oh, i m told we don t have that bite. let me read one of the quotes there may be reasonable differences about lawful predictical. they can be no debate about how the system got off the rails but in my view became a criminal enterprise. ari melber, he s also going to talk a lot about political bias. i actually don t understand why the republicans have been so quick to go to political bias and not just actually go to investigative bias, which that does happen, but they keep trying to claim political bias and they haven t been able to find it. well, they haven t been able to find it, and we keep our reports around here. this is important. this is what today is. it will be an examination of this exhaustive, long-awaited report. and it doesn t mind that the fbi was biased against donald trump. the headline there being no witch hunt. it does find issues that you often see in large, sprawling investigations about were all the warrants done perfectly, what should we do about that? but agai
healthy discussion. what you re saying is should the fisa court have known this about carter page. absolutely, yes, to make a full, informed decision on approving it, yes. so who dropped the ball on that? see, we need details. i hope we don t get finger-pointing at each other, but we need to know who knew what when, who disclosed was. i know the cia is very reticent to have their sources exposed, and understandably so. but this is the healthy discussion i m hoping happens today, but i fear will not happen today. well, chuck yeah, go ahead. one point as we re diving into that. what the report reminds everyone is this didn t start as let s investigate a campaign. right. it started as let s investigate four people, which is how many investigations started and it was rolled up into something larger, which we all know. and that larger thing, of course, turned into the mueller probe. so if anything, the history validates that there was something to look at, not the other
intelligence services, our own origins of democracy. i think we all agree law enforcement needs checks and balances. we need to ensure that law enforcement is not abusing its considerable power. that s why we have mr. horowitz sitting in that seat. what he has come to tell us, we re not even hearing. as soon as we get a little more news from the hearing, senator feinstein giving the democrats response, we ll cover some of that, as we covered some of graham. bob costa, i m told, has been keeping in touch with his sources. bob, what are you hearing? talking to people close to president trump and white house advisers, they are watching this hearing. they know that the ig report, mueller report, entire impeachment inquiry has cast a shadow and now along with
the justice department s inspector general, michael horowitz is set to testify before the senate judiciary committee in less than an hour. he is the man behind the newly released 434-page report which determined that although the fbi made, quote, serious errors in investigating alleged trump campaign ties to russia, the bureau was justified, according to horowitz, in opening the investigation and said there was no evidence that political bias influenced the fbi s decision-making. horowitz and his team looked at a million documents, spoke to more than 100 witnesses, and spent 20 months coming to that conclusion, and this morning we ll hear from him for the first time since this report came out. but the head of his department, attorney general bill barr, took less than 24 hours to say he s not buying some of it. i think when you step back here and say, what was this all based on, it s not sufficient. and i think that there were gross abuses of fisa and
investigation into the trump campaign and its possible links to russia, but the attorney general bill barr has a problem with one key finding in that report that the fbi was not politically motivated when opening the investigation into the trump campaign. he voiced those concerns in an exclusive sit-down with our own pete williams yesterday. so, that s hard to explain, and i the core statement, in my opinion, by the ig, is that these irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactorily explained. and i think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. pete williams joins me now. i think i sort of asked you this question yesterday, but i want to ask it more directly. it seems as if bill barr has decided, well, if there s no explanation, it has to be bad faith. isn t it possible, instead of political bias, you have prosecutorial bias or you have sort of a mai yoppic view? i mean, he doesn t seem to rule