e. host of ground game comcast. katie pavlich. let me start with you. democrats are hanging their hat in terms of the i.g. report, in finding investigation of the trump campaign was legitimate i opened. there was no political bias. republicans on repeated abuses or errors in the fisa process. who has the better side of that argument? i think republicans do. democrats should be very concerned what the i.g. laid out in his testimony and his report. james comey, former fbi director in his interview with you continues to refer to omissions, mistakes, sloppy behavior, but you don t omit information like carter page is an asset for the cia in fisa application if you don t do that on purpose. that is not something you forget about. you don t fail to take out information that christopher steele is connected to the clinton campaign through the dossier by mistake. these are things obviously
reporting played a central and essential role in the decision to seek a fisa order. chris: horowitz says it wasn t part as you told bret baier, it was not part of a broader mosaic. he said it played an essential role in establishing probable cause. he said in fact he says if it hadn t been for the steele dossier the fbi wouldn t even have submitted a fisa application that had been reviewed in april of 2016 or august of 2016. decided not to do it. they get the steele dossier. they do i had. it was not part of a broader mosaic. that is what you said sir? i m not sure he and i are saying different things. what his report says the fbi thought it was a close call until they got the steele report, put that additional information in and that tipped it every to be probable cause. it s a long fisa application. includes steele material. lots of other material i don t think you are saying different things, i think you are, sir because he is saying you re saying part of a broader mosaic just one
that brought it over. doesn t make it part of the broader mosaic, makes it the center peas of the whole fisa application. i don t understand it to be saying that. i could be wrong about that. chris: i got his quote here. he says, we concluded the steele reporting played a central and essential role in the decision to seek a fisa warrant, that it pushed the fisa proposal over the line in terms of the establishing probable cause. i mean he says what he says. words mean something. yeah. i agree with his characterization. i m just, i don t see the disconnect between the two of us, i m sorry i m missing it. chris: you don t see a difference it is part of a broader mosaic and played an essential role in establishing probable cause? it was one of a bunch of different facts that were assembled to apply to the court. it was the one that convinced lawyers they had enough now with that added to the pile to go forward. chris: i guess the question is, it seemed you were minimizing the role of
calculated. the i.g. repeatedly kept saying why people feel there may be some kind of a bias here. it is inexplicable why 17 actions happened. the explanation for this there was a group hand-picked by andrew mccabe at fbi. they were all engaged at this. not a single person said why are we omitting, doctoring information to lie to the fisa court? chris: mo, i understand there are two reports. horowitz says there was no political bias opening the investigation. he talks about problems, big problems with the fisa process, but isn t it harder to argue there was no political bias overall when you see 17 mistakes made by three teams on four separate fisa applications? well, you can say that and the inspector general seems to say looking at what led to the fisa application was not politically motivated. that was not based on any political bias.
calculated. the i.g. repeatedly kept saying why people feel there may be some kind of a bias here. it is inexplicable why 17 actions happened. the explanation for this there was a group hand-picked by andrew mccabe at fbi. they were all engaged at this. not a single person said why are we omitting, doctoring information to lie to the fisa court? chris: mo, i understand there are two reports. horowitz says there was no political bias opening the investigation. he talks about problems, big problems with the fisa process, but isn t it harder to argue there was no political bias overall when you see 17 mistakes made by three teams on four separate fisa applications? well, you can say that and the inspector general seems to say looking at what led to the fisa application was not politically motivated. that was not based on any political bias. you can look at the end result,