exaggerated the one primary source, statements, multiple selections of the reporting. this primary sub source felt that the tenor of his p29 s report is far more conclusive than justified. and the sub source, primary, only sub source for the most part, stated he or she never expected steele to put the primary sub stores statement in reports or present them as facts. the primary sub source explained that his or her information came from word-of-mouth and hearsay. here we go again. conversations that he or she had with friends over beers in a bar and some of the information such as allegations about trump central activities, two hookers, moscow, those are statements he or she heard in a bar made in jest. i m not making that up. the primary sub source said that
inaccuracies or omissions when they presented their case to the fisa court. steve: convenient. ainsley: they never told the fisa court judges who paid for the dossier. that was hillary clinton s campaign and the d.c. they never told the fisa court that steele had lied in the past and had, quote, poor judgment. they never told steele s primary source was a boaster known to embellish and later cast doubt on the dossier. never told judges that steele was a dispirit trump never get elected. fbi lawyer doctored evidence to create a false negative impression of carter page. these facts were they membershipped to mislead the court? brian: add one more thing carter page, they never said carter page was working for the cia. somebody who read inspector general reports for a living for 8-plus year. ainsley: god bless you. this is as as it gets. over 1,000 pages detailing the upper echelon of the fbi
house. let s speak more about this with political analyst sabrina sadiki for the wall street journal and cnn national and security legal analyst susan hennessy, a former nsa attorney. democrats are now saying that they may not need to call the whistle-blower to testify that they have enough from the complaint, plus they have concerns as expressed by adam schiff about exposing this whistle-blower to attacks, et cetera. is that legitimate in your view as democrats are proceeding in a formal impeachment inquiry? so i don t think there s that much sort of substantive value at this point of bringing the whistle-blower in. again, as republicans were claiming this was all second-hand knowledge, all hearsay by the whistle-blower, what we ve seen is that complaint sparked off a series of primary source testimony. people like bill taylor and next week, tim morrison who are actually going to be able to speak to what happened. so the idea that the whistle-blower is now going to come in and pro
and democrats have made it clear that they are not interested in having a proceed tract theed fight in the courts. they would rather take whatever is not complied with and put it in another file that says this is obstruction and that that could indeed become another article of impeachment on top of whatever they come up with. remember, democrats feel like they have a pretty strong hand here. they have the memo of the phone call. they expect to get testimony from the whistleblower still. those are still negotiations that are ongoing. they have the text messages already from volker and the other parties you talked about. there is a lot of primary source evidence that exists already making some of this additional interviews and additional information ultimately superfluous to what they are doing. it is still unclear what the actual consequences are. i mean, the president is essentially daring nancy pelosi to bring this to it a vote and democrats haven t yet moved. reporter: there are
president trump: and for all of these crazy people, but they are not so crazy. they know what they re doing, that talk about russia, russia, russia. russia is not too happy about that. their primary source of income is oil and gas. now, we are bigger then russia, bigger than saudi arabia. we are bigger than everybody, and we are doing great. so they are not exactly happy. [cheers and applause] the russian hoax is a pure hoax. you saw that with comey the other day. yet, every leading democratic running for president pledges to ban the energy that drives our economy and wage, if you look at what s going on, your way of life is under assault by these people i mean, i go out and sometimes i ll be at these huge audience, and i wish we could have been at a larger arena than this. we tried. i was even willing to stand out