has it cost? i understand the figure having looked at it is around 6 1/2 million. after 3 1/2 years of investigation and 6 1/2 million dollars ever taxpayer money spent, your investigation led to the indictment of only three individuals, correct? that s correct. contrary to the fervent prayers of some on this panel, former f.b.i. director jim comey and former c.i.a. director john brennan were not among those three who were indicted, isn t that correct? that s correct. to the extreme disappointment on some on this panel your investigation failed to produce indictments against hillary clinton, correct? that s correct. didn t indict barack obama? that s correct. or joe biden? that s correct. couldn t indict hunter biden? we didn t investigate mr.
process to limit how american tax dollars are spent at the department of justice. i yield back. general lady from texas is recognized. good morning. you have value the independence of a special counsel. i do. you asked garland to allow you to continue the investigation saying we want to thank you and your office for permitting our inquiry to proceed with will without interfere answer as you assured the members of the judiciary committee would be the case during the confirmation hearings to become attorney general of the united states. you value your special counsel status. it a being a rat that garland let you proceed on your case as you wish. that s true. it was important you have to as special counsel your investigation was supposed to be
you have all the tools available, including the most intrusive, physical surveillance and electronic surveillance of u.s. citizens. here they immediately went to open it as a full investigation without having talked to the australians or gathered other evidence. investigators relied on misstatements by the human source. ignored statements from papadopoulos and submitted the application to sur veil page. is it true an f.b.i. employee fabricated this evidence? can you expand on that fabrication and the reliance to support that? in connection with one of the extensions, the final extension or renewal of the fisa page. one of the agents wanted to be certain there was information that was there information whether or not carter page had been a source of information to the c.i.a. and pressed kevin clinesmith in
your investigation, did you have staff on your team advise you against making statements during the investigation? they didn t advise me either way, no. every raise ethical concerns about you speaking out in an interim report or after the inspector general investigator. any of them raise ethical concerns with you doing so? not that i recall. not that i m aware of. did they raise a concern about speaking opt in the investigation? did any of your staff raise concerns about your speaking out during the pendency of your investigation in contrast to d.o.j. policy? not that i recall. thank you. general lady from florida is recognized. good morning. can i complete that answer more. i don t want to lay my blame. i made the decision to make a statement.
from my god. and that is okay with me. i m satisfied with my reputation as it stands. it was an amazing moment. reminds some of us of the joe welsh moment in the mccarthy hearings where durham was finally pushing back and saying enough. i was asked to give you facts about what occurred and some of these facts are really breathtaking. that the f.b.i. never interviewed any of these sources before they launched this investigation. durham did. how within three days of learning about the statement in this pub they launched an investigation with strzok who was later fired for bias. they launched on a weekend three days later. that s how fast on the trigger they were. durham says look, there was bias here and there was what he is clearly laying out is there was