Warrants . The concern grows out of the fact that all of the failures and the and The Information that shouldved been given and wasnt given. And the question being what was the intent . What what washa their intention . Their motivation there. And what we determined was we couldnt definitively say what the motivation was. Are these pretty smart people . Fairly welleducated . At least welleducated. I dont know if theyre smart. I dont know if were very smart to beow honest with you. I was b going to say they have law degrees, right . At least somehe of them do. So you think the woods review for people at this level of the organization. To be clear, the stuff that didnt happen on the woods review was basic stuff. Yeah. You didnt need to be a deeplyexperienced fbi agent to be able to do it the right way. Well, thats my point. So wouldnt you think that would almost be muscle p memory for people who are going through this process to know they had an obligation to go through that . They clear
that would have to come from the fbi orld the department. okay. so with that, how many how many case agents involved with the fisa applications in your report are still active case agents today? as i sit here, i can t tell you the precise number. there are several who still are. that are active. that are still active agents. whether they re still in certain roles or not, i don t know. okay. because you don t know specifically if they are still working as casely agents, do yo believe, if they were working as case agents, that the information contained in your report as it relates to those case agents should be released to other criminal defendants under the department s policy? i think this raises those kinds of issuesnk for the department to review and consider what they have to do to remedy any wrongs here. and for those folks that are
a fisa warrant, and the government information s given to the government that questionsto the foundation of t warrant, is there an obligation to tell the court? absolutely. they did not do that, did they? correct. they lied about the information that was exculpatory to mr. page. they gave misleading, inaccurate information. at what point does ad can surveillance that d started lawfully become illegal? it can it can become unauthorized, inappropriate, illegal. depending on would you apply all those terms to what happened in this case? i m going to let others, who have the ability to address some of these issues, decide what the precise level of intent was. here s what i m going to say. it may have started lawfully. it got off the rails quick. it r became a criminal conspira to defraud the fisa court. to put mr. page through hell.
these reports w subsequent to tt in finding inappropriate, improper contact between agents and theop media. since our report last year, director ray has put out a new policy and ordered to take a new training to deal with that. or try too address that and to change theo culture, which is what we talked about a year ago. the culture and the viewpoint in a federal, criminal investigation, fairness to the defendant or the subject of the investigation. fairness to victims, if there are victims. fairness to the process requires people, agents who are working theseop cases, to keep their he down. work theea case. and not disclose information to outsidet parties. whether it s the media, friends, relatives, neighbors, whomever. that information has to stay in the office. and so there has been a policy change. but what are the repercussions if someone is found guilty of engaging in those unauthorized contacts with media?
one of theam highest profile, i not the highest profile, case in the fbi. involving a presidential campaign. i understand that. i appreciate that. i think it is explicable. but i understand that you can t or at least aren t going to make that jump. you are going to refer these cases. heuh-huh. and ca and i appreciate th. is criminal prosecution a possible action in the cases other than the one you ve specifically referred?ct i i wouldn t want to prejudice or prejudge anything. i d leave it to the department to speak to you on that. all right. let me go on for just a moment. when when when let let s move to the whistle-blower question just once more. i m shiftinges topics completel. it s come up several times today and i understand your point that a whistle-blower is entitled to anonymity. uh-huh. to me how it happens