Of 2016 as the u. S. President ial race was getting underway, an individual was linked to the russian government reached out to the Truck Campaign for mr. Trump. In july of 2016 the russians began dumping the emails in the same fannish fashion. It was at this point informed of the russian outreach to patent jobless and aware that the russians were meddling in our elections through the anonymous release of information that the fbi opened up this investigation. As james comey would explain in his first public testimony in march 2017 and before this committee, the investigation began not as a criminal probe but as a counterintelligence investigation. What does that mean . How does the counterintelligence investigation differ from a criminal investigation . What does it mean that he u. S. Power . May be acting as a how could the russians use the compromise of u. S. Persons to influence u. S. Policy in a manner that jeopardizes our National Security . These are the questions we hope to answer today during the second of a series of hearings special counsels develop just disturbing findings in volume one of the report and to examine what steps were necessary and our National Security. We will hear from two former senior fbi executives who oversaw the Counterintelligence Division who will help us better understand the counterintelligence implications, the range of contacts between the Truck Campaign and the russians tied to Intelligence Services. Volume one of the report outlines the sweeping systemic effort by russians to interfere in the 2016 election for the benefit of donald trump. It establishes that the Trump Campaign new of the interference because it expected to benefit from information stolen and released to the russian effort. It shows how the Trump Campaign stolen document into its Campaign Messaging and strategy. Counsel made clear, it sets out great detail where the conduct should concern every american. Report details over 100 contacts between the Trump Campaign and agents of russia. Some of this outreach was conducted in public to hack his opponents emails, a unit of the Russian Military attempted to do just that. Other contexts to view outside of the public view. Between a russian delegation and the president s eldest son, donald trump junior. Their discussion of the Campaign Strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states. Must americans consider solicitation of foreign help during a president ial campaign, the offer for assistance and the campaigns eagerness to accept that offer. If it is what you say it is, i love it. Not to mention the sharing of polling data and Campaign Strategy but the chairman of the campaign with a foreign nation which at the same time was intervening to help their campaign went. Thertheless and contrary to theidents repeated mantra special counsel reached no conclusion as to whether the Trump Campaign many russian context constituted collusion since that term is not defined in criminal law. For those who have not read the Mueller Report they might be astonished to learn that the no collusion is nowhere to be seen on any page or in any passage of the Mueller Report. Instead and making its charging decisions, the special counsel high bar of being able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial each element is a crime of conspiracy and found that it could not even as it emphasized as a failure to establish conspiracy did not mean an absence of evidence of conspiracy. Volume one of the Mueller Report is by its very nature and the special counsels mandate report about the exercise of prosecutorial judgment, who should be charged and should not. It does not contain the fbis counterintelligence soundings just findings findings. Whether advancing russian interest or compromised whether or not such actions were crime. These are the types of concerns that you guys Counterintelligence Division works to expose using an array of investigative intelligence capability as we will hear from our witnesses today, the primary objective of the counterintelligence investigation is not to target an individual for prosecution but to protect the nation by developing information but the actions and intentions of foreign powers and to report them before they can act against us. The president s efforts to make money from a roasted project in areand to conceal the a quintessential example of a counterintelligence nightmare that may or may not include criminal activity. It may not be a crime to build the trump tower in moscow are two Michael Cohen to speak it may not be a crime to try and enrich yourself while running for president but it is deeply compromising. Not only because of the inducement of hundreds of millions of dollars. That is only part of it. It is also deeply compromising because the russians were on the other end of the transaction and could expose the president s duplicity at any time. The trump organizations efforts to enlist the kremlins help or exposed, Dmitry Peskov told the International Media that the kremlin never responded to Michael Cohens outreach. Next to the Mueller Report and our own investigation, we now know that mr. Has golfs statement was a lie. The criminal did followup. He we have a prospect of the kremlin participating in a cover up by the president of the United States. Here is what we know. The president saw to make money from a foreign power during the campaign. So did some of his children, so did his Campaign Manager and deputy Campaign Manager pitts so did his personal lawyer and National Security advisor. Some of these actors have been prosecuted but all the actions are deeply compromise and over National Security. Yet mullis report provides no evaluation of the counterintelligence concerns raised by these facts and others , of all the questions what happened to the counterintelligence investigation. Were there other forms of compromise like moneylaundering left out. Were individuals granted security clearance that should not have. Are there individuals still that lead america vulnerable. We are determined to find out. I yield to the Ranking Member idiotic remarks. Here we are two years more than circumstantial evidence the Truck Campaign colluded with russia to hack the 2016 election. And more than two years since false allegations on the dossier in an open hearing. After that the American People were subjected to endless and anonymous intelligence leakers. Singly everyday the media triumphantly help with this bombshell story. Reporters had not seen. It proved that President Trump are some associate was a treacherous russian agent. Democrats joined the news pundits and denouncing the traders and eventually the democrats became convinced that the Mueller Report had read them of their sinister president who had the audacity to defeat Hillary Clinton. The entire scheme has imploded and the accusation has become exposed as a hoax. One would think the democrats would apologize and get back to lawmaking and oversight but it is clear they could not step with the spectacle. After years of false accusations and mccarthy like smears, the conclusion has helped to find the Democratic Party. A constructive vision for our country. The democrats assembled us to analyze the shoddy piece known as the Mueller Report. It is written in the same spirit of the same purpose as the steele dossier which was once championed by the democrats on this committee of which they really mentioned after it was exposed as another democrat created hoax. The moment dossier either debunked many of their favorite conspiracy theories are did not find them worth discussing. These include mothers finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to prague to conspire with russians. No evidence that carter page conspired with russians, no mention of Paul Manafort visiting Julian Assange in london, no mention of secret communications between the trump tower server and brushes alfa bank and no mention of former nra lawyer and her supposedly knowledge and is keen to launder russian money through the nra. Insinuations that mitchell originated, these in situations originated with were made public in a document published democrats in this committee. The real purpose of the mueller dossier was to help democrats impeach the president and ask for any evidence of collusion. That is as the report concludes, if a certain number of contact indicated onepiracy, even if no discussed conspiracy. Selectivelyteam edited to make it seem threatening. No comment on the close relationship between democrat operatives and multiple russians who participated in the june 2016 meeting at trump tower. In fact no mention or comment of fusion gps at all. No useful information on key roles in investigations such as a malta diplomat of the australian diplomat. On the democratic paid operative , former spy, Christopher Steele. No useful information about the irregularities. Furthermore the mueller dossier sites multiple for perpetuating the russian hoax. Thus mueller produced a perfect feedback loop, intelligence leakers creating a false story for the media. The media publicist story. The media and democrats fake outrage. Tor relied on a mass hack the election. It is false. The democrats spreading hoax claiming trump is a russian agent but it was later whoovered the only people colluded with russians were democrats who paid for the dossier. I would like to remind the democrats. This work is even more crucial now since the media has abandoned the traditional watchdog role. I understand the democrats inability to move past the hoax and get back to business. Nevertheless i suggest they give it a try. I welcome this because today. I yield back. Thank you to our witnesses. To ensure that all members are able to ask questions due to competing business of other competing other committees, todays witnesses will be afforded five minutes each which will basically enforced. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us for this important open hearing. Stephanie douglas who serves as senior manager and director of guidebook solutions, adjusting highrisk investigations. Prior to this position, she served for over 23 years at the fbi including as assistant, executive assistant director. Robert anderson is the chief executive officer of Cyber Defense labs. He was a principal at the church off group. Mr. Anderson served for many years in the fbi rising to the executive assistant director of the criminal Cyber Response can Services Just response and services branch. I would like to welcome and mccarthy welcome andrew mccarthy. Currently a senior fellow at the National Review institute and contribute editor of the National Review. Ms. Douglas, we will start with you. Morning. As good you for the opportunity to answer questions relative to volume one of the special counsels report regarding russian interference in the 2016 president ial election. As was established and communicated in early 2017, the russian government used a number of intelligence to impact the 2016 election. Thes report supports these conclusions and provides specific examples which illustrate the message of russian influence. I am happy to answer questions regarding this report but understand that i have no access or investigative details other than that that is provided in the special counsels report. Aam proud to have been special agent in the fbi for 24 years. Most of it focused it on counterintelligence and National Security matters that while the fbi has been the subject of much discussion in the press and elsewhere, i support the work of the counterintelligence professionals who work with the special counsel to conduct this investigation. I hope that my presence here and our discussion will lead to further awareness, preparation for what is certain to be another high threat election in 2020. With that, i am happy to answer your questions. , thank you, mr. Anderson. Youanderson thank members of the committee. Thank you the opportunity to be here today to talk about counterintelligence and Cyber Threats to our nation. I background and experience was responsible for all counterintelligence, espionage matters and desist can assist and shedding some light. These threats were highlighted several times by the heads of the Intelligence Committee and reports on the investigation into the russian interference in the president ial election which is known now as the Mueller Report. My current role, i see hundreds of Cyber Breaches every year. In my opinion, these attacks originate from a variety of criminal organizations. In my opinion, in the last three years, these attacks have become more sophisticated, probably never occurred on a much larger scale than ever before. This is extremely important when we talk about Hostile Intelligence Services and their activities into 21st century. Career, i worked for three directors. The last position i held as a chair was the executive assistant director. I managed a number of divisions but i was in charge of highprofile criminal and cyber investigations. The threats to our country have changed since when i first entered into Law Enforcement in 1987 as a young trooper. Beeng my career, i have privileged to work alongside the men and women of the fbi and the United States Intelligence Community who have worked tirelessly to combat this hostile activities to our great country. As the committee knows, a number networks haveinst increased dramatically. I look forward to discussing and thesues today committee and i stand ready for your questions. Mr. Mccarthy . Mr. Mccarthy thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member nunez, members of the committee. I served as the federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years, almost all of it at the United States Attorneys Office in the Southern District of new york where i retired in 2003. Since leaving Government Service i have been a writer, a commentator, i am appearing in my personal capacity as a former Government Official who cares about our National Security and the rule of law. For most of my first several years as a prosecutor, my work focused on international organized crime. After the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, i spent much of the last decade of my tenure working on my National Security investigation. I am proud to lead the prosecution of shake rock on. I was privileged in that effort to work alongside a superb team of federal prosecutors and investigators assigned to the fbis joint Counterterrorism Task force. It was in connection with that investigation that i became intimately familiar with the fbis Counterintelligence Mission and the powerful tools the constitution and federal law make available for the execution of that mission while it escaped the attention of Many Americans to know the euro as the nations premier lawenforcement agency, are domestic security service. This is a purposeful arrangement on our governments part to have National Security and Law Enforcement housed in the same bureaucratic roof in the fbi does it generally speaking in an exceptional action. I look forward to engaging with the committee. I would make a few general points about volume one of the report. It draws three principal conclusions, first put in regime received advantage in the Trump Victory and conducted its operation accordingly. Secondly, there was evidence the Trump Campaign hoped to benefit from the publication of negative information about the opponent and third, there is no evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the russian regime. The first of these findings were more in the nature of clinical assertions and prosecutorial findings. Evidence, sufficient a prosecutor has no business speculating on the motive and a politically provocative manner. Moreover, i do not believe the assertions is borne out by the evidence. The report shows that agents of pollutants regime expressed support for trumps candidacy. That is consistent with the motivation to incite division and dissent in the body politic of free western nations which is russias mo. Russias goal is to destabilize west and government which advantages the kremlin by making for thedifficult government to pursue its interest in the world. Putin tends to act the candidates he believes will lose. Putin is all about russias interests which is destabilization. It is a mistake to allow him to divide us by portraying him as on one side or the other side. He is against all of us. There was no reason to doubt that the Trump Campaign hoped to benefit from the publication of negative information about secretary clinton. That is what campaigns do. It is not an admirable aspect of our politics. Candidates from this opposition hope to benefit. The Clinton Campaign to help from just took help from elements of the Ukrainian Government took help from elements of the Ukrainian Government. The First Amendment exit difficult to regulate this sort of thing. Our guiding principle is that good information will always win out against false information that we can debate how well that works. We shouldnt pretend that the Trump Campaign was the first or everyone or only one to play this. Believe this had to have been obvious no later than the end of 2017. In september of 2017, carter page your time has expired but we will be happy to receive the complete written testimony. I will recognize myself for five minutes. Ms. Douglas, the investigation is james comey revealed when he testified before a committee the first time in open session about the trump investigation began as a counterintelligence probe. Onlyueller report denotes one paragraph. From its mueller says inception the office mechanized this investigation could identify foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information relative to the fbis broader mission. Fbi personnel who assisted the procedures to identify and convey such information. It then talks about counterintelligence fbi agents embedded within the mueller team. We have yet to see those findings. The nature ofs that counterintelligence . Nvestigation where those findings would go within the fbi . Whether counterintelligence investigations by criminal probes have a formal opening and formal closing . Not the investigation does result in criminal charges, when does a probe come to an end and where do we need to go to find out answers . I do recall reading that based on the paragraph, it sounds like there are intelligence components sitting within the mueller investigative team. Recording of information that may fall out of the purview of the Mueller Investigation. It could be Additional Information that they are developing in the course of the investigation. They need to be looked at independent of the Mueller Investigation. Another contact with the russian that they dont think falls within the scope of the Russian Investigation that they will pass down through an intelligence apparatus to an appropriate place, either in a field office or headquarters to run down as a separate investigation. Counterintelligence investigations to have an opening and a closing. They are not unlike criminal investigations. You have to be able to articulate. Yet to be you have to take it through a number of different steps to earn the allegation. As you gather information relative to that allegation, you may have an ability to increase the differentials use against it based on the amount of evidence and intelligence you are gathering under that case authority. It could be a preliminary investigation. They are limited tolls or it could be a full investigation which allows you a much broader set of investigative tools. There can be there are beginnings and ends of these investigations. I hope i explained the intelligence aspect pushing it back to other components that do further work on it outside of the scope of the Mueller Investigation. Thank you. Anderson, the Mueller Report focuses on two things, the russian hacking dumping operation and on the social media operation and whether the question the u. S. Conspired with either. It doesnt analyze whether financial motivations of the president s desire to build a trump tower in moscow on the Campaign Chairman desire to make money or the National Security advisers effort to make money from turkey or other motivations to secure financing for Trump Properties motivated policy support. Would those be in the nature of counterintelligence concerns . . Hat might concern the fbi all, when it comes fsb, theirnd the priorities in this country, they will exploit any avenue that they can when it comes to trying to get the end to whatever theyre try to get, whether it is intelligence or it is looking to extort somebody into action. It doesnt surprise me at all that the russian government launched Cyber Operations against our country and the time they are some of the best in the world. They will take that information and exploit it in any way they can. When it comes to the actual individuals that have been approached in and around the Trump Campaign before he became president and even afterwards, it also does not surprise me that they are going after are looking to appear to meet with numerous individuals around and inside the campaign. That is an absolute classic tradecraft of russia. They will never have one point of failure. They are looking to pass information on employment information, they will make sure they have numerous aspects or points where they can try to get that done. To answer your question about that, there arent situations where you would have concerns about that. You would either go out depending on what they saw and talk to the individuals that were being approached, or you may open up assessments or some type of investigation. It would be a counterintelligence matter. What is the concern we have policymakers seeking to make money from that adversary at the 10 time making policy. That is pretty clear. World, when it comes to National Security, there are specific rules regarding all this. What we can and cannot do. Those rules the committee knows become more intense the higher you go within government. I think that is a threat that people should be very concerned. Mr. Nunez. Im concerned about anybody in the department of justice or fbi that think it is ok to open up a counterintelligence investigation into Political Campaigns. I think it i think that is the forefront of what we have been facing. Aware thaty, are you there was ever a time a counterintelligence investigation opened up on any president ial campaign . I am not aware of a specific situation like that. We do have a history of government interference in Political Campaigns. Of exactly this sort of thing that we are talking about in the 1960s and 1970s political spying and the notion we needed to give ricans the modicum it was the creation of this committee to ensure the intelligence agencies stayed out of politics. That is why we provided oversight. As you know the trump team never received a briefing. It seemed like at some point they wouldve explained it to them especially since they had two former u. S. Attorneys on the staff. Both governor christie and rudy giuliani. To just admit that joseph midsouth. He was someone who knew about emails are talk to papadopoulos about emails. I only go to what mueller said in his report. He portrays him as having deep ties to russia the telling trip to moscow and contacts with russian officials. He stopped short of calling a russian agent. James comey in the Washington Post calls him a russian agent. Im not sure he knows that mueller does not know. Him, he my big concern was in malta diplomat. He worked closely with the and describedment the press as a western intelligence assets. He worked at the london center. Has been a guest speaker at policy formsign all over the globe. Most concerning to me. One, he was known to train our train with fbi officials in italy. Also, he actually still carries the United States congress a few hundred feet away from the house Intelligence Committee. In 2017, this is after he knew all of this supposedly. Yet, he was invited by our own state department. Mr. Mccarthy, my question to you what james comey said he is, we have compromises within the state department, the fbi and possibly the department of justice. Jim comey has a lot more. Nformation than i do ive been out of government for a very long time. I do note that the Mueller Report is very careful about the way misfit is described. They say that he has the connections to russia. They dont say hes get the connections to the russian two russian Intelligence Services. It was interesting that we learned in the Mueller Report that he was interviewed by the fbi and denied having told papadopoulos discussed email. The reason i found that interesting is if theres anything we learned from the Mueller Investigation is that mr. Mueller was quite good at statements, prosecutions if he thought he could prove the witnesses who they were interviewing have given false information to the fbi. This is prosecution was ever brought against myths it so that there was an interesting fact. Footnotes theye refer to a media story. In that same media report, they used to justify where myths it worked, they left out the fact that in that same story, he was described as a western intelligence asset. Why didnt that make it into the Mueller Report. You are asking the wrong guy. A little peculiar. My time is up. Thank you to the panel. The Mueller Report highlights the counterintelligence rift that the russians may have had over individuals close to President Trump especially Paul Manafort. The report explains that have connections to russians. Manafort stated in touch with these contacts through Konstantin Kilimnik. He usually ran manaforts office in tf and who the fbi assesses has ties to russian intelligence. Owed money. O among other things, manafort instructed his deputy on the campaign and a longtime employee to provide clinic with including internal data. Manafort believed in sharing information it could resolve their disagreement. Member possible opening comments and mr. Mccarthy, with due respect, that is not what campaigns do. I am sharing internal polling data with a hostile polling data not a Single Member of the United States congress ever asked our Campaign Managers to share our internal polling data with a hostile foreign power. Mr. Anderson, let me start with you. How could the kremlin try to exploit manaforts longstanding business and personal relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik who the fbi assesses to have ties with russian intelligence. What counterintelligence risks posed by such a relationship to the president ial campaign . There is a lot. One they would exploit if they did have leverage on that individual, they would exploit every aspect of that. The one thing i would say about russian Intelligence Services, if you read a book from the 1940s, it was the same. They are inyourface. Once they have locked on to an individual who they deem necessary to get to whatever and they would also use that to look at individuals around those Financial Transactions. Potentially going at individuals around the Financial Transactions and that for some reason did not work against him. Thank you. Ms. Douglas, let me ask you a variant to the question. How could russias knowledge of manaforts illicit dealings for which he is now a tenant of the United States government would stem from his work with kremlin parties in ukraine be useful as compromising material as the russian government directed at the u. S. Public question mark how could the russians use what they knew about Paul Manafort to their advantage . I think they did it very effectively. Actually cast him. That is the initial test when you are can you elaborate on that . Can you elaborate . Provide polling data. Like you said, polling data isnt the keys to the kingdom, right . But it is a small step that illustrates his willingness to provide information to someone he knows he is beholding to, financially. Ongoing lawsuit, fees that are old. He is willing to provide internal Campaign Information to a Foreign Government and to a person who is closely tied to the kremlin. That is a great and ulceration of great illustration of how the russians work. Paul manafort was very forward leaning on volunteering all of abilities, his experience, his connections, he made all that available. I thought that was very interesting that they are tasking him and building upon that. If he wouldve stayed with the campaign im sure they would have continued to task him. I am out of town. Former fbi director comey testified to this committee in open session that the fbis coordination with the Intelligence Committee has become clear that the u. S. Intelligence committee has expended much time and resources to support the investigation into the chunk campaign regarding the 2016 election. December 2016, president obama why would the administration by conduct a review earlier especially given the october 2016 statement by the excess regarding russian cyber activity . Why the timing . Short. Sure. They did take some investigative steps. It is debatable whether they should have taken more. To hear them tell it, they would say they had to weigh the difference, the competing costs between what the reaction would have been if they appear to be putting their thumb on the scale in the middle of the campaign in an investigative way versus how do we stop russia from doing what russia was doing . You can argue whether they made the right value judgment. Is it perfect for the Outgoing Administration to use these resources to conduct that assessment but not give the incoming not consult with the Incoming Administration . To my mind the assessment is very peculiar in that having worked in the government for a very long time, or nearly the time of assessment that you are talking about would be something that would take well over a year to do it certainly many months to do, even under circumstances where the information was readily available to investigators who have things like grand jury power a note to conduct the investigation. Seems to me that in this instance there was a rush to get that out within a manner of days. Then roll it out while obama was still president. Have anhree of you extension of careers with the fbi. Is it i dont afraid to question the telegraph the answer but troubling relationships within the hierarchy within the fbi and their attitude toward this Trump Administration and conflict of interest that that seems to have have been in place were worried about a commercial transaction openly that trump tower been in moscow in which are like that. Cut identities but yet folks at the top of the fbi disdainful of president. Of the is that the standard or did they police yourselves better to show those conflict of interest along the folks leading investigations. Sure. First of all and any criminal or counterintelligence period, it should be neutral. You should be looking at a neutral playing field. They should be able to stay on its own so i think that is the. Ay i work to and was involved as far as all the stuff that has gone on, it is concerning about the different accusations that are taking place. Any of these investigations should have looked at specific facts and should not matter one iota if somebody is a republican or democrat or independent. What was your experience . Very similar to bobs. We were talking earlier. We dont even know political preferences and we have been friends for two decades. Everybody comes into every position at a certain level how did it fail with respect to several of the top folks involved in the briefings of the campaign . How did that happen . There were clear preferences for trump getting beat, how did the system fail itself . I have no idea. I could tell you. Peach struck was my chief of staff. Those Text Messages and emails were unbelievably inappropriate. The corrective action taken from it i cannot answer your question because i did not see it. Mr. Quigley . Thank you all for being here today. Beginning in the spring and summer of 2016, the gr you hacked john podesta gmail, the dnc. Released theically hacked emails. They seem, the russians, to have maximized the effort to harm the Clinton Campaign and maximize the benefits of the Trump Campaign according to the report. Theres a lot of evidence the chunk campaign about the wikileaks release about how to the message as a part of the campaign. In fact donald trump junior communicated with wikileaks in october 2016 in an effort to use the hacked emails to the campaigns advantage. The report indicates that the president himself knew about the emails pitts seems like an obvious question. What might this set of facts suggest about the relationship between the campaign and wikileaks . What might you worry about if the u. S. Campaign had foreknowledge of the release . What risk is this what the campaign uses this information about a political report medical opponent political opponent . If no onebles me communicated this type of information just because of the facts laid out in the report. I think there needs to be a heightened sense of counterintelligence relationships as administrations move into the white house. , i didntministration see a lot of people within that even understood counterintelligence or new these threats were real. I think they should be a lot of that. , when russia is releasing information through , wikileaks andts other platforms, this is not unusual. In a lot of ways, they are starting to so the web broad and wide, it is hard for us as a group of intelligence organizations to start looking at who got that information, how did they get the information and why are they using it. That is done on purpose. It would not surprise me if theres a lot of other entities, russian Intelligence Services had teed up to displace more information that they never utilized. Going back to the original question, that is why it is so important. Individuals who are giving information or being tasked, that is the initial way you that any asset or person you are targeting for a possible or unwitting asset. Those actions can take anywhere from a few weeks to years depending on how that position goes after that person. Ms. Douglas . Add, if youike to are a foreign power and you have a campaign or individuals who are willing to entertain receiving information that you are collecting for their benefit , i think that is a tacit approval of that action. That is where we have to be people to allowing communicate to either a Foreign Government, a foreign actor about what they are doing which is illegal by hacking and collecting information and then releasing it. Giving that kind of approval by had not or suggestion or any kind of inference that it is ok is a tacit approval of that kind of behavior. I think that puts us at greater risk. Have you read the report in its entirety . One have read all of volume because i knew that we would be discussing it today. I appreciate that. You read all the context that take place coming from the russian side. At any of those points, putting yourself in the place of those who received those contacts, would you have called the fbi . What i have called the fbi . Yes. I call the fbi for things less serious than that. However else you feel about the report, you think someone should call the fbi . Yes. And mys no question colleagues here have worked counterintelligence and they would tell you, we always want information. Any information that would be helpful to us in apprising the likely attentions of hostile powers are. Where he gets dicey where it gets dicey, if you are going to use investigative techniques that require a quantum of intelligence, you have to make sure you satisfied that quantum of intelligence before you trigger that technique. The is where you go from mere collection of information to doing something that is more active. Thank you. Mr. Turner . I think the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Mccarthy, in volume one, mueller details sweeping and. Ystematic efforts those details are set forward into separate indictments. One identifying 12 Russian Hackers associated with the gru. One and identifying 13 russian individuals as a part of russias research agency. If that an accurate summary . Yes. Afterbegin before or Donald Trumps entry into the 2016 president ial field . Correctly,emembering he takes his 2014. Determined that russias sweeping efforts to interfere in the 2016 election not only predated Donald Trumps entry into the campaign but also included some actions by the russian government that were decidedly antitrump in nature . End inink toward the particular that was true. Based on evidence gathered by a team of nearly 60 fbi agents and prosecutors to make and evidencedbased decision not to charge any american, much less anyone associated with the Trump Campaign with any complicity, with any collusion related crimes in russias election interference . And yet despite the special counsels finding that neither donald trump nor anyone in his campaign colluded, it is hard to argue that russia was not successful in their ultimate goal of undermining the outcome of our election and sowing the seeds of discord in the American Democratic process. We need to look no further than this very room to see evidence of russias success. Yearountry endured a two investigation to see whether or not the president of the United States was part of a treasonous conspiracy with the foreign adversary to steal an american election. The same Democratic Party that started the investigation into conspiracyinto that that the special counsel established never existed now convenes this hearing to talk about it some more. Lets talk about some of the reasons why the russians but it been so successful in sowing the seeds of discord into the American Publics mind. Do you think that mightve been a factor that contributed to russias success . Russias success in sowing discord into the body politic . I do not know for russia goes tactic by tactic. I think russia succeeded beyond his wildest dreams if that is what its intentions were. I do not think that means russians connected any campaign is something that is not alarming. The Obama Administration Intelligence Community assessment you referred to earlier, which was used to tell the American Public that not only did russia interfere with the 2016 election but did so because Vladimir Putin was trying to get donald trump elected, you think that might have been a factor in donald Trump Success . The fact that that particular conclusion does not seem to be compelling given what the evidence is and giving what Vladimir Putins general approach to the United States and the west is. I do not think it helps to have people say Vladimir Putin was in froms camp when it appears, if we look at everything vladimir isin does everywhere, putin in the camp of the people he thinks is going to lose because he thinks that is better for him. The Obama Administrations use of warrants based on the unverified steele dossier which the Obama Administration knew to be an encore operated Clinton Campaign Opposition Research document, do you think that was a factor that contributed to russias success. We do not know anything we need to know about the fisa applications, but i think they should have been more forthcoming with the court about the provenance of the dossier. Expired. Me has i appreciate the chairmans and albans the chairmans indulgence. We may have time for one last question. Five minutes have expired and ive run out of time to stop listing all the other things the Obama Administration did or did not do to cause or contribute the success of russia in undermining the 2016 election. Since the purpose of this hearing is to learn lessons from the mullah report, do you think from the robert Mueller Report, you think it is fair a lot of the questions is committed to be asking to prevent russias success in undermining future elections ought to be focused on the administration of president obama rather than President Trump . It would be a very good thing for the country if we had a common understanding that Vladimir Putin has it in for us whether this country is being run by republicans or democrats and that what his objective is is to destabilize United States so that we cannot pursue and protect our interests in the world, which is good for russia. I appreciate the chairmans indulgence. I thank you and i yield back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I had my expression of gratitude to all of the panelists. By now we know the robert Mueller Report included numerous examples of russian interference in the 2016 president ial election and we know the special counsel closed his remarks by suggesting every american should be concerned about this. I know we all are. Instead of interesting instead of addressing what fbi director ray described as an ongoing threat, we have a president who has attacked the special counsels investigation, attacked the fbi, generally tried to undermine the work process of the robert Mueller Investigation, and the president has called russias attacks on hoax, and hea has literally cited Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence agencies. Considering the past is often prolonged, we are all greatly concerned that similar interference will occur in the future. Question, which i want to start with mr. Anderson, i had the great privilege to serve as mr. As chief of staff to a governor in washington state. One budget cycle we do not have the money to propose as high as Salary Increase for Public Employees as they sought. That difference of opinion became contentious. The governor accepted an invitation to go to work Capitol Rotunda to address the Public Employees. When he went out, there were thousands there and they lined the walls in several levels. It was difficult for him to give his remarks because they were expressing their frustration. Office, ick to our turned the governor and asked, i do not understand why you did not more affirmatively defend your point of view. He turned to me and he said that is our workforce. If we are going to accomplish withing, it is going to be that workforce. Those are our people. We are only able to do what we can do through them. My question, mr. Anderson, as a former senior official at the fbi, despite the public statements of stiff upper lip, we are professionals, we go to is the bureau, and our workforce, those dedicated professionals, completely immune to these attacks by the president of the United States . I know you are not there now, but if you were there, i would be curious as to what your reaction would have been to that and what you think might have been the reaction by the workforce. Do you think they would be concerned about their job or their work in light of unwarranted attacks . Mr. Anderson i have never seen anything like this in my 30 years of Law Enforcement. I think the fbi, for over 100 years has been through ups and downs. Think it has taken a toll the men and women of the United States Intelligence Community will go to work and give 110 every day. One thing i will tell you, when it comes to russia and many other nations dates nationstates. They did not start on this in 2014. They do not go away. I can guarantee you they are still here looking at the next president ial election and figuring out how they can attack it through any other way they can. I think that does taken effect. Prospectively,e because our primary concern is what we can do to avoid this kind of interference in the future, do you believe there would be a net gain or a benefit if we created an affirmative time there is any this kind of contact with former representatives . With foreign representatives . It would have to be very wellcrafted, given that people come in contact all of the time with Foreign Nationals. I mean official representatives of a president ial campaign . Douglas i think you would have to be very careful on how you would do that. There is so much interaction in the global world, even here in d. C. So many opportunities to meet people. For the most part they are not malicious, they are not intelligence officers, it is something to consider but it would have to be very wellcrafted that would be appropriate and would be something you can actually do and be able to hold people accountable. My time has expired. Beg the day we still question as to what your recommendations would be to avoid this kind of interference going forward. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman, thank you all for being here. As a veteran i have tried to put my country first. Through all of this we are talking about, one of the things i most disturbed about is that an American Political Party would hire a Foreign Agent who works with agents of a foreign power to create a fake document to attempt to destroy the american political opponent. Yet many in authority seemingly completely choose to ignore that. That is not part of the conversation. Majoritythe Committee Found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump Campaign manager and government. We did address russian interference and what people do to try to disseminate that. Two years ago on this committee, things changed. We were very nonpartisan. The division on this committee group. I sat here and i said to the entire committee what is going on is exactly what Vladimir Putin wants. We are giving him everything he has worked for. As you said, beyond his wildest dreams. We have. Here we are. With a team of 19 lawyers, 40 fbi agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants ,nd other professional staff executed nearly 500 search warrant, and made requests of , concludedernments that the investigation cannot establish members of the Trump Campaign conspired to ordinate with the russian government in its election interference activity. Do you believe the special counsels office was properly resourced to conduct this investigation . They had more than the resources they needed. And appropriate access to investigative tools. I can only answer these questions as a person analyzing it from the outside. You have experience in this arena. I have no reason to think they do not have everything they needed in terms of access to resources. I would suggest they had more access and tools that any congressional committee. That is on you. I believe that to be the case. With all of these resources, i find it hard to believe the special counsels office, if they had all of these tools, that they likely would have found more than circumstantial evidence of collusion if it had existed in plain sight. Let me ask you this. How are confidential human sources and counterintelligence investigations that it investigations vetted . It can vary from person to person. The human dynamic in my experience of dealing with informants never goes away. There are peculiarities and a sanctuary cities you have to deal with. It is often very difficult for the agent. The agent has to take the brunt of some of the more crazy stuff so the prosecutors can focus on the case. Once, over vetted and over again, every time . Regularly, vetted they are tested. There are ways you can test your asset to make sure they are providing credible information. They go through a vetting system on a regular basis. Their files are reviewed at a supervisory levels. They can be audited by headquarters. My time is short but i appreciate your answer. Run athe fbi were to controversial human source into a Political Campaign and against individuals associated with the campaign, with the fbi notified someone associated with the campaign to let them know that would happening, and if not, why not . Mr. Anderson if you are investigating the campaign, you would not notify the campaign. It is not the candidate but someone in the campaign, you have no evidence the candidate is doing this, would you want to let the candidate no the nominee for president of the United States for someone in their campaign may be doing this . I think this goes to what some of the members of the committee mentioned, which is the idea of whether you do a defensive reefing or not. If what you think is you have people in the orbit of the campaign who are problematic, that might be something you give the campaign a heads up in a defensive briefing. Decided everything in the steele dossier is true and the candidate is the problem , i do not see why you would notify the campaign because the candidate is the one person the campaign will not get rid of. If someone in my campaign was doing something nefarious, engaging in a hostile foreign entity, i hope i would inform them. Tomy line of questioning has do with the 14 pages in the robert Mueller Report that deals meeting. Dopouloss according to the Robert Mueller 2016, in late april, papadopoulos was told by a london professor immediately after his return from a trip to moscow that the russian government had obtained dirt clinton in candidate the form of thousands of females. One week later, thousands of emails. Papadopoulos and for that the trump through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to candidate clinton. Me anderson, it appears to Sensitive Information was communicated to george 2016opoulos, who by march had been publicly named as the Foreign Policy advisor to canada trump. To candidate trump canada trump. Candidate trump. I was argue he was so engaged can youadopoulos give your thoughts about that meeting and what red flags that would raise and how a foreign power would seek to leverage a relationship like that to its own intelligence gathering or policy objectives . Mr. Anderson one of the things people need to realize is that when Foreign Policy one foreign powers are going at individuals, it is not like you see on tv. A lot of times the people coming ,et people, they intentionally i do not know he was a source of the russian government or not, but they will utilize individuals in academia, they will utilize people in certain social sections, they will utilize people outside of threatening environments where you are meeting with an official of the russian government. For people like me who have worked this for a very long time and seen thousands of these cases, that does raise the level of suspicion. The one thing that troubles me even more is that once the testing starts. I cannot tellaid, you when it comes to validating, potentially recruiting, or seeing this is someone you should spot and assess for later recruitment, this is a big deal. They will watch to see what the information is given and given back to the eventual. From an academic side, i can tell you the Russian Intelligence Service uses this a lot and they use it in different circles. Ms. Douglas, papadopoulos was told that russia had Clinton Emails and of russias desire to release them anonymously well before that became public. Why might a foreign adversary like russia want to provide Sensitive Information to someone like papadopoulos, a president ial campaign staffer, and what might they seek to gain from having that . Ms. Douglas one of the things i thought was interesting is that papadopoulos said he was of no interest until he told him he was involved in the campaign and reengagementden after he returned from moscow. He is one of the areas where they are looking for opportunities and they are looking to establish relationships that maybe are not overly successful on that first but they want to establish a relationship for the future. George papadopoulos was a heavy player in the campaign. Was early on with his assignment at the campaign or they started having conversations. The russians know that he is early on with the campaign. He could potentially be with the administration in the future and we want to get in good with him now. Papadopoulos was introduced to members of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He used his relationship with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to push for a secret meeting between donald trump and Vladimir Putin. What sort of countervailing counter Intelligent Risk might a secret meeting between candidate trump and Vladimir Putin generate . Ms. Douglas obviously, in a free election trying to set up a meeting between a candidate and a leader of our most significant outside normal channels, and papadopoulos putting himself in that position where he can arrange it puts the campaign and even greater jeopardy. Thank you. Douglas, i appreciate what you said. You said something exactly right. I love the fact that you and mr. Anderson worked sidebyside with each other and were not aware of each others political views. That is how it should be. When i listen to mr. Comey, director of the fbi, the director of the cia, the director of national intelligence, they sound like political hacks. I wonder how can someone so political and so partisan be selected to such a position of leadership. You set a much better example. Im glad we have this hearing. It gives us the chance to tell the American People the truth. It demonstrates that much of what people have heard is not true. To emphasize that the robert ,ueller report clearly found the special counsel to not find the Trump Campaign or anyone associated with it conspired with the russian government despite multiple efforts of the russian officials to assist the Trump Campaign. I want to share something i feel strongly about. I think the American People feel strongly. It is unfair to make accusations about people without evidence. To destroy lives and the presumption of innocence, to destroy peoples professional lives, to destroy peoples financial look to destroy people financially, to destroy them in the media. The American People know this is not fair and the robert Mueller Report gives us a chance to emphasize that. I would like to dive into one of the more troubling aspects of this episode, and that is the pfizer application. Pfizer application is an intrusive tool. Fisa application is an intrusive tool. It essentially allows you to spy on u. S. Citizens. Fisa application was based on the steele dossier, should the fbi have taken steps to verify the contents of the steele dossier . I believe they should have. Steel was in the position of not of a source of information but an accumulator. In this equation he is much more like a case agent than a source. Generally speaking, for prosecutors in court and anyone situation, the source the people who see and hear and make the observation the court is being asked to rely on for purposes of probable cause. It does not matter if your case agent is credible. T is the Source Information the fbi should violate should verify information before presenting it to the fisa court. To any court. There is no defender of the person presenting information. Im sure the three of you are familiar with the steele dossier. Ms. Douglas i have never read it. Mr. Anderson i have not. Mr. Mccarthy i have read. I would challenge any of you to find anything in the steele dossier we now know is true . There are a number of assertions made which are true but if not great importance. For example, we know carter page did go to moscow in july. What he did there is the subject of a great deal of backandforth. Whether he went there or not, which the steele dossier asserts , is not , that is not an accusation because that is not a crime. When youre doing with counterintelligence, none of it is necessarily a crime. My point being is that this thing which was almost entirely the basis for the fisa application, almost all of the act almost all of the allegations are not true. , has the fbiedge ever used political Opposition Research funded by u. S. Political campaign and including information from Foreign Agents in a counterintelligence investigation . Mr. Anderson, are you aware of that ever happened before . Mr. Anderson im not aware of anything. It does not mean it has a potentially happen. Im not aware. Ms. Douglas im not familiar with any prior use. Mr. Mccarthy i have taken information from the worst people on the planet. I have taken information from terrorists, from murderers, from swindlers. When you do this kind of work, the people you get information tend not to be the question is what you do with the information. The more suspect the source of the information is, the higher your obligation is to verify it before you use it in a way that is going to intrude. Thank you. My time has expired. Mr. Castro . Castro i want to ask you about Michael Flynn and his actions with respect to the Russian Ambassador and his attempt to undermine the Obama Administration sanctions put into place in december 2016. Used secret back channel discussions with the Russian Ambassador to undermine the Obama Administrations Foreign Policy. My question is what counterintelligence concern arise from this back channel coordination between incoming president ial organization and a foreign adversary. Why with the fbi be concerned with a incoming National Security advisor conducting Foreign Policy before a new president has taken office and also without informing the state department . Of the things, when it comes to back Channel Communication on political or National Security issues, one of the things russia and other significant nationstates and intelligence organizations tried to have that created. They try to get the current administration, whether it is one in now or whatever, having their public face confused with what the state department is saying or people who are saying stuff for a back channel. This is the exact same thing going on with the case i was the export for with the department of justice. They will do it at different levels. Regardless if it is National Security, regardless if it is the president , once the person moves into office is not unusual for them to be talking to multiple ambassadors. The key is that russia wants to get any administration off balance. What the real political views are and potential back channels. Agree itas i would the existingly administration was immediately put an hardly conflicted position and they do not know it by a back channel in advance of inauguration. It jeopardized how the u. S. Was viewed by the russians and it probably assured the russians they would get a more favored treatment by the Incoming Administration. Even Michael Flynn says that. When he says i do not putting any of this in an email, and it looked like were undermining the current administration, and that is what he was doing. Report explained the robert Mueller Report explains flynn had a preexisting relationship with russia. Rt and to an event from sat next to Vladimir Putin. He also met with the ambassador on several occasions during the transition. My question is what you make of this relationship, and given Michael Flynns role as the head of the Defense Intelligence agency and the incoming National Security advisor and how might russia exploit this relationship to affect United States policy . Ms. Douglas having known and worked with Michael Flynn, it was a surprising position for him to take. Obviously, he had very highlevel access to information. A close is this a personal relationship was concerning. This all goes back to the clearance process and having sustainable clearances above the secret level with very welldefined reporting requirements. I would report yearly just to maintain your topsecret clearances. Hundreds of contacts of individuals that would talk to me, stop by, have a conversation. A part of this is when he gets into the aspect of when individuals are not reporting that, the second they start having secret meetings, it puts them in a very vulnerable position. Leaves them open to blackmail and position because there it is a vulnerable position because there is no one in the room with you. These are all tricks of the trade when it comes to Intelligence Services. I yield back. Mr. Crawford . Thank you, mr. Chairman. 2017, former cia director brennan stated in an open hearing in this committee that russian measures to impact the u. S. Had been going on for decades. In 2012, president ial candidate mitt romney said he believed russia pose the greatest threat United States, to which president obama replied, the 1980s called and they want their Foreign Policy back. Warned all this knowledge meant of russia and their intentions and no response from the Obama Administration. There are a lot of conspiracy theories swirling around about russia pollution. Lets add this one. Is it possible that a group of politically motivated individuals at the highest echelons of National Security decided to turn a blind eye to this, feeling it would enhance their candidates chances of winning . I do not expect you to answer that, i expect you could consider it. With that i yield to mr. Ratcliffe. I would like to follow up on mr. Stuarts line of questioning on the fisa process and the steele dossiers role. According to a sworn testimony given by a former doj associate Deputy Attorney general, he said under of he had advised andy mccabe, Deputy Director of the andand lisa page at the fbi in early august that Christopher Steele was motivated and desperate to stop trump presidency. Separately, documents made public indicate a state Department Employee advised the fbi that that part of that, whether or not it was appropriate to represent Christopher Steele as a source of information in that application. Ismy overarching problem that i think it was objectionable to take somebody in the position of a case agent and refer to him and treat him as if he were a source when he did not make the observation that the court was being asked to rely on for purposes of probable cause. If you want to take the position that i am wrong about that, then i think the second thing that has to be said is that the more remote that somebody is from the observations youre asking the court to rely on, the more you have to do in the way of being transparent as far as what that persons biases are, potentially. It is one thing to say somebody who sees something criminal happen brings a lot of baggage to the table. Saw what they saw or they did not, and the circumstances rounding that can tell you more than their bias. If youre talking about someone who is remote from that, and here we are talking about someone four or five hearsay steps away, i think you have a to be straighton with the court about what that persons baggage is in terms of bias, motivation, economic motivation, whatever. A rule of thumb, and i think any good federal judge would tell you this, if you need to write a footnote that takes a page and a half in order to avoid running the sentence, and he is connected to the Clinton Campaign, then you should probably disclose he is connected to the Clinton Campaign. Anything about what mr. Mccarthy just related you would disagree with or clarify . That onlas i will add the counterintelligence and counterterrorism side, we take information from sources that are not right there. It has been critically important in a lot of cases, especially in the counterterrorism world, where you have a person who is receiving information or hears of information that you make every effort to validate and , and is that source trusted . Has that source provided reliable information in the past . Im not defending the steele dossier, i do not think that comes up in the robert Mueller Report, actually, but i would say the fbi did have reliable steele in the past, and maybe that gave them shown gave them some assurance. It is important for everyone to know the steele dossier was not stapled to a cover sheet for the fisa application. The pfizer application the fisa application has more information than just the steele dossier. Mr. Anderson the court needs complete transparency in any fisa degree. The last thing i would say that fisa title iii is running, if you find out something about the information you supply to the court after it is running and it is inaccurate, it is incumbent upon us to go back to the court and explain that to the court. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Maloney . Just a return to Paul Manafort and the issue of ,haring internal polling data consider the following. Because of questions of the polling data after it was sent, the office cannot assess what he or others did with it. Cap what he or others did with it. Manafort also briefed him on the Trump Campaign manager for its plan to win, including a discussion of battleground states. What are the counterintelligence concerns about that that the chairman of the president ial campaign would be providing that kind of information . Ms. Douglas Paul Manafort is trying to sell himself. He clearly talks about his time on the campaign being good for his business. His plan was to monetize his expertise after the campaign. I i think ms. Douglas think he is providing polling data, he is doing everything he can to put his name out there with all of our with oligarchs, which are part of the intelligence apparatus with the russian government. This is the senior person on the trunk campaign. Im intrigued by on the Trump Campaign. Im intrigued by your point. Isnt that the magic moment. Youve done all this work and been cultivating people and you tiptoe up to them and use all of these on offensive context to get near them and you give them something to do that is wrong, and they know it is wrong, and they do it. Is that when you have got them . Ms. Douglas of course, and it continues to increase. That is why i said, the Trump Administration is lucky to have Paul Manafort out of there. He was not going to stop at polling data. It was a test. If they do that, they do the next thing. It is fair to say, had he stayed on as chairman, they wouldve kept asking him. Ms. Douglas i would definitely assumed that. And that is how you getting deeper. Ms. Douglas it would not just be it would not just be him. Veryouglas it was apparent the russians were in communication with a number of trump associates. Who knows how far they would have gotten with certain people, but Paul Manafort made himself available, he thought it was good for himself financially, he thought it could get him out of hoc financially with some of the debts already owed as far as lawsuit and he continued to advertise his availability. Is it fair to say that is the counterintelligence nightmare . Mr. Anderson it might not be a nightmare that is something to be extremely concerned about. As we just discussed, that will continue until you say no. That is when the extortion starts. We talked about that several times in this committee. Bob is your best friend until you do not give me what im asking for. Im struck by your answer to mr. Quigleys question that you would hope someone in the position of the Trump Campaign manager would talk to the fbi. One of the reasons you said you wanted that is the fbi always wants more information. Isnt it also the case that the reason that person comes to the fbi is to knock you late themselves against the charge their playing footsie with the foreign Intelligence Service . That,derson if they did you would not need a counterintelligence investigation because youve be working in partnership with the americans in concert with around government against the foreign interference. Mr. Anderson on the government side of it, you also have to be very careful theyre not playing both sides. You can get played that way. That happens in this case it was true. What youre saying is true. I have read the report. We are skipping a step. I do not think there is evidence that kalimba is a russian asset. There is a lot of reason to be concerned. What about the trump tower meeting . The trump tower meeting, any of the context we know are part of this effort by the russian government. My point is if the Trump Campaign at the phone and call the fbi and said were worried about this, it would have gone a long way toward inoculating them to the concern theyre working in concert with the foreign intelligence office. More, andt agree anyone who thinks theyve been approached by a russian asset should notify the fbi. I would like yield as much time to Ranking Member nunez. I want to take time to clarify a few things. It is it a crime for any american to appear on rt and take money from rt . I do not want to put words in any of the witnesses mouths, but we have numerous foreign Government Officials and current Government Officials that appear on rt all the time and take money. Im alarmed that people would thatsome type of reference the former head of the dia who goes to the dia to tell them im going to meet with Vladimir Putin and get paid to go on rt, there are reports back that i do not know other former Government Officials are doing that same thing when they take large sums of money. I thought that is what i heard. That was not ok for the former head of dia to give a speech, like all former politicians and president s do. Did i hear that . Is it ok for general flynn to go to rt or not . People do it all the time in private sector and give speeches. As long as that is what it is, it is fine. A friend of this committee, i do not know he was paid by rt, but he did many appearances on rt. The other thing that is alarming to me is this talk that general flynn, by talking to the Russian Ambassador when he is the incoming National Security advisor, would be somehow targeted by the fbi or any counterintelligence capability in this country when he is talking to the Russian Ambassador, even if he does not agree with the Obama Administration on sanctions, because if that is the case, john kerry should be under a fullblown criminal investigation for violating the logan act. Should john kerry be under investigation right now for violating the logan act . Mr. Anderson i have no idea what john kerry is doing. It has been widely reported that john kerry has had numerous meetings with the Iranian Regime during the Trump Administration. Mr. Anderson i would have to see a lot more about that. As far as going back to your far as theestion, as incoming National Security advisor talking to the Russian Ambassador on its own, that is not something that is going to raise the counterintelligence flag. You have to look at the totality of what is going on. I do not understand anything else out of this report that went on with mike flynn that would trigger any type of National Security fight. While it may not trigger an investigation, i think you have to be mindful of how that looks to the russian government. It may not trigger an investigation. It is preposterous for me to think that a threestar general, the architect of killing al qaeda terrorists is somehow connected to the russian government. For him talking to the Russian Ambassador, that is what we. Xpect i also do not think, as much as i disagree with john kerry, the former secretary of state, i do not think he should be investigated for violating the logan act. However, someone on the side of the aisle continues to bash general flynn for talking to the Russian Ambassador, at the same time they say nothing about john meeting with the iranians. Ms. Douglas i do not think it was just talking to the Russian Ambassador. That is the difference. General flynn reached out in an official position prior to the inauguration of the Trump Administration and decided to do Foreign Policy work in the midst of another administration. That is no different than what john kerry is doing. You would like to investigate john kerry. Ms. Douglas im not saying anybody gets investigated. I am saying is a counterintelligence concern. That noke we are saying criminal charge has been filed relative to Robert Muellers findings. It still does not mean theres not a National Security threat. I do not think i would be john under counterintelligence investigation anytime soon. On tasking. Stion you mentioned Paul Manafort was tasked to deliver polling information. Im troubled as to what the difference is between someone asking for polling information versus a Political Campaign hiring a former british spy to go out and meet with what we now know to be, supposedly, reportedly, meeting with highranking former officials in the russian government to get dirt on trump. Is a campaign paying for it. How is that any different . I would say the other is worse. We may not like how Political Campaigns are run but i do not think that is illegal. Response . I think it is disturbing that the Clinton Campaign used steele. It is disturbing that the russians reached out to the Trump Campaign. Theres a lot of talk about what a terrible guy he is. Steele worked for him. We are in a situation where for 30 years, since the fall of the soviet union, this government, bipartisan, has taken the position that russia is a country we can work with. The Bush Administration used to call them a Strategic Partner in connection with certain things. The Obama Administration wanted to reset relations. Trump wanted to change the panacea of having better relations. If youre going to have that approach, youre going to have to have a lot of people having contact with russians. We have a lot of people having contacts with russians and a lot of it is inappropriate. I yield back. Mr. Welch . Thank you very much. I think the witnesses. The robert Mueller Report describes efforts by the kremlin to establish a back channel. They are about how always looking for many points of contact so they do not have a single point of failure. 2017,ample, in january mr. Demetrio, the head of russias Sovereign Wealth Fund ev later relayed what demetri told him to Stephen Bannon and begin communicating with a friend of Jared Kushner. Over the next few months, worked on a plan of reconciliation between russia and the United States which was funneled to Jared Kushner. The Robert Mueller suggests this memo, which was drafted by the russian government and was told was approved by Vladimir Putin, may have influenced trumps first phone call as president. This conceptin more of back channel and what sorts of counterintelligence risk can arise from such back channels . The reason i ask is because we are having a backandforth about the political motivations. Campaigns tend to push the limits. What appears to be unique about this is that russians have information which becomes a tool for them to advance their policy interest as opposed to ours. Mr. Anderson . Mr. Anderson you are absolutely right. It is for them to be put in a position to advance whatever theyre looking to gain from the United States. It is also there to cause confusion and discord. As different opposing policies are back channel started look through the different channels, it causes discord with those within those organizations, eventually whoevers trying to get the official policy through, whether it is the state department or the white house. The one thing you will see, and i have seen it in this report is with russia, going back to the point of looking at different channels to try to make those things happen, you start putting people against each other inside the same office. They do not understand that what is the official channel versus what we are hearing from the back channels. Say within an office, you mean the fbi or the cia . Mr. Anderson bigger. The office of the president , the state department, other areas within our country. They will do it, not necessarily right around the individuals making the policies, but also outside of that. One thing i think we need to do is look larger when it comes to russia attacking our political infrastructure than what were looking at right here. I can guarantee you a reference to one trial. That is identical to what we are talking about. Ms. Douglas, thank you. The focus for me is not campaigns pushing the limits, but candidates becoming compromised by some of the. Ctions do you want to comment . I think the report lays out how well Vladimir Putin puts to work these russian billionaires with outreach and connections to a number of of family and friends and friends of friends. That is a good example. The reconciliation plan is a by dimitriev,ent who is closely aligned with Vladimir Putin. Putting those people together to work on this plan, which they then present to be used for this cause. Let me follow up. That it understanding was my policy during the Obama Administration to expand to oppose the expansion into the ukraine at an ongoing debate that started in this administration about whether to vide significant armaments the two seem to be in conflict. Ms. Douglas having that kind of external input into a very early stage administrative strategy appears to be very unusual. I yield back. Mr. Carson . Carson when the 2016 meeting at trump tower was proposed to donald trump jr. , he was told it was all to provide the Trump Campaign manager official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary Clinton and her dealings with russia as part of the russian Government Support from mr. Trump. His response is if it is what you said, i love it. He accepted information from a foreign pollack what intelligence risks does this pose and what would russias be offering such damaging information on a political opponent and what similar techniques were used and might be effective . Mr. Anderson so, first, as we said before, i think its the ability to get access to the administration. Thats where it starts, right . Youre talking to people that are around the president or potential president of the United States. From that point on, you have a voice inside that you can filter information to. The second point is i any russia i think russia looked at this way in advance on how to potentially target these different incoming in a lot of instances, i dont think the russians needed to recruit anybody. They needed to be able to get in front of somebody and supply information so that information would be conveyed to the president. Mr. Mccarthy i would just add i think by taking the meeting and i dont think you need a lot of training for this by taking the meeting, you made yourself beholden to putin in terms of however he wants to characterize it down the road so that even if nothing inappropriate happens at the meeting you have that vulnerability as well. Mrs. Douglas it tells a great story how the russians work. It shows the prior relationship that the trumps had, basically, worked with another prior relationship to reach out directly to donald trump jr. And dangle this potential piece of information. Now, the meeting resulted in nothing, but the fact they used connections that they knew that rump had in moscow through business dealings to basically weave their way to get in front of very, very senior level people in the campaign, manafort, trump jr. And jerry kushner, kind of shows how they work. They use personal relationships, business relationships, and then they try to piece it together. And like bob said, i think the one thing thats illustrated is the fact they were able to ccess such a high level. One of the topics of the discussion at the june 9 meeting were the u. S. Sanctions imposed under the magnitsky act. How might russia leverage the Trump Campaign to attack secretary clinton as an opening to seek access to trump . Part of thats more the ame. The biggest thing is access. In most these type of situations i think the acceleration of access to somebody as high as these people were, as stephanie said, doesnt happen as quickly. A lot of what youre seeing here is because, as i said before, i think people arent looking at it as a counterintelligence threat or National Security threat. They are obtaining that. The reason im saying this, congressman, is because i think that accelerates the process. It takes months to years to get access to individuals where it will get to a level where somebody can relay information. One of the biggest things about this is the acceleration of this process because they were able to get so high so quick. Thank you for your service. I yield back. Mr. Schiff mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Ratcliffe thank you. Mr. Anderson, i both appreciated and agreed with your comments during my last round of questioning about the need to update and correct ongoing fisa applications. I want to ask you about the bligations as relates to exculpatory information. S you know in the criminal case we have whats called the brady rule, where the government has an obligation upon request to provide the exculpatory information. We know that in this case the f. B. I. Has asserted that the underlying predicate for this counterintelligence investigation was George Papadopoulos and the conversation he had with an australian diplomat. If the f. B. I. Had exculpatory information or a contradictory information, information that contradicted that underlying predicate, would you agree with me the f. B. I. Had an obligation not to withhold that and provide that to the fisa court . Mr. Anderson i think the. B. I. , one, should have vetted both the information as best they could, and, two, i think there should have been discussion with d. O. J. And the fisa court about that information. Mr. Ratcliffe what if there was no discussion, would that have been improper . Mr. Anderson i dont know if it would have been improper, but i dont think it would be the transparency those hearings need. One of the congressmen brought up earlier this is a significant power. Mr. Ratcliffe whats your take . Mr. Mccarthy in our world, which is the same world you were in for a long time, there is some laxity involved how much you have to disclose with respect to exculpatory information with respect to the grand jury. I think the big difference here is that a the criminal process has a way of keeping people honest. That, unfortunately, counterintelligence doesnt. Mr. Mccarthy even though when you go to get a search warrant or arrest warrant from a judge in a regular criminal case, you get to go and seek it in the sense they are sealed proceedings and there is no one there representing the defendant. But Everybody Knows or assumes in the equation that there will eventually be a prosecution in which case everything will be revealed. The discovery will be there, and theyll be able to work on it. In the fisa process, the only due process an american who is suspected of being an agent of a foreign power ever gets is if the f. B. I. Complies with its rules and prude ears and the fisa court holds them to it in that proceeding. I shouldnt confine it to the f. B. I. The Justice Department as well. To my mind, and i think this is this is reflective of what most people in that equation think and what the fisa judges seem to think, there is a higher obligation to be transparent knowing that that process that you get in the criminal in the criminal thicket where everybodys going to get discovery of what you did in the court is not going to happen. Mr. Ratcliffe mr. Mccarthy you have been handed a number of questions about the need or the desire or whether or not it was appropriate to advise donald trump about russian efforts to interfere in his campaign during a defensive briefing. We know that briefing took place, was conducted by the f. B. I. On august 17 of 2016. Mr. Mccarthy i have heard that before. I happen to have been at a meeting at trump tower that day and i know with a bunch of other people. They were going over to get a briefing that candidates get. Mr. Ratcliffe candidate defensive briefing. Mr. Mccarthy it was not the targeted defensive briefing they were talking about in this committees report that lynch and comey and mccade were talking about. Mr. Ratcliffe to my question, earlier you said the reason whatever time candidate trump may not have received a briefing about russian nterference efforts would be if they had already determined that the steele dossier was true or the steele dossier was true or the subject of a criminal investigation. We know that wasnt the case. We know that the f. B. I. Director told the president , President Trump well into early 2017, that he was not the subject after a criminal investigation. That he was not under investigation. What reason would the f. B. I. Have had in 2016, what legitimate reason would they have had in 2016 not to advise candidate trump or president elect trump about russian interference threats . Mr. Mccarthy i dont think they had a good reason. I think it would have been preferable if they had done a defensive briefing. Im familiar with former director comeys testimony about this. And i would just point out that he pointed out, i think it was in testimony to this committee, that not everybody on his Advisory Team agreed with his idea of telling the president or the president elect that he was not a suspect simply because in a very technical sense his name was not on any ile. He was not listed as an interceptee on any fisa. And the point that was made to him, which he ultimately rejected, as i understand it, was the way the investigation was structured they were looking at the campaign. They were taking evidence about the campaign. And since it was trumps campaign, obviously he was the ubject of what they were looking into. To tell him he wasnt a subject seemed like it could be misleading. I think they should have been more forthcoming with him about the status of his investigation and i think it would have been preferable if they had done a defensive briefing. Mr. Ratcliffe i agree. I yield back. Mr. Schiff mrs. Demings. Mrs. Demings thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to witnesses today. Mr. Anderson, page 10 of the Mueller Report notes that the special counsels office learned that some individuals they interviewed over conduct they investigated, including some associated with the Trump Campaign, deleted relevant communications, or communicated using applications that feature encryption, or that do not provide for longterm retention of data or communication ecords n such cases the office was unable to corroborate witness statements through omparison to contemporaneous communication of fully he question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other known facts. Given these gaps he wasnt unable to rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light or cast in a new light the events described in the report. Yet the special counsel could not necessarily know if the person on the other side of the communication likely in a foreign country might have saved those messages. Coming from a Law Enforcement background, this is particularly concerning to me. How might a foreign power by russia leverage knowledge of a u. S. Person deleting communications with an agent or other individual working on behalf of the russian government . Mr. Anderson i think a huge part of the new world we live in. There are numerous encrypted apps people use in the private sector. There are hundreds of millions of people that use those apps. I think from a counterintelligence hostile adversary point of view, any time that information is transmit mitted to someone who can have access and then deliver it to an Intelligence Service there is an issue because that information is not going to delete the information. That person will keep the information and put into a pool of information where its correlated and they can use it. Unfortunately, in my career, in the last probably six to seven ears between counterintelligence and the executive assistant director, this has become a much bigger issue. Can you cannot go back, whether its you can go back whether its a criminal investigation or serious espionage investigation. Last point i do think when we look at the safety of our country when it comes to people in certain political positions, i think that we need to have more standards about what type of communications they can actually use. Mrs. Demings you talked about this earlier. The soviet k. G. B. Collected reams of information on its surveillance targets. O you believe the k. G. B. Successors such as the g. R. U. Continue these practices . Mr. Anderson ill tell you from my own experience, 30 some years ago when i started in Law Enforcement, the only way you could find out about somebody was hard footwork going out, knocking on doors, and actually physically talking to them. Nowadays with social media and cyber techniques and Artificial Intelligence is available to not only the open public but more sophisticated versions of that to hostile intelligence ervices. They have a good idea of what you like, what you dont like, who you want to hang out with, where are you going to go for offee. It makes them much easier of a target. I would tell you that the modern day version of what some of us have done 25, 30 years ago provides much more available information to target somebody. Mrs. Demings finally, we discussed the concept of blackmail at several points today. Can you explain how the use of lackmail or leverage including Financial Leverage over Government Officials by foreign powers can pose a counterintelligence danger. I believe that should be of importance to all of us in this room. Mr. Anderson it is very much so. Russia and a few other service that is uses extensively. Theyll use financial blackmail, personal relationship blackmail, blackmail about potential criminal violations that nobody knew about that they know about. As i said earlier in the hearing, the one thing you will notice with all of these type of progressions, first it starts off almost nonincidental, asking, tasking, access, phone books, whatever. It will move through that continuum. The blackmail historically doesnt start until you say no. Once you say know defending what they have they will use ny means possible to include destroying your life. They could care less about anybody in this rooms life because we are an american. They will use those points to target their subjects to get them to do what they want to do. Mrs. Demings thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Schiff ms. Stefanik. Ms. Stefanik i want to ask a few questions of mr. Mccarthy regarding the opening of the counterintelligence investigation and protocols of notifying congress. Protocols that were not followed. We know now that the f. B. I. Opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump Campaign in july, 2016. But they did not brief the gang of eight until march, 2017, just days before former f. B. I. Director comey publicly announced the investigation during a march 20, 2017 opening hearing before this committee. My question to you is, conveying Sensitive Information such as the opening of a counterintelligence investigation into a Political Campaign is exactly what quarterly briefings from the f. B. I. To the gang of eight are ntended for, is that correct . Mr. Anderson i believe so. I dont see what would be the point of having the gang of eight. Ms. Stefanik i agree. Do you think the f. B. I. Director, in this case director comey, should have been allowed to decide when a c. I. Investigation is quoteunquote, too sensitive for the gang of eight . Mr. Mccarthy i dont think the the f. B. I. Director should do that because otherwise you cant have congressional oversight. Ms. Stefanik i agree as well. Would you agree when i say that the f. B. I. Should not get to pick and choose which investigations, particularly those focused in the u. S. Political campaign, are briefed to congress . Mr. Mccarthy i think thats true. And i think from what i understand from director brennan thought he was obliged to comply with his gang of eight disclosure requirement. Ms. Stefanik is it appropriate for the f. B. I. In your opinion to publicly announce the subject of an ongoing counterintelligence investigation in an open setting before fully Briefing Congress on the matter . Mr. Mccarthy no. I dont think counterintelligence investigations are classified. I dont think the f. B. I. , when it can, should ever confirm the existence of an investigation. Counterintelligence investigations classified. Thats like a double nono. There is no reason i can think of to announce publicly the subject of such an investigation. Or to say that there would be an assessment of the end of crimes being committed. Ms. Stefanik we know now that director comey failed to follow established d. O. J. Procedures during the conduct of this investigation. In your opinion why do you believe director comey decided to publicly announce the investigation in march, 2017, instead of following the protocol and immediately briefing the gang of eight during his quarterly briefings . Mr. Mccarthy i know director comey for 30 years. I have a lot of respect for him. In my experience he went about his business in good faith. Im sure he had a reason. If he did something he probably thought had he a good reason for it. I dont agree with whatever the reason was. I can only assess what he did. I cant get into his head. Ms. Stefanik i want to highlight that i have introduced legislation requiring the briefings to the gang of eight to congressional leadership when there is an opening on a counterintelligence investigation of a federal campaign. We deserve to know this. It is clear that in this case in 2016 the process and procedures were circumvented. This should have been briefed to the gang of eight. And i think thats one of the critical questions that we need to continue asking in our oversight capacity. With that i yield back. Mr. Schiff before i yield to r. Krishnamoorthi, i do want to mention, this is through no fault of ms. Stefanik, while i cant comment on the gang of eight briefings, the content, the timeline you have set is not correct. I can tell you that once james comey was fired, we no longer continued to get gang of eight briefings on this counterintelligence investigations. We have the not had one since. Which is a real problem. To this date we have requested from the f. B. I. And from the director a briefing on the status of the counterintelligence investigations. We do not know to this date whether they are ongoing. We do not know whether any of them have been closed. We do not know what those findings are, but we are determined to find out. Ms. Stefanik regarding the timeline. It was clear in the opening hearing in front of this committee that director comey testified that he chose not to brief the gang of eight on the opening of the counterintelligence investigations. This has been widely reported. This was an open hearing. We have worked across the aisle on language to be included in the intel authorization act to ensure that any counterintelligence investigation into president ial campaigns is briefed. I hope you would agree based upon the testimony of director comey that he circumvented the process and in our oversight capacity i agree with you. We need an update to make sure they are following those procedures. I think we need to strengthen not just the typical way of doing things, but put it in law so that they are required to brief us. Mr. Schiff ms. Stefanik, i would only say that that was not his testimony. The first time he was briefing the counterintelligence investigation to us was contemporaneous with him disclosing it to the public. Ms. Stefanik i would gentleman yield. I said days before. Mr. Schiff the representative is not accurate. I cannot go into the timeline. Can i say thats not accurate. Ms. Stefanik i hope members of the public would go back to director comeys testimony and follow the fact and look at his direct testimony to this committee which stated that he did not follow the proper protocols and procedures of Briefing Congressional leadership on the opening of the counterintelligence investigation. I yield back. Mr. Schiff mr. Krishnamoorthi. Mr. Krishnamoorthi thank you for your service. Thank you for being here today. Thank you, chairman. I want to focus on security clearances. This is an issue that comes before the Oversight Committee and im shuttling back and forth this morning between these two committees. Id like to ask you about this particular topic. In order for any person working for the president to obtain access to the nations most sensitive secrets, that person must undergo a f. B. I. Background investigation and obtain a security clearance. One of the things that the f. B. I. Investigates is the candidates contacts with Foreign Nationals and whether those relationships pose any risk that the candidate may be compromised by a foreign power. It has been widely reported that Jared Kushners security clearance was initially denied last year because of serious concerns about foreign influence, private business interests, and personal conduct. There has also been reporting that Jared Kushner did not report his contacts on the forms, fs86 forms. He completed related to his security clearance application. What counterintelligence risks arise when an applicant is not fully forthcoming or honest in his or her security clearance application. Mr. Anderson . Mr. Anderson i think its important to validate the document information before issuing any security clearance, especially when you get above the he secret level and top secret s. C. I. Information. Thats almost every major meeting in the National Security realm in the white house. I also think coupled were that the information required every five years, in some cases in the f. B. I. S Organization there is a polygraph. I have had six in my career. To make sure the individual trusted with the ability to see that information is safe for our country. Mr. Krishnamoorthi let me ask, mrs. Douglas, what if they are not forthcoming or honest . How can a foreign power take advantage of that situation . Mrs. Douglas i dont know all the specifics around mr. Kushners clearance issues. I think there is potential if you are trying to hide or be deceptive about your contacts that could be something foreign Intelligence Agency could take advantage of. Right . Those forms are incredibly detailed. Its a global world. So people have many, many foreign contacts these days. Especially somebody like mr. Kushner who has Global Businesses. Mr. Krishnamoorthi give us a specific example. What would a russian agent try to do if he or she knew that mr. Kushner did not report a certain foreign contact . Mrs. Douglas in the information you are not being truly honest with, if you can be compromised based on your dishonesty about something, thats something a foreign Intelligence Agency can take advantage of. Mr. Krishnamoorthi what is the impact of that if the individual you are trying to manipulate has access to top secret materials . Mrs. Douglas you could potentially say that then if that persons compromiseable are they in a position where since they have access to very Sensitive Information are they willing to provide information to you in order not to be ge instances where people have not disclosed sensitive Foreign National contacts. But i have not seen an instance here the foreign actor has taken advantage that have fact, because they dont want it disclosed, either. They are not going to jeopardize that. Not seeing your description of it. But i have seen individuals in certain former espionage case that is i briefed to this Committee Years ago that they were looking at aspects on ways to get towards around their learance issues. Mr. Anderson i have not seen them follow through with different aspects of it as stephanie said. Mr. Krishnamoorthi what type of reform would you make in hat type of situation to prevent that type of situation rom arising . Mrs. Douglas i mean, kind of hard to force someone to tell you something if you dont know it exists. Its hard to hold somebody accountable to something you dont even know about. I just think that there has to be very significant diligence on it. It has to be explained very forthrightly up front so people understand that they could be in jeopardy. And i think that thats clearly articulated that you could be in jeopardy of even getting a clearance if for some reason are you not disclosing a personal or ongoing and continuing relationship. That should absolutely be a consequence. Mr. Krishnamoorthi thank you, r. Chairman. Mr. Schiff thank you. Some followup questions. On the fisa application, mr. Mccarthy, what was the time of he first fisa application . When was that first sought before the court . Mr. Mccarthy my recollection is i think october 21 which i think comes from a document from this committee, october 21, 2016. Mr. Schiff at that point the counterintelligence investigation had been opened for several months. Mr. Mccarthy the f. B. I. Investigation formally opened at the end of july. That investigation certainly was opened for over two onths. Mr. Schiff the f. B. I. Counterintelligence investigation was opened irrespective of having nothing to do with the fisa application. It had to do with George Papadopoulos receiving information about russian possession of stolen Clinton Emails. Mr. Mccarthy in the Justice Department and f. B. I. We sometimes refer to title 3 investigations or fisa investigations as if they were their own separate entity, but they actually tend to be part of a larger investigation. Mr. Schiff in this case the theory that the counterintelligence investigation of those around the president is flawed from its inception, isnt itself flawed because the fisa application didnt take place until months after the investigation was opened, correct . Mr. Mccarthy i dont understand your question. Mr. Schiff some argue we should ignore everything bob mueller has to say. We should ignore everything the russians did because they have problems with aspects of the fisa application. The fisa application was opened months after the investigation began, correct . Mr. Mccarthy correct. Mr. Schiff it didnt initiate the investigation, correct . Mr. Mccarthy also correct. Mr. Schiff in fact carter page was not with the Trump Campaign any more at the time the application was filed, is that correct . Mr. Mccarthy dont think thats relevant but that is as i understand they had formally separated. I assume you know mr. Schiff would it mr. Mccarthy you can go backwards mr. Schiff it is relevant if you are making an accusation of spying on the Trump Campaign that a fisa application of carter page didnt begin until carter page was no longer with that campaign, isnt that accurate . Mr. Mccarthy no. I think that if you are getting access to somebodys communications under circumstances where that access will afford you the opportunity to go backwards so that you can read their communications while they are in the campaign mr. Schiff do you know that to be a fact or are you speculating . Mr. Mccarthy i know it to be a fact when you get authorization you get to go backwards. Mr. Schiff do you know whether thats the case here . Mr. Mccarthy i dont have any direct knowledge of the investigation. You are quite correct. Im speculating from the outside. Mr. Schiff do you think the Justice Department officials had a signed off on the application were acting in bad faith . Mr. Mccarthy i think they made a mistake. Mr. Schiff do you think mr. Rosenstein, who signed off, was acting in bad faith . Mr. Mccarthy i think he made a mistake. Mr. Schiff do you think the judges who signed off, i believe there were three or four, who signed off on the applications were they acting in bad faith . Mr. Mccarthy dont think anyone was acting in bad faith on the fisa court. Mr. Schiff all of them just made mistakes. R. Mccarthy thats right. That happens. Mr. Schiff the steele dossier, how does mr. Mueller rely on the steele dossier in his report . Mr. Mccarthy its 200 pages. Off the top of my head i cant think of anything that he relied on in terms of any kind of important conclusion. Mr. Schiff your answer is he does not . Mr. Mccarthy dont think o. I dont want to give you a loppy answer off the top of my head. Mr. Schiff mr. Mccarthy, when did you learn that a there was a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign . Mr. Mccarthy i dont he know. I have to again, i learned as a member of the public, dont have any inside personal information so i would have to go back over things that i had written and read over time to try to pin it down. Mr. Schiff the counterintelligence of the Trump Campaign . Mr. Mccarthy i know director comey testified here or before this committee on march 20 of 2017 it seemed to me at that point in time that he was what he was directing his remarks to, at least in part, was evident from the Intelligence Community assessment that came out in january. It seemed clear to me reading the public version of the Intelligence Community assessment that the Intelligence Community had not stopped investigating russias interference in the election. Mr. Schiff you are awe correct, mr. Mccarthy, the first Public Disclosure of the Counter Intelligence investigation took place in mr. Comeys open testimony in march of 2017. That would have been months after the president ial election, correct . Mr. Mccarthy yes. Mr. Schiff if the personal animus reflected in the private emails between mr. Strzok and miss page reflected official actions to scuttle the Trump Campaign, wouldnt the trump investigation have been disclosed before the election not after . Mr. Mccarthy i dont know that the bias you detect from the emails would have had anything to do with when the investigation the emails mr. Schiff if f. B. I. Agents were determined to scuttle, act unprofessionally and scuttle the Trump Campaign, would they not have disclosed the fact that they were investigating the campaign of a president ial candidate for links with a foreign adversary . Mr. Mccarthy im not trying to be difficult. I never have said that they were trying to scuttle the Trump Campaign. Dont know that theres evidence they were trying to scuttle the Trump Campaign. I dont want to be in a position of agreeing that that is my position because its not. Mr. Schiff very open the investigation of one of the candidates, secretary clinton, correct . Mr. Mccarthy that was a public it was a criminal investigation that couldnt help but be public because of the way it was referred to the f. B. I. And the other investigations, the Counter Intelligence investigation, which is classified, they are not allowed to talk about it. They are two different things. Mr. Schiff they arent supposed to talk about a pending criminal investigation either, are they . Mr. Mccarthy no. Youre right. If there is no charges, the government should not speak until the government speaks in court. You are not supposed to talk about investigations until you formally charge someone. Then they have the full array of constitutional protection that is they get to defend themselves. Mr. Schiff in terms of the public actions taken by the bureau during the president ial campaign, they had the effect of disclosing and discussing the investigation involving Hillary Clinton but not donald rump, correct . Mr. Mccarthy no. I wouldnt go that far because in beginning i think its september you start to get these public reports that steele and fusion g. P. S. Are putting out. The article im thinking of in particular, i think is like september 23, refers not only to information from Law Enforcement people and counterintelligence people, but i think it quotes a letter i dont know if it quotes it as a letter, but quotes remarks from then senator reid with respect to the investigation and pushing the f. B. I. To get on ith the investigation. Mr. Schiff there is no public acknowledgement by the f. B. I. Of any investigation of donald trump or his Campaign Prior to the election, isnt that true . Mr. Mccarthy you mean a formal as opposed to leaked information, a formal public announcement there was an investigation . No. Mr. Schiff correct. Putin doesnt have a preference for candidates except for those who expects are going to lose. Hat other examples do you have for that declaration apart from the last campaign . Mr. Mccarthy i think in i would try to direct my remarks to, mr. Chairman, was russias current activities in the west. I wasnt trying to be just specific to our elections. I think putin does have a pattern, particularly in western europe, of giving support to upstart, populous parties which are unlikely to pin but could make life very difficult for the mr. Schiff its not just they are likely to lose. If mr. Obadan had a challenge, do you think he would support he opponent . Mr. Mccarthy dont know what putin would do. Mr. Schiff really, mr. Mccarthy . Mr. Mccarthy really. Mr. Schiff you dont think mr. Putin would have a reference for a candidate who talked disparagingly of nato or wanted to see nato, the United States leave nato . Mr. Mccarthy i dont want again im not trying to be difficult here. Think putin would be very happy to have the support of a candidate who would do whatever russia wanted. And if he wanted to get a candidate into power, he would be delighted by that. R. Schiff he would be delighted by a candidate or a u. S. Candidate who would remove the sanctions over russias invasion of its neighbor, correct . Mr. Mccarthy i would think so. Mr. Schiff he would be interested in a candidate doing business in russia during the campaign. Mr. Mccarthy it would depend whether that was the one issue that would come up. I imagine in the totality of it, if it turned out the candidate was going to be very difficult for him in other areas, if for example or military spending would be ratcheted up so we were more after a threat to russian interest, he would have to weigh that like anyone else has to weigh the good and bad. Mr. Schiff a candidate that has all of these attributes, wants to undermine nato, undermine sanction, wants to make money in moscow, that would be a candidate the kremlin would be very eager to support, would it not . Mr. Mccarthy yeah. You would think if that was the nly part of the ledger we were talking about, and on the other side there wasnt another side of the ledger where there was going to be an increase in military spending, an increase in support of actors who were opposed to russias interests, he would have to weigh verything. I dont think putin, as i understand it, is a very sophisticated actor. I dont think he acts on one particular aspect or one particular item on a menu. I think he looks at the totality of the circumstances. Mr. Schiff mrs. Douglas, do you have any quarterly will the special counsels conclusion through the social Media Campaign and hacking and dumping of stolen clinton and d. N. C. Emails that putin and the kremlin were attempting to help the Trump Campaign and hurt the Clinton Campaign . Mrs. Douglas i think that was very clear from the very beginning. I agree with mr. Mccarthy, this started back in 2014. The reason it probably even before then, because they were so intent on not having Hillary Clinton as the president. I think they did it ended up being very much to the benefit of the Trump Campaign. Mr. Schiff mr. Anderson, do ou concur that the both the assessment of the Intelligence Community as well as mr. Muellers report that the russians had a clear reference for mr. Trump borne out by the evidence . Mr. Anderson yes. Mr. Schiff let me ask you about what i started out with, the issue of moscow, trump tower. Here candidate trump was attempting to consummate a eal, special counsel estimates, would have made hundreds of millions of dollars for his family business. While claiming no business dealings with the russians. When that transaction was revealed, when the fact that the business deal went on through the middle of the president ial campaign was disclosed, and emails were produced showing Michael Cohen reaching out to dmitry pescov, someone close to president putin, he would later issue a statement denying that there was any russian followup on that outreach that. Turned out to be false. The russians did followup on the trump business outreach. What does it mean that the kremlin, how do you interpret the kremlin issuing a false statement in support of the president s own false statements about the deal . Mrs. Douglas i think probably the kremlin issues a lot of false statements. Think mr. Schiff would the kremlin have an interest in covering up for the president of the United States in concealing efforts by the president and his business to seek kremlin help during the campaign to make that deal happen . Why would the kremlin be interested in covering that up . Mrs. Douglas i think that they very much want a Good Relationship with donald trump. To them that means supporting him and the deception that was undertaken on the part of Michael Cohen when he lied about the length of time that those negotiations were under way. Mr. Schiff mr. Anderson, the report outlines a lengthy conversation mr. Cohen had with someone in the kremlin to try to make the deal happen. Would it be your expectation that the kremlin would be recording that conversation . Mr. Anderson absolutely. Mr. Schiff during the campaign and after mr. Trump became president , if the kremlin had a tape recorded conversation with the president s lawyer in which the president s lawyer is exploring making this deal during the campaign, at a time when the president is denying any business dealings with the russians, would the russians in a position to publish that tape if they had it to embarrass the president of the United States . Mr. Anderson i think if it behooved putin and russia they would do almost anything. The answer would be yes, if they had it and use it to exploit some type of weakness. Mr. Schiff is that what the russians mean when they talk about had compromising information . Mr. Anderson any time you are talking about compromising information, it goes back to what we said before, it could be financial, conversation, a compromising position to use whatever they can. Mr. Schiff would it be compromising if a foreign power had recordings of the president s associates engaged in the business deal that the president was denying . Mr. Anderson potentially. I have to know more about the deal. Potentially if they had conversations they could exploit. Mr. Schiff how do the russians exploit the use of that kind of information . Mr. Anderson depends. In the past i have seen where russias mailed audiotapes or agents of russia mailed auto tapes for pictures or financial documents to individuals that we have investigated in other either counterintelligence or espionage investigations, letting them know they have this information. And potentially can could use them against them. Sometimes they dont. They just do it anyway. Mr. Schiff in a circumstance like this could the russians make the president or his people aware they had such ecordings and were prepared to use them if necessary . Mr. Anderson i dont know if they would do that right off the bat. Usually thats towards the end of a spectrum of trying to obtain what they want. The answer is potentially, but i dont think they would do it necessarily right off the bat. Mr. Schiff how do the russians use Financial Leverage to compromise people . Mr. Anderson a variety of ways. A lot of times theyll either give individuals payment in a variety. Doesnt necessarily mean cash. It could be other valuables. In some instances theyll try to get them to live beyond their means. So if they cut off those payments, that individual then is in jeopardy of losing whatevers dear to them. Mr. Schiff does the existence of the financial relationship itself become a form of compromise . Mr. Anderson i have to know more about that. As was brought up earlier by stephanie, i think in the Global Business marketplace you have to look at the totality. I have to know more. Mr. Schiff there are any number of facts in the Mueller Report about efforts to establish back charges for the russians, discussions about using russian diplomatic facilities for secret back charges. Were those serious issues in any kind of security clearance process . Mr. Anderson they could. Depending what was being discussed and what the individuals were doing with the information that they were pushing. And obviously depending on the level of the information, what i mean level, classification level of information that they are talking to individuals from a foreign country. Mr. Schiff finally, with respect to mr. Flynn, if a National Security advisor if a National Security advisor or advisor designate is having a conversation with a foreign adversary, and they look to undermine u. S. Policy and dishonest about that, what are the counterintelligence implications of that . Mrs. Douglas obviously the key here is the deception. The deception makes the person vulnerable. Its not even the act. The fact that somebody has multimillion dollar business in russia doesnt compromise them. The fact that they are trying to hide it or be deceptive about the extent of their relationship could possibly make them vulnerable. Just like the case with mike flynn, its not the fact that he had that conversation. Whether it was appropriate or not appropriate. Its the fact that he chose to be deceptive about it. That could make him vulnerable. Mr. Schiff if the National Security advisor is talking with the Russian Ambassador or anyone else for that matter, lets say the russian mbassador, would you have to presume that the russians might be recording conversation on the russian end . Mrs. Douglas of course. Mr. Schiff so if u. S. Officials are like the Vice President are representing certain things that are not true, and the russians know they are not true, and the russians possess a recording of that, are the russians in a position to compromise the administration . Mrs. Douglas they are if somebody is not telling the truth about the conversation. If you come out and are honest about the conversation, its hard to blackmail someone if you are being honest about what you have done. If are you not being honest about what you have done, thats what makes you vulnerable. Mr. Schiff any final questions . Mr. Nunes thank you, mr. Chairman. One of the things we go back to the beginning theres been talk about when did this investigation begin. Thats an openended question because we can say that this investigation could have begun in 2015. Because we know some of the same players were having runins with individuals that have questionable ties to either a concern intelligence or possibly Political Campaign operative. But officially he they said it started at the end of july. When the public became aware of it, i guess it depends on whether or not you believe the Washington Post and new york times, or yahoo news. You have Christopher Steele, an f. B. I. Paid informant, not only briefing multiple news agencies. If you are to believe those same news agencies, they also have sources within the f. B. I. And department of justice. Youall work there. This normal to have a f. B. I. Informant Christopher Steele who has been hired to investigate the Trump Campaign by the f. B. I. , hired by the Clinton Campaign to investigate the Clinton Campaign to investigate the Trump Campaign, then talking to media, talking to people within the state department. Is that normal activity by the f. B. I. Or department of justice . Mr. Mccarthy i think steal was ultimately the reason that was given for his termination s an informant was his contacts with the press. Mr. Nunes in those same articles, there are multiple sources within the department of justice, f. B. I. , or Senior Intelligence officials. Mr. Mccarthy i thought you were asking me about officials should not be talking about investigations to the media. Mr. Nunes if the stories are believed, i got you with that, we have an f. B. I. Informant who is both working for the Clinton Campaign and the f. B. I. Investigating trump leaking to multiple news outlets. We have multiple people within the f. B. I. And d. O. J. Leaking to news outlets. At some point here im just shocked that there is nor not more former d. O. J. And f. B. I. Officials who arent out there saying, look, this is wrong. I dont know how any i republican, unless Something Like ms. Stefaniks bill passes, this Counterintelligence Department over at the f. B. I. Is in big trouble. The fact that you guys are sitting here, former f. B. I. Officials, and not saying that basically making the case its ok to use these very special powers to target a Political Campaign, it really troubles me. Ill just leave it there. I want to just finish up on the trump tower, moscow. There was talk about trump tower moscow. Would it concern you if a fusion g. P. S. , who is the Democrat Campaign operative arm, dirty operations arm, they were also working for russians, were you familiar with that . Mr. Mccarthy, are you familiar with fusion g. P. S. Was working for the russians . Mr. Mccarthy they were working in connection with the previson application. Which was brought by the department of justice in connection with the killing and fraud that flowed from that. Mr. Nunes were any of you mr. Anderson i was focused on the Mueller Report for this discussion. Mr. Nunes now you know fusion g. P. S. Is working for russians, the other thing that needs to be put on the record here is that not only was was g. D. P. Hired to oppose the act, to dirty up a friend of magnitsky, smear him, when simpson admitted the time he would he estify before the this committee that he met with the group that met at a trump tower, back to the trump tower meeting, he met him the day before, day of, and day after. You have simpson working not only for the Clinton Campaign, to dirty up trump, hes also working for the russians to dirty up anybody who doesnt oppose the act. Hes meeting with all those individuals now. U. S. Counterintelligence, former intelligence people would that raise any flags to you that a Clinton Campaign operative arm, who is working for these same russians, happened to be the same russians that are meeting with at trump tower offering supposed dirt . Mr. Mccarthy i think its not in a vacuum. Its not just about President Trumps campaign tore secretary clintons campaign. Its about the context of americans with information. Regardless Whose Campaign it was, if there was significant concerns or things that we thought that o could raise to that, i think it absolutely would be worth looking at. Mr. Nunes one of the things i stated in my opening, mueller doesnt talk doesnt talk about fusion g. P. S. At all even though it involved their questionable contacts with the russians, including the fact, ill a close with this for the record, after we discover all this, we brought simpson back and numerous other fusion g. P. S. Employees and they pled the fifth before this committee and refused to answer the questions. If that doesnt raise questions, i dont he know what does. With that i want to thank the itnesses for appearing today. I yield back. Mr. Schiff thank you. Just remind my colleagues that fusion g. P. S. Was originally hired in the president ial campaign by the conservative Washington Free beacon. This concludes our hearing. I want to thank the witnesses again for their participation. And the committee is adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit cspan washington journal live every day with news that impacts you. Coming up this morning, Georgia Republican senator david purdue discusses his proposal to reform the congressional budget process. Then California Democratic congresswoman bash lelie, a member of the appropriations and budget committees talks about the debate over federal spending and efforts to avoid another Government Shutdown this fall. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 eastern this morning. Join the discussion. The House Armed Services committee spent more than 18 hours, including an all night session working on spending for the defense department. Among the amendments considered, one dealt with authorization of military force, particularly against iran. After the amendment was debated for nearly an hour and ultimately withdrawn, heres the exchange between Committee Chair adam smith and republican member mike turner. Weve been through three administrations now that have taken that a. M. F. From 2001 and twisted it beyond all recognition to use it as a justification they have all other justifications in the war power resolution to responsibility as my colleagues have done a better job of explaining than i can. You shouldnt be able to use a inappropriate authority to engage in the military activity but stay within the law. The war powers resolution gives the president a amount of flexibility in a number of different options. Mr. Turner . There are so many things wrong with this. Lets start first with i think mr. Gallagher should get up and take a victory lap around the room on mr. Moultons statement he fought iran, i think that means iran fought him. I think he was a member of the armed forces and think it means and proves his argument number three could be check park satisfied though that wasnt the 2010. The worst part of this is the legislative malpractice to the fact this is horrible language. Mr. Moleons statement of course it gives them the power of the War Authority act. It doesnt say that and says no funds except for otherwise, it doesnt say nate or under article 5 of nato, iran should attack one of our nato allies that its ok it doesnt apply here. It says no funds. It doesnt have any other exception clauses except weve declared war, we specifically enact such actions or an attack has happened on the United States, not our allies. If they attacked iran this is not clear. Of course the president would be able to protect israel if iran was attacking them. This is not even necessary, contrary to what has been said in the prior statement, there was no statement by the administration they have Current Authority to go into iran. Those were the word used in this hearing. That they had authority to go into iran. No one from the administration has ever said that. Now, if you dont want them to use the aumf for 2001, say that, dont say this. This is the worst language on something that could not be so incredibly that is so incredibly important i cant imagine doing this, especially when you consider our allies and this neighborhood and interest in that neighborhood and what we try to do to help support our allies in america that you would so blanketly try to restrict again, theres so much in this bill i never thought id say thank god for the senate but thank god for the senate because theres so much in the bill thats horrifically written a that never will become law and thank god this is one of them. Goodness sakes, we could take the effort to draw legislation that is readable, understandable, and that actually can be intercepted both within the protection of the United States and National Security interests and our allies, i yield back. Would the gentleman yield for a question . I yielded back. But yes, we will pretend that didnt happen and if you wish to yield to mr. Gates. My question is it there was language that simply said its the sense of congress that the 2001 aumf does not authorize force against iran, would that satisfy the gentlemans drafting concerns . I yield back. Say that again, i didnt hear you. I was listening carefullyly to your argument. Would it satisfy your concerns where we said it was the sense congress the 2001 aumf does not authorize hostility to iran. It said it was their intent. At least youd have something written in english comparable to what theyre espousing as intent. Would you vote im not voting for that. But again, theres no one from the administration that said theyd do that. This is outrageous steps to be taken for something thats never been said. It is not something in front of us even to debate. The complete guide to congress is now available. It has lots of details about the house and senate for the current session of congress. Contact and bio information about every senator and representative, plus information about congressional committees, state governors, and the cabinet. The 2019 congressional directory is a handy spiral bound guide. Order your copy from the cspan online store for 18. 95. This morning on washington journal senator david purdue on his proposals to reform the congressional budget process. Later