Thank broadband support cspan as a Public Service along with these other television providers. Giving you a front row seat to democracy. Next the Justice Department former special counsel jon durham testifies before the House Judiciary Committee on his investigation of the fbi probe into alleged connections between the 2016 trump President Campaign and russian operatives. Mr. Durhams testimony follows the release of his final report should categorize the basis for the investigation as quote seriously flawed. [background noises] [background noises] s may have come to order that objects in the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time for the welcome it at todays hearing on the report of the special counsel jon durham. The chair now recognize a judgment from alabama to leaders in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the 19th of america. And to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. If chair is recognized for an Opening Statement three years ago and 11 months joint 24, 2010 bob miller sat in this room in that chair and told this committee no none. What did the democrats say . We dont care. We are going to keep going after President Trump in fact they did not even wait one day for the next day the phone call between President Trump and president zelenskyy became the basis for their impeachment. Republican said maybe, maybe instead of the never ending attacks on President Trump, maybe the country would be better off if we figured out how the whole false trump should narrative started. After two andnd half years of te Mueller Investigation , lawyers, 40 agents, 30 million they found nothing, maybe we should figure out how the whole lie started . Thats exactly what mr. Durham has done. In his report he tells how the dossier was funded pretty told us to funded it. Bigger the fbi was to use it. How they put the dossier in a fisa draft application just two days after receiving it. He told us that not one, not one single substantive allegation in the dossier was ever corroborated. Never validated. Yet it was used, is to spy on an american Citizen Associated with the president ial campaign. He told us there is no proper predicate for opening the crust barricade investigation and maybe most importantly, he told us the fbi, the preeminent Law Enforcement agency in the world failed. Failed in its fundamental mission of adherence rule of law. And unfortunately i think once again the democrats will say we dont care. It does not matter. We are never going to stop going after President Trump. In fact, eight days ago we saw how far they are willing to go. With the indictment of President Trump. But frankly this should not insurprise us. They told us their objective. It was an agent on the case of crossfire hurricane you told us what their objective was. We already text message were he said dont worry, we will stop trump. It started with the crossfire hurricane investigation. Mr. Dershowitz and his told us how wrong thatha was. Now we have an indictment of a formerta president whos winning in every single pole by hisdu opponents Justice Department. In between those two events with the Mueller Investigation, we had impeachment. We had 51 former intel officials falsely tell us the biden laptop was russia disinformation. We had a raid on President Trumps home and of course and got alvins ridiculous case in newfa york. Seven years, nothing has changed. Dont believe me . We interviewed steven former head of the Washington Field office in the trump class in a document case began. He told the committee, interviewed just two weeks ago two weekste ago today he told te committee that when he asked the department of justice why aew certain note u. S. Attorney assigned to the Trump Classified document case . Headquarters said because we are running it. He suggested the mammy field office to the rate sent in the washington from the Washington Field office to mimic about the Miami Field Office do it headquarters said no he suggested there should not be a raid anddo said that she contine to work with President Trumps lawyers. Once again headquarters said no. He even said how about when we get there, when we arrive at president p trumps home we then call his lawyer and we do the search together . Again headquarters saidt no. Another interesting fact a lawyer turned down his request happens to be the same person who is alleged to have pressured the attorney representing a trump employee about a judgeship. Nothing has changed and frankly they are never going to stop at seven years of attacking trump a scary enough. But what is more frightening from anyone of us could be next. In fact it has already started. Parents at School Board Meetings are terrorists. Prolife catholics are extremists even journalists are not safe. Federal trade commission, 13 letters one at g twitter sitting who are the journalist you are talking to . Think about that thinning for people personally to come and testify in front of this committee. While they in front of this Committee Democrats are asking them to reveal their sources. I think First Amendment principles. One of them while hes sitting at that table testifying to the Judiciary Committee the irs is knocking on his door. Parents, catholics, journalists, guess who gets it the worst . Just a guess at the worst . Whistleblowers. If you dare come forward and Tell Congress what was going on, look out. They will come for you but theyll take your clearance for theyll take your paper theyll even take your kids close just ask Garrett Oboyle testified in front of this committee as well. Over the next few hours were in on how the facts and details about the whole false trump russian narrative the crossfire hurricane investigation. And hopefully hopefully will help change things at the department of justice. But regardless of what the Biden Administration and the Justice Department do i know republicans in the house are committed to doing. We will work to dramatically change the fisa law and we will do everything we can and the appropriations process to stop the federal government from going after the American People. Now it recognize the Ranking Member for an Opening Statement. But thank you, mr. Chairman. Oniz june 8, a grand jury mammy indicted former President Trump on 37 counts related to hisis mishandling of extraordinarily Sensitive National security information. Including information regarding defense and weapons capabilities for both United States and foreign countries. Denies itsna Nuclear Programs potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attack, and plans to possible retaliation in response to foreign attack. According to the indictment the unauthorized disclosure these classified documents could put at risk the National Security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military, and Human Resources the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods. And indeed the indictment goes on to describe how the former president made such on authorizednd disclosures. Even if you believe, is chairman jordan claims, that President Trump has committed no crime surely you can agree it is dangerous and profoundly irresponsible to have taken these documents from the white house and left them unsecure in maralago. Dont take just my word for it. Trump secretary of defense mike jett mark esper said the former president handling of misinformation with u. S. Service members lives interNational Security at risk. Trump handpicked attorney general bill barr with whom i agree on very little hit the nail on the head when he described the former presents legal troubles as quote entirely of his own making. No right to these documents. The government tried for over a year quietly with respect to get them back he jerked them around. We face a subpoena he did not raise any legal arguments. He engaged in deceitful conduct is a clear crime those allegations are true. The former president could have it any time simply return the documents and avoidede prosecution. House republicans do not want to t that. Ut any of they seem incapable of assigning any Agency Responsibility to donald trump problems that are trumps and trumpst alone. Instead republicans have planned this hearing and constructed an entire post narrative around the work of special counsel jerome in an effort to distract the former president s legal troubles and mislead the American Public. To be clear the germ report is by itself a deeply flawed vessel. After four years thousands of employee hours and more than six and half Million Dollars in taxpayer dollars special counsel durham did not uncover in any wrongdoing or what did not already found in 2019. He brought just two cases to trial and loss in both. Both defendants were acquitted in mere hours. A single conviction of special counsel durham attained single charge of lying to the fbi. Case developed and handed to him by the Inspector General one resolved by a quick plea bargain. Report itself outlined some fairly glaring investigative missteps. Neveri apparently it looked at a thumb drive and key oevidence related to allegatios of contact between the Trump Campaign and the russian government by a russian cell phone. Report the fbi ever examine questionable computer contacts between the Trump Organization and alphabeta, were the largest banks in russia. The report fails to recommend ax single remedial measure the Justice Department or the fbi might take to address certain process relateded concerned. Largely because d. O. J. And fbi have already implemented the changes recommended by the Inspector General three and half yearsoc ago. Now i understand that like the former president , many maga republicans have a lot riding on the durhamth investigation. I understand they might bew disappointed with where it landed. That is no excuse for making things up. Firstly germ report unequivocally concludes the fbi not only had the evidence to open an investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, but actually had an affirmative obligation to investigate ties between the russian government and the Trump Campaign. It is simply not true some republicans have claimed the germ report suggests this should not have been investigation. Affirmative obligation, those were mr. Germs words not mine. Secondly germ report shows the fbi began its investigation went aid to the Trump Campaign disclosed may 2016 the campaign new russia had thousands of emails thats would embarrass Hillary Clinton. The aide bragged about it in a bar and a strained diplomatic over there mark reported in the investigation began. It simply not true is the most extreme voices in this room have claimed the investigation was somehow launched by the Clinton Campaign. That is a particular Conspiracy Theory thats off for several months. Nor is it true the fbi was posted truck from the beginning for example the germ report tells us the fbi encouraged the confidential human source to infiltrate the Clinton Campaign not the Trump Campaign and take steps to entrap unsuccessfully aide to secretary clinton. The stories right there pages 74 and 75 of the report. I suspect we will not hear word about it from House Republicans today because it does not fit the megan ericag narrative. Finally nothing in the germ report disputes essential findings of special Counsel Robert Mueller namely russia interfered in 2016 election it did so to help donald trump in the Trump Campaign welcome to this interference. The last point is important because it tells us how mr. Germ became special counsel the first place. It goes to the heart of the fully false narrative of maga victimhood. The day special counsel mueller began his work donald trump and his political allies railed against the imagine conspiracy against the former president. The russia investigation was a set up. It was ahi witchhunt, obama did it. We need to investigate the investigators. Then came the muellerrm report. The Mueller Report was delivered to attorney general barr on friday march 22, 2019. The next monday mr. Durham was in barrs office, a week later a collie emailed mr. Germ to ask about quote the project that durham and barb are working on. But we on this committee are fighting to get access to the Mueller Report mr. Durham was already working on investigation to undercut its central findings. A few weeks later Trump Administration announced mr. Germs investigation into the investigators. By august 2019 mr. Germ attorney general barr on a plane to europe jointly cutting down nonexistent evidence of Donald Trumps deep state conspiracy theories. If the duo ever found evidence proving donald trump was rightne all along, that evidence certainly never made it into the germ report. It has been alleged however they found evidence implicating the former president certain financial crimes during their trip. Incidentally that information to is missing for mr. Germs final pages. We did not donald trump evidence state conspiracy, is to germ gate in the next best thing. A public narrative with Hillary Clinton as the villain. Over the ensuing years mrs. Germ conducted a flimsy story but on shaking inferences and dog whistles far right conspiracy theories. He lost both times he took the case to trial by prolong its investigation durham was able to keep Donald Trumps talking points in the news long after trump left office. The approach d. O. J. Norms protecting the reputation of the agency and the cavalier disregard for the privacy and reputational rights of others mr. Germs investigation operated as headline generator for maga republicans. This for your investigation, mrd respected general conclusion the fbi was warranted in opening a full investigation and a violation of d. O. J. Rules protecting investigations from appearances of political bias. Mr. Germ similar at fighting guidelines designed to protect third parties from reputational injury when he is the two indictments to accuse the Clinton Campaign of a vast conspiracy to tightrope to russia. At the end of the date mr. Germ germ never found what he was lookingmp for. You cannot dispute a single conclusion in the Mueller Report. You cannot prove a magnificent state conspiracy he cannot say the fbi investigation into the Trump Campaign many ties to russia never should have happened. And again i could see why this to be disappointing to some. Instead of owning up to his failure, germ report doubles out on theories that lost spectacularly before to unanimous juries. The report references classified material for likelyfo disinformation though at a series of accusations and is a former resident perceived enemies. By presenting the socalled findings in this way, republican bogeyman and hiding Inconvenient Truth in footnotes the germ report gives donald trump won last talking point. Does not have to be this way. Maybe hard to remember at the outset of the germ investigation mr. Germ was a wellrespected career prosecutor with a solid reputation the attorney general was supposed to point special counsel to prevent the appearance of a criminal investigation. Mr. Germ could have will lift up expectation. Instead what we got was a political exercise that operating with ethical ambiguity and existing to protect perpetuate donald trump synthetic claims. Investigations failed in its political objectives but did real damage to a department that is still recovering from the excesses of the trumpms administration. And despite mr. Germs best efforts a reckoning is well underway. Do not be misled present donald trump is not a victim. He did this to himself. For all its flaws the germ report does not show anyone else is responsible for the president s legal woes. Past, present, future. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply making it up. I think the chairman and i yield back. Chris all of the opening sales included in the record todays witness is the honorable jon derby mr. Durham was a point is a counsel in 2022 investigate intelligence activities investigations arising out of the 2016 president ial campaign. Is a career prosecutor having served as u. S. Attorney for the district of connecticut and various other roles with that office since 1989. Prior to that he served the department of justice the boston strikeforce organized crime and in various statelevel prosecutors offices. We welcome ournc witness and thk him for appearing today we will begin by swearing un. Would you please rice it and raise your right hand mr. Durham . You under penalty of her at the testimony about to give his true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information beliefs of god . But theun wreckage of the witnes has answered in the affirmative. Thank you, you may be seated. Please note your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety according to be asked to summarize her testimony five minutes. Well give a little extra time if you need it. Mr. Germ you may begin. A teacher at mike there just keep it on if you can throughout the day. Thank you. Good morning. Ranking member nadler and members of this committee. As the committee knows on may 13, 2019 attorney general barr directed me too conduct a preliminary review into certain matters related to federal investigations concerning the 2016 president ial election. That review subsequently developed into several criminal investigations and gave rise to my subsequent appointment as special counsel in theses almatters. Many of the significant issues documented in the report we have written including those relating to lack of investigativesp discipline, failure to take logistical, logical investigative steps and bias are relevant to important National Security interests this committee and the American People are concerned about. If repeated and left unaddressed these issues could result in significant National Security risks and further erode the publics faith and confidence in our Justice System. As we said in the report our findings were sobering and i tell you havinge spent 40 years plus is a federal prosecutor they were particularly sobering to me. Number of my colleagues who spent decades in the fbi themselves, they were sobering. Im encouraged by some the reforms that have been implemented by the fbi, the problems identified in this report anybody actually reads the report the details of the report, the documented portions of the report i think will find the problems identified are not susceptible to overnight fixes. As we said in the report that cannot be addressed solely by enhancing training for additional policy requirements. Rather what is required is accountability both in terms of the standards to which our Law Enforcement personnel hold themselves and in the consequences they face for violation of laws and policies of relevance. I am here chance your questions. I appreciate the opportunity i will answer them to the best of my ability. And iva hope to be of service to your oversight function. As im sure you know the department of justice is issued guidance but i authorized to discuss in those things im not authorized to discuss in this regard i will refer principally to the report. I do want to emphasize a few points at the outset however. First i want to emphasize my strongest terms possible my colleagues and i carried out our work in good faith. With integrity in the spirit of following the facts whereverll they lead no time and no sense to the extent someone suggests otherwise is simply untrue and offensive finding set forth inot this report are serious and deserve attention from the American Public and his representatives. When we briefly highlight a few trndof those. For one we found troubling violations of law and policy in the conduct of highly consequential investigations. Directed at members of a president ial campaign and ultimately a president ial administration. To me it matters not whether it was a Republican Campaign or democrat campaign. It was a president ial campaign. Our team comprised dedicated experience prosecutors and Law Enforcement agentss who worked day and in day out to the entire covid epidemic, in the office trying to interview people all in an effort to try to get to those facts and truths. That is such a group of people that made these findings experienced fbi agents experienceto prosecutors, not people by and large from washington but in other parts of the country effect these people made these findings as reflected in the report is of concern. And it should be of concern to any american who cares about her civil liberties, the rule of law and the application of law for all of us whether we are friends or foes the bar ought to apply to everybody in the same way. During our investigation former fbi agent played guilty to the felony offense of altering and fabricating a portion of the document used to obtain a court order eight isa order of surveillance having a state citizen which is a significant problem. Several of the relevant bise applications issued in the crossfire investigation omitted references to what was clearly relevant and highly exculpatory information should have been disclosed with the fisari court. Multiple fbi personnel who signed or assisted in preparing renewal applications for thatlp same fisa warrant acknowledged they did not believe the target, mr. Page, was a threat to National Security much less a knowing agent of foreign pallor which is what the law requires. It appears our investigation fbi leadership dismiss this concerns. Another aspect scrutinized by thee same standards to willing o accept and use of politically abundant and uncorroborated Opposition Research such as a rsteele dossier. The fbi overlaid on theli dossir in phis applications knew there was likely material originating from a Political Campaign a political opponent. It did so even after the president of the United States, the fbi and cia directors and others received briefings about liintelligence suggesting there was a Clinton Campaigned plan underway to stir up scandal time trump to russia. The accuracy of the intelligence was uncertain at times but the fbi it failed analyze or even assess the implications of the intelligence in any meaningful way. In the fbi learned the primary source of information for the steele dossier, which was basically the guts of the narrative about there being a well coordinated conspiracy involving trump and the russians. When they learned was the primary sub source for those reports the time at the fbi already knew he himself had previously been the suspect of an espionage investigation. He was suspected of being a russian asset. And nonetheless they signed him up as a paid informant without further investigation of the espionage concern to say nothing of resolving the espionage matter before using his information. When fbi special agent muellers office learned primary sub source likely gathered important portions of the dossier information during travels to russia with Charles Dolan it inexplicably decided not to interview dolan or investigate this activity. Finally i like to add that although her work exposed deep concerns concerning facts about the conduct of these investigations, i report should not be read to suggest in any way the Russian Election interference was not a significant threat, it was. Norton should be read to suggest the investigation the investigative authorities that issue are no longer serve important lawenforcement to National Security interests. Theyat do. Rather responsibility for the failures and transgressions for the rest of people committed them or allow them to occur. To my mind the issues raised with close attention for the American People and representatives here in washington. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think mr. Durham. Thank you, mr. Chairman mr. Girl for being here today. Okay so that the out seven to 20000 feet. It vibrates guiding principles. Integrity and we rely upon them to uphold to protect the American People. They deserve and expect khmer Law Enforcement agencies to apply justice blindly without political bias alternate motives. Famously states and heres the big quote, based on the review of crossfire hurricane fbi failed to uphold the strict fidelity to the law. No other way. Further eroded faith ine institutions. Define these sober and could you unpack a little bit more what that means . Why do you say sobering . Let me give you some real life without. I have had any number of fbi agents who i have worked with over the years some retired summer still in place who have come to me and apologize for the manner in which that investigation was undertaken. I take that seriously for these are good hardworking the majority of people in the fbi decent human beings who swear under their oath to abide by the law and the like. I think that exemplifies the concern here. There are investigative activities undertaken and were not undertaken here which raise real concerns whether or not the policies in place the fbi were followed. Shees wrote in your report based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive caustic investigations on these matters including the investigation neither u. S. Law enforcement, nor the Intelligence Community appeared to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings. The evidence between trump and russia ever uncovered . Boxers information in the report that was prepared by doctor mueller. S2 collusion im not aware of any facts when the fbi open crossfire hurricane it did not have any information anyone in the trunk campaign had been with officials is that right . As we wrote in the report and talk to the director of the cia the Deputy Director of cia for the nsa and people within the fbi there was no such information they had in their holdings. When joe quickly heaved detail fbi personnel working phis applications violated protocols for they were cavalier at best as you said in your own words towards accuracy and completeness. Senior fbi personnel displayed serious lack of analytical rigor. For the information they receive especially information from politically affiliated persons or entities. You said a significant reliance on investigative provided or funded by chumps political opponents relied upon here. Among the alarming things you refer and therefore is impact oo confirmation bias. Liin group page 303 defined as were stands for the general proposition there is a common human tendency mostly unintentional for people to accept information and evidence that consistent with what they believe to be true. But here is not unintentional human tendency was it . It was over political bias was ite not . Peter strzok for example by brick some individuals clearly expressed a personal bias ask unless we have their emails right peter strzok pronounce hostile feelings towards president fi trump. Deputy a counterintelligence he said horrible things about President Trump and all of his supporters by the labor cap of the city did not have potable bias . They reflect a personal bias he had only been to others in the facts out in the part with its political bias its clearly biaseded because we know now the fbi the d. O. J. Had been turned political weapons against citizens. Even a former president because of their opposing viewpoints. They failed to follow protocol in 2016. You suggest new protocols may somehow be affixed to this. How can the American People have confidence that they did not follow particles in 2016 they will have new Program Protocols . Excess in the opening remarks this is not an easy fix. Its going to take time to rebuild the publics confidence in the institution. The changes and reforms i have made are going to guard to some extent against a repeat of what could happen crossfire hurricane. Gemma is back back the chair recommended judgment from the ark mr. Durham can you pull the microphone really closer so we can hear you said . We appreciate that progressive some of new york is recognized for quick thinking searcher break mr. Durham europe for resected defense of the trunk campaign attack on heller place thats exactly what itt is. Donald trump wanted you to investigate the investigators to show that these state conspirators but you never found one. Instead you gave him and his maga republicans the next best thing someone else to blame for Donald Trumps problems. That is why youre here today. The chairmans colleagues need someone, anyone to deflect from mounting evidence of trumps misconduct. Let me remind you donald trump is federally invited to 37 counts of mishandling classified information. Thirtyseven counts. S. That is why youre here today but not because it anything that happened in 2016. Your investigation calls more than six net Million Dollars about the work of dozens of fbi employees and federal prosecutors some of who resigned in protest and took roughly four years to complete is that correct . No that is not o correct. There are multiple parts of that progress did it take for you to complete . Correct. All these resources and how these people were sent to help investigate the investigators, he only filed three criminal cases he only brought two cases the crowd, correct . Correct request to us all the cases . That you brought to trial dcorrect . Correct. They acquitted of all charges you obtained the defendant pleaded guilty to a single count but never went to trial, correct . Element in that case the investigative steps were completed by Inspector General horowitz. Perhaps a better way to come to report. From a rating report not make any specific concrete recommendations for fa policies and procedures almost all of the d. O. J. And fbi have already implemented. Again your investigation lasted four years. Four years untold sums of money and you still obtain only one conviction. He did produce 300 page report though given my republican counterparts plenty of material. As a Foreign Policy adviser to the trunk campaign in spring of 2016 is that right . Correct. Approximate 2016 you told us going diplomat trump team had received some kind of suggestion from russia that could assist the process with anonymous release of misinformation during the campaign and be damaging to secretary clinton. This is a fact cannot bring the motor investigation your investigation from nothing dispute this fact, correct . There is more detailed to that in the report requested find anything to dispute this report . On page 50 of your report you wrote on july 28, 2016 fbi headquarters received asteroid information for the basis correct . That have created operative bragging to australian intelligence assets there were damaged Hillary Clinton is not true. When fbi received that information according to your report and not just a predication to investigate there is no question you wrote the fbi have an affirmativeen obligation to closely yucca had obligation. Such alphabetic it was a loose lips about Campaign Like to discuss one mark false conclusion about your part thats b made its way into the maga republican talking points. So my colleagues across the aisle started calling this the quote russiast hoax. Its a theory russiant did not actually interfere in the 2006 same president ial election. That is patently false. In 2173 Trump Administration the director of National Intelligence declassify a report the rush activity in the 2006en election. You are aware of this report, correct . Correct breaker to support the intelligencere committee fod russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016amp at the u. S. President ial election, russias goals winter to undermine public faith in the u. S. Ru senate procs denigrate secretary clinton and harm her electability potentiall presidency. We further assess putin and the russian government develop a preference to present electronic. You did not dispute trump or the influence campaign with 2006 election and report did f you . As i said a quick yes or no. Special counsel mueller invited 12 russia Intelligence Officers in july 2019 isnt that right . Correct requests of Intelligence Officers invited for technical and campaign on page 55 in your report you acknowledge the press conference in 2016 donald trump on camera set russia if you are listening i hope youre able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, is that correct . That is correct. But trump told the press he believed russian president putin over his own intelligence officials he told them russia ydid not interfere during the 2006 elections. I see my time has expired i yield back. Exit witness can respond if he chooses too. Because a chart wrecking as a from South Carolina for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We are here today to provide transparency filing to the American People. Seven years ago the fbi launched crossfire hurricane the brazen attempt to keep donald trump out of the white house. This federal investigation funded by the hillary Clinton Campaign caused americans to believe then candidate trump was colluding with them russia in to win the 2016 president ial election break mr. Durham has spent four years investigate in this. 408 witnesses but 6 million pages of documents 190 subpoenas executing seven search warrants. Less than a month ago he completed this report that bazs investigation and launched partisan attack on President Trump despite having no true justification to do this that was the fbi. Within three days of receiving thean information from a diplomt and also the fbi have been a fullfledged investigation into the trunk campaign. Served are musket into the sea fbi fbi opened up crossfire hurricane without speaking to the people who provided the initial information is that true . That is correct regrets open crossfire hurricane on a sunday only three days after reviewing the information is that correct . That is correct. Think about that for a moment. Full investigation to president ial campaign over a weekend. Mr. Durham the fbi crossfire hurricane without interviewing any of the essential witnesses is that true . Whats that is true. But the fbi open crossfire hurricane without any standard analytical tools typically employed to evaluate the evidence is that true . That is true. Think about that the fbi have never talked to people gave the intelligence information they never examined their witnesses. I never interviewed the witnesses for the never corroborated the dossier. Mr. Durham at the fbi had done these things that they had done their homework when cap bound its own or russian experts had no information about President Trump being involved with russia leadership or russian intelligence officials . Yes. For the adequate predication for the fbi to open crossfire hurricane is a full investigation . July 31 in my view based on our investigation there is not a legitimate basis to open ae ful investigation. An assessment and something had to be looked at, gather information such as interviewing peoplest who provided the information, checking their own databases and the databases of other intelligence agencies. The standard kinds of things you would do it is safe to conclude based on that report anyone who has read it they did not have the adequate basis to launch this investigation. Lets move on to the second troubling aspect of your findings. From the report i gathered key fbi leaders all the way up to the top were predisposed to go after can but trump. This bias likely effect of the conduct of fbi personnel on this investigation is that true . Yes progress could you describe that public bias play into this . Confirmation bias was alluded to, has to do with our human tendency to accept things that we arty think are true and reject anything else. In this instance there any number of significant red flags that were raised they were simply ignore it there is evidence inconsistent with the narrative they did not Pay Attention to it they did not explore it did not take a logical investigative steps that should have been taken. Special crl the bias was. Fbi assistant director drafted for the crossfire hurricane open communication is that correct . That is correct regrets discovered Text Messages was a special assistant to the fbi director strong bias against kenneth trump . Lex that is true regrets for the record will be read aloud this was generated by staff august 18, 2016 trump is not going to become president , right . Responded by saying no, no he is not, we will stop it. It is clear there was no evidence of russia collusion with the trunk campaign. The American People deserve the truth. Im proud to serve on this committee to uncover these lies were perpetuated for far too long. That mr. Chairman with my remaining 30 seconds i will yield to you. Extremity yields back. Ill wait for my time and now is a gentle lady from california. Think it mr. Chairman and thank you mr. Durham for being here this morning. The Ranking Member explored an item i wanted to explore with you. Which is based on the information provided to the u. S. Government by australia that a Campaign Aide had told one of their diplomats that the russians had dirt on clinton in the form of thousands of emailh that, this is a quote from your report as an initial matter there is no question the fbi had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the asteroid information. That is in your report. I think the issue might beli preliminary versus full because you agree there is an obligation to look at it based on that, is that correct . But some of the premises of the questioner and accurate. Did not tell. The question is the disavowal he said in your report . You had obligation fbi to look at that . Whats the answers they had looked at,w, yes. I want to take a look at some of the other things that i did not find in your report. And looking at the fbis behavior did you find any evidence that the fbibi was takg a look at that hacking of the National Committee and their investigation of that . And if so where is that he report . Whats that is outside the scope of what is asked of your progress Mueller Report he found that he Campaign Manager was giving inside Information Private polling data to the russians. There was a meeting inna trump tower with the president s soninlaw and his son were the russians had promise they had dirt and enough of the president s son was something to the effect we love it. The fbi look at that . Did you examined that and where is that he report . I asked to look at we did not look at that. Could you take a look at how the fbi evaluated alleged ties to the alphabetic . To take a look at those potential or alleged ties . I did not hire their fbi experts. Swears that he report . Its in there i can find the page my pallets and find the page is the entire section on alpha bank. The white papers and the data provided to the fbi. No, no my question was did you take a look . Did you hire experts to evaluate the fbi . I did not hire experts. Lets only ask another question. I thought it was down a hole. You and attorney general barr went to italy to take a look at someme allegations italian officials gave you evidence they said linked donald trump to certain financialt crimes. For the attorney general ask you to investigate that matter that the italians referred to you . If so do take any investigative steps . Did yourere file charges or if t file a memo for a decision not to charge in this case . Ask the question is outside the scope of what i think ive offered to talk about. Its not part of the report. I can say this investigative steps were taken and subpoenas were issued and came toop nothi. Whats it like to yield the balance of mye time to my colleagues in california mr. Schiff. D. O. J. Policy provides you do not speak about a pending investigation and that you did, didnt you . Im not exactly sure too. Of the Inspector General issued a report saying the investigation was properly predicated you spoke out in violation of department of Justice Policy to criticize the Inspector Generals conclusions, didnt you . Whats i issued a Public Statement i did not do it t anonymously. I didiz not do it through third persons progress nonetheless he violated policy by issuing a statement we investigation is ongoing, didnt you . What if i dont know thatdn if i did i did but i was not aware of violating policy. She also sought to get the Inspector General to change his conclusion did you not . When he was concluding it was properly did you privately seek to intervene to change that conclusion . What does either scope of the report. He went together we asked inspectorr general to take a lok at the intelligence that is included in the classified appendix that you looked at. And that ought to affect portions of his report if you thought is appropriate for you to intervene with an independent investigation by the Inspector General because he was reaching a conclusion you disagree with you that that was appropriate . This is not right Inspector General circulated ane draft meo through a number of agencies and persons. Our group was one of them. Were asked to review that draft and bring to his attention any concerns we had a disagreement. [inaudible] genocide is expired. I insist on regular order request is not his time. The gentleman yields back ms. Lawford is not here so the time is expired. December 2016 did our government receive intelligence as suggested secretary clinton had approved a plan to type President Trump to russia . Yes frequencies that intelligence important enough for director brendan to go brief the president of the United States the Vice President of the night states, the attorney general of the night states the director of the fbi . Yes. Outside intelligence but into a memorandum a referral memorandum . Yes beckwith is that memorandum given to director called me in a construct . Thats was aggressive, yes. He director coming sure that memorandum of the fisa court . Whats im sorry for. To assure the memorandum of the fisa court the director, we do that . Im not aware if he did. Lexi shared the lawyers preparing the phis application . Not to my knowledge. Park city sure the agents ont . E case working across my hurricane case . No progress he did not show the agents on the case. Can you tell the committee what happened when you took that d referral memo and shared with one of his age and supervisory special agent number one . We interviewed the first supervisor of the crossfire investigation. The operational person. We showed him the intelligence information. He indicated he had never seen it before. He immediately became emotional got up and left the room with his lawyer. Spent some time in the hallway. Came back. He was ticked off wasnt he . He was ticked off this is something he should have had as an agent on the case. This is Important Information the director of the fbi cap from the people doing the investigation. Information was kept fromm t him. He was dolan question chris Charles Dolan is a Public Relations person in washington d. C. He had prior involvement, professional involvement and represent russian government interest. The Person Associated with boxes also but eat with the clintons wasnt he . They help physicians when president clinton was president. There president ial Campaign Executive director of the associations of the st. Charles talking about . Yes. Provided some information was included for. Crossfire hurricane investigation the Mueller Investigation of the fbi interviewed mr. Dolan, whaley have to say . To my knowledge he did not interview mr. Dont. If they did not interview this guy . Source for the dossier, Key Information of the dossier, but is off the clinton did not talk to him . Report on that. Even Christopher Steele october 2016 identified dolan as someone who might have information progress to find interest in the did not talk to . Him. Or theirir agents on the case yu wanted to talk to mr. Dolan . Mr. Durham . Yes because i have panel summer one . She talked to she was openly turned down the top of her the day shes turned down no we are not talking what happened to her . At about the same time she was assigned to different project for. State movedda here. They said we cannot have this for we cannot be looking into the heat source of the dossier they reassigned her and then what did she do . Youhi memorialize it because she entered a memo to the file because she said some points Inspector Generals going to want to know this im going to make sure its for corded she put in the file. Its crazy but did not talk to the key source they kept key intelligence from the investigators, just how bad this investigation was but heres the scary part i do not think anything has changed. The date your report came out five weeks ago may 15 you got a letter addressed to you from the generalda counsel of the fbi mr. Jason jones writes you a six page letter and says not to worry everything is fine. Even says on page two the implemented by current fbi leadership summarized in a place in 2016, detailed and your never would have happened any underlined it never happened because of reforms to implement 2019 and 2020 benny says on page four, one ofe the specific reforms at the executive management investigation should be run out of field andan not fm headquarters. That statement is not true. Five weeks ago fa wrote you and said everything is changed when in fact it hasnt in sameve in their is actually false we know it is false because two weeks ago today we interviewed steven former head of the Washington Field office mr. Derman heres what he said in his transcript. End of the Washington Field office truck classified document investigation began he said that case was handled differently unaware of expected it to be than any other cases handle but we learned a lotfi from crossfie hurricane that headquarters should not work at that but they said the field office. My concern is that a department of justice was not following these principles. Thus the thing that scares me the most nothing haspp changed. 60 of americans now believe you know why they believe that . Because there is. That has got to change. More training more roles is going to do it. We have to fundamentally change the fisa process but we have to use the appropriations process to limit how american tax dollars are spent at the department of justice i yieldhe back. Griffin jumped lady from texas recognize ms. Jackson lee. Good morning. You value the independence of a special counsel do you not . I do. In a letter to attorney general garland to submitting your report you ask him to allow you to continue unencumbered. We want to thank you for permitting our received independent of the interference as you assure the members of the Judiciary Committee will be the case for your confirmation hearing to become attorney general of the United States. Ute value special counsel status . Its accurate attorney general garland let you proceed ond c r case is that true . That is true for. Yes or no it was important to you that special counsel your investigation will be independent is that correct . Special counsel special attorneys special counsel. Yes and independence is that correct . What special counsel is independent. Thank you. Why is that the case in your view . There can be some confidence the part of people looking at the investigation and the decisions which were made reichstag a special counsel special attorneys are supposed to be for the American Public to present the potential conflict of interest between the government and a sensitive investigation. By appointing a special counsel and attorney general is supposed to be finding an unbiased party to the investigating. This was in a very high level for this was dealing with potential candidates this was dealing with russia collusion and undermining the very fabric of the United States of america. They are supposed to leave that personon alone as they commend attorney general garland for doing. So unlike attorney general garland bar was very involved in your investigation wasnt he . He is not involved when i became special counsel. Prior to that i worked under the supervision of the attorney general project is very involved waswa he not . Well be bringing to this point. Bar established early on was very interested in p investigation. On june 8, 2018 he said then Deputy Attorney rosenstein an unsolicited memo investigated should not be able to force the president to submit to interrogation about obstruction. His text message sending the memo bar wrote it feels very did about some of the issues taking shape in the matter. How often did you meet with attorney general barb 2019 . Before i was special counsel may be, him himself maybe every two weeks or three weeks, something about sort . And after . Right after it became appointed to special counsel i dont know im sure i saw him but i did not meet with him. A lot . No it was not a lot progress how often do speak or text of the attorney general . This is during the investigation. L when i was special counsel prior to that . What special counsel sir. I do not know how many times i text because according to spPublic Records bar schedule is 18 means or calls with you between 2019 march and october 2019. You and heacin Text Messages wih each other frequently, didnt you question with Text Messages, for. I was appointed as special counsel in october. So before that there probably any number of Text Messages. After that i do not know progress on august 2019 sent you a message that said jon strongly suggest a lot of interesting february 62020 detects her just emerging from a skiff ared you open to a call earlier this morning questioningof february 14th 20 or text you call me when you get a chance for the march 19, 2020 bar checks can i call you later . And you respond to early march 27, 2020 is on the best phone number for you alternate time living special counsel. And heres an interesting one on september 24, 2019 the day the speaker was announced formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump attorney general bart text you call me asap and later that day you text back for you have ointment liquid called the room, it was the this call mr. Derman . We are discussing the impeachment inquiry question requested never had a conversation attorney general barr about the impeachment inquiry progress was a druggist is an awful lot of direct interactions with the attorney general for them supposedly independent counsel prosecutors. During these messages that sound to you like for quick interaction selling appropriate interactions between and attorney general and i prosecute investigating the administration . For i was appointed special counsel i worked the attorney general of the United States. He became special counsel i know that subsequently became not only did you interact and engage with one of his top deputies. What was your relationship . We wr five minutes, the gentleman from virginia is recognized. Your report is not just sobering as you stated its outrageous into deeply troubling. Can you confirm these points the fbi did not have an adequate basis correct . They failed to take all exculpatory evidence, correct . The leadership continue to the investigation even when agents the unable to verify evidence, correct . Thats correct. They didnt interview key witnesses, correct . Correct. Individuals abused their authority under the act, correct . Correct. T. The fbi has a full counterintelligence investigation. Whatat other options could the i have taken other than intermediate investigation . Of these three divisions of assessments, preliminary and full although they were different names at the time has evolved over time to become more particular and in this instance the information that they have received by the suggestion not anything about emails but just the suggestion of the suggestion was sufficient and would require them to take a look at what is this about. We opened at this as an assessment that you would analytically try to collect intelligence that is the whole purpose a you assess it and move to a preliminary investigation and you have all the tools available including the physical surveillance and electronic surveillance of u. S. Citizens without ever having talked to the australian revenues. Investigators reliedre on the statement by the human source and ignored exculpatory statements. Is it true and fbi employee fabricated this evidence and can you expand on that fabrication and the reliance to support that . In connection with one of the extensions of the renewable come along one of the agents who would come on board wanted to be certain that there was information that is whether or not carter page had been a source ofne information and the cia and pressed Kevin Kleinsmith and the general counsels office and fbi onon that point. Kleinsmith got a hold of people at another Government Agency on theun issues and that person indicated, not indicated about said the fbi carter page was the source and put thatcy in writin. When they talked to the agent who was saying we want to be sure on this. We want to see it and then he altered the other Government Agency documents to reflect this to say page was not a source when in fact he was a source. What did the investigators mean when they hope the returns on the application would self corroborate . That is another troublesome thing. If we can get them, electronic surveillance, then we will find out essentially whether we really do have probable cause or not we would self corroborate in that sense. Are they supposed to corroborate information before or after its included in the investigation . We have to have thatat before the liberties of the american citizens. They are required to follow the procedures which the fbi adopted to ensure the accuracy contained in the applications, correct . Thats correct. What were some of those concerns raised . Ultimately the memorandum indicating that they had thewe information that was disclosed on the investigation done by the Inspector General horwitz and a good job in a wellwritten welln report had they known that at least second and third renewal applications and they think the department of justice acknowledged that as well. It had all the information included in the report and make it highly doubtful to do had been an application submitted and if it was submitted they would have never granteded that order. As the special counsel . As the u. S. Attorney, as President Trump at the time with two democratic senators. Mr. Trump appointed you. Do you believe he has good judgment on the character . Im not going to characterize mr. Trump trumpp and my thoughts about mr. Trump. Hes called him a gutless pig, coward. Which of thosein is correct . In my experience none of those are correct. So he isnt that good of an expert on character or judging people . In your opinion, he isnt because he is not a gutless pig but trump says he is. [laughter] outside of the scope of the report meeting the trump tower where they talked about allegedly adoptions but we know its about sanctions. How was that outside of your report . Im sorry i didnt quite follow. The trump tower attorney came, just wonderful, beloved. Russian decisions too interact with the campaign and influence the actions of the campaign for adoption law but really for sanctions relief. The fbi came up with that, did they not . A meeting took place june 9th. As i understand there was information, derogatory information on when this could be provided. They met in the report that lead that out and the discussion was about adoption, not anything relating to. It was totally about sanctions. Adoptions is a ruse. Should you not have looked into that to see the return for that because that is the biggest thing putin wanted to relieve his people of sanctions. I think director mueller investigated that and one of the house committees explored that. That was outside of the scope of what we were looking at. And was that out of the scope of your authority to look at the meeting of the polling data . Im sorry . The creek that managed the campaign and got money from different people over the years that you pardoned . I know who mr. Manafort is. He met and they discussed polling data. You dont know about that . They met with a lot of people. Met and discussed polling data. Are you not aware of that . Why did you not think that was a good idea to look into to see im the fbi wasnt correct in the collusion or connection between russia and the Trump Campaign to elect trump . My assignment was to look at the conduct of the Intelligence Community agencies, not to conduct the separate investigation that was done by the house or the senate or director mueller. You dont think if the intelligence communities, the fbi, others came up with this information and did good work that that should be part of the report . Im not following your question. I apologize. They would have called it a nothing burger. You have no convictions, nothing. It was all set up, it was redacted to hurt the bidens and help trump and you were a part of it. You had a good reputation thats why the democrats supported view youbut the longer you hold on in this report that he gave you as a special counsel, your reputation will be damaged into everybodys reputation who gets involved is damaged. Hes damaged goods. Av there is no good dealing with him because you will end up on the bottom. I yield back the balance of my time. The gentleman is undecided on how he felt about the former president . [laughter] the witness can respond. My concern about my reputation is with the people i respect, and my family out of my lord. Im perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them. Well said, god bless you. [applause] the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you for being here today. October 3rd, 2016 the fbi met with Christopher Steel who confessed to relying heavily on a Russian National living in washington, d. C. That sub source was later identified. He not only used them to create the dossier but a according to e report he was unable to corroborate any of these substantial allegations made in the dossier. Is that correct . Thats correct. Even after the fbi offered a Million Dollars if somehow he could actually follow through and underscore some of those specific items, is that correct . Thats correct. According to the report, he couldnt provide any evidence corroborating allegations contained inin the dossier, is that correct . That is a fact. And the fbi paid 220,000 in this time as aai confidential human source. Is that correct . Thats correct. And they proposed making future payments totalingg more than 300,000. Thats correct. He becomes a confidential human source and enlists his own sub source knows was brought up earlier as a democratic operative and previously served as an advisor to the 2008 president ial campaign, is that your understanding is that correct . Thats correct. Did he ever disclose his relationship to the fbi that you are aware of . The interviews conducted in january subsequently he was specifically asked in an interview withyo his handler. Do you listen to the recording he has states for a period of time and acknowledged knowing mr. Dolan. Do you think it had anything to do with he was buried disclosing the democrat operative as a sub source might jeopardize the whole payroll deal the fbi had to set up . We lay these facts out as we do others in the report. In the hundreds of individuals the fbi interviewed in the course of crossfire hurricane and the special counselth investigation. Do you have any insight as to why the fbi would not interview them or overlook such a high profile person in this investigation . That is something going back to october 3rd. When he first met with steel, he indicated to him at the time. It was about matters related to the crossfire hurricane and he had in fact provided the bureau with his name as somebody who might have information relating toto trump. Im sorry, why they didnt interview him, but they didnt. The explanation that was given to the intelligence analysts who is referred to in the report that would be outside of the scope of their role. You noted on page 1681 of the analysts of the team was told, quote, to cease all research and and. This is the same analyst to according to the footnote prepared the timeline in the event later interviewed about the role on the special counsel investigation. We interviewed him as well outside of the country for its safety and whatnot and other information that can to what was in the reporting and he was a supporter of President Trump that made it seem highly unlikely that he would be providing derogatory information. This was somebody who provided some information. Thank you mr. Chair. Im out of time. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. The release to the public the attorneyis general bar releaseda statement mischaracterizing its findings and shortlyhe thereaft, the attorney general announced that he was investigating the fbi for investigating the interference in the 2016 president ial election,at and thn in april or may of 2019, the attorney attorney general appointed you to lead that investigation isnt that correct . You did appoint me to the investigation. And then in october, attorney general bar appointed you as an independent special counsel so that you could continue investigating the origins of the russia investigation once trump of office, correct . I was appointed special counsel in october, yes. And by that time, your investigation had already cost the american taxpayers over six and a half Million Dollars isnt that correct . At that point probably not, no. At this point how much has it cost . As i understand the figure, 6. 5 million. After three and a half years of the investigation and 6. 5 million of taxpayer money spent, your investigation led to the indictment of only three individuals, correct . Correct. To the prayers of some on this panel, former fbi director jim comey and former cia director were not among those who were indicted isnt that correct . Thats correct. To the extreme disappointment of some on this panel, your investigation failed to produce indictments against Hillary Clinton, correct . Thats correct. Didnt invite joe biden. Thats correct, couldnt invite hunter biden. And yourn three prosecutions one ended with a guilty plea with an unrelated to the origins of the fbi investigation and that individual received a sentence with no jail time, correct . Parts of that are correct. And the other menu prosecuted went to trial on the charges. They were accused of lying to the fbi and both were slamdunk acquitted, isnt that correct . They were acquitted. None of the individuals were ever charged with being part of a hoax or fraud or witchhunt or politically motivated deep state conspiracycy against donald trup isnt that correct. I wouldnt say thats accurate. You did charge somebody with being a part of a hoax . With havingd him provided information. But he was acquitted though . He was acquitted after you charged him, correct . He was found innocent by a jury of unanimous jury of 12. Thats not true. Whats true is they found probable cause to indict him. They acquitted him though, correct . Youre not going to disagreee on that are you . Im going to try t to answer the question. Let me ask you this, because in your report, you eluded to allegations of misconduct as if those allegations had been proven true at trial when in nkfact both of those individuals had been acquitted and the allegations were disproven. Do you believe that its ethical to state something is a fact and official government report that you couldnt prove those allegations . I think if you read the report we either talked about the results of the trial and included all of the evidence we had available unfortunately not all of which was admitted in the trial. You closed your investigation after you failed to find that the fbi investigation into putins interference in the 2016 election was politically motivated and was a deep state conspiracy against ex President Trump. You were able to prove that that was true . That is not what i was investigating. You did not find that that was true, correct . You found it to be false as a matter of fact. Isnt that correct . To have awa chance to read te report. The time is expired. E if the gentleman has time to answer the question. The witness can respond. If you read the report and lay the facts out as to these matters,to i am not here to talk about deep state or whatever characterizations you made. This report is factual. Nobodys raised issues with its factually inaccurate. People can draw their own conclusions based on those facts. We can keep going if you can keep going just let us know. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Each of us on the panel has a different background and a different idea of whats best to get out of the report and the work that youve done not just for the last four years but for your entire career. So im going to start off by asking is it true that you have the attorney generals Exceptional Service award declaration for your service . Thats true. Is it also true you have the attorney generals distinguished Service Award . Thats true. And who awarded you that . The attorney general 2012. Im sorry, 2012. I dont frankly that was the cia investigation. Emthe attorney general. And you have to deal with some of the most despicable people wouldnt do the things we do sometimes when the wrong has been done. So i want to thank you for that. It seems like for your entire career youve been i go to for difficult situations, not necessarily the standard im trying to rise quickly a word but in fact your career investigator and i would imagine pretty closely that youve got your 82 overall. Want to talk about something that im not qualified to talk about but i can ask you are there what you would call unindicted coconspirators in other words are there people at all levels who did things wrong who were not charged with crimes because of the limitation of the ability to bring charges against them for what they did even if it was wrong . We brought charges where we felt in good faith we could prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence beyond that, of course. As though per career prosecutor whenay people break e rules and it changes the outcome of Something Like an investigation without a predicate, like the president , the Vice President , the attorney general and a host of others, fbi director knowing this had been started with a fulls predicate, knowing Hillary Clintons campaign with her approval in fact had authorized. But they in fact changed the outcome whether criminal or not of many things including some of things in voters minds isnt that correct . There are lots of bad things not crimes. At are i appreciate that. When people are constantly making this point that somehow youu didnt put enough people in jail you gave 300 pages that give us a responsibility and as i said im not going to try to pretend im aut smart lawyer bui am somebody that understands organization, oversight and transparency. In your report you note the changes made but unless we make changes in transparency to outside individuals who can be counted on to be ombudsman to the process isnt it true that if the president , the Vice President , the attorney general and a host of other people at the department of justice choose in the future to push to make outcomes occurred that would not occur according to their own printed ruless that no rule per se is going to change that . I think that is true as we said in the report ultimately with this comes down to is the integrity of the people doing the job adhering to the growth or not. They follow the law, are they not following the law. In my 20 plus years on this side of the dais, what ive found is people follow the rules much better so for all of us up here, i know you are going into retirement but hopefully in the as the reforms that create better transparency and do not allow the fisa judges to be misled by people with an agenda that you would be available to at least give us the guidance from the decades of knowing how its done right at the department of justice and mr. Chairman i want to thank you for your indulgence and so many people i will not take excess time. I believe this witness is 300 plus pages speaks extremely well for itself. The gentleman of california is recognized. Just so people remember what this is about, let me ask you the investigation revealed russia interfered in the 2016 election in a sweeping and systematic fashion, correct . Thats correct. Unless you did so in a campaign that favored of donald trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton, correct . Thats what the report says, yes. End of the Intelligence Service hacked the computers associated in the campaign and then released the stolen documents publicly . That report speaks for itself as well. And also reported that he couldnt establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonablebl doubt, they also said, quote, the statement of the investigation did not establish certain facts does not mean there was no evidence ofpi those facts and also appears in the report . Theres language to that effect. As a way of distinguishing between the proof beyond a reasonable doubt and evidence that fall short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt . Correct. As an illustration of this the congressional investigations found the Campaign Chairman was secretly meeting with an operative linked to the russian intelligence, correct . Thats my understanding, yes. And that while the chairman of the Trump Campaign gave the russian intelligence operative the campaigns internal polling data, correct . Thats what ive read in the news. And he provided this information to the russian intelligence while it was engaged in the social Media Campaign and the release of the stolen documentsn to help the campaign, correct . You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge. Let me say very simply while the Campaign Chairman for donald trump was giving the russian Intelligence Officer internal Campaign Polling data from a russian intelligence was helping the campaign, werent they . I dont know that. You really dont know those basic facts of the investigation . I know the general fact is, yes, do i know the particular fact myself, no. I know that ive read them in the media. Are you aware of that investigation that revealed that don junior was informed and over shows often the Trump Campaign, quote, very highlevel and Sensitive Information that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton and was part of, quote, russia and its government to support . Are you aware of that . People get phone calls all the time. Offering dirt on their opponent is that what youre saying . So you have other instances of the russian government offering dirt on a president ial campaign to the president ial candidates line is that what youre saying . Could you repeat the question . You said it is not uncommon directed at thesa president s sn you stand by that . People could make phone calls making claims all the time. Are you really trying to diminish the significance of what happened and the secret meeting that the president said to receive that incriminating information, trying to diminish the significance . Im not trying to diminish it but the stories they met and they didnt talk about missus clinton. And you think its insignificant he hado a secret meeting for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton and the only disappointment expressed in the meeting, the dirtus wasnt better you dont think thats significant . I dont think that was a well advised thing to do. Not well advised. Well, that is the understatement of the year. You think that its perfectly appropriate or maybe just illadvised forr president ial campaign to secretly meet with a russian delegation to get dirt on their opponent you would merely say that is inadvisable . If youre asking me what i would do, and i would hope i wouldnt do it, it isnt illegal. It was stupid, foolish, illadvised. It is illegal to conspire to get Opposition Research from a hostile government that is of financial value to a campaign within that violate the campaign law . I dont know the facts to be true. You were report doesnt dispute anything. The object wasnt to dispute. I have the highest regard. He is a patriot. You distinguish between his investigation and yours if he refused to bring charges where he couldnt prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I yield back. The gentleman from colorado isri recognized. Thank you. Mr. Durham, as a fellow alum of the doj i want to thank you for your service and number two, welcome you to congress. It is a pleasure. [laughter] i want to ask some questions about fisa and some of your most recent experiences as a special counseling and what your specific advice would be. Im concerned with your conclusions in thehe report. In the Opening Statement you talk about the lack of investigating discipline and failure to take logical investigative steps and bias. It appears to be the lack of investigative discipline and failure to take logical investigative steps are the result of bias is that fair . I think that is fair. When you look at what is involved here, this is a president ial campaign. It isnt a runofthemill investigation. Itit could infect the outcome of the president ial election and the future of the nation you would expect the discipline that would have been followed would have been higher than ever and that didnt happen here. Theres sort of analytical rigor of the discipline and how we investigate the criminal matters were in large measure. Is it fair to say that there was a rush to judgment . Fair too say that there was a rush to judgment . And other words, the judgment of proceeding in the investigation before following the procedure . Its been eluded to. The information received on thediplomats, the intelligence r Law Enforcement about the diplomats about something that was said at a bar within three days of that information having been received at fbi headquarters the Deputy Director of the fbi according to mr. Struck told him to immediately open that. Open a full investigation on a weekend, witness not only writing the opening electronic communication and opening memo but approving the memo as well. And this is the same mr. Struck that we solveon a tet message from that had a clear bias regarding President Trump . Its the same person, yes. And how long did director comey served in the fbi before he became the director . Im not saying the department of justice that the fbi. My knowledge, he was not in the fbi prior to becoming the director. And he promoted the people to the position and headquarters and then dealt with them there is that fair . He would have certainly had a rolling and the advancement in the upper management of the fbi, yes. My concern is the bias that has been demonstrated, whether its been eradicated or dealt with could exist in any of these agencies and these agencies have accessss to very Sensitive Information that we and congress allow for counterterrorism and intelligence activities and it really goes around the constitution because it doesnt deal with u. S. Citizens and im talking about the fisa rule. Have you heard of backdoors which is . Ive heard the term, yes. It refersci to the ability of the agency to look at a u. S. Citizens communications because the communications was withar a foreign individual landed was recorded because that for an individual was being looked at is that fair . Thats fair. And if there was this body is in the agency like the fbi that we saw previously, and they wanted to go after a u. S. Citizen, they could you go after that technique. My question is how do we prevent that and take a look at fisa and try to maintain the National Security interest but at the same time protect u. S. Citizens from a rogue agency, a biased agency or agent i should say, but individuals in the agency, how do we protect american citizens from what could occur and let me give you another quick example. Going out and buying information from private data to obtain information that you couldnt obtain with a search warrant because you dont have probable cause, those techniques are all available under fisa. What should we do . That is beyond my background. These are complicated questions particularly when we know the adversaries are doing the same thing and what do we do under those circumstances. I think that you have a very tough job to figure out how do you balance the liberties of the American People and protect the liberties t of the american peoe while at the same time protecting the country and the nation and people of the United States. I dont feel peo qualified realo provide you with any helpful information along those lines. The gentleman yields back. I ask unanimous consent to place this in the record of the hearing. Without objection. To stay to the transcribed interviews using the statements taken out of context for the American Public to see for himself exactly what he said. We want to make that fully available. Mr. Chairman,. I object. If i understand correctly, mr. Chairman, you are happy to citeje the portions of the transcript. Theres an objection. Is there u further action . You dont want the American Public to see this . Roll call vote, please. Want to clarify for the gentleman we want to put the transcript out. We have a little work to do for obvious reason. I thought it was an amazing interview by the former head because we want that information efto the public without objecti, so ordered. The gentleman from california. Did you accept my submission . The gentleman from california is recognized. Many colleagues want you to be someone you are not and Say Something that you clearly wont so i want to start by thanking you for your years of service to the country as a federal prosecutor. I want to talk a little bit more about the independence of a special counsel and just clarify you did to send multiple texts to the attorney general after you were appointed as a special counsel. Did you ever text message with attorney general garland once he took over as the attorney general . The attorney general communicating in the principal of the Deputy Attorney general. Did you ever travel overseas with of the attorney general . No. I didnt travel overseas with him. Did President Biden through the attorney general have you removed, fired, is that right . Im sure he could have. And you stayed on. I completed my time as counsel. Was there anyone you wanted to invite by attorney general garland . No. So if you wanted to you could have indicted Hillary Clinton but you never asked, is that right . If i had of the evidence, i could have, for sure. If you wanted to invite President Biden you could have asked . That wasnt part of the mission we werent really looking atr that. If you would have invited director comey, you could have asked is that right . The attorney general never asked me not to invite to somebody. I want to make it clear you had all the power in the world to invite anybody and you were never blocked from doing that is that correct . Thats correct i also want to compare you to the last Major Special counsel a investigation, you agree the special counsel charged dozens of individuals and you indicted three is that correct . Invited to and then another. There was dozens of convictions, some in trial but no defendant was outright acquitted is that right . Outright acquitted across the board. There were more than a dozen people indicted. You are under oath but did anything inn your report prove false the russians met with the family during the campaign at the trump tower after an offer on Hillary Clinton, did that happen . I dont have any evidence that that didnt happen. Is there anything between the campaign that donald trump tried and concealed from the public a state to deal he was seeking in moscow . I dont know anything about that. Its not something weve investigated. Is there anything that donald trump asked rushahd to hack the emails and then hours later they did . Did the donald trump not to say at a press conference you should get hillarysr emails . In the campaign the Campaign Manager gave the pollingdi datao a spy fordi the russian Intelligence Service . We didnt investigate that. Does anything say that donald trumpna in 2016 acted the way tt americans would want a president ial candidate to ask within regards to russia . Could you repeat that . Are you signing off on the way that he acted in 2016 . The report doesnt address that. Agree that there is substantial evidence to show that. My colleagues want you to be someone youre not and Say Something you wont. They want youhe to join the law firm which incidentally and probably appropriately is chaired by guys that never passed the exam and you are why is to do that. Colleagues today are making themselves footnotes and foot soldiers in the history books that will chronicle the corruption and i will yield the remaining time. Returning to your decision to speak out during the investigation did the staff on your team advise you against making statements in the investigation . Are there concerns about your speaking out from a report or after the Inspector General investigation. Do they raise concerns on the independence of the investigation . The time of thens gentleman s expired did any of the staff raise concerns about speaking out during thee independency of the investigation in contrast to the policy . Not that i recall. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from florida is recognized. The gentlelady from florida. A very good lawyer, and honest person. Thats why we brought her on. The gentlemans time is expired. Mr. Chairman, who is in charge . It is the ladies time from florida. As a former federal prosecutor i want to begin by telling you how much i appreciate your work and that of your team and your presence here today. You may begin by answering the prior question if you wish. With respect, i have the greatest respect for her. Shes a friend of mine very well educated indian honest person. We have some disagreements on the issues and i dont really have any comment beyond that. Im not going to discuss the internal management and at the decision making. I will tell you this, every agentav and lawyer that worked n the project have a full voice in the decisions of those who were going forward. I made the final decisions. I would like to focus on the department of justices procedures as to the fisa applications when that process is conducted appropriately. To begin with, it must include an affidavit from a federal Law Enforcement officer, correct . That affidavit must demonstrate the cause to believe the agent of a foreign power. If they are a knowing agent and if its a nonus person, knowing the element is not required. And it is intended that it shouldha rely upon the reasonabe trustworthy information is it not . Thats correct. And in some cases including the case of carter page, that information can include the use of information obtained from a confidential human source . And when information from the confidential human source is concluded, would you agree that its important that material related to thehe reliability or trustworthiness of that confidential human source is disclosed in the affidavit . And i believe you testified earlier today that in this case, information and not application related to the reliability and credibility of the confidential human source was not included in these applications is that right . I believe that is correct, yes. Would you tell us in your experience working with of the department why is it important that that type of information is included and disclosed to both federal prosecutors and to the court . When matters are submitted to the court its for a reason to let the independent judicial officer way the questions to whether the probable cause exists or not and providing that information to independent objective offices andd magistrates if there is theresconfidential human Source Information is being provided. Its important forn the person for the judge reviewing this to know what is the basis of the persons knowledge. Is it your sake or do they have personal knowledge as an example. Whether there is a track record basis to believe the information would be credible coming from this person. The person that is the subject of the investigation has no idea that this application is even being made. So it is less with of the government, the responsibility to ensure that the power, the surveillance power that is being used is being done in a way that is appropriate and compliant with the law to the interception of lies and communications, correct . The bureau immediately with of the umbrella case and then the subfiles they immediately went to try to get the fisa coverage that they were not able to do, and then carter page. Some of the techniques, for Law Enforcement, theres a myriad of other things they can do to collect surveillance information short of this interception of communications. Like cameras, pen registers, many other things that is an investigation often utilized prior to taking this step of attempting to intercept the communications. Those are typically Building Blocks for electronic surveillance. So based on the testimony so far, what we are hearing is that here a fisa application was pursued to the prosecutors for the Court Without following standard procedural rules that were the most intrusive without exhausting other techniques and instead preserving the most invasive from the outside against mr. Page. The failures identified during yourr investigation that if they were not addressed it would result in National Security risks and continue the public lack of confidence in the institutions of justice that there were no oversight fixes but we need accountability and consequences. Could you elaborate . The witness can respond. The National Security interest include the liberties of the American People. One of the things that was most disturbing about the dossier, the steele dossier, is whether this is certainly some of it was russian disinformation. Whether he personally wrote that he was responsible for 80 of the intelligence in the dossier, 50 of the analysis, whether or not he was the source of russian disinformation. If you dont run the some of in the National Security of the country. The gentleman from california is recognized. Before i begin my questioning, i want to say that the House Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law. The chairman of this committee provided a subpoena. The president sent by this chairman has damaged the ability of the congressional committees to get information from witnesses and damage the rule of law. Thank you for being here voluntarily today. In your report not only did the fbi have information as stated before that australians knew the trump Foreign Policy advisor had suggested that the russians were going to release anonymous information, the fbi also knew and had information the democratic National Committee was hacked by the russians and the information was being released to the public and they also had information from various media reports that trump had relations with different businessmen and fbi had information that trump said, quote, russia if youre listening, i hope you are able to find those emails that are missing prior to opening the obligation hurricane, correct . If the fbi had chosen to do so, the multiple pieces of information they had would have allowed them to opened a preliminary investigation is that right . Theres an obligation to assess the information perhaps making a preliminary investigation. In fact it would have been a dereliction of duty and have done nothing with the information that they had. The fbi shouldnt of ignored that information. It concluded not only the fbi had enough information and had enough information to open the full investigation that was a conclusion of the general, correct . My recollection is the lobar and u he thought they didnt necessarily address. I would like to enter the report dated december 2019. It turns out the fbi was correct the department of justice found that the russians interfered in the elections in a sweeping and systematic manner. The Senate Report confirmed that the russians interfered and the Campaign Chairman to giving internal data to the russians and the u. S. Treasury departments found that this data which said was a Sensitive Information of the Campaign Strategy was then passed to the russian Intelligence Services there is a phrase to describe the t fact is i just set forth called russian collusion. I would like to enter both the Treasury Department documents dated april, 2021 as well as the bipartisan report Intelligence Data august 2020. Without objection. I would like to ask you a following simple yes or no question the former chairman was convicted, correct . Im sorry, repeat that. The former Campaign Chairman was convicted, correct . Advisor to the campaign was convicted, correct . The former deputy Campaign Manager was convicted, correct . Not in connection. Yyou can hold yourself out as an objective or in the more that you try to spin the facts and not answer my questions. Im going to ask this Michael Flynn was convicted, correct . Thats correct. T. The longtime adviser was g s convicted, correct . The longtime advisor roger stone was convicted, correct . Correct. You brought them to the investigation and lost both. I dont know what we are doing here because the author of the report conceives that the fbi had enough information to investigate and thank goodness they did because multiple Trump Associates who committed crimes were held accountable into the best way to summarize what happened is thank you. The gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. First of all,e i apologize r the attacks that have been leveled upon you by sources on the other side of the aisle. This is what they do and this is how they argue. Weve gotten used to it and i hope that you will too at some point. The second charge in the hoax was that the Trump Campaign operatives were in contact with russiants intelligence sources. Where the Clinton Campaign operatives in contact with intelligence sources . Thats beyond the scope of the report. I can only speak to the former and there was no such evidence. As we reported. Was he investigated by the fbi for espionage . They closed the case but they mistakenly thought he left the countryed so then the status in connection with of the espionage matter was never resolved by the bureau . The Clinton Campaign funded the work of Research Done by fusion gps and paid mr. Steel for the dossier for. Who in the Clinton Campaign approved that relationship . Relate some of that out in the report. General counsel to the campaign, who engage the services of the future gps. Mr. Jordan reference a clinton plan what exactly was a clinton plan . Based on declassified documents and Public Record there is intelligence information that was received at virtually the same time that the information came from the australians. Within a day or two. That intelligence included information there was a purported plan designed by one of mrs. Clintons policy advisors to create a scandal tying donald trump to the russians that is the essence of the intelligence as obtained in the declassified information. Of the president s receive this. Intelligence . On august 3, 2016 then director brennan brief to the president and Vice President , the director of National Intelligence, theof fbi, the. We say fbi deeming mr. Comey . On august 3 it was directed at the white house and call me himself. Soap call lately about this great president obama knew about this. Vice President Biden knew about this. But it was not provided to the agents on the case or to the secret visor court is that correct . Is correct. Why wasnt it . We can tell you what the facts are you can draw your own conclusions from that. The comments of the borrower uses justification for this whole thing, what with the fbi had learned if it had looked into this information . It before open cross by herr can they check their own files, communicate with other intelligence agencies and the like they wouldve found theres nothing at that time in their files that would corroborate the information in the suggestion the russians at some kind of assistance. Nothing in the files would corroborate that. This deal dossier was entered into the congressional record was it truee unquestioned was entered into the congressional record was it true . Is not a single substantive piece of information dossier thats ever beenco corroboratedy the fbi or to my knowledge anyone else. But she mentioned the fisa court criticized false information was used requested by the warrants. To hold anyone in contempt forne that . Onto my knowledge be corrected they apply sanctions to anyone responsible for that . Not to my knowledge. Did they even yell at anybody . Issued in a harsh memo some bite with the expectation is when a document is submitted to the court and be truthful and accurate and complete. That was the expectation that is the expectation. , it was a judge when you expect. Youre not recognize a gentle lady from washington. Thank you, mr. Chairman mr. Durham thank you for being here today to speak with us about the report you produced look at the fbis investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election. You will report took four years and over six and half Million Dollars in taxpayer dollars toig produce. Mr. Durham,to how many cases do you bring to trial during thats our time investigating the 2016 election . S, im sorry i missed part of that for. How many cases did you bring to trial too. And how many of those two cases to the jurys vote to convict . Neither one. Neither jury voted to convict the gentleman you prosecuted an effect in one case the trial judge throughout one of your charges because the claim you were charging as false as he put true. Erally mr. Durham you are given an Impossible Task by attorney general bill barr he asked you to figure out how to make Donald Trumps claims are true. But you cannot do that because you quickly realize the claims were false. Until you set about as many republicans on cable news youre trying to find a way to blame Hillary Clinton for Donald Trumps woes. Mr. Dermot you know how may People Special counsel mueller indicted or obtained guilty pleasng from . Theyow indicted and charged a number of people because is 34 people and three companies. Do you know how many of those indictments were up individuals who are acquitted in court . Close i do not know anyone was inflated for thats right the answer is none. The difference between your investigation mr. Mueller just mr. Mueller actually found actual evidence of a crime. We knelt russian didnt attempt to interfere in the 2016 election. We know russian did hack the tmz email server mr. Muellers prosecution reflected that reality such the case of 12 Russian Military officers who he charged with crimes rule into the hacking and that leaking a bleeding democrat emails in 2016. Similarly mr. Mueller found repeated instances of Trump Campaign associates line when estimate the interactions with russian interests and as a result mr. Millers investigation, george pleaded guilty in october of 20017 to making false statements the fbi. Trump Campaign Aide rick gates pled guilty to one false statement charge in one conspiracy charge. Trump National Security advisor Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to making false statement to the fbi on november 2019 Trump Advisor Roger stone was convicted on seven counts including going to the House Intelligence Committee and tampering with a witness. Again mr. Most mr. Mueller indicted ergot guilty pleas from 34 people and the three Companies Break mr. Durham you are a career prosecutor, correct . That is correct refocus her working as a state prosecutor 1977 you join the Justice Department in 1982. Yes or no prosecutors prioritize bringing cases to court that have a high likelihood of winning . I would not say that is the standard no. So you do not think thatco to call an investigation successful you should at least reveal some new information . Most of your report mr. Durham is a rehashing of old news including process related concerns of the fbi had alreadyy addressed. In fact that is why you said you were notot recommending any further charges or changes to fbi policies or procedures. So at the very least i would think you would need to win some of the cases on their merits. But that is not what happened. That is not what republicans are looking for. Chairman jordan seems to be looking for an excuse to discredit Law Enforcementin and d. O. J. Who are finally Holding Donald trump accountable for his serious violations of the law. Violations thatfi donald trump just admitted to last night on fox news. Americans will see through the facade. I wanted to ask your shift if he wants my additional 40 seconds of time is so ideal bigwigs think it will default my question before. Was a very well respected of your team when she was at cooks lauric danahy was a well respected member of your team why did she reside . Not part of the report im not going to discuss internal matters. Achieved resigned over disagreements on you and hire him in the investigation . What does not part of the report not going to discussd it. You know the answer mr. Durham you tell us . Is not part of the report thats not part of the mission in im not going to discuss internal discussions i can tell you this with respect to every major decision that was made by diour team every agent in every lawyer had full voice and expressing their opinion and proceed accordingly. Took some voted with their feet and left your office requested gentility has expired ideal back. The gentle lady yields back. The jungle from texas is recognize reports thankprpr you. That is not partt of the reporta lot about a purge my colleagues on the other side of the isle at one of my colleagues in california i do not know what were doingam here. Is this very damning report. The fbis failed many times over the years i liked acid fbi open crossfire hurting without speaking to the people who provided the information . A guest speaker to the fbi open crossfire hurting on sunday only three days after reviewing the information . Guest requested fbi open crossfire hurricane without any significant review of its own Intelligence Database . Yes. Did the epic open crossfire hurting that injuring the central witnesses . Yes. That the epic crosser hurricane without using any of the standard tools typically employed in evaluating intelligence . Yes. And the fbi consider the possibility that it was the target . Into not appear so to me from the evidence. I am curious if you could tell me im not a prosecutor so my colleagues here are but the average american is not but can you tell us why and under what motivationon would a agency actn such a way court willfully ignores multiple instances of evidence throughout the course of its investigation . I do not understand them. In mylp experience that is nt the norm for that is not how the fbi performs. This particular case its reflected in the report there appear to be people, persons in the fbi or central to opening the investigation that had rather strong views concerning then candidate trump. Of hurting your report your confirmation bias. Sometimes we see the investigators perhaps the fbi investigators have a bias because they want to guilty outcome they went on the suspect guilty. We did not see that to be the case for Hillary Clinton. It makes me think space on the investigation of the conduct and the continuous disregard for duty there is obviously a special motivation to find this suspect, donald trump in this campaign guilty about anyone else would you agree . I can speak to at the facts show that is documented in the report. Again people draw inferences, conclusions from the. With the reading of the report if either you or someone on your team willfully ignore exculpatory evidence, refused to interview key witnesses, favored one suspect over another or did or all the things fbi did during crossfire hurricane would you face repercussions . There ought to be repercussions if that ever happened in connection with an agent i was working with an eye knew about it. The first thing will be to report to the courts. And probably the second thing will be to report it to the superiors the third thing would be to make sure that agent never worked with me again. I appreciate that i also appreciate your remarks earlier in your open testimony re said my colleagues and i carried out our good faith, integrity, spirit of following the facts were evidently without fear or favor. I believe you did that. I am disappointed some of my colleagues that have said disparaging remarks about you. Ive seen very few that talk about your report they want to talk about Everything Else which tells me youre on the something for it at all seal the balance of my time to the chairman directed purge of the jumper yielding. The primary sub source a few years before he does this work he was investigated by the fbi for espionage is that right mr. Durham . That case was halted because fbi thought he left the countrye right . And he left the country . No progress was a living . Whats hegh remained living whee the open investigation break right here in d. C. , right . He had not left he was right here in d. C. They said were going to stop this and then they go hire him, use the tax money of the people i get the privilege ofhe representing to y this kind of they obviously knew was a russian spy they hire him who is the source of the false information is that true . They paid him, they hired him and they paid him. A couple hundred thousand if i recall, right . Over 20000 like this guy is hang out Charlie Dolan who is a buddy of the clinton and who is a source with both dossier was used to spy on citizens dont eat meat on a park bench somewhere in arlington, virginia new years day . Just straight out of the movies, right question of the fbi says were not going to talk to charles dole. Two of the dumbest things ive ever heard of. They wont talk they pay a guy who was a russian spy who was a source of the dossier of the other source the dossier is Charles Dolan who meets with a guy in a park bench in arlington and they do notis interview him. You cannot make this stuff up. But that is what theis fbi did. They are still doing this maloney because they told us so running operations running investigations out of headquarters instead of sassanid u. S. Attorney in job you did for a long time did very a huge problem. Your report that is way report is valuable. I go back to the gentleman who is out of time we now recognizei the gentleman insert right here the gentle lady from pennsylvania is right. Thank you. Q for coming to testify today. I knowmr it is not a comfortable experience obviously. And clearly the questions have exposed we have many areas of disagreement across the aisle. I am relieved we have no disagreement about one of the fundamental conclusions of the report that it was incumbent upon the fbi to open some form of investigation when presented with evidence a president ial candidate and his associates are either coordinating Campaign Efforts with hostile nations or being manipulated by such. That is a fundamental conclusion, some form an investigation was necessary. Could fbi would they receive informationth they almost always have some obligation to assess that information. That is what the assessment is about. So we have established over the course of questions the current attorney general, america garlic allows you to run your investigation i think you said independently and without interference, right . That is correct. But you talk about the thoroughness of your investigation as you performed it over the course of four and a half years. 6. 5 million, hundreds of fbi agents. Six millions of pages of documents. Hundreds of personnel working with you. That would not be accurate. But she also had the benefit of prior investigations including the muellerbe report. The 2019 department of office of the Inspector Generals report which concurred to theres an obligation to investigate, right . Yes progress or disagree with you about presents in the form, correct . Which is more than form we had a disagreement that regard precooked is also 2020 Senate SelectCommittee Report on intelligence run by senator rubio that confirmed it sought to interfere in our elections to benefit the Trump Campaign, correct . What to do not number senator rubio was a sherbet or not. I dont think he was. With all of that you and attorney general barr had both been appointed by President Trump, right . Could you beat that one again . What do you and attorney general are both been appointed to serve at that time by President Trump, correct . Had been nominated by President Trump and i believe mr. Barr was nominated to be attorney general by mr. Trumper. Ag bar appointed you to be special counsel, right . Lexi appointed me as special counsel yes. But in contrast to the independence and lack of interference which you have noted on multiple occasions that has been performed by merrick garland, ag bar had very active role in your investigation i want to mention a couple instances. Versatile shortly after a moment and ag bar both travel overseas met with italian officials who had some mild mission to criminal activity by the for president , correct . This is outside the report im not sure authors of talk about it. We went to italy to try to pursue leads involving a particular mysterious. You do not mention in your report the allegations of misconduct before president correct question work its not in your report you did not include that information report, right . What information . N . About your trip to italy with ag bar. N no i do not know why that would be in a report. Ask the Inspector Generals report was published, if youd issued a press release saying it did not agree to the conclusions. For ag bar ask you to issue that press release . Absolutely not regards who did . I made that decision, do it in a wire know . Actually i want to know first. In anyel other occasion special counsel released a press statement questioning another counselor Inspector Generals report can you name one . Do not know inmate they may have but i do not know. To do communicative ag bar about your press statement before his was released the same day it was at a fantastic coincidence . Did i communicate is attorney general barr about what . About your press release question ags report was attorney general barr i did not ask his permission i told him is going to do it. Eczema question is been mention of the resignation when yourd colleagues the following 2020 isnt it true she resigned in protest was pressured by ag bar to deliver interim report or other results before the 2020 president ial election . If youd have to ask her that. Cannot one discuss internal discussions of our group are. We could google it, i think the yield back. Such a pretty source of information. It sure is. The gentle it yields back. Mixing teamster chair and thank you for being here today and again for your patience with us. I want to talk about the space between law and policy ifu will. I want to go back i think ive got your words written down to your Opening Statement said they were traveling violations of law and policy page i have that right . What gets it. The assertion has been that perhaps should have been more indictments, or people brought before the court for their actions. But it appears to me you triedpe that and perhaps encountered i have not looked at the two trials, that turned to not reach convictions. Was it a situation where there something wrong but it did not rise to the level of a crime is that what was going on that space . Pics you conduct these investigations and we conducted this investigation this other publicat corruption and organizd crime investigations when there is sufficient evidence you believe the evidence is sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt that case should beig brought. And maybe evidence you have thee were not confident it would be sufficient to prove a case upon a reasonable doubt you do not bring the action. Here there is conduct some of which was misconduct. There is conduct this probably criminal but he could not prove it. That is true here. There are other instances as well. The phrase political bias or operational bias is not a crime . Confirmation bias is not a crime is part of our human condition. She may well have found it sounds like you did troubling violations of law and policy which perhaps would not lead to a did not lead to convictions does not make it any less wrong when we have our Law Enforcement agencies engaging this kind of conduct. Think thats way cult troubling to have that right . What you have that w right. Ask the question i i suppose is what we do about the situation looking for that theres not a crime but we know it is wrong what should we be doing . I think you made some suggestions could you recite those for she spent four years as ive said things going wrong we cannot convict people for at least is not a race to the level of award that approach. What should we bee doing . Ask the real difficulty in my view is trying to figure out how to hold people accountable for their conduct. It is not a simple problem to solve. In the context of fisa situation for example or maybe a be the case in any instance with what is referred to in the bureau as a sensitive investigative matter. There are rules that apply there. Maybe its time or agent is going to sign fis application and the sensitive investigative matter that they not understand they are signing under the penalties of perjury but it determines a intentionally misstated their employment will be terminated. When somebody signs an affidavit, swears this before judicial officer there are consequences that is true there criminal penalties it sure as heck to be other penalties as well. The sensitive cases this is not a normal case this is a president ial election that affected the nation. Maybe they ought to instill a practice for example of a red teaming to an extent in our investigation which as you have a group of people take the opposite side to make the argument try to point out either were the witnesses are where additional evidence needs to bee developed. It may be the beer would benefit from having something who would look at fisa applications for look at the investigative effort be undertaken in the sensitive investigative matters who looks at how the investigation is progressing and whether or not that persons the investigation is being done independently and in a disciplined way. There are those kinds of things but ultimately i do not know how you would hold people responsible absent their integrity and that review was doing. Quick sale back. Xo judgment yields back the gentleman from Colorado Pacific the chairman. Mr. Germ thank you for testifying today rethinking for your service it is been a pleasure. [laughter] who pursue your service or country to the department of justice. I have ridge resort as i suspect most of the committee has an appreciated your work. I want to talk a bit about your interactions with main injustice the department of justice in particular with attorney general garland. Did attorney general garland permit your inquiry to proceed independently . Yes. Did attorney generall garland interfere with your inquiry or investigation in any way . Risk attorney general garland attempt to prevent or stop you or your team from taking any investigative steps you deemed necessary . He did not. Corrected 30 general berlin provide support to your efforts . In terms of patiently we would need additional personnel. Compliments we had a person detailed. So in that respect yes. s attorney general garland declined to implement the recommendations you made . I do not know that. The latter, the report i believe is on page three of your report you say and after the inauguration of President Biden to regional berlin both its counsel for the office very much appreciate the support consistent with this testimony referring to attorney general garland during his confirmation hearings the attorney general has provided to our efforts the departments willingness to allow us to operate independently you stand by that . I do correct. Quick sounds like the department of justice and the internal general are supportive of your efforts did not interfere in any way with the work he did in the last several years. There are some folks here in congress those on the other side of the aisle who have talked about or indicated desire to defund the department of justice. Do you believe the Department Just to should be defunded . I do not believe the discussions about deepening thec police make any sense at all for security of the nation. In defunding Law Enforcement entities make a lot of sense. Maybe more oversight but defunding our cities and streets and so forth that does not make sense to me. Ive already been at this for 4e years. I am grateful to your service and they want to put a finer point on it because i did not hear that in your answers to the cornerstone upon enforcement the department of justice obviously should not be defunded, right . If commensurate with the i Department Justice therefore meet u. S. Acting a journey through years and assistant u. S. Attorney of a decorated record of service to the department i am hoping youre willing to say on the record clearly you do not believe the department should be defunded. I do not believe the department of justice or the fbi should be defunded. There may be up to be some changes and the like but defunded no. Thank you very appreciate your candor. And i agree withnte, you. With respect to the office of the special counsel you concluded your services you know they are different special counsel is appointed from time to time and youve served in that capacity multiple times yourself. There is discussion of defining special councils. You support more broadly the principle of defining the office of special counsel . Out have to know the particulars of what the discussion is the general notion established a special Counsel Office and youre going to defunded would not make sense to me. I agree just about a finer point on this, you served as special counsel for a period of years. During the course of your investigation for the bulk of that time democrats were in control in the United States house of representatives. There was no effort that i am aware of to defund your office. I assume you would have construed that. If someone had the effort to deepen the offices special counsel you are undertaking investigation that was trying to be done that an accurate statement . If it were our office, our team and have to know the basis of that. I thought it was political question. Lets say its because people the work youre doing. They did not like investigation. They disagreed fundamental of decisions youre making. I special counsel should operate independent of the whole purpose of what the certainly agreed thanks for being you back determine. So judgment yields back. The gentleman from alabamas recognized recruits and gives her chairman from sojourn appreciate being here today. Celebrate the good work to description good description of what were talking about irate reportedly talk about it one of the Major Concerns is a weaponization of investigations the department of justice to get certain people in our society. Yes or no did fbi play significant reliable information given to them by President Trumps politicalrt opponents . Im sorry could you repeat that one . Of the fbi did they play significant reliance on information given to them by President Trump . The crossfire investigation that lies in particular isaac and carter page two bureau had concluded itself absentio the dossier they would not have been able to establish probable cause. Corrected the dossier come from president adad trumps lyrical opponents . It was funded by the Clinton Campaign. In them dmca. Set in that degree yes that is house paid for. Kirk can you the dots between the im sorry between the Clinton Campaign and the investigation of the fbi . We were investigating and did investigate what was behind that investigation, how did it get started question wasnt properly predicated is a full investigation by the fbi and why did then continue even after director mueller had found a lack of suspicion evidence. Is that what you call sobering would that be sobering to you . Sobering to me in connection to thisck investigation is the fbi, the people who were admired in crossfire hurricane investigation ignoring exculpatory information discarding information that was inconsistent with an investigative narrative with using information with this instance from the still dossier to establish probable cause electronic surveillance United States citizen. That will be in Naval Academy graduate. Listings are sobering. I would agree with that to the fbi failed to take or delay taking action investigation involving Hillary Clinton . Well there is a portion of the report that relates to the treatment the fbi delay . There are three instances that are identified in the report where the fbi investigated efforts are considered more disciplined than was the case with respect to mr. Trump records more disciplined you mean biased and will move on before you run out of time for did the fbi give the Clinton Campaign a briefing . A particular manner the fbi gave mrs. Clinton legal representatives of defensive nature yes. Out the same done for the Trump Campaign . President trump . Explore that during the investigation. What we have learned and its in the report it would appear, at least on what we are told very little thought wente into whethn they should give anybody in the Trump Campaign a defensive briefing. A lot of chocolate into giving her Clintons Campaign a defensive briefing apparently but not President Trump . And instance you are referring to the submission of a fisa application ines that mattr isk premised on them giving your defensive briefing to mrs. Clinton. Is it safe to say the Clinton Campaign colluded with their russians to recuse donald trump of colluding with the russians . I could not phrase it that way. All i can say is the Clinton Campaign funded the information that showed up in the dossier. The Clinton Campaign funded information that was put together concerning an alleged communication channel between trump and alpha bank which was presented to the fbi. There are those things that definitely occurred at the evidence establishes that progress thank you appreciate your service and the yelled back. I think the gentleman. Mr. Durham, carter page is an american citizen in Naval Academy grad who served our country. Why not just talk to him before you slide on him . In this instance, dont think this is in the report there is a 50kilo piece of information that was given and appeared at a yahoo news article on september 23 at lows at least i was a bed and hold with steel it also included a statement of senior Law Enforcement official confirmed carter page was on the radar screen. That matter was never referred for investigation as to who leaked that. This is an investigation is supposed to be closely held, confidential Sensitive Information. Was a senior Law Enforcement officer who gave the information that carter pagers on the radarn screen . Do you think it was . Mr. Chairman time as expire the witness can answerca the question we cannot ask another one. A patient that Ranking Member for pointing that out. Its okay imwe not sure mrs. Answer not . Am i done . I will let you answer. Okay. With respect to carter page, carter page within two days of the article wrote a letter to director called me saying i did not do the things that are suggested. I am willing to sit down and talk to the fbi. Tell me when and where essentially. As he offered to be injured gently from texas is recognized for. Thank you very muchow mr. Chairman. Let me send that the record an article dated 61823 a little behind failed to deliver its unanimous consent. Objection projects are placed into record this languagee directed to mr. Durham on may 15, 2020 throughgh the fedel bureau of investigation appreciate the special counsels independent review we also appreciate your acknowledgment of the extensive the fbi provided to your team throughout the review including production of nearly 7 million pageses of documents, so im a fulltime special agent to assist in your factfinding process and provision of s fbi technical per. Objection regrets and gives her chairman neil becker could generally be up back on its recognized regrets and gives her chairman, thank you special counsel for being here today. As it has been noted its been four years and six halfMillion Dollars of an investigation of an investigation. In the Durham Report makes no new recommendations to change fbi policy or procedure. It does not conclude the crossfire hurricane investigationno should not have been opened. It evenr acknowledges the clintn campaign did nothing worthy of prosecution. Sadly the Durham Report dredges up allegations from unsuccessful prosecutions including claims that have been rejected by judge and jury. The flaws of the germ processors osare troubling some aides resigned in protest. I did google affect read the news articles around the resignation that it is reported she resigned because of pressure on you and the special Counsel Group to produce a report or interim report prior to the president ial election you cannot comment on noras Personnel Matter t were you ever encourag, persuaded, pressured to issue an interim report prior to the president ial election . I cande say without hesitatin is not pressured into doing anything. Wasnt suggested to you . Is not suggested to me for. To get it might have been suggested to someone who worked under you separate from you . I do not believe so. Mr. Dirt would have been a dereliction of duty at the fbi sat on its hands and did not investigate information in front of them . The bureau has an obligation to investigate they should investigate information that they received from the public or otherwise. Generally speaking guess they have an obligation to look at and assess information progress in this information had an affirmative 32 investigate wouldnt you agree . Affirmative duty to assess the information he got from the australian progress which would be an investigation. You were assigned to investigate that investigation buried mr. Germ when you first speak with attorney general barr about potential investigation is the Mueller Report will investigation . How its appointed and may 2018. I had met attorney general barr not in connection with these matters but initially the attorney general became u. S. Attorney. Let me put the calendar together. I was on march 22 the Mueller Report was submitted to attorney general barr would you agree to that . Yes march 22 regrets card to Public Record to mow the attorney general barr on march 273 days later. Are right for. March 24 attorney general barr release a socalled summary document of a four to 48 page report which blatantly mischaracterize the finding similar reportage agree with that . No. He do discussable report during your meeting mr. Barr on march 25 . I dont believe so. The timing was three days after he received the report and you do not think in your meeting you talked about theso Mueller Report . I do not think its what it was it was when i was meaning to the attorney general because i become the u. S. Attorney in connecticut and late february for. And because search remembering it back to us on that. It is troubling to me because its clear you are brought in by attorney general barr the same week the mueller partfe was released the day after his letter which hung out for 25 days before the public had our hands in our eyes on the redacted report. Youre hired to investigate the investigators. One week after both mr. Bar on april 13 attorney general bars counselor emailed you offering assistance on behalf of bars jon, the ag has made me aware of the redacted material you are working with him on he asked me too provide you with my support and assistance is that true . Ie think that is correct they do not render the day but that sounds right frequent dental april. So what if youve not yet put into this field. Donald trump was very built on twitter as he always has been his belief the Mueller Investigation should never been taken are you aware of his tweets . What side of thehe former president was a tweeter yes. He was a twitter some republicans on thiss committee believe part of your purpose was to exonerate mr. Donald trump. I want to take you back to your Opening Statement ine paragraph four. As you know mr. Jeremy said this morning if repeated or left unaddressed these issues could result in significant National Security risk and further erode public faith in our Justice System we now also the former president indicted 37 counts around the documents off classified documents that he took, he held, he moved, he concealed, he lied about, he showed other people, 37 counts. If repeated or left unaddressed these issues could result in significant National Security risk for the erode public faith in our Justice System i think if your service or pointing out what really matters when we have a very dangerous f former president and criminal indictment to come. I am baffled by this committees lifting up progress at times agility has expired ors set they could indulge me just as you indulge yourself. God bless you thats right. Equal opportunity. Mr. Durham if you go one more round . This is relatively calm to some hearings that we have. You go one more will give you a break will record as a jumper from california and give you a quick break maybe five or 10 minutes and come back and finish for the demo from telephone is regular survival. Mr. Durham several people today including Ranking Member unrepresented from california at mr. Schiff mr. Swallow mr. Lu have attacked two great Ranking Member nadler called report a political exercise ambiguity mrn hack. However it seems theyre taking issue not so much with the conclusions ofor your report isa mr. Bowles report which include the investigation didey not establish members of a truck campaigns conspired with the russia interference. It direct would contradict his statement made on the record by those represented. In example mr. Schiff 2017 2018 made statements such as the russians offered help, campaign accepted helper the russians gave help the present made full use ofsc the help on that its pretty damning also says is t clear evidence of the issue of collusion. Theres plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight. Examine yields for. Intradermal those statements supported by the question. Will gemini yield . No. Mr. Durham are those supported by the muellerer report . I do not believe so. Mr. Nadler stated its clear the, campaign concluded was a lt of evidence about the question was the president about mr. Nether also so theres obviously collusion. Mr. Durham were those same supportive of the Mueller Report . I do not believe they were supported by the mueller support report for. Mr. Lou stated in a press release in march of 2017 the bombshell revelation u. S. Officials have information suggest ciampa soap associates may have colluded with the russians must mean we must pause the entire trump agenda we may have an illegitimate president of the United States currently occupying the white house. Mr. Durham the mueller support establishment illegitimate president in the white house . Not to my knowledge. Mr. Swallow stated 2018 our investigation we saw strong evidence of collusion to the Mueller Report support there was strong evidence of collusion . Not to my knowledge. X even here today we had mr. Schiff raise questions about your Public Statement during the investigation saying somehow violated d. O. J. Policy. However mr. Mueller himself made a Public Statement in january 2019 article from cnn headline muellers office excused report trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to congress. So whatever policies might exist in the d. O. J. With respect to Public Statement by special counsel it would seem you mr. Mueller would be an equal footing with respect to it is that correct . It seems so. Mr. Now that ranking nether also suggested there only here today because of the recent indictments of president th trum. However you received your signed a special counsel 2019 is that correct . That is correct. Special counsel in 2020 per. In 2020 was on before or after the events of alleged in the recent indictment . I was before. Is customary for special counsel to come testify in congress upon the issue of the report . Isnt my First Experience of this sort of thing. [laughter] i note director mueller has to testify before congress i guess this is not unique. Quizzes likely wouldve been your weather not the presence was indicted or contrary to nadler statement. Want to quote from your part of your report where you say reasons by examining politically charged and highprofile issues the office must exercise and has exercised specials care. One of the statements you said is even when prosecutors believe they can obtain a conviction there are some in which it may not be advisable to expand government time and resources on a criminal prosecution. Particulate what it could create the appearance even if unfounded the government is seeking to criminalize the behavior of political opponents or punishl the activities of a specific Political Party or campaign. Could you expound on that a little but this idea that are considerations that make counsel against prosecution even if there has been some type of a violation of the statute . Sure. The standard principles of federal prosecution include you ought not to bring a prosecution unless you believe in good faith there is sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. And the conviction can be, sustained on appeal. There may be those instances in which were pretty well convinced the crime was committed and can identify the person who committed it but you cannot in good faith say a jury is likely to convict in this case. We believe a jury will convict and we can sustain it on appeal. Those are the f principles we ty to apply here that we followed here they are the same principles i followed for four years as federal prosecutor. What he referring to when you sayy there might to be additionl considerations involving the perception your caramelizing behavior . s are difficult things. For example no space all the members of the committee had access that whether they took advantage or not i do not know. We found a classified appendixse here. There are some prosecutions that may very well be looks like proving the crime beyond a reasonable doubt but because the classified nature of much of your evidence is never going to see the light of day. That might preclude a prosecution. There things of that sort through peter has to make in these matters. I sail back thank you progressives dont yields back take a short break a short recess if you can come back in 10