so it would matter if an fbi informant contacted me, and indeed he did. so as far as i m concerned what evidence do you have that this person was an fbi informant at that time? that s a very specific question. i don t have evidence. that wouldn t be available that wouldn t be available to me. the reason i know he was an fbi informant for the 17 yiears prir is because he s sworn affidavit out in california court to try to get another visa from the fbi. i mean, and then he always included, which is on my website, democrat dossier.org, where i have my stuff posted, democrat dossier.org, there are at least 17 informant visas get granted by the fbi in that dossier. as far as i m concerned, he was and as far as a sworn affidavit under oath is concerned, he was an fbi informant for 17 years. the matter of whether or not he took, after that long career as an informant, if he took his day
off and came to meet roger stone, i guess maybe he did. but now the onus is on the fbi to prove that he was not an fbi informant at the time he approached the trump campaign. hope hicks, back in november of 2016, she told the associated press at the time, spokesperson for the president, she said there was no communication between the campaign and any foreign entdty during the campaign. the president has echoed that sentiment again and again. here he is. i have nothing to do with russia. to the best of my knowledge, no person that i deal with does. back to this fundamental point, michael, 14 trump associates we now know had contacts with russians during the campaign or during the transition. does this concern you? i mean, i still find it hard to understand how, if a meeting was so insignificant, you then remembered it later? did you not, i guess prepare at all for the house testimony? is that the best way to explain it? no, not at all.
here s stone. i didn t talk to anybody who was identifiably russian during the two-year run-up to this campaign. and caputo also made his position very clear. here he is speaking to our drew griffin. did you bring any russians to that campaign? did you talk about russia, or the possible help the russian government could give the campaign? never once. never once. definitive. michael caputo is here tonight, he wants to set the record straight and he s outfront. good to have you back. we ve spoken before, you ve been a straight shooter when we ve talked about these things. your testimony before bob mueller, as just an example. the context here, of course, is forgetting russia links is something we ve seen a lot. jeff sessions forgot about meetings with the russian ambassador. jared kushner forgot about the trump tower meeting on his fbi security clearance forms. michael flynn forgot about contacts with with the russian ambassador and pleaded girgetuio
provided. the repercussions, the threat would be significant. trump said the inspector general report totally exonerates him. he is talking about russia. so today in the hearing, the man who wrote the report, michael horowitz was specifically asked whether trump was exonerated and here is the exchange. there is nothing in the report that says it exonerates the president, is that correct. we did not look into collusion questions. pretty clear. he is saying they did not look into collusion, but trump is saying he is totally exonerated and saying it loudly and widely. does the president have a leg to stand on with that claim? no. i read the report. this report was about the fbi s handling of the hillary clinton
i prepared for the house testimony the same way i prepared for the senate and the mueller testimony. but it s a two-minute conversation, two years before. so i know it s not a good look, but at the end of the day, i met my obligation for the house permanent select committee on intelligence, and i have no legal exposure here. in fact, this is an interaction that amounted to nothing. it s not even germane. the only thing we re talking about is whether i misrepresented myself on the select committee on intelligence. what we should be talking about is why the comey fbi decided to send a violent, russian, criminal, illegal alien, under their watch into a white collar investigation? i don t understand it. i think we need to find out we gotta get to the bottom of that. this guy was convicted of a gun crime in california. spent ten years in prison in russia. and yet he s working for the fbi. we re talking about henry greenberg. and again just to make the point