department of justice and attorney general barr has talked about this repeatedly. his suspicions about how the department of justice originated the investigation. obviously one of the documents was christopher steele, former intelligence operative, the information he uncovered about donald trump from russian operatives. let me give you how this game ends. christopher steele shows up in front of the department of justice and i m guessing doesn t have terrific answers for the quality of the information in that steele dossier. i m telling you, wolf, this is not going to go well. i can t believe he has perfect answers about the onrigins of te steele dossier. i m not even sure why he s showing up. if i were him, i d go to disney world. i would not go to the department of justice, because it will not end up well. why do you think he is? what s your speculation? reputation. he s not you know, he s a fairly young man. if i m looking at him, i m saying if i ever want to do this business a
after the fbi for how they got this wiretap or democrats were telling the truth when they told republicans of omitting key things and being misleading what was in this thing. you have to say looking at this that generally it looks like the democrats told the truth and republicans were the ones saying the court wasn t in a position to know this was partisan opposition research, you can see here that clearly the court was told that steele was hired by someone seeking to discredit trump s campaign and despite the fact that was his motivation carrying out this research, the fbi thought he was credible because x, y and z. the full page consumes that discussion for example. the fight was why was told about a 2016 yahoo news article that redescribed some of the same claims about what carter page was up to in moscow. republicans said they put this
questions, which was, did the fbi know that steele was working for simpson, who was working for the clinton campaign? if the fbi didn tth know this, y hadn t it done its due diligence and asked what feels interest in this was? then, if you find. out that they are passing along information, and by the way, it would seem like they did, simpson originally claimed that he had information that the fbi had had an insider source within the trump campaign. he later had to come out and clarify, w that wasn t true. he had essentially misled the committee, and he was just referring to all this other news about an australian diplomat and george papadopoulos. okay. how did he find that out? how did he know that all the way the back last year? it seems the only way he got to them is that the fbi told steele,te steele told simpson. by the way, did simpson then tell the clinton campaign?
in here as corroboration of ste steele s claims. democrats said no, that s not why it was there. it was there to tell page denied the allegations. the section that described that yahoo news article is titled page has denied these allegations and so that seems to corroborate democrats description of why that was there, not republicans claims in february. that sort of argument about the argument is where this is really valuable and sorting truth from fiction. can i also look ahead to what the president tweeted and his reaction to this that came out about 6:30 a.m. this morning and for his claim saying that the fisa documents confirm with little doubt that the department of justice and fbi mislead the courts. charlie, do these fisa documents show what the president claims? does it show the opposite or can we even judge? my assessment having closely followed this, having read these