump, but im afraid we cant take that risk. I would like an insurance policy in the unlikely event that youre 40. Why were you talking about the likely outcome of the election with two line agents who are working on a case, the carter page investigation at that time involving the president . Dont you think thats inappropriate. I think the premise of your question is not accurate. I dont recollect ever talking to peter strzok or lisa page, only one of whom is an agent in the fbi, about the election or about that conversation that is referenced in their text message, which i was not a part of. So youre saying that didnt happen . You deny that happened . I dont recall that ever happening. Just before we leave the fisa warrant application that you signed, the renewal application, how is it that the court was so deliberately and disastrously misled that it had to issue a public rebuke at the fbi, do you take responsibility . I disagree with your characterization that the court was deliberately misled. Really . So i yeah, thats correct. You think it was an accident . I think that there were numerous and objectionable errors and omissions in that package, but do you think that the falsification of an email do you think the falsification of an email to the fisa court was an accident . Senator, im not aware of okay. Mr. Clinesmiths activities, i was not aware of until i read the ig report. Hes taken responsibility for those representations and that i understand that. The errors and omissions in that package, other than mr. Clinesmiths admitted activities from the report of the cia, i do not know any of those other errors have been proven to be intentional acts. Senator hawley, your time is expired. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Okay. Senator blackburn. Mr. Mccabe, thank you for being with us today listening to you just answering senator hawleys question, it reminded me that you are spending a lot of your time on cnn these days and of course this is not a debate on cnn. This is a hearing of the Senate Judiciary committee. I have to say, when did you go to cnn . Im sorry, was that a question of when i ill answer it for you. Was it in august . Was it in 2019 . I think that may be right. I think youre pretty lucky to have landed i dont remember the exact dates. I dont remember the exact dates, senator, but that sounds right. Yeah, i think youre pretty lucky to have landed a job pretty much anywhere after having been fired from the fbi and i think that the ig publicly flogging you in his report and the ag fired you a month later and that was a pretty sad demise, i guess, of your career in Public Service. And you were set to retire at the tender young age of 49, isnt that correct . No, maam. Okay. Thats not correct. What is correct . Fbi agents become eligible to retire when they reach age 50. Okay. All right. And youve got a lawsuit against the federal government now, claiming that you had a record of unblemished and nonpartisan Public Service and youre demanding that the Court Reinstate your employment as Deputy Director of the fbi and pay you your full pension, is that correct . That sounds correct, maam, but ill let the league papers speak for themselves. Listening for you today and having read some of the things that around your career, how did you get caught up in such a web of deceit, is this Standard Operating Procedure at the fbi . Well, i dont im not sure i understand the point of your question. But i also the point of my question is this, ill help you with it. Let me help you with that. You didnt want to answer senator cruzs questions about corruption. And i can understand why. But what you have to understand that as overconfident as you all were in the plot that you were carrying out at the fbi in your government job paid for by taxpayer dollars, you all had created this web and culture of corruption and cover up and obstruction obstruction, and you thought that you could do it you thought you would be able to get by with it, but you got caught. Youve said today that you wish you could reconsider your decision requesting the fisa warrant on carter page and whether or not director comey should have held the press conference on Hillary Clinton. And listening to your answers, i think its i have never heard of a an action every criminal i have heard in a case, they generally will say they wish they hadnt committed the crime or that someone who has done something wrong wishes they had not done that wrong. So you took these actions youve been called out by the ig, and the ag. Why shouldnt you be prosecuted for your actions . Senator, first of all, there was absolutely no plot or scheme or conspiracy among between myself or any of the folks that i worked with in the work that you referred to. Okay. Secondly, im not aware of a single other than mr. Clinesmiths admissions im not aware of a single act or even an allegation against anyone involved in these cases was the ig wrong . Id like to finish was the ig wrong . Id like to finish my answer its my time. How long have you known Christopher Steele . I do not know Christopher Steele. I think youve known him about two decades. Right . How long has bruce orr known Christopher Steele . To be clear, senator, i dont know Christopher Steele, ive never met Christopher Steele. So thats not correct. I cant tell you how long bruce orr has known Christopher Steele. Okay. The exculpatory information on carter pages recorded conversations and that was not disclosed. What are the consequences under the fbi rules for when an fbi agent lies or otherwise misleads a federal court . So the the failure to disclose the carter page information is not a as far as im aware of was not determined to be a deliberate misrepresentation to the court. So to answer your question about misrepresentations to the court generally fbi people would be disciplined in the same way anyone in the judicial system would, if they were found to have deliberately and intentionally mislead the court. You feel like no one did anything wrong . I am simply following the findings of the Inspector General, which documented mr. Clinesmiths intentional acts but failed to find any evidence, documentary or testimonial to indicate any other mistakes in the fisa package were the result of intentional misconduct. Do you think you were wrongly fired . Yes, yes, i do think i was wrongly fired, yes. And you think you did nothing wrong . Thats correct. Even though the ig pointed out that you did and even though you all had a culture of corruption and coverup that you thought it was okay to spy on carter page, it was okay to mislead michael flynn, this is a sad state of affairs and i am pleased that you are no longer a part of the fbi. Senator, id like to answer those allegations. Please go ahead. So, no, i categorically refuse to agree with your assertions. No one that i am aware of in the fbi conducted any activity that should leave them susceptible to criminal prosecution. Certainly including myself, as someone whos now been the subject of investigative activities for years for no baseless the subject of a baseless investigation conducted by the u. S. Attorneys office for almost two years which concluded in a dismissal of their case. So, no, i dont believe that i committed any crime. I know i never committed any crime working for the fbi and yes, i believe that the conclusions in the igs report were baseless, i believe it was a flawed and misleading and deeply unfair investigation that led to my unfair termination. Thank you. If you know nothing about what was done in yates and rosenstein and comey all said they knew nothing about any of this, how in the world did it get so faroff track . Thank you mr. Chairman, i yield back. Well go to senator kennedy next. This is an important point. If somebody knew that the dossier was unreliable, do they have a duty to report to the system the information they found . I think thats true, yes. Okay. Is it fair to fire somebody who knew and failed to report . Well, it would depend, i guess, on the circumstances of where and how that happened. That could be the result. Mr. Mccabe, here is the problem. The problem is that june of 2016 it was pretty clear that the document, the dossier was no longer reliable. That multiple stop signs had been run. That the cia is suggesting maybe Hillary Clinton sign off a plan to cook this whole thing up. She was defensively briefed, trump never was. And the fact that this information was gathered in january and march, the stunning to now know the sub source disavow the document used to get a warrant and nobody at the top had any idea that that occurred is just earth shatteringly disappointing. Do you understand how people could be disappointed in that . I do understand how people could be disappointed in it. Im disappointed in it myself. The point is after a while mr. Mccabe it gets to be hard to reconcile all of this and come out and say there was is it still your testimony that the Trump Campaign and the Clinton Campaign were equally treated when it came to allegations . I think that the Trump Campaign and the Clinton Campaign were treated very differently in the context of two very different investigations. Im saying it seems allegations were made by both and ill sum that all up. Senator kennedy . Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Mccabe. Who is responsible for the misbehavior outlined by Inspector General horowitz in his report about misfire hurricane . Well, it depends on what youre referring to, senator. If youre referring to the intentional misconduct by mr. Clinesmith, obviously hes responsible for that. I think from a command perspective, director comey, myself and subordinate leaders are all responsible for the failures in that package that allowed it to go forward. If youre asking about intentional misconduct beyond mr. Clinesmiths activity, im not aware theres a finding that others were engaged in intentional misconduct. While you were either director or acting director of the fbi, the fbi decided to investigate two president ial campaigns. One secretary clinton, the other one then candidate trump and later President Trump. I want to put aside secretary clinton for a second. When the fbi decided to investigate candidate donald trump, what questions did you ask . At some point, somebody came to you and said, hey, mr. Deputy director were going to just so youll know, were going to investigate the republican nominee for president of the United States. Do you remember when you were told that . So if youre referring to our initiation of the cross fire investigation, so the investigation of the Trump Campaign, i do remember conversations at the end of july, 2016 okay. Im not interested in the date. Excuse me for interrupting, i apologize. Would it be fair to say that the Christopher Steele dossier was the keystone of the investigation . No, sir, thats not accurate. How important was it . What world would you use . It had no importance. We were not in possession of that information when we initiated the case. So when you initiated the case, Christopher Steeles dossier had nothing to do with your decision to go forward . Thats correct. Thats your testimony today under oath . It is. Okay. At some point, the Christopher Steele dossier became important, did it not . The Christopher Steele report came to us in the middle of september and became important to us at that time. Okay. Now, when you heard about the Christopher Steele dossier, did you did you ask to interview mr. Steele . I mean, youre only investigating a candidate for president of the United States. After youve already investigated one, now youre on the second one. Did you say hey, im the Deputy Director here, im responsible. I want to talk to Christopher Steele. Did you do that . I did not personally speak to mr. Steele, but our Investigative Team traveled overseas why not . Youre the deputy this is what i dont understand about this whole thing, mr. Mccabe. Youre the Deputy Director of the fbi, and your people had decided to investigate the republican nominee for president of the United States after already investigating the democratic nominee. And at least in part at some point it was based on the chris steele dossier. Now, you can run from that one, but you cant hide from it. Did you ever call your guys in or dwgals and say hey, just the thought, i think i would like to talk to chris steele to see how credible this guy is, because you say youve never known him. Did you do that . Senator, in my entire experience of 21 years as an fbi agent, i am not aware of a single instance of the Deputy Director of the fbi interviewing a source. How many nominees for president of the United States have you investigated . I cant comment on that, sir. But youre telling me at no point you ever sat down and said wait a minute, guys, this is substantially based on chris steele. I want to talk to this cowboy. You never did that. That is not an accurate characterization of our investigation. Thats what you just said, you said you never talked to him. No, sir, im just trying to clarify that the steele information didnt come to us until 2 1 2 months after we had opened the case. When it came to you, did you say wait a minute, gouis guys, s my reputation on the line. I want to talk to Christopher Steele. No, senator, i sent my investigators to conduct the investigation. Do you know who do you know who igor danchinko is . I do not. Even today . I am not going to speculate as to who he is. He was the subsource that the steele dossier was based on. So youre the assistant director of the fbi, you decided to investigate the Trump Campaign, you get this dossier, which, whether you admit it or not was the basis for all the fisa warrants, you never sat down and said i want to talk to chris dossier or chris steele. If you had talked to chris steele you would have found out his subsource was igor. That was his primary subsource. He wasnt from russia. He was some guy from washington, d. C. Working for brookings. He went to the university of louisville. He went to georgetown. He was buddies with dr. Fiona hill. He was relying on his drinking buddies. Why didnt all you folks running the show say wait a minute, this is all centers around chris steele. We better talk to steele and to this guy, danchinko . Senator, its important that i get this out. So if you could give me just a second, i am not sure i have now read the report of the subsource interview, and the interviewees name is still redacted in that report. So i dont feel comfortable acknowledging or comfortable denying any identity that might be associated with that american. His own lawyer said it was him. Ises heres what it looks like to the American People, mr. Mccabe. The fbi didnt even try here, the people making the decisions. You wanted to investigate trump. I mean, this is a nominee for president of the United States. Youve already investigated the other one and potentially screwed up her campaign. So you get the steele dossier. You dont sit down, you personally, and comey, you dont talk to chris steele, you dont even ask questions about whether he got his information. Had you done that, you would have down he got it from danchinko, who is a jelly head. He doesnt know what hes talking about, and it all would have come apart. But you never looked. It sort of looks like you didnt want to. Is that a question . Yes, sir. Yeah. So the i cant possibly disagree more strongly with the way you framed that question. While it is true i never sat personally with mr. Steele or any of his alleged sources, our team spent a great deal of effort interviewing him, interviewing other people that they thought were relevant, and trying to get to the bottom of the material that he provided. So, no, we were not predisposed to investigating the president. It wasnt something we sought out to do, but we felt that the potential National Security threat put us in a position where we were obligated to investigate. Thats what we did. And you expect the American People to believe that . That is the truth, and i certainly hope they believe it. General flynn has been prosecuted for lying to the fbi. You lied to the fbi and you arent being prosecuted. Dont you think that sends the wrong message to the American People . Senator, general flynns situation and mine have absolutely nothing in common. I never, ever intentionally misled the fbi or the ig under any circumstances. And i think thats probably the conclusion that the d. C. U. S. Attorneys office came to when they dismissed the twoyear investigation i understand. But you werent fired for parking in the handicap parking spot at the fbi. You were fired for lying, were you not . I was fired as a result of a deeply unfair ig investigation and i ham challenging that determination in federal court. Last question. And i do you have any idea, mr. Mccabe i dont think mr. Comey does do you have any idea how badly you and your colleagues have hurt the fbi . I mean, the premiere Law Enforcement agency in all of human history, and there was just a handful of you. Now when the average american gets a knock on his or her door, fbi need to talk to you, at least half of them are thinking, oh, my gosh, is the agent a republican or a democrat . They probably know my party affiliation. Do you have any idea how much damage youve done . Sir, my colleagues and i never took any action to undermine our effectiveness, undermine our oath to this constitution and the American People, and the work that we did for the fbi. I deeply regret how politicized the fbi has become in light of the rhetoric and the relentless attacks levied upon it over the last four years, and i have great faith that my former colleagues will continue to do their work and ignore those sort of attacks. At best, what you and mr. Comey and the others did, at worst it was intentional. And i dont know whats in your head or your heart, but i can tell you what it looked like to the American People at the very minimum. Incompetence tsunami. And theyre cities how did these guys make it through the birth canal. Thats all i got, mr. Chairman. Thank you. Just to put a fine point on this, and well let you go. Thank you for coming. Did you have regular meetings with the people in charge of cross fire hurricane . We had regular meetings, we had impromptu meetings, we had a lot of meetings. You took it seriously, is that correct . I think everybody took it seriously. So was peter strzok your main source of information . Peter strzok was one of many sources of information. I met very regularly with others, our general counsel. There were quite a few people involved in that. Did they tell you that the subsource was being interviewed in january . I did know that the subsource had been interviewed, thats correct. Did you ever ask the question, how did that interview go, did it help us with the warrant application . Did it undermine the warrant application . Did you ask any questions about the results of the interview . I did. I remember discussing it very briefly, and i was not informed of any concerns with the things that the witness told them. Who did you talk to about the interview, do you recall . I do not recall, sir. So you remember being told were you told about the march interview . No, sir. So heres the question, i guess. If you ask them how did the interview go, and nobody tells you that it basically destroyed the dossier, if thats not criminal, is it grossly negligent not to get that information to you . I think that the case team should have had much more detailed confidence within themselves and also with the Department Attorneys who were ready is the blame senator, the information that they included in the fisa package about that interview, albeit wildly misleading, i think it reflecting how they thought about the interview at that time. I think they didnt think about it critically enough. If you look at this interview, and youre not wowed by how unreliable the dossier is, you dont want to see it as being unreliable. Now, youre in charge, the number two guy, of one of the most consequential investigations in the history of the fbi. It begins to fall apart. One stop sign after another is presented to the fbi. The cia tells the fbi that this is internet rumor, you need to watch Christopher Steele. The state department talks about him trying to take trump down. Bruce orr talks about you need to watch this guy. When the subsource is interviewed, he shreds the document as being reliable, and nothing seemed to work when it came to making sure that the true facts got out to the court and others, nothing seemed to work. Can you give me an explanation as to why when it came to the exculpatory part of this, nothing seemed to work the way it should . Senator, i can only rely on the findings ive read in the ig report. You were the number two guy. You were in charge of all of this. How is it possible that the number two guy in the fbi was not informed about these major breakdowns regarding the reliability of the dossier . Were you not informed about the email from the cia saying yeah, actually carter page was a source or us . Senator, i cant answer for you why i did not know something at the time. Okay. Well, thats the thats the purpose of the hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to make sure that we find answers to how the system failed so it doesnt fail again. We will continue, in spite of my democratic colleagues protestations, were going to find somebody accountable for something when it comes to cross fire hurricane. And thank you very much, mr. Mccabe for participating in the hearing. I wish you the best. Thank you. All right. Now, as to why im doing what im doing. Its just astonishing to me so much was ignored so off and you come to the conclusion theres no there there. So what do we know . No defensive briefing was given to President Trump about concerns regarding his campaign. But when there were concerns regarding the Clinton Campaign and foreign influence, she was briefed. We know that senator feinstein was briefed when the fbi thought maybe a member of her staff was connected to a member of the Chinese Intelligence Community. All of these investigations of the Trump Campaign were counterintelligence investigations. Not one mention to President Trump you may have a problem with papadopoulos. If you look at the transcripts, he says he didnt know he was being recorded, that no, hes not working with the russians, he hasnt received any information from russia, that would be a crime. The whole premise of cross fire hurricane was a report by the australian ambassador to the United Kingdom that was given to somebody in our office in london that makes its way back to washington. Theyve got all this information where papadopoulos denies working with the russians and they plow ahead. Compare that to the september cia memo to the fbi, suggesting that Hillary Clinton has signed off on a plan to link trump to russia to draw attention away from her email server problem. This is our cia telling the fbi they have credible information that Hillary Clinton, the democratic nominee, is trying to link trump to russia for political purposes. And the fbi completely ignored it, apparently threw it in the garbage can and considered an australian ambassador meeting in a bar more reliable. Didnt give it one minute of attention. The reason thats important, it explains how this all hand. Christopher steele was on the payroll of fusion gps who was on the payroll of the democratic party. Christopher steele was working for the democratic party. He provided a dossier that used a russian source who was suspected of being a russian agent years before, and it turned out to be a bunch of garbage. So the reason the fbi should have looked at what the cia had told them, it begins to make cross fire hurricane make more sense. That this whole thing was cooked up in july. That the whole idea of trumprussia connections were not real, they were manufactured in part by Christopher Steele. And the fbi bought it hook, line, and sinker. So i think a lot of us on our side are just astonished, that when the cia sends over information to the fbi, that they have intelligence that Hillary Clinton signed off on a plan to connect to russia to divert attention from her, that nobody at the fbi did a damn thing about it. Well, who did they send it to . Peter strzok. Are you going to have me believe that peter strzok was fair minded when it came to trump clinton . Doesnt it make a lot of sense that the person who hated trump, thought he should lose 100 million to nothing, thought he was an idiot, totally invested in making sure he never becomes president , is it farfetched to say when he got the information about clinton, he purposefully did nothing with it . How do you explain a system this out of control . The most high profile case, maybe in the history of the fbi, at least near the top, that when the subsource is interviewed on two separate occasions, and the information is damning to the dossier, it never makes its way up to anybody who signed the warrant. What kind of oversight existed for this to happen . How serious were they about checks and balances . Why didnt they go to trump and do for trump what they did for clinton . We think you may have a problem, you need to correct it. Its pretty obvious to us that cross fire hurricane started basically a conversation in a bar. It took on a life well beyond what the evidence would require, that every time it was supposed to come to end, it kept going. Every time we received information that made the whole premise of the case unreliable, they ignored it. When it comes to general flynn, january 4th, the professionals wanted to close out the case against general flynn because there was no there there. It was the seventh floor that kept it going. They tricked general train infl talking without a lawyer. Sally yates said they should have defensively briefed the president if they had a concern with general flynn. They chose not to. They set him up and acted dishonorably toward general flynn. Theres nothing wrong with general flynn talking to the ambassador of russia when hes the incoming National Security adviser, and the conversations are recorded, and theres not one word in there to suggest that general flynn had been an agent of the russians at any time. And they have basically tried to ruin the mans reputation. The professionals january 4th took a hard look at general flynn and found nothing there. Its just these people at the top who had an insane desire to keep looking at trump people, when the evidence would suggest they needed to stop. Why did they never stop . When it came to trump . When they should have stopped . Why did they never slow down . Because they had a bias. They really were in the tank when it came to trump being a russian agent, no matter what the evidence said, they were going after this guy, because in their mind, he wasnt worthy. Why did they not look at the allegations against candidate clinton provided by the cia . It would undercut the narrative. This wasnt an investigation that was unbiased. This was an investigation that was out of control, the people in charge of it were deeply biased. Their actions proved more than any direct evidence of their bias. Every time they had a moment to reflect, they moved forward. Every time exculpatory information was provided, they ignored it or altered it criminally. Its no accident, in my view, that all this happened. This is not a series of random mistakes. This was a concerted effort to keep an investigation going that should have stopped, that should have slowed down. And whats the damage done . They manipulated the fisa court to keep a warrant process going that should have stopped months ago. They created a cloud over the fbi about political bias that lingers to this day. Lawyers are being prosecuted for manipulating evidence to keep a warrant application alive. They were told about information from the cia that maybe this was all part of a political scheme of the opponent. They ignored it. They knew that the Christopher Steele dosser in was suspect. They knew that the source was a suspected russian agent, and they kept going and going and going, and they have at one moment gave President Trump a briefing that every other candidate should have expect. If you think somebody in my office is doing something wrong, i would like for you to tell me so i can fix it. They werent trying to protect trump, they werent trying to protect his campaign from foreign influence. They were trying to undercut the president. They were trying to keep an investigation going against a president , a candidate they despised. They had one standard for trump, vastly different than that of candidate clinton. And my democratic colleagues say lets move on. To this day, years later, i have yet to find one person who will take responsibility for manipulating the fisa court. I didnt know if i knew then what i knew now, i wouldnt have signed it. So who are we to blame . Is it somebody at the bottom of the pyramid who had all this exculpatory information and for some reason didnt share it . Is that what the system has come down to, blaming somebody at the bottom . They take responsibility in name only. They dont seem to appreciate the gravity of damage done to the fbi, to the investigative process. When they sa y no, of course i wouldnt have signed that warrant, these are the people, comey and mcccabe, that are in charge of the investigation and obtaining a fisa warrant. They gather the facts and the lawyers at doj decide whether or not to pursue a warrant. The people in charge of this investigation were notified by the cia that this may have been a plot cooked up by the democratic candidate to blame trump for being involved with russia when he wasnt. They ignored it. When they were hit hard by the facts that the dossier was a bunch of garbage, it just magically never made it up to their desk. Everything bad about trump made it to their desk. Everything exculpatory about the Trump Campaign never made it to their desk. How dumb do they think we are . This committee is not through. Were going to keep digging until we find out how the most high profile investigation of a candidate for president of the United States and eventually a sitting president was handled so poorly. And try to let the fisa court know that we take our job seriously. So we will continue this process. People need to be fired. And i think the criminality here needs to be looked at. I find it very difficult to believe that this exculpatory information was not withheld from the court on purpose. We know clinesmith changed exculpatory information. We caught him. Theres somebody else out there that probably knows. The system rejected the exculpatory information, they just didnt ignore it. To be continued. Thank you. The hearing is adjourned. If you missed any of the Senate Judiciary hearing, you can watch it again tonight at 8 00 eastern on cspan2 or online any time at cspan. Org. After the hearing,