Links to the russian government reached out to the Trump Campaign to telegraph the kremlins preference for mr. Trump. Joseph masud a london based malt east professor told george pap pop dops topz who told him the russians had dirt on Hillary Clinton including thousands of emails. Papadopoulos was informed that the russian government could assist the campaign through the anonymous release of stole be material. At the time mr. Papadopoulos was given this extraordinary information, the American Public was unaware that the dnc and Clinton Campaign had been hacked, let alone russia was behind the attack and planned to weaponize the data it stole. In july of 2016, the russian government began dumping the stolen emails in precisely the same fashion it had previewed for mr. Papadopoulos. It was informed of the russian outreach to papadopoulos and ware wire eaware that the russians medding through the aanonymous release of information gnat fbi opened up its investigation. But as james comey would explain in the first public testimony on the matter in march 2017 and before in 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 a u. S. Person may be acting as a waiting or unwitting agent of a foreign power . And how could the russians use the compromise of u. S. Persons in a manner that jeopardizes National Security . These are the questions we hope to answer. During a second of series of hearing the committee will sploerp the special counsels disturbing findings in volume one of the report. And to examine what steps are necessary to protect the public, our democracy and our National Security. We will hear from two former senior fbi executives who oversaw the Counterintelligence Division of the bureau who will help us better understand the counterintelligence complications of the range of contacts between the Trump Campaign and russians directly or indirectly tied to kremlin Intelligence Services. Volume one of the report outlines a sweemg and systemic effort by russia to interfere in the 2016 election for the benefit of donald trump. It establishes that the Trump Campaign welcomed the russian interference because it expected to benefit electorally from information stolen and released through the russian effort. It shows how the Trump Campaign built the theft and dumping of stolen russian domes that Campaign Messaging and strategy and as special counsel made clear it sets out in great detail why the conduct in his report should concern every american. The report details well over 10 oh contacts between the Trump Campaign and agents and officials of russia. Some of this outreach was conducted in public as when the president called on russia to hack his opponents emails and only hours later a unit of the Russian Military intelligence, the gru attempted to do exactly that. Other contacts took place outside of the public view as in the case of june 9, 2016 meeting at trump tower in new york. Between a russian delegation and the president s eldest son donald trump junior, his soninlaw Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort, Trumps Campaign chairman. That meeting was part of a plan to secretly receive help in the formal of dirt on Hillary Clinton from the russian government. Still other contacts with it between because of encrypted apps destroyed communications and deception remain shrouded in secrecy such as manaforts meeting was Konstantin Kilimnik someone the fbi assesses to have ties to russian intelligence. Manaforts provision of internal polling data to kilimnik and the discussion of the Campaign Strategy for winning democratic votes in midwestern states. Most americans consider the solicitation of forbear help during a president ial campaign, the offer of foreign assistance and the campaigns eagerness to accept the offer, quote, if tws what you say it is, i love it to institute plain evidence of collusion. Not to mention, the sharing of polling data and Campaign Strategy by the chairman of a campaign with a foreign nation which at that very tame time is interveeng to help their campaign win. Nevertheless within and contrary to the president s oft repeated manhattan ray and the many misrepresentations of the attorney general, the special counsel reached no conclusion a to whether the trump anticipates Campaign Russian contacts constituted cloudtogrounds since that term is not defined in criminal law. For those who have not yet read the report and most have not they might be astonished to find that a finding of no inclusion much less a finding of no instruction is no where to be seen on any page or passage of the Mueller Report. Instead in making its charging decisions the special counsel examined only whether it could meet the Justice Departments high bar of being able to eable to prove beyond aable reasonable doubt at trial each element of the crime of conspiracy and found it cano could not even as it Elvis Presleyed that the failure to establish a conspiracy did not mean the absence of evidence of conspiracy. Volume one of the Mueller Report is therefore by its nature and the special counsels mandate a report about the exercise of prosecutial judgment, who should be charged and who shouldnt. It does not contain the fbis counterintelligence findings, that is where Trump Campaign transition or administration figures, including the president , acting as agents of a foreign power waitingly or unwittingly, whether advancing foreign or other foreign interests by virtue of financial cent estes or compromise, whether or not such actions were a crime. These are the types of concerns that the fbis counterinterrelation division works to expose, prevent and investigate using an array of investigative and intelligence capabilities. As we will hear from our witnesses today, the primary objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to target an individual for prosecution. But to pret the nation by developing information about the actions and intelligences of foreign powers and to thwart them before they can act against us. The president s efforts to make money from a real estate project in moscow and to conceal the transaction from the public are a quintessential example of a counterintelligence nightmare that may or may not include criminal activity. It may not be a criminal to build a trump tower in moscow. Or for Michael Cohen to seek the kremlins help to do so. It may not be a criminal to try to enrich norz with a foreign business deal even while running for president or lie about it to the American People. But it is deeply compromising. And 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 due placety at any time. In fact when the trumps organizations efforts to enlist the kremlins help in the deal with exposed dmifrtry pesk off putin spokesman told the International Media that the kremlin never responded to Michael Cohens outreach thanks our Mueller Report and our investigation we know that mr. Peskovs statement was a lie. The kremlin did follow up. Here we have the prokt of kremlin participating in a coverup by the president of the United States. Here is what we know. The president sought 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. So did his personal lawyer and his National Security adviser. Some of the actors have been prosecuted. But all of their actions are deeply compromising of our National Security. And yet muellers report provides no evaluation of the counterintelligence concerns raised by these facts and others. Of you will a the questions mueller helped resolve he left many unanswered. What happened to the counterintelligence investigation . Were there other forms of compromise like Money Laundering left out uninvestigated or referred to other offices . Were individuals granted security clearances that shouldnt have . And are there individuals still operating in the administration that leave america vulnerable . We are determined to find out. And i now yield to Ranking Member for for any opening remarks he would like to make. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Here we are more than two years since democrats from this committee publicly claimed to have more than circumstantial evidence that the Trump Campaign colluded with russians to hack the 2016 election. And more than two years since they read false allegations in the steele dossier in the congressional record at open hearing of the committee. After that the American People were subjected to endless hysteria by the media, democrats and aanonymous intelligence leakers. Seemingly every day the media tri uly published a bombshell story often base on classified documents. The the reporters had not actually seen. Which purportedly proved that President Trump or some trump associate was a trecherrous russian agent. Democrats on this committee regularly joined the news pundit its in denouncing the traitors. Process eventually the democrat became convinced the Mueller Report would rid them of their citizen sister president who had the audacity to defeat Hillary Clinton. The entire scheme has imploded and the collusion accusation has been exposed as a hoax. One would think the democrats would simply apologize and get back to law making and oversight. Pup but its clear they couldnt stop the froh tevfik spectacle even in if they wanted to after years of mccarthyite spears the collusion hoax defines the exact party. Its the hoax they have in place of a governing philosophy who are a constructive vision for our country. The democrats assembled us today to analyze the shoddy political hit piece known as the Mueller Report. Its written in the same spirit and with the same purpose as the steele dossier which was once championed by democrats on this committee. But which they rarely mentioned after it was exposed as yet another democrat created hoax. Unfortunately for the democrats, the mueller dossier as i call it either did he bunked many favorite conspiracy theories or did not find them worth discussing. These include muellers finding that Michael Cohen did not travel to praying to conspire with the russians, no evidence that carter page expired with russians, no mention of Paul Manafort visiting julianne assauge in london, no mention of secret communications between a trump tower computer serve and Russias Alpha Bank and no mention of Julia Mitchell or supposed knowledge of pennsylvania scheme to launder money through the nra for the Trump Campaign. Insinuations that mitchell original these insinuation the against mitchell originated with fusion gps fiduciary and were published in a document by democrats on this committee. The really purpose of the mueller dossier how have was to help impeach the president in absence of any evidence of collusion. Us that the report includes a long litany of ordinary contacts between Trump Associates and reschens as if a certain number of contacts indicate a conspiracy even if no conversations actually created or even discussed a conspiracy. Excerpts from a voice mail turbtrump attorney john dowd that the mueller team slesktly edited to make it seem threatening and nefarious. No comment on the close relationship between democrat operative at fusion gps and multiple russians who participated in the june 9th, 2016 meeting at trump tower. And in fact, no mention or comment on fusion gps at all. No useful information on figures who played key roles in the investigation such as Joseph Mifsud a malta dprmt or the australia. Diplomat alexander downer, or the democrat paid operative former sfie Christopher Steele. No useful information about the many irregular harts that marred the fbis russia investigation. Furthermore, the mueller dossier cites dozens of articles from the reporters and publications most responsible for per pert eighting the russian hoax. Thus mueller produced a perfect feedback loop, intelligence leakers spin a false story to the media. The media publishes the story. The mueller cites the story and the media and the democrats then fake outrage at muellers findings. In sum mueller relied on a mass of reporting whose central navt that the Trump Campaign collude totd russians to hack the elections is false opinion and the democrats spread a hoax claiming strufrp as a russianth but later discovered the only people colluding were owe with russians were the democrats, who paid for the steele dossier which relied on russian sources. Id like to remine the democrats on this committee that this was created to do important oversight work of oh our intelligence agencies. This work is more crucial now that the media have abandoned traditional watch dog role and instead have become a mouthpiece of a cab willing of intelligence leakers. I i understand the democratis inability to move back the failed hoax and get back to normal business. Nevertheless, i suggest they give it a try. Welcome the speakers today and look forward to your emtestimony. I yield back. Thank you to our witnesses for coming before the committee today. To assure all members are able to ask questions due to kpeting business, of other committees this morning, todays witnesses will be afraided five minutes each for their Opening Statements which will be strictly enforced well proceed immediately it to member questions. I want to thank our witnesses for joining us for this important open hearing. Stephanie douglas counter serves as senior managering direct of guide post solution addressing high risk investigations and compliance matters. Prior to this attention miss douglas served 23 years in the fbi in a variety of roles including as executive assist directs of the National Security branch. Robert anderson is currently the chief executive officer of cyberdefense labs and previously was a principal at the chert you have a group and managing director at a consulting organization. He served in the fbi rights be to be executive executive direct of the criminal cyber responsance services branching. Id like to welcome the minority witness andrew mccarthy, a former assistant United States attorney like many staff from the Southern District of new york and currently a senior fellow at the National Review institute and cribbing editor of the National Review. And ms. Douglas well start with you. Good morning chairman schiff. Ranking member nunes and members of the committee. Thank 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 by the u. S. Intelligence community in early 2017, the russian government systemically and effectively used a a number of intelligence tools to impact the 2016 election. The special counsels report supports the conclusions and provides specific and detailed examples which illustrate of methods of russian influence. Im happy to answer questions regarding this report. But understand that i have no access to any supporting information or investigative detail other than that that is provide in the special counsels report. I proud to have been a special agent in the fbi for almost 24 years. Most of it focused on counterintelligence and National Security matters. While the fbi has been the soubt of much discussion in the press and elsewhere, i support the work of the counterintelligence professionals who worked with the special counsel to conduct this exhaustive investigation. I hope that my presence here and our discussion today will lead to further awareness and preparation for what is certain to be another highthreat election in 2020. So with that, im happy to answer your questions. Thank you. Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Ranking Member nunes, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today to talk about cyberer threats to our great nation and counterintelligence. I hope my background and experience as a former assistant director of intelligence for the fbi where i was responsible for all counterintelligence, espionage and economic espionage matters can assist in shedding light on the daifl threat our country faces from foreign Intelligence Services. The threats were highlighted several times by the heads of the United States Intelligence Community and also in the report on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 president ial election which is commonly known as the Mueller Report. In my current role as a ceo of a Cybersecurity Company i see hundreds and hundreds of cyberbreaches every year. And in my opinion these attacks originate from a variety of criminal organizations, nation states and activists. In my opinion, in the last three years, these attacks have become more sophisticated, prevalent and have occurred on a much larger scale than before. I think this is extremely important when we talk about Hostile Intelligence Services and their activities in the 21st century. During my career i had the privilege to work are for three directs louis freih, Robert Mueller and james comey. The last position i held as the chair was the executive director of criminal Services Response and cyberservices branch. And i managed a number of divisions but mainly in charge of high profile criminal and cyberinvestigations. The threats to our country have changed remarkably since when i first entered into Law Enforcement in 1987 as a young delaware state trooper. During my career i had the privilege to work alongside the men and women of the fbi and the United States Intelligence Community who i can tell you have worked tirelessly to combat the Hostile Intelligence Services activities to our great country. As the committee knows, a number of sophisticated katina intelligence cyberattacks against the nation as networking and private seccer companies and government has increased dramatically. I look forward to discussing the issues with you today and the committee and i stand ready for your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Anderson. Mr. Mccarthy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member nunes, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here this morning. I served as a federal prosecutor for nearly 20 years, almost all at the United States Attorneys Office for the Southern District of new york where i retired in 2003 as the chief assistant u. S. Attorney of the Southern Districts Satellite Office in white plains. Since leaving Government Service ive been a wroir and commentator. Im appearing this more than in my personal capacity as a former Government Official who cares deeply about our National Security and the rule of law. For most of my first several years as a prosecutor my work focus ds on international organized crime. After the World Trade Center was bombed on february 26, 1993, i spent much of the last decked of my tenure working on National Security investigation. Im proud to have led the successful praegs of sheik omar abdominal rak manual and 11 others for conspiring to wichmann a war of terrorism against the United States. I was privileged in the effort to wong work alongside a superb female of federal prosecutors, support staff 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 that the constitution and federal law make available for the execution of that mission. While it escapes the attention of Many Americans who know the bureaus a the nations premier Law Enforcement agency, the fbi is also as my colleagues at the table noted are our domestic security service. This is a purposeful arrangement of on our governments part to have both the National Security and Law Enforcement mission housed in the same under the same bureaucratic roof. And i believe its a prudent one and that the fbi does it generally speaking in an exceptional fashion. I look forward to engaging with the committee. Id make a few general points to start about volume one of the report. It draws three principal conclusions preponderates first the putin regime perceived advantage in Trump Victory and conducted its operations accordingly. Second, there is evidence that 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 the two findings are more in the the nature of political assertions than prosecutorial findings. If there is insufficient evidence that a conspiratorual enterprise existed, a prosecutor has no business speculating on the motives in a politically provocative manner. More over, i do not believe the assertion is borne out by the evidence. The report shows that agents of putins regime expressed support for trumps candidacy. That is entirely consistent with the motivation to insight divisions and dissent in the body politic of free western nations, which is russias mo throughout the world. Russias goal is to destabilize western governments, which advantages the kremlin by making it more difficult for those governments to pursue their interests in the world. Putin tends to back the candidates he believes will lose on the theory that an alienated losing faction will make it harder for the winning faction to govern. Putin is all about russias interests, which is destabilization. It is a mistake i respectfully submit to the committee, to allow him to divide us by portraying him as on one side or the other side. He is against all of us. There is 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 admiral aspect of our electoral politics that campaigns seek negative information youve mistically known asp oh sigs research wherever they can find tutt op process President Trumps opponent hoped to benefit from Tax Information they contacted the yurnen government appear through agents hired a former british spy to tap kremlin connected operative about damaging information about trump. The First Amendment makes it difficult to regulate this sort of thing. Our guiding principle is that good information will win out against bogus information. We can debate how well that works. But shouldnt pretend that the Trump Campaign is the first or only one ever to play this game. Finally, as for the conclusion that there was no trump russia conspiracy to commit espionage or violate other federal criminal law, i believe this had to have been obvious no later than the end of 2007. In september of 2017 the carter page fisa warrant lapsed. Im sorry your time has expired but we will receive the kret written tomorrow testimony. Ing that thank you. Ill recognize myself for five minutes. Miss douglas, the investigation as james comey revealed when he testified before our committee, the first time in open session about the trump investigation, gone as a counterintelligence probe. The Mueller Report devotes only one appraise to that counterintelligence investigation. In it mr. Mueller says from its inception the office recognize ds that its investigation could happy could ive foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information relevant to the fbis broader National Security mission. Fbi personnel who assisted the office established procedures to identified and convey such information to the fbi. It then talks about counterintelligence, fbi agents embedded within muellers team sending findings back to headquarters. We have yet to see those findings. Can you tell us the nature of that counterintelligence investigation or a counterintelligence investigation, where those findings would go within the fbi, whether counterintelligence investigations like criminal probes have a formal opening and form closing, since the counterintelligence investigation doesnt result necessarily in criminal charges, when coast the counterintelligence probe come to an end . And where do we need to go to find out answers . Thank you. So i do recall reading that appraise in the report. And based on the appraise it sounds like there are intelligence components sitting within the Mueller Investigative Team that is reporting other information that may fall outside the purview of the scope of the Mueller Investigation. So it could be Additional Information that theyre developing in the course of their investigation that has counterintelligence aspects to it, that needs to be looked at independent of the Mueller Investigation. So it could be another contact with the russian that they dont think really falls within the scope of the Mueller Investigation, that they then will task out through an intelligence apparatus to an appropriate place either in a field office or to headquarters, to run down possibly a separate investigation would be spun up on Something Like that. Counterintelligence investigations do have an opening and closing. And theyre not unlike criminal investigations in a lot of different ways. You have to be able to articulate a spread indication for an investigation. You have to initially kind of take it through a number of different steps to really affirm the allegation in the first place. And then as you gather information relative to that allegation you may have an ability to increase the different tools that you use against it, based on the amount of evidence, information and intelligence that you are gathering under that case authority. It could be a preliminary investigation. And i know that youre familiar with some of that, that there are limited tools you can deploy against that, or it could be a full investigation which allows you a much broader set of investigative tools. But there can be beginnings i mean there are beginnings and ends of these investigations. I hope i explained the intelligence aspect pushing it back to other components that would actually take the lead and do further work on it outside the scope of the Mueller Investigation. Yes, maam. Thank you. Mr. Anderson, the Mueller Report focuses really on two things. It focusings on the russian hacking dumping operation and focuses on the russian social media operation and the question whether u. S. Persons conspired with either. It does not analyze whether, to for example, financial motivations, the president s desire to build a trump tower in moscow or the Campaign Chairman Paul Manaforts zir to make money from Russian Oligarch determin deripaska or the securing of financing for Trump Properties motivated policies towards russia either during the campaign or there after. Would those be in the nature of counterintelligence concerns . And what might concern the fbi about u. S. Persons of influence in administration seeking to make money from foreign powers even as they guide u. S. Policy . Thank you, mr. Chairman. First of all, when it comes to russia and the svr, gru or fsb be with number one, two and three priorities in the country. They will exploit any avenue that they can when it comes to trying to get to the ends to whatever their trying to do, whether intelligence or looking to potentially extort somebody into action. It doesnt surprise me at all that the russian government launched sophisticated Cyber Operations against our during during the times when we look it at it in the report. They are some of the best in the world at this, quite frankly. They will take that information and exploit it in any way they can. When it comes to the actual individuals that have been approached or talked to in an around the Trump Campaign before he became president , even afterwards, it also doesnt surprise me from what i read in the Mueller Report that they are going after or at least looking to appear to meet with numerous individuals around and inside the campaign. Its an absolute trade craft of russia and the russian Intelligence Services. They will never have a point of failure. If they are looking to try to obtain or pass information or potentially even influence information, theyll make sure that they have numerous aspects or points to where they can try to get that done. So to answer your question sfeskly about that, there are definitely situations where in some instances as stephanie said, you would have concerns about that. And then you would either go out potentially contending on what they say and talk to the i had haves that were being approached, or potentially what other information you have, you may then open up either assessments or some type of investigation to look at that. It would definitely be be a counterintelligence concern. Whats the concern when you have policy makers seeking to make money from an adversary at the same time theyre making policy . Well, there is a that i think is pretty clear. I mean, you know in the Business World its a Global Business and market i understand that. But when it comes to national skourt of country there is specific rules with all of this, regarding clearances and also what we can and cannot do as a government employee. Those rules abthe committee knows become more intense the higher you go within government. I think you always have to look at when looking at russia there is a socalled president over there that was a former Lieutenant Colonel in the kgb one of the most vicious Intelligence Services in the history of the world disbanded before he went into politics. He absolutely understands how to the run proactive intelligence and counterintelligence operations against our country. Thats a high area of threat we shall be concerned about. Mr. Nunes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Im concerned about anybody in the department of justice or the fbi current or former official that is would think its okay to open up a counterintelligence investigation into Political Campaigns. I think thats really at the forefront of what weve been facing here. Mr. Mccarthy, are you aware of all your 20 plus years at the Justice Department, that there was ever a time a counterintelligence investigation opened up on any president ial campaign . That youre wore of. Im not aware of a specific situation like that. We do have a history in this country of government interference in Political Campaigns. In fact, the fisa law is a vest ij of exactly the sort of thing we are talking about in the 1960s and 70s, you know political spying and the notion we needed to give americans a modicum of due process. It was the reason for not only the creation of the fisa laws but the creation of this committee was to ensure the intelligence agencies stayed out of politics. That was why we provided oversight. We dont have to get into this too much as you know the trump team never received a briefing. It seems like at some point they would have went to if they had concerns about individuals they would have went to the Trump Campaign and explained it to them, especially since they had two former u. S. Attorneys on the staff or on the team. In both governor christie and former mayor rudy giuliani. I want to get to joseph mifsed because he seems to be the character at the beginning of the saga. Supposedly the one who was able to see or knew about emails talked to papadopoulos about emails. I only go to what mueller says in his report. He portrays him as having deep ties to russia, detailing trips to mobz and extensive contacts with russian officials. Now he stopped mueller stopped short of calling him a russian agent. James comey the former fifb director in the Washington Post does call him pennsylvania russian agent. Im not sure what he know that is mueller does not know. However, my big concern about mifsed and see he was a malta diplomat. He was worked closely with the imten government. Described in the press as a western intelligence asset by some in the press. He worked at the London Center thats affiliated with many operations in the uk. Has been a guest speaker at numerous Foreign Policy forums all over the globe. I think most concerning to me two things are most concerning, one is he was known to train or train with fbi officials in italy. And also that he actually spoke here in the United States Congress Just steps from not this committee this is the Budget Committee we are in. But a few hundred feet away from the house Intelligence Committee. In 2017 this was after, you know, he knew you will of this supposedly. And yet, you know, he was invited by our own state department. So, mr. Mccarthy, my question to you is, if mifsed is what james comey said a russianth we have compromiseds in the u. S. State department, compromising within the fbi, possibly the department of justice. Well, you know, look, jim comey has a lot plor information about mifsed than i do. Ive been out of government a long time. I do note that the Mueller Report is very careful, i thought, about the way that mifsed is described. They do not they say he has deep connections to russia. They dont say hes got deep connections to the russian regime necessarily or certainly to russian swellinIntelligence Services. I thought it was interesting we learned in the report that mifsed was interviewed by the fbi and denied having told papadopoulos that they discussed emails. The reason i found that interesting is if there is anything we learn from the Mueller Investigation its that mr. Mueller was quite good at bringing false statements prosecutions if he thought he could prove the witnesses who they were interviewing had given false information to the fbi. No such prosecution was ever brought against mifsed. I thoughts that was an interesting fact as well. Also in the Mueller Report in one of the footnotes, they refer to a media story which i outlined in my opening statement. In the same media report they used to justify where mifsed worked they left out the fact that in the same media story he was described as a western intelligence asset. Why did that not make it into the Mueller Report. Youre asking the wrong guy. Its a little peculiar, i would think. My time is up, mr. Chairman ill yield back. Mr. Himes. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel. The Mueller Report highlights the counterintelligence risk posed by Financial Leverage that the russians may have had over individuals a variety of individuals close to President Trump especially Paul Manafort. The report explains that quote manafort had connections to russia through his prior work for Russian Oligarch olick determine za and leader for hiswork in pro roche russian work in ukraine. Manafort stayed in contact with the contacts through Konstantin Kilimnik a longterm manafort employee who ran his the operations in keefe and tide to russian intelligence. With he no he that manafort owed deripaska substantial sums of money. Many of manaforts contacts with kremlin aligned actors took place while he was chairman of donald Trumps Campaign. Among other things, manafort, quote, instructed rick gates his deputy on the campaign and a longtime kbe to provide kilimnik with updates on the Trump Campaign including internal polling data. It appears that manafort believed that by sharing confidential Campaign Information with deripaska one of putins most loyal oligarchs he could resolve their quote disagreement originating from several lawsuits filed by deripaska against manafort. The Ranking Members opening comments that the contacts with russia were ordinary notwithstanding and mr. Mccarthy with due respect to many decades of service, to this country, that is not whatservice, that is not what campaigns do. Sharing internal polling data with a hostile foreign power is not what kim aims do. I am willing to bet you or anybody else my next paycheck that not a single number of congress the 535 of us ever oust our Campaign Managers to share our internal polling data with a hostile foreign power. Mister anderson, let me start with you. How could the kremlin or its Intelligence Services try to exploit manaforts long standing business and personal relationship what risks are posed by such a relationship with a president ial campaign . There is a lot. Obviously they would exploit if they had Financial Leverage on that individual, they would exploit every inch of that. The one thing i will tell you about russian Intelligence Services if you read a book from 1940 it is the same an in your face not a very polite bunch of people that will use any means possible once they have locked on into an individual may deem necessary to get to the end they are going after. Not only with the exploit Financial Information from Mister Manafort or anyone else, they would use that to look at individuals around those financial transactions, in other words, not only him, going out individuals around this financial transaction that if for some reason that did not work against him they would look at other avenues to get toward that. Thank you. Douglas, let me ask you a variant of that question, how could russias knowledge of manafort illicit dealings for which she is now a tenant of the United States government which stem from his work with the parties in ukraine use compromising material as the russian government and a covert influence directed at the us public, how could the russians use what they knew about palmore for to their advantage . They did it very effectively and one of the ways they did it that is immediately apparent is they test him and that is one of the initial test when you are developing an asset for intelligence asset. It could you elaborate on that they tasked can you elaborate on how they did that. They asked him to provide polling data and like you said pulling data is not the keys to the kingdom, but it is a small step that illustrates his willingness to provide information to someone he knows he is holding to financially and an ongoing lawsuit, fees that are owed, and he is willing to provide internal Campaign Information to a Foreign Government and to a person who was closely tied to the kremlin and, i think, that is a great illustration of how the russians work and Paul Manafort was very, very forward leaning on volunteering all of his abilities, experience with connections and he made that available in addition. I thought that was very interesting that they are tasking him and building upon that and if you wouldve stayed with the campaign i am sure they wouldve continued to ask him. Thank you i will heal back. Mister conaway. Former fbi director testified before this committee in open session that the coordination as an investigative technique and its investigations has since become clear that the u. S. Intelligence committee expended much time and resources supporting the investigation into the Trump Campaign and unfounded collusion with russia regarding the election. Nearly a month after the election president obama ordered a review of activities. Why would the administration not conduct this type of review earlier especially given the october 2016 Public Statement by the agencies regarding russian cyber activity . I think that they did take some investigative steps. It is debatable certainly whether they should have taken more. To hear them tell it they would say that they had to weigh the difference, the competing cost between what the reaction wouldve been if they had appeared to be putting their thumb on the scale in the middle of the campaign and investigative way versus how do we stop russia from doing what russia was doing and you can certainly argue whether they made the right value judgment there. It is appropriate then for Outgoing Administration to use these resources of the cia, nsa and federal bureau to conduct an assessment and not give the not consult with the Incoming Administration . To my mind the assessment is peculiar in that having worked in the government for very long time ordinarily the kind of an assessment that you are talking about their would be something that would take well over a year and certainly many months to do even under circumstances where the information was readily available to investigators who had things like grand jury power in order to conduct the investigation. Seems to me that in this instance there was a rush to get that out within a matter of days and rolled it out while president obama was still president. All three of you have extensive careers with the fbi. I dont want to phrase the question with an answer, but troubling relationships within the higher fbi and their attitude toward this Trump Administration and the conflict of interest that that seems to most folks has been in place and worried about a commercial transaction that trump tower wouldve been in moscow are at a way to hide that and no entities involved. Folks at the top is that the standard for the fbifirst of all, and other criminal or counterintelligence period it should be neutral. You should be looking at a neutral plane field and developing the evidence to see where it leads you and it should be able to stand on its own. That is the way i work and was involved for my whole career. As far as all this stuff the last couple years it is obviously very disconcerting about the different accusations that are taking place. I think any of these investigations should have looked at specific facts and let the facts lead you where they go and it should not matter one bit if someone is republican or democrat or independent. What was your experience . Very similar to bob. We were talking earlier, we dont know political preferences and weve been friends for 2 decades. It is not, everyone comes into every position at a different how did the leadership fail . How did it feel with respect to several of the top people involved in the briefings of the campaign, how did that happen where they had clear preferences for trump getting beat and some sort of secret weapon, how did the system fail itself russian mark . Peeps truck was my director of staff and i never saw that side of what i saw in the email and Text Messages and those are unbelievably inappropriate and corrective action that was taken is right. I cant answer your question because i didnt see it. Think you will for being here today. Beginning in the spring and summer of 2016 the glu pack the Clinton Campaign manager john podesta email and the dnc and and through their online personas leaks as well as wikileaks. They seem to be russians have an effort to harm the Clinton Campaign and maximize the Trump Campaign. We also know there is a lot of evidence that the campaign knew about the release about how to amplify the message as part of the campaign and donald trump junior communicated directly with wikileaks. Report indicates that the president himself new about the planned dump of emails. Seems like an obvious russian counterintelligence what might this set of facts suggest about the relationship between the campaign and what might you worry about and if they had knowledge of the release and more broadly what risk is this one a campaign uses just because of the facts laid out in the report and what you just brought up. I thought there needs to be a heightened sense of counterintelligence relationships as the administration moves into the white house. I think in this administration unlike others that ive seen or have been involved in to read these to understand and i didnt see a lot of people within that at least and i think there should be a lot of bad. There is a point where russia is releasing what i would call cutouts wikileaks and other platforms to start looking at you got that information, how did they get that information and why are they using it. It wouldnt surprise me if there are other entities that the russian Intelligence Services had teed up to maybe displace more information that they never utilized. Going back to your question individuals that are giving information are being tasked and receiving information possibly beaver i would like to add if youre a foreign power and you have a campaign for individuals who are willing to entertain receiving information that you are collecting i think that is a passive approval of that action either a Foreign Government, a foreign actor that what they are doing which is illegal by hacking and collecting information and releasing it, giving that kind of approval by a hadnot or a suggestion or any kind of inference that it is okay task approval for that kind of behavior and that is a greater risk. Have you read the report in its entirety . Ive read all of volume 1 because i knew we were going to be discussing it today and i have read most of volume 2. You are ahead of most. You read for all the context coming over from the russian side. At any of those points putting yourself in the place of those who receive that context at any of those points would you call the fbi . Would i have . I call the fbi for things a lot less serious than that i imagine. I do think however else you feel about the report you think someone shouldve called the fbi . Yes. There is no question and my colleagues here at work counterintelligence im certain would tell you, we always want information, any information that would be helpful to us in apprising what the likely intention is of potentially hostile groups are. Where it gets dicey and where you have to be careful is if you are going to use investigative techniques that require a particular quantum of intelligence and you need to make sure you satisfy that before you trigger that technique. That i think is where you go from the collection of information to something that is more active. I yield my five minutes. Thank you for yielding and thank you for coping here. Mr. Mccarthy bob mueller details efforts to influence the 2016 election by the russian government. Those details are largely set forth in two separate indictments, one identified 12 Russian Hackers associated with dgr you and another one identifying 13 individuals and three organizations part of Russia Internet Research agency. Is that accurate . Yes. Did the special counsel find that the sweeping and systematic efforts to influence our election again before or after Donald Trumps entry into the 2016 president ial field . If i remember quick correctly he traced it back to 2014. What is it also determined that the sweeping and systematic efforts to interfere in the 2016 election not only predated Donald Trumps entry into the campaign, but also included some action by the russian government that was decidedly antitrump in nature . In the end that particular was true. Was it based on evidence by a team of nearly 60 fbi agents and prosecutors over a twoyear period by bob mueller team to make an evidencebased decision not to charge any american much less anyone associated with the Trump Campaign with any complicity, within a conspiracy and with any collusion related crime in the russia election interference . That is my understanding. Stuck despite the finding a alshon for anyone associated with his campaign conspired or colluded or was in any way successful in meddling in the 2016 president ial election it is hard to argue that russia wasnt successful in their ultimate goal of undermining the outcome of our election and is sowing the seeds of discord in the American Democratic process when he look no further than this very room to see evidence of russias success. Our country endured a twoyear investigation to determine whether or not the president of the United States was part of a treasonous conspiracy with a foreign adversary to steal an American Election that the same Democratic Party that started the investigation into that alleged conspiracy that the special counsel conclusively and unequivocally established never existed now convenes this hearing to talk about it some more. So lets talk about some of the reasons why the russians mightve been so sick is full in sowing the seeds of discord into the American Publics my. Let me ask you about factors that may or may not have contributed to their success. First, the Obama Administration not to advise candidate trump during the defensive briefing in early august 2017 about suspected russian interference or infiltration into his campaign while simultaneously opening a probe of the Trump Campaign using foreign counterintelligence fine authorities. You think that might have been a factor that contributed to their success . Their success sowing discord in the body of politics . Yes. I will say this, i think russia succeeded beyond its wildest dreams if that is what the intentions were. I dont think that that necessarily means that it is entreaties by russians that was connected to any campaign. You think that mightve been a factor in their success . I think in terms of sowing discord the fact that that particular conclusion did not seem to me to be compelling given what the evidence is and what we understand pugins general thoughts in the west is. I dont think it helps to have people come out and say he was in trumps camp when it appears that if we look at everything he does everywhere he is in the camp of the people he thinks are going to lose because he thinks that is better for him. To use fis obtained through verified applications based on the unverified dossier which the Obama Justice department and the fbi knew to be an uncooperated Clinton Campaign research document. Do you think that was a factor that contributed to the success of russia . We dont know everything we need to know about the fisa applications but i think they shouldve been more forthcoming with the court about the providence of the dossier. The time has expired. I appreciate your indulgence and he asked questions for 7 minutes and 27 seconds. May i have an additional minute . That is his prerogative. We have time for one last question. I have run out of time listing all the things the Obama Administration did or didnt do contributing to the success of the intrusion in the election. This is to learn lessons from the Mueller Report. You think it is fair for a lot of the questions that this committee needs to be asking to understand and hopefully prevent russia success in undermining future elections ought to be focused on the administration of president obama rather than President Trump . I think would be a very good thing for the country if we had a common understanding that putin has it in for us whether this country is being run by republicans or democrats and what his objective is is to destabilize the United States so that we can not pursue and protect our interest in the world. I appreciate the in joelton indulgence. Unhealed back. Thank you mr. Chairman. I would like to express my gratitude to the panels. I now we know the Mueller Report included numerous examples of russian interference in the 2016 president ial election and we know the a special counsel in his public presentation closed his remarks by suggesting that absolutely every american should be concerned about this. I know we all are. Instead, however, instead of addressing what the fbi director ray described as an ongoing threat contrasted to we have a president who is attacked special counsel investigation, attacked the fbi generally tried to undermine the work product that the Mueller Investigation and more to the point, the president has called their attacks at various times and repeatedly on our democracy a hoax and has literally cited as we famously know with Vladimir Putin over our own intelligence agencies. Considering that task is prolonged we are all greatly concerned that similar interference will occur in the future. For my question which i think i want to start with mister anderson. We didnt have the money to propose a high Salary Increase and that difference of opinion became manifestly contentious. The governor accepted an invitation to go to the Capitol Rotunda to address the employees for many months and when he went out there werent hundreds, there were thousands and a lined the walls in several levels and it was difficult for him to give his remarks because they were expressing their understandable frustration in loud terms. Walking back to our office and i turned to the governor and asked i dont understand why you did it more defend your points of view and i will never forget what he told me. He turned to me and he said that is our workforce. If we are going to accomplish anything is going to be with that workforce. Those are our people and we are only able to do what we can do for them so my question, mr. Anderson, as a former official at the fbi despite the Public Statements of stiff upper lip, we are professionals and we go to work every day, is the barrel and most importantly our workforce those dedicated professionals completely immune from these attacks by the president of the United States . I know you are not there now, but if you were there id be curious as to what your reaction would have been to that and what you think might be the reaction by the workforce and if you think they would be concerned about their job or their work in light of the attack. I have never seen anything like this in my almost 30 years of Law Enforcement and i think the fbi for over 100 years has been a lot of ups and downs. I think it has taken a toll. The men and women will go to work and give 110 and work 18 hours every day. People dont see that. This takes a toll the one thing i will tell you, when it comes to russia and many other nationstates they didnt just start on this in 2014 and they didnt go away. They are not leaving. I guarantee you they are still here looking at the next election and figuring out how they can attack it, cyber or any other way they can and i think, overall that does take effect. Thinking more prospectively because our primary concern is what we can do to avoid this interference in the future. Do you believe that there would be a net gain or a benefit we created in our affirmative duty to report any time that there would be any kind of contact with foreign representatives . I think it would be very wellcrafted. People come in contact. It is a global world. Official representatives of the president ial campaign. Stuck at i think even then you will have to be very careful. I think that there is so much interaction in the global world even here in d. C. So many opportunities to meet people. They are not malicious. They are not intelligence officers. I think it is possibly something to consider and it would have to be wellcrafted and appropriate and would be something you could actually do and be able to hold people accountable to. My time has expired, obviously, we still beg the question that i hope we will get a chance to get into is what or recommendations would be to avoid this kind of interference moving forward. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. As a veteran i have always tried to put my Country First and through all this we are talking about, one of the things i am most disturbed about is an American Political Party would hire a Foreign Agent who works with agents of a foreign power, namely russia, to create a fake document on their political common and many and authority seemingly completely choose to ignore that. That is not part of the conversation. In 2018 the majority found no evidence of collusion coordination or conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and the russian government. We address risk interference and their tactics and what we would try to do in the future to eliminate that. Two years ago on this committee which was my second term on this committee, things change. We were very nonpartisan. It changed and a division grill and i sat here and said to the committee what is going on right now is exactly what putin wants. We are giving him everything he has worked for and as you said it is beyond his wildest dreams. We have. Through all of this, here we are in with the team of 19 lawyers, 40 fbi agents and forensic accountants and other professional staff the special Counsel Office which issued more than 2800 subpoenas executed 500 search warrants interviewed 500 witnesses and made nearly 13 request to governments and concluded that the investigation did not establish that the members of the Trump Campaign conspired to coordinate in the election. I think they had more than the resources. And had appropriate access. So far as i know i can only answer these questions. What your experience in this arena i have no reason. They had more access and tools in any Congressional Committee has. With all these resources at hand i find it hard to believe the special Counsel Office 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. Me ask you this, how are the sources and counterintelligence investigations that did . The fbi generally speaking as , person and the human dynamic in my experience ever goes away. Actually areas and the agent side and often very difficult work with the agents because i was a prosecutor and the agent has to take the brunt of the more crazy stuff. You you are operational tasking and asset there are ways you can test to make sure they are providing credible information. They go through a vetting system on a regular basis and files are reviewed at a supervisory level. My time is short. I appreciate your answer. If the fbi were to run a confidential human source into a Political Campaign or against individuals with seated, with the fbi notify someone in the campaign to let them know that that was happening and if not, why not . Ordinarily, no. If you are investigating the campaign you wouldnt notify the campaign. There if it is not the candidate, but someone in the campaign wouldnt you want them that no need to know someone there campaign may be doing this. I think this goes to what some of the members of the committee have mentioned which is the idea of what you do a defensive briefing. I think if what you think is you have some people who are in the orbit of the campaign who are problematic that might be something you would give them a heads up and if you have decided that everything in the dossier is true and the candidate is the problem, i dont see how you would notify the campaign since the candidate is the one person they are not going to get rid of. Someone in my campaign was doing something nefarious and engaging with a hostile foreign entity i would sure hope i was informed. I healed back. And it deals with his meeting with joseph. According to the mall report in late april 2016 papadopoulos was told by a londonbased professor immediately after his return from a trip to moscow that the russian government had obtained dirt on and that is dirt, from the mall report on candidate clinton of thousands of emails. One week later 2016 he suggested to a representative of a Foreign Government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the russian government that it would assist the campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging to candidate clinton. Mr. Anderson, it appears to me that from reading the mall report that joseph was cultivated and communicated sense of the information by march 2016 had been publicly named as a Foreign Policy advisor to then candidate trump , why might this type of cultivation raise flags at the bureau . I would suggest the fact that he was so engaged with papadopoulos that he was a sea of the kremlin in that case. Can you elaborate a little bit about your thoughts about that meeting between pop topless and joseph and went 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 objective . Things you for the question. One of the things people need to realize is when foreign powers are going on individuals to try to gain access or recruit or use them unwittingly is not like you see on tv. A lot of the times the people that are coming up people intentionally and i dont know if he was a source of the russian government or not. They will utilize individuals in academia, people in certain social sections, it will utilize people outside of threatening environments where you are meeting with an official and for people like me that have worked this for very long time and see thousands of these cases, it raises the level of suspicion. The one thing that troubles me more is once the tasking starts nsf said earlier i cannot tell you when it comes to validating, venting, recruiting or seeing if this is someone you should potentially spot and assess for later recruitment. This is a big deal and they will watch to see what the information is given and given back to that individual. From an academic side i can tell you that the russian use a lot and they use it in different circles. Ms. Douglas, papadopoulos was told russia had Clinton Emails and the desire to release them anonymously. Well before that became public. Why might a foreign adversary like russia want to provide such Sensitive Information to someone like papadopoulos . A president ial Campaign Staffer and and what would they gain. He said he was of no interest initially when he met him until he said he was involved with the campaign and there was reengagement after moscow. He is one of the many areas where there are opportunities and they are looking to establish relationships that may be are not overly successful on that first once or twice where they have conversations, they want to establish a relationship of the future. George papadopoulos was a heavy player in the campaign and he was very early on with his assignment at the campaign with they started having conversations and the russians know that he is early on with the campaign and he could be with the administration in the future and we want to get in good with him now. Mifsud and another national papadopoulos introduced him to use his relationship with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to push for a secret meeting between donald trump and Vladimir Putin. What sort of counterintelligence risk might a secret meeting between candidate trump and putin generate . Preelection trying to set up a meeting between a candidate and a leader of our most significant adversary outside normal channels and papadopoulos putting him in a position where he could arrange it honestly puts the campaign had greater jeopardy. Thank you, ms. Douglas, i appreciate you said something exactly right. I love that you and mr. Anderson work side by side and are not aware of each others political views. When i listen to mister comey, the director of national intelligence, they sound like political hacks and i wonder how in the world could someone so political and partisan be selected to such a position. You set a much better example. Mr. Chairman, im glad you had this hearing it gives a chance to tell the American People the truth. It takes courage to hold this hearing which demonstrates much of what people have heard is not true and it to emphasize what they molar report clearly found the special counsel did not find the Trump Campaign or anyone associated with it conspired, or needed despite multiple efforts by russia affiliated officials to assist the Trump Campaign. I would like to emphasize something that i feel very strongly about and i think the American People feel strongly about this. It is unfair and i think it is unamerican to make accusations about people without evidence. To destroy the lives and the presumption of innocence. To destroy peoples professional lives and destroyed them financially when they dont have the ability to defend themselves. The American People know these things arent fair and hearing this gives us a chance to emphasize that. I would like to look at the more troubling aspects and this is the pfizer application. This is a very intrusive tool. And allow someone to survey your email, text, family and friends. I will use a word and heads are going to explode, it allows you to spy on u. S. Citizens and yet knowing the pfizer application was based on the dossier, mr. Mccarthy, i will start with you shouldnt they have verified the dossier . I believe they should have. I believe in this equation is much more like a case agent in a source. Generally speaking for prosecutors and or in any warrant situation whether it is the pfizer warrant or not the Source Information for the people who see and hear make the observations that the court is being asked to rely on for purposes of probable cause. It generally doesnt matter if your case agent is credible it is the Source Information. This is painfully obvious that the fbi should verify information before presenting it. Before any court. If you mean verify cooperate. Especially the pfizer court because im sure you are familiar with the dossier. I have never read it. Up i have not read it either. Stuck i have read it. Mr. Mccarthy, thank you. I would challenge you or anyone who has read it to tell us anything in there that we now know is true. You know of any accusation made in the steele dossier that we now know are true . Stuck there are a number of assertions that are made which are true, but not important. We know that carter page did go to moscow in july. What he did there is the subject of a great deal of back and forth. Whether he went there or not is not in conflict. That is not a crime going to moscow. When you are dealing in counterintelligence none of it is necessarily a crime is is he acting as an agent of a foreign power. Mypoints is this thing which was almost late entirely for the pfizer application we know that the accusations are not true. That begs the second question and that is your knowledge and i will ask any of the three of you, has the fbi ever used Political Opposition Research funded by a u. S. Political campaign and including information from worn agents in a counterintelligence investigation . Mr. Anderson are you aware of that happening before . I am not aware of anything. That doesnt mean it hasnt happened before. Ms. Douglas. Im not familiar with any prior use. May i say i have taken information from the worst people on the planet and i have taken information from terrace and murderers and swindlers. When you do this kind of work the people you get information frontend the question is what you do with the information when you get it and the more suspect that the resources, the more and higher your obligation to verify it before you use it in anyway that will intrude on anyones rights. Thank you my time has expired. I want to ask you about Michael Flynn and particularly his relationship and actions with the Russian Ambassador and his attempt to undermine obama sanctions that were put into place in december 2016. Michael flynn used secret back channel with the Russian Ambassador to undermine the Obama Administration ongoing policy so my question is what counterintelligence arise from this type of back channel nation between Incoming Administration and a foreign adversary . Why would the fbi be concerned with an incoming National Security advisor before the president new president has taken office and informing the state department. One of the things about back channels or National Security issues is one of the things that russia and other significant nation states and intelligence organizations try to have that created and they try to get the Current Administration whether it is the one that is there now or whenever having their public face confused what the state department is saying or people that say stuff through a back channel. This is the exact same thing that was going on with the maria case which i was the expert for four weeks ago and they will do it at different levels. Regardless if it is National Security advisors which wants the individual moves into office it is not unusual for them to be talking to a multitude of investors. The key is russia wants to get the administration whatever administration that is off balance what their real political views are and potential back channel. I would, obviously, agreed that it was immediately put the existing administration in a horribly conflicted position and they didnt know it. By the back channel in advance of inauguration it jeopardizes how the u. S. Was viewed by the russians and also it probably assured the russians that they were going to get a more favored treatment by the Incoming Administration and even Michael Flynn says that when he says i didnt put any of this in an email or notes because i thought it looked like we were undermining the Current Administration and that is exactly what he was doing. The molar report explains he had a preexisting relationship with russia from late 2015 when he traveled to attend an event organized by the fresh estate back media outlet which he sat next to one reboot in himself and also reportedly met secretly with ambassador kislyak on many occasions during the transition period. My question is, what you make of this relationship in particular and given his role as the head of the Defense Intelligence agency and the incoming National Security advisor and how might russia exploit this relationship with him to exploit United States . Is speaking from my own personal experience, obviously having known and worked with him i would say it was a surprising position for him to take. Obviously, he had very high level access to information and seen that as a close business personal relationship was concerning. I would say this goes back to the clearance process and having sustainable clearance above the secret level with very welldefined reporting requirements. I would report yearly maintain your topsecret clearance and engaging with forests intelligence there are hundreds of contacts of individuals that would talk to me, stop by, have a conversation and, i think, part of this is when it gets into the aspect of when individuals are not reporting that in the second they start having secret meetings, it puts them in a very vulnerable position. It leaves them open to blackmail. There is nobody in the room with you that can say here is how the conversation went. These are all tricks of the trade when it comes to hostile adversaries and Intelligence Services. Thank you, i yield back. Thank you for coping here today. In 2017 former cia director brennan stated in open hearing that this committee that the active measures from russia have been going on for decades. Romney stated he believed russia pose the greatest threat to the United States which president obama replied the 80s called and they want their foreignpolicy back. In 2014 then chairman now Ranking Memberall of this acknowledgment of russia and they werent nations and no response from the Obama Administration. There are a lot of conspiracy theories so lets out this one. Is it possible that a group of politically motivated individuals at the highest echelon of National Security decided to turn a blind eye to this activity feeling it would enhance their candidates chances of winning . I dont expect you to answer that but i expect you to consider it and i will yield the balance of my time. I want to followup on mr. Stewards line of questioning about the pfizer process. According to sworn testimony given by former doj associates he was motivated and desperate to stop a Trump Presidency and documents have no been made public indicate that a state Department Employee advised the fbi that about concerns over the credibility based on part of his assertion that the well developed conspiracy was being run out of the russian consulate in miami where russia does not have a consulate. I want to ask you tell me what you think about that information and whether and how that information about Christopher Steele should have impacted how the steele dossier shouldve been presented to the fisa court and you mentioned it and i think it is worth mentioning again that part of that whether it was appropriate to represent him as a source of information in that application. My main overarching problem with it is that i think it was objectionable to take someone in the position of a case agent and referred 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 purpose of probable cause. Now, if you want to take the position that im wrong about that, then the second thing that has to be said is that the more remote that someone is from the authorizations you are asking the court to rely on, the more you have to do in the way of being transparent as far as what that person bias are potentially. It is one thing to say that somebody who sees something criminal happened brings a lot of baggage to the table. They either saw what they saw or they didnt and the circumstances surrounding that can tell you a lot more than their bias can. If you are talking about someone who is remote from that and someone who may be a few steps remote from it, i think you have a higher obligation to be straight with the court about what that person is baggage is and in terms of bias, motivation, economic motivation, whatever and a rule of thumb and i think any good federal judge would tell you this, if you need to write a footnote it takes a page and a half in order to avoid writing 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 he just related that you would disagree with or want to clarify . I will add the counterintelligence and counterintelligence died we take information from sources that arent right there and it has been critically important in a lot of cases especially the counterterrorism world where you have a person receiving information or here is information that you make every effort to validate and cooperate and is appsource trusted and that is where you have to look to see how that provided reliable information in the past and im not defending this and i dont even think that comes up actually, i would say that the fbi did have reliable reporting from them in the past and maybe that gave them some assurance. Also it is important for everyone to know it wasnt stable to a cover sheet for the five application. Defies application has more information than just the steele dossier and i do think that is important to know. The court needs to have complete transparency that any information full stop. The last thing i would say is you can use either the information you supplied to the court after it is running and it is an accurate it is incumbent upon us to go back to the court and explained that. I appreciate you yielding and i yield back. Think the witnesses for been here. Just to return to Paul Manafort and sharing intelligence excuse me sharing external poll internal polling data. Consider the following because of questions about the polling data after it was sent the office could not assist what he did with it. And believe matt forte sent pulling data to pastor and he would not move forward with his lawsuit against matt forte and briefed him on the Trump Campaign and matt forte plan to when and a discussion of battleground states. What are the counterintelligence concerns about that . His plan was to go out and monetize after the campaign. He is providing data and he is talking and doing everything he can to put his name out there which is very much part of the intelligence apparatus. This is the senior person on the Trump Campaign. Im intrigued by your points and i would like to you return to that for a minute. Isnt that really the magic moment . Isnt that when youve done all this work and youve been cultivating people like this and you tiptoe up and use these unoffensive contacts to get near them and you give them something to do that is wrong. That is inappropriate and they know it is wrong and they do it. He is so lucky to have him out of there because he was not going to stop the polling data. The deeper they get in the more they have to keep going. They would have kept tasking them. It is very apparent that the russians were in communication with a number of Trump Associates. Who knows how far they wouldve gotten and he made himself available and he thought it would get him out of financial trouble he continued to advertise his availability to them. That is a counterintelligence nightmare. It might not be a nightmare, but it is something to be concerned about because as just discussed that team will continue until you say no and that is when the extortion starts and that is when we talked about this several times in this Committee Bob is your best friend right up to the point that you dont give me what im asking for. I am very struck, mr. Mccarthy, in your answer that you would hope that someone in the position of the Trump Campaign officials would come to the fbi. You want them to do that is it also the case that the person comes to the fbi is to inoculate themselves against the very charge they are playing ftse with the foreign intelligence service, isnt that right . Yes. It they did that, you need counterintelligence. You are working in partnership with the americans and concert with their own but against the foreign interference. Isnt that fair . But yes, although, on the government side of it, you also have to be very careful they are not playing both sides, you can get played that way too, that happens more often will be. And by whom . Back the person that comes in. Fair enough it was true in this case, in this case it was part of a systemic effort we now know about. But what you are saying, you just told the fbi you yourself said you wish they had. There would not have been on intelligence investigations at that point, right . What you are saying is true. I am having trouble following it. Because, i read the report. I do not think, we are skipping is to. I do not think there is evidence that there is a russian asset, there is reason to be concerned about it. There is a lot of also information of the assets of the states department. The connection. What about the trump what about the trump tower meeting . How do we know . Theres no independent study. My time has expired, excuse me. The trump tower meeting or any of the improper context we know were out of the effort by the russian intelligence my point is, sir. If the Trump Campaign simply picked up the phone and call the fbi and said we are worried about this, he would not have gone a long way to inoculate them against the concerned they were working in concert with a foreign intelligence office. I could not agree more with that. I think anybody who thinks they have been approached by a russian asset should notify the fbi. Thank you mr. Chairman. Heard. It, chairman. I would like to yield as much time as you may consume two this gentleman. Thank you, i appreciate it. I want to take time to clarify a few things. Is it a crime for any american to appear on it . And take money . I am a little confused, i dont put words in any of the witnesses mouths. Any of these folks up here. But, we have numerous former Government Officials and current Government Officials that appear on rt all the time and take money from them. I am a little alarmed you would make some type of reference that the head of the, the former head of the dia that goes to the dia to say hey, im going to meet with putin, to get paid to go on rt, there are reports, somehow i do not know other former Government Officials are doing the same thing when they take large sums of money but to hear people, you know, whether it is that, i dont put words in any of your mouths, but i thought that that is what i heard. That it was not okay for the former head of dia to give a speech like all former politicians and president do. Did i hear that . Is it okay for us to go to rt or is it not . But they used to do it all the time of the private sector in the speeches. I think as long as that is what it is, it is fine. I mean i know, the general is a friend of mine for a long time. I do not know if he was paid or not but many appearances on rt. The other thing a little alarming to me is this talk that general flynn by talking to the Russian Ambassador the incoming National Security advisor, would be somehow targeted by the fbi or any counterintelligence capability in the country when he is talking to the Russian Ambassador even if he does not agree with the Obama Administration on the sanctions. Because, if that is the case, i mean, john kerry should be under oath a fullblown criminal investigation for violating the logan act right now. Should john jerry be under investigation right now for violating the logan . Mr. Anderson . But i have no idea what the judge here is doing. It was widely reported john kerry had numerous meetings with the Iranian Regime during the trump frustration. I would have to see a lot more about that sir. I have no idea. As far as going back to your original question. As far as the incoming National Security advisor talking to the Russian Ambassador on its own, i mean, that is not something that will raise the counterintelligence flag. You have to look at the totality of what is going it. I do not understand anything outside of the report that went on with my claim, i also know the ambassador, on its own triggers any type of National Security funds. It may not trigger an investigation, i think you have to be mindful of how that looks for the russian government. That is why i said it could be a counterintelligence concert, right . It may not trigger an investigation, but, but i think it is preposterous for me to think a three star general, the architect killing terrorists really bad terrorists somehow connected to the russian government. I mean, you know, him talking to the ambassador, i think i did not see the. I would expect a democratic or republican industry coming in, whoever the National Security team is, that they would talk to the Russian Ambassador or any investor for that matter. I also dont think as much as i disagree with john kerry the former secretary of state, i also dont think you should be invested for violating the logan act right now, just to get that on the record, however, someone on the side of the aisle on the left and the media with talking to the Russian Ambassador but nothing about secretary kerry meeting with the iranians. Just talking to the Russian Ambassador. I think that is what is going on here, i think general flynn reached out and what we consider to be an official position prior to the inauguration of the trump ministration and deciding to do the Foreign Policy works in the midst of another demonstration. That is no different than what john kerry is doing right now. Im sorry. You would want to investigate a no, i am not saying anybody gets investigated here. But i am saying it is a counterintelligence concern. And it is just like, where we are saying that yes, no criminal charge has been filed relative to molars findings, it still does not mean there is not a National Security threat well, i still think i would be putting john kerry under counterintelligence investigations anytime soon. I have one more question on tasking, you mentioned manafort was tasked to deliver polling information. I am a little troubled as to what the differences between somebody asking for polling information versus a Political Campaign hiring a former spy to go out and meet with what we now know to be, supposedly, reportedly from the state department, meeting with high ranking former fdr jeer you officials in the russian government to get dirt on trump. That is a task, a campaign for. How is that any different . As a matter fact i would say the others are worse, we may not like the way Political Campaigns are run by do not think any of that is a legal. Any response . I think it is very disconcerting that the Clinton Campaign used steel. I think it is disturbing the russians reached out to the Trump Campaign theres a lot of talk about what terrible guy he has. Steel also work for them. You know . I mean, we are in a situation where for 30 years since the fall of the soviet union, this government, bipartisan has taken the position essentially that russia is a country we can work with, the bush lustration call that a Strategic Partner in connection with certain things. The obama demonstration want to reset relations with them. Trump wanted to chase better relations with them. If you are going to have that approach, it would not be my approach but if you have an approach, you will have a lot of people having a lot of contacts with russians. And we have a lot of people having contact with russians. A lot of it is really appropriate. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Welsh. Thank you very much and i think the witnesses. The Mueller Report describes efforts by the establishment for a back channel. You spoke about how mr. Anderson, they are always looking for many points of contact so they do not have a single point of failure. For example, in january 2017, mr. Dimitri of the head of the Russia Sovereign Wealth Fund and obviously a close ally in a pollutant met with the trump surrogate eric prince, prince later relayed what dimitri told him for steve bannon been separately in the late november 2016, dimitri began medicating with rick gersten a friend of Jared Kushner. Over the next few months, dimitri worked with person plan of russian affiliation between russia and the United States in which he spoke with kushner. The Mueller Report suggests that the memo which was essentially drafted by the russian government in which we were told this was approved by putin may have influenced the first phone call as president. Can you explain this concept a little bit more of back channels . And what sorts of counterintelligence risks can arise from such back channels . The reason i ask, we are having a backandforth understandably about political motivation, the campaign tends to push the limit but what appears to me to be unique about this is that russians have information which becomes a tool for them to advance their policy and interests as opposed to ours. Mr. Anderson . Thank you, two points, when you are absolutely right. Once for them to be able to put in a position to advance whatever they are looking to gain from the United States but two, it is also there to cause confusion and discord. Right next this different opposing policy up to the different channels and causes discord in different organizations. Eventually, to whoever is trying to get the official policy through, at the state department or at the white house. The one thing you will see and i have seen it in this report is with russia going back to a point about looking at different channels to try to make those things happen, you actually start putting people against each other, even inside of the same office. Because they do not understand that what is the official channel versus what we are hearing from the back channel. When you say with an office, do you mean the fbi or the cia the department . But the Bigger Office of the president , the state department, other areas within the country. They will do it not necessarily just right around the individuals or those located in the making of the policy but also outside of that the last point to make, one thing we really need to do is look larger also when it comes to russia attacking the political infrastructure that will be looking at here. I guarantee you again a reference to one trial with an expert in a few weeks ago that is identical to what we are talking to, the same type of political channels. Ms. Douglas, thank you. We do, would you care to elaborate . Not just campaigns pushing the limit so much as candidates becoming compromised by some of the actions they take or information they share for instance, having a business transaction involving multi Million Dollar potential profit. Obviously it creates protecting the investment, and you want to comment on that . I mean, i think it is important what the report lays out, how well you really put it to work all of the outreach and connection to a number of associates and friends of family and friends of friends, that is a good example, the reconciliation plan really is kind of a strategy document by dimitri, very closely aligned and i think he refers to putin as his boss and a friend of Jared Kushner is. Putting those two people together to come up and work on this plan was which they then preside, internally. Let me just, let me follow up to the, my understanding is that it was our typical policy during the obama lustration to propose the expansion into the ukraine and then there was the ongoing debate carried over into this demonstration about whether to provide a significant new armament for the ukraine the fighting of the russians. The two seem to be in conflict. Yes, i mean, i think just having the kind of external input into a very earlystage administrative strategy appears to be very unusual. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Carson . Thank you chairman, and thank you all, in the trump ptarmigan 2060 propose to donald trump jr. , he was told that the crown prosecutor of russia offered to provide the Trump Campaign with some official documents and the information would incriminate hillary to go and her dealings with russia. As part of russia the Government Support of mr. Trump, his response, if it is what you say, i love it in other words, the son of a u. S. President ial candidate agreed to accept assistance from a foreign adversary to undermine his fathers political opponent. What counterintelligence risks does this set of facts pose . And secondly, what would the russia intelligence objective be offering such damaging information on a political point . Lastly, what other similar techniques used if at all, were effective and might be effective . So, first, as we said before, i think it is the ability to get access to the administration. That is where it starts, right . You are talking to people 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 that i think russia looks at this way in advance on how potentially to target these different incoming demonstrations and the current president administration, the people that were around him were not savvy at all in my opinion to the counterintelligence threats or National Security issues coming from the private sector and corporations. I think the took advantage of that. A lot of these instances, i do not think the russians anyway needed to recruit anybody. They needed to be able to get in front of somebody and supply information. The information would be conveyed to the president. Yes, i would just add i think by taking the meeting, i do not 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 even if nothing inappropriate happened at the meeting, you have the vulnerability as well. It tells a great story of how the russians were. It shows a prior relationship the trumps had basically worked with another prior relationship to reach out directly to donald trump jr. And dangle this essential piece of information. Now, a meeting resulted in nothing. The fact that they used connections they knew that trump had in moscow through business dealings basically weaving their way to get in front of very senior level people in the campaign, metaphor, trump junior and Jared Kushner. It shows kind of how they work they use personal relationships, business relationships and they try to piece it together. Like bob said, i think the one thing that is illustrated is the fact that they were able to access such a high level. Thank you. One of the topics of discussion at the june 9 meeting for the u. S. Sanctions imposed under the act, how might russia have leverage the Trump Campaign, the acceptance of russian help to attack Hillary Clinton as an opening to seek access to and influence over trump and his associates in order to effect u. S. Policy regarding sanctions . I think, part of that is more of the same, i think the biggest thing is access. And most of these types of situations, i think the acceleration of access to somebody is highs these people were as stephanie just said does not happen as quickly. A lot of what youre seeing here is because as i said before, i think people are not looking at it as a counterintelligence necessarily a National Security threat. Theyre obtaining it, the reason im saying this is because i think that accelerates the process. How this usually works as it takes months to years to get access to individuals eventually going up into a level where somebody can relay the information. I think were the biggest things about this is the celebration of the process so they get so high so quick. Thank you for your service, mr. Radcliffe. It the chairman. Mr. Anderson, i both appreciate and agree with your comments during my last round of questioning about the need to update and correct the ongoing fife applications. I want to ask you about the obligation as it relates to exculpatory information. As you know the criminal case, we have what is called a rule where the government has an obligation upon request to provide any exculpatory information to a defendant that the government may have. Obviously, the counterintelligence or title three is a different proceeding where the defendant is not represented. We know this case the fbi has asserted the underlying precedent for the counterintelligence investigation was papadopoulos and the conversation we allegedly had with the australian diplomat. If the fbi had the exculpatory information or contradictory information, information that contradicted the underlying predicate, would you agree with me they had an obligation not to withhold that and to provide that to the court . I think the fbi once the information the best they could and there should be in the discussion with the court about the information. There was a discussion with the doj about the information . Would that have been improper . I do not know if it would have been improper but i do not think it would have been the transparency those type of hearings need, especially as one of the carson brought up earlier, this is a significant power if youre looking at the pfizer title three authority. What is your take on that and armando world, im in the same world you are in for a long time. Criminal investigations. There is laxity involved and how much you have to disclose with respect to exculpatory information with example of the grand jury. But, i think of the big difference here is that the criminal process has a way of keeping people honest unfortunately the intelligence process does not. So, even though when you go to get a search warrant or an arrest warrant from a judge, the regular criminal case, you get to go in secret in the sense there sealed proceedings and noted there is representing the independence, he knows or assumes in the equation there will eventually be a prosecution in which everything will be revealed, a complete discovery of what you represent to the court and they will be able to go to work on a. In the pfizer process, the only due process american who is suspected of being an agent of a foreign power ever gets as if the fbi complies with the rules and procedures and the pfizer court holds it to them in that proceeding. I should not confined to just the fbi, the Justice Department as well. To my mind, and i think this is reflective of what most people in that equation think and what part of the judges seem to think, a higher obligation to be transparent knowing the process you get in the criminal thicket, every will get the discovery of what you did in the court is not going to happen. Let me, and my remaining time ask mr. Mccarthy, you have had a number of questions about the need or desire or whether or not it was appropriate to advise donald trump about russian efforts to interfere in this campaign during the defense briefing, knowing the defense briefing took place and was conducted by the fbi august 17 of 2016. If i may, i have heard that before, i happen to have been in 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. It candidate defensive briefing . Right, but it was not the targeted briefing they were talking about to support lynn chan, and mckay were talking about in the spring of 2060. To my question earlier the reason is whatever time the candidate truck may have received a briefing about, russian interference efforts would be if they already determined the dossier was true or the subject of the criminal investigation. We know that was not the case. Because we know that the fbi director told the president , President Trump well into early 2017 he was not the subject of a criminal investigation. He was not under investigation. So, what reason would the fbi have had in 2016, what legitimate reason would they have had to the 60 not to advise candidate trump or president elect trump about russian interference threats . I do not think they had a good reason. I think it would have been preferable if they had done defensive briefings. I am familiar with the former director, his 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 to simply from a technical sense, his name was not on any file and he was not listed as an intercept the on any file. The point was made to him which he ultimately rejected as i understand is the way the investigation was structured, they were looking at the campaign and they were taking evidence about the campaign and since it was Trump Campaign, obviously he was the subject of what they were looking into, to tell him they were not the suspect it seems it could be misleading. I think they should have been more forthcoming with him about the status of the investigation and i think it would have been preferable if they had done a defensive briefing. I agree with you. With that i healed back. Thank you mr. Chairman. Thank you to mr. Anderson. Page 10 of the Mueller Report notes the special Counsel Office learned some individuals they interviewed or whose conduct they investigated included some associated with the Trump Campaign deleted relevant medications, and indicated using applications that feature encryption, or that do not provide longterm retention of data or communication records. In such cases, the office was unable to cooperate witnesses for comparison to temporariness indication of fully questioning witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with other facts. Given these identifying facts, the office was able to rule out the possibility that the available information would shed additional light on forecast in a new light the events described in the report, yet the special counsel cannot necessarily know if the person on the other side of the communication likely in a foreign country, might have saved those messages. And coming from a Law Enforcement background, this is particularly concerning to me. How might a foreign power like russia leverage knowledge of a u. S. Person deleting medications with an agent or other individual working on behalf of the russian government . Thank you for the question. I think this is a huge part of the new world we live in. There are numerous encrypted apps that people use in the private sector nowadays, hundreds of millions of people that use the apps. I think from a counterintelligence adversary point of view, anytime information is transmitted to somebody that can have accent to then deliver it to an intelligent service, there is an issue. Because, that person is not going to delete the information, that person is going to keep the information and most likely put it into a pool of information where it is correlated to the music. Unfortunately, in my career, and the last probably, 67 years between counterintelligence and the director, this has become a much bigger issue because you cannot go back, whether it is a person in a criminal investigation, a drug case all the way up to a serious espionage investigation, the last point i will make is i do think when we look at the safety of the country when it comes to people in certain political positions, i think we need to have more standards about what type of medication they can actually use. For this matter. You talk a little bit about this earlier, in the heyday, the soviet kgb collected reams of information on its surveillance targets. You believe the kgb successors, such as sdr or the chair you continue these practices . Yes. I tell you from my own experience, 30 some years ago when i started Law Enforcement, the only way you can find out about somebody was hard at work, going out, knocking on doors and actually physically talking to him. Nowadays, with social media and cyber techniques and Artificial Intelligence available to natalie the open public, but more sophisticated versions of that to Hostile Intelligence Services, they have a pretty good idea of what you like, what you dont like, we want to hang out with, where you go for coffee and it just makes them much easier of a target, i will tell you the modernday version of what some of what of us have done 2530 years ago provides much more available information to targets of a. Thank you and finally we discussed the concept of lack mail or several points today. Can you explain how the use of blackmail or leverage, including Financial Leverage over Government Officials by foreign powers can pose a counterintelligence threat . I believe this should be of importance to all of us in this room. It is very much so russia and a few other services that use this extensively. Although you see the financial blackmail, personal relationship blackmail, blackmail about potential criminal violations nobody knew about today, they actually know about it. As i said earlier, in the hearing, the one thing you will notice with all these types of progressions, first it starts off almost nonincidental asking, tasking, access, ever. It will move through the continuum. The black male historically does not really start going until you say no. What to say no, depending what they have, they will use any means possible to include destroying your life, they could care less about anybody in the room, just because we are american. They will use those points to target subjects to get them to do what they want to do. Something much a chairman. I yield back. Mr. Stefano . Thank you, i want to ask a few questions of misty mccarthy regarding the opening of the counterintelligence investigation and protocols of notifying congress, protocols that were not followed. We know now that the fbi opened its counterintelligence investigation into the Trump Campaign in july 2016. They did not brief again until march 2017 just days before the former fbi director, announced the investigation during a march 20 open hearing for the 20. My question to you is coming Sensitive Information senses the opening of a counterintelligence investigation into a Political Campaign is exactly what quarterly briefings from the fbi to the gang are intended for, is that correct . But i believe so, i dont see the point of having again. I agree with you. Do you think the fbi director director, should be allowed to decide when a cia investigation is too sensitive for the gang . But i do nothing to. I dont think the fbi director should do that because otherwise you cannot have congressional oversight. I agree with you on that as well. Would agree when i say the fbi should not get to pick and choose which investigation critically those focused on the u. S. Political campaign are brief to congress . But i think what i understand from director brennan, he thought he was obliged to comply with the gang for the disclosure report. Is it appropriate for the fbi in your opinion to publicly announce the subject of an ongoing counterintelligence investigation and open setting . Before fully Briefing Congress on the matter . No. I do not think, intelligence investigations are classified, i do not think the fbi one can should ever confirm the existence of investigation, counterintelligence investigations, it is classified like a double now. There is no reason i can think of to announce publicly the subject of such investigation. Or to say there is an assessment at the end of the crime and some. We know now director, failed to follow established doj procedures during the conduct of the investigation. In your opinion, why do you believe the director, decided to publicly announce the investigation march 2017 instead of following protocol immediately briefing a gang of age during his quarterly briefings . I know director, 30 years. Have a lot of respect for him. I think he goes about in my experience he went about his business in good faith. Im sure if he had a reason, if he did something, he thought he had a good reason. I dont agree with whatever the reason was. I can only assess what he did it into his head. I want to highlight i introduced legislation requiring the briefing to the gang of age, two congressional leadership when theres a counterintelligence investigation of federal campaign. We deserve to know this, it is clear in this case a 2017 the prophet and procedures were circumvented, this should have been briefed to the gang of eight i think its where the questions we need to continue asking in the oversight capacity. With an annual back. I do want to mention, this is through no fault of mr. Stefano, i cant comment on the gang of eight briefings, the contents, the timeline, as you said is not correct. But i can tell you once james comey was fired, we know to continue to get the gig of a briefings on this constellation of counterintelligence investigations. We have not had one since. Its a real problem. To the state we requested from the fbi and the director briefing on the status of the current intelligence investigation. We do not know to this date whether their ongoing. Whether any of them are close. What the findings are or we are determined to find a. While the truman yield . Regarding the timing, it was clear the open hearing in the committee director, testified not to brief the gang of eight on the opening of the counterintelligence investigation, this is why the reported, and open hearing, we worked across the aisle on language to be included on the authorization it to ensure any counterintelligence investigation and president ial campaign is brief, i hope you would agree based on the testimony of director, he circumindicated the process the oversight capacity, i agree with you, we need to have an update to make sure they are following procedures but i think we need to strengthen not just the typical way of doing things but in law so they are required to brief us. I will only say that was not his test. The first time he was briefing the counterintelligence investigation to us was with his disclosing to the Public Interest but i do not say that i said. I said days before. The representative is not accurate. I cannot go to the time it. I can say that is not accurate. But i hope the members of the public would go back to director, his testimony and follow the fact and look at the direct testimony to the committee which stated he did not follow the proper protocols and procedures of Briefing Congressional leadership at the counterintelligence investigation or yield back. Thank you for your service, think for being here today. And thank you chairman. I want to focus on security clearances. This is an issue coming before the oversight committee, i am shuttling back and forth this morning between these two. I like to ask you about this particular topic. In order for any person for the president to obtain access to the nations most sensitive secrets, the person must undergo an fbi Background Investigation and obtain a security clearance. One of the things the fbi investigates is the candidates contact with Foreign Nationals and whether the relationships pose any risk the candidate may be compromised by a foreign power. It is widely reported Jared Kushner security clearance was initially denied last year because of serious concerns about foreign influence private business interest in personal conduct. Also reported Jared Kushner did not report foreign contacts on the forms, these are the 86 words. He completed it related to security clearance applications. What counterintelligence risk arise when an applicant is not fully forthcoming or honest in his or her security clearance application . Mr. Anderson . Thank you sir. I think it is extremely important to have all the documented information and a thorough investigation before issuing security clearance especially when you get above the eastern fci information. You know, it is almost every major meeting in the white house. I think it is very important i also think coupled with that, the Financial Disclosure and other information required every five years and some cases the fbi organizations theres a polygraph. I have had six in my career. To just make sure that the individuals trusted with the ability essay for the country. Okay, but what if they do not, let me ask you this, what if they are not forthcoming or honest . How can a foreign power to advantage of that particular situation. I dont know all the things around the clearance issues but i think theres potential if you are trying to if you are trying to hide or be dissected about context it could be something the foreign Intelligence Agency could take advantage of, right . You know, those forms are incredibly detailed. A global world. So, people have, you know, many many foreign contacts these days, especially somebody like mr. Kushner who has Global Businesses, right . Walk us through a specific example, what would a russian agent try to do if he or she knew mr. Kushner they do not have a certain for contact. At this kind of information youre not being truly honest with, if you could be compromised based on the dishonesty. Its a foreign Intelligence Agency could take advantage of. What the impact is the original youre trying to make it has access to topsecret material. Right. It potentially say if that person is compromised will surely have access to Sensitive Information, are they willing to provide information to you in order not to be disclosed and be dishonest or something that you see this in your career where such a situation ever developed . Where a russian entity or any other foreign entity tried to take advantage of somebody in that type of situation . Buck you know, i have seen instances where people have not disclosed sensitive Foreign National context. But i have not seen an instance where the they have taken advantage of the fact because they do not want to disclose either so they will not jeopardize it. Unit in the relationship. I am not seeing exactly your description of it, but i have seen individuals in certain former espionage cases i brief to the Committee Years ago they were looking at aspects on ways to get around clearance issues. I have not seen them follow through with Different Things as stephanie said. What type of reform would you make that type of situation to prevent that type of situation from arising . I mean, it is kind of hard to force someone to tell you something if you dont even know exist, right . It is kind of hard to hold me accountable to something you dont know about. I just think that there has to be significant diligence on to be explained forthrightly upfront so people understand they could be in jeopardy and i think that is clearly articulated actually in jeopardy of getting a clearance if for some reason you are not disclosing a personal or ongoing continuing relationship that should actually be a consequence. Thank you. Thank you mr. Chairman. More questions. On the pfizer petition. Mr. Mccarthy, was the time of the first application . For the court . My recollection is october 21 i think it comes from a document of 2016. At that point the counterintelligence investigation was opened several months early, is that correct . The fbi investigation formally opened as i understand at the end of july that certainly was opened over two months. The fbi counterintelligence investigation was open irrespective and you have nothing to do with the pfizer education . It had to do with George Papadopoulos . Receiving information about russian possession of stolen information . Back in the parlance of the Justice Department and the fbi we sometimes referred the title iii investigation or pfizer investigation as if they were their own separate entity but they actually tends to be part of a larger investigation. In this case, the theory the counterintelligence investigation of those around the president is flawed from the inception in itself flawed because the pfizer application did not take place until months after the investigation was opened, correct . But i do understand the question. Some argue we should ignore everything but mother has to say we should ignore everything the russians did because they have problems with aspects of the pfizer application. The pfizer application was open months after the investigation began, correct correct. Its not initiate the litigation, correct . Also cracker in fact, carter page was not even with the Trump Campaign anymore at the time of the application filed is that correct . I do not think that is relevant but it is as i understand they formally separate. I assume you know. Sunday you can go back as well. If you are making an accusation of spying on the Trump Campaign. The pfizer application affect of carter page did not get until carter page was noted with the campaign is not accurate no. I think if you are getting access to subleased medication under circumstances where the excess affords you the opportunity to go backwards so you can read the medications while theyre in the campaign but do you know that be affect are you speculum . I know to be a fact to get authorization you get to go backwards but you know thats the case here or are you speculum . I dont have any direct knowledge of the investigation, youre quite correct, i am speculative from the info. Do you think the just officials signed up on the application were acting in bad . But no. I think the interesting you think mr. Rosenstein was acting in bad faith . I think he made a mistake. To think the judges who signed up i believe there were three or four judges that sign of applications were they acting in bad faith . I dont think it is acting in bad face faith. They just made mistakes yes, thats right. That happens. And, the steel dossier, how does mr. Miller rely on the steel dossier in this report . You know, it is to her pages. Office have my head i cannot think of any thing he rely on in terms of any kind of important conclusion. So the answer we received is not, right . But i do not think so, i do not want to give you a sloppy answer off the top of my head. Mccarthy, and you learn it was a counterintelligence investigation of the Trump Campaign . I do not know. I mean, again, i learned a number of the public, i do not have any personal information, i will have to go back over things i written in red. To try to put it down. Ended the public learn about the counterintelligence information from the campaign . I know director, testified here before the committee march 20, 2017 it seemed to me at that point in time, what he was directing, his remarks to melissa part was evident from the Intelligence Community assessment that came out in january. So, it seemed clear to me reading the public version of the intelligence assessment the Intelligence Community had not stopped investigating russias interference in the investigation. You are correct that the first Public Disclosure of the counterintelligence mitigation the Trump Campaign took place in the open testimony, the committee in march 2017 . That wouldve been months after the president ial election, correct . Yes. If the personal reflection and the private emails between them, if it reflected official actions to settle the Trump Campaign, wouldnt the trump investigation have been disclosed before the election . Not after . I do not know that, i do not know that the bias you detect from the emails would have anything to do with when the investigation, the, the emails if fbi agents were determined to settle professionally and scuttle campaign. Im not trying to be difficult. I never have said they were trying to scuttle the Trump Campaign, i do not know there is evidence to try to scuttle the Trump Campaign, i do not want you to be in the position of agreeing and think that is my position, because it is not . But the fbi was very open, over the investigation of one of the candidates, secretary clinton, correct . That was a criminal investigation that could not help but be public because of the way it was referred the other investigations the counterintelligence investigation is classified and theyre not allowed to talk about. Really two Different Things. Theyre not really supposed to talk about the criminal investigation either, are they . No. You are right. They should not speak until the government speaks. You are not supposed to talk about the investigation until you are formally charging somebody and they have a full array of the constitutional protections they get to protect themselves in terms of public actions taken by the bureau during the campaign, they have the effective disclosing and discussing the investigation involving Hillary Clinton but not donald trump . Correct . But no. I wouldnt go that far because beginning i think in september, you start to get public reports that gps is putting out and the article im thinking of a particular is like september 23 which refers not only to information from Law Enforcement people and counterintelligence people but i think a letter, i do not it as a letter remarks from senator reid with respect to the investigation and pushing the fbi to get out of the investigation. Investigation of donald trump or his Campaign Prior to the election, isnt that true . You mean as opposed to leaking information a formal public announcement there was an investigation . No. Req. Now. Also putin not have a preference for candidates except those that expect they will lose. What other examples do you have for the declaration apart from the last campaign . I think what i try to direct my remarks to mr. Chairman current activities in the west. Not specific to our election and putin does have a pattern particularly in western europe of giving support to upstart topless parties which are unlikely to win but could make life very difficult to its not they are likely to lose. If he had a challenge to think would support the opponents . I do not know what he would do. Really . You do not things to put you have a preference for a candidate who practiced disparagingly of nato or wanted to see nato and the United States leave nato . No. I do not want, again, not trying to be difficult here, i think that putin would be very happy to have the support of a candidate who would do whatever russia wanted and if he was going to be fortunate enough to have that kind of candidate into power, sure, i think it would be delighted by the. We he be delighted by a candidate for the president to was open to sanctions over russias invasion of the neighbor, correct . Dont think so. He would be interested in a candidate interested in doing money during the campaign, what he not . But would depend on whether that was the one issue that would,. The totality of it. It turned out the candidate was going to be very difficult in other areas example military spending ratcheted up so we were more of a threat to russian interest we would have to waive that like anyone else is to weigh the good the bad go a candidate with all these attributes, wants to undermine nato, sanctions, make money and moscow. That would be a candidate the kremlin would be eager to support, would it not . Yes, i would think, you would think, that was the only part of the ledger we were talking about and on the other side, there was not another side of the ledger where there would be the increase in military spending and an increase in support of actors opposed to russias interest, he would have to weigh everything, i do not think putin, as i understand is a very sophisticated actor. I do not think he acts on one particular aspect or item on a menu i think you looks at the totality of the circumstances but you have any conclusion that the social Media Campaign in the hacking in the dumping is independent of the emails they were attempting to help the Trump Campaign and hurt the Clinton Campaign . But it was very clear from the beginning, i agree with this mccarthy that this started back in 2014. The reason it probably was before then, because they were so intense on not having Hillary Clinton as the president. I think that being very much to the benefit of the Trump Campaign. You concur to curb both the assessment of the Intelligence Committee as well as mr. Muellers report that the russians had a clear preference for mr. Trump with the evidence . Yes. Let me ask you, what i started out with, the issue of the moscow trump tower. Here candidate trump was estimating hundreds of millions of dollars for his family business. While claiming no business dealings with the russians. When the transaction was revealed, the fact that the business deal went on through the middle of the president ial campaign was disclosed, any emails produced showed Michael Cohen reaching out to dimitri, 70 close to present putin. Mr. Press go would issue a statement denying there was any russian follow up on the outreach that turned out to be false. The russians did follow up on trump business, outreach, what does it mean that the kremlin, how do you determine the kremlin issuing a false statement in support of the presence own false davis about the deal. I think the issue a lot of false statements. I think they have an interest . Covering up for the president of the United States concealing efforts by the president and his business to seek criminal help during the campaign to make it happen. Why would they be interested in covering that up . I think they very much want a Good Relationship with donald trump. And to them, that means supporting him and the deception undertaken on the part of Michael Cohen when he lied about the length of time the negotiations are underway. But mr. Anderson, the report outlines lengthy conversation they had with somebody in the kremlin to make the deal happen. Would be your expectation that the kremlin would be recording the conversation . Absolutely. During the campaign and after mr. Trump became president , if they had a tape recorded conversation with the lawyer, in which the presence lawyer is exploring making the deal during the campaign . At a time when the president is denying any business dealings with the russians . With the russians be in a position to publish the tape . If they had it . To embarrass the president of the United States i think if it behooves the letter putin and russia they would do almost anything to answer your question it is yes, they can exploit some type of weakness. Is that what the russians mean when they talk about compromise . Compromising information . Yes, anytime you talk about compromising information, it goes back to what we said mr. Chairman, it could be financial, conversational, a, rising position to use whatever you can. It would not be compromising if a foreign power had recordings that they were denying i have to know more about the potentially good conversation that they can exploit. How did the russians exploit the use of the information . It depends, in the past, i have seen where russia has mailed audiotapes or agents of russia mailed audiotapes or pictures or financial documents, individuals that we have been investigating and counterintelligence espionage investigations, letting them know that they have this information and potentially could use that against them. Sometimes they dont, they just do it anyway. And, they circumstance like this, could the russians make aware that they had such recordings and were prepared to use them if necessary . I do not know if they would do that right off the bat, usually, that is towards the end of the spectrum of trying to obtain what they want so the interest potentially but i do not think they would do it necessarily right off the bat. Have the russians used Financial Leverage to Government People . A variety of ways, a lot of times theyll either give individuals payment in a variety that does not necessarily mean cash, it could be other valuables and in some instances they will try to get them to live beyond their means. So if they cut off those payments, that individual than the individual that is in jeopardy of losing whatever is dear to them. Does existence of the financial relationship in itself become a form of compromise . You would have to, i would have to know more about that because it was brought up earlier by stephanie i think, in the Global Business marketplace you have to look at the totality so i would have to know more. Is there any number of facts in the Mueller Report about efforts to establish back channels with the russians discussions about use in russian diplomatic facilities for secret back channels . With those post serious issues in any side of security cards process . Absolutely could depending on what was being discussed and what the individuals were doing with the information that they were pushing and then 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. Finally with respect to mr. Flynn, if a National Security advisor or advisor designate as having a secret conversation with foreign adversary, and every time, undermine u. S. Policy and what are the counterintelligence implications of that . Obviously, the key here is the deception, the deception makes the person vulnerable, it is not even the act, the fact that somebody has a multiMillion Dollar business in russia, does not 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. And just like the case with mike flynn, it is not the fact that he had that conversation, whether it was appropriate or not appropriate, it is the fact that he chose to be deceptive about it. That could make him vulnerable. If the National Security advisor is talking with the Russian Ambassador or anyone else for that matter, that say the Russian Ambassador, would you have to, would you have to presume that the russians might be recording conversation on the russia end . Of course. And if u. S. Representatives are like the Vice President representing certain things that are not to end the russians possess a recording of that and they are in position to compromise the administration . They are if somebody is not telling the truth about the conversation. If you come out and are honest about the conversation, it is hard to blackmail someone if you are being honest about what you have done. But if you are not being honest about what you have done that is what makes you vulnerable. Any final questions . Thank you mr. Chairman. One of the things that we go back to the beginning there has been a lot of talk about when to this investigation begin . That is an openended question, because you know we can say that this investigation could have begun in 2015 because we know some of the same players were having runins with individuals with, that have questionable ties to either a western intelligence or possibly a Political Campaign operative. But officially they have said that it started at the end of july. When the public became aware of it i guess it all depends on whether or not you believe the Washington Post and New York Times or, yahoo news. Because you had christophers spiel who we now know is an fbi paid informant. After not only breathing multiple News Agencies but if you are to believe those same News Agencies they also have sources within the fbi and department of justice, now you all work there, it is normal to have an fbi informant, Christopher Steele who has been hired to investigate the Trump Campaign by the fbi, hired by the Clinton Campaign to investigate the Clinton Campaign, to investigate the Trump Campaign, then talking to media, talking to people than the state department, this normal activity . The fbi or the department of justice . I think steele was ultimately the reason that was given for his termination as an informant was contacts with the press because that was a violation of his understanding with the fbi. We should not leave it at steele because in the same articles of these reporters are to be believed, there are multiple sources within the department of justice fbi. Or Senior Intelligence officials i think. Officials should not be talking about investigations to the media. Right, so if the stories are believed, yes. We have an fbi informant, who is both working for the Clinton Campaign and the fbi investigating trump, leaking to multiple news outlets, we have multiple people within the fbi and doj leaking to news outlets, at some point here, i am just shocked that there is more, there is not more former doj and fbi officials who are not out there saying this is wrong. I do not know how any republican, Something Like that bill passes, this Counterintelligence Department with the fbi i think is in big trouble. I mean the fact that you know, you guys are sitting here from fbi officials and not saying that it is basically making the case that it is okay to use these very special powers to target a Political Campaign. It really troubles me. Obvious, i will leave it at that, i just want to finish up on the trump tower in moscow, because we will talk about that and how that concern some of you. What, would it concern you that fusion gps who is the Democrat Campaign operative arm through the operations arm, they were also working for russians are you familiar with that . Are you familiar that fusion gps was working for russians . Yes, they were working for the connection with the litigation which is fourth action that was brought by the department of justice in connection with the killing of magnet ski and the fraud that flowed out of that. A for any of you familiar that fusion gps was working for these unities . Yes, i was focused on the Mueller Report for this discussion. So, now that you know that fusion gps was working for russians, the other thing that needs to be put on the record here is that not only was, were fusion gps hired to oppose the act, to dirty up bill browder, who i think many people know as a friend of magnet ski, but when Glenn Simpson admitted the time that he would testify before this committee, that he met with the group that met at the trump tower on back to the trump tower meeting, he met him the day before the day of and the day after. So you have Glenn Simpson who is working not only for the Clinton Campaign to dirty up trump, they are also working for the russians to dirty up anybody who does not uphold the magnitsky act, former counterintelligence people without raise any flags to you at all . That the Clinton Campaign operative arm is who is working for the same russians happen to be the russians that a meeting with at trump tower, offering supposedly dirt . I think it is not in a vacuum so it is not just about president Trumps Campaign or secretary clintons campaign, it is about the context to americans who have information. Regardless of who is campaigning , whether there was significant and concerns are things that we thought that could raise to that, i think it would be worth looking at. One of the things as i stated in my opening, mueller does not talk anything, doesnt talk about fusion gps at all even though it was all the questionable context with the russians including the fact and i would just close with this for the record, after we discovered all of this, we brought Glenn Simpson back in numerous other fusion gps employees, and they pled the fifth before this committee and refuse to answer the question. So, if that doesnt raise questions, i dont know what does. But with that i want to thank the witnesses for appearing today and i yelled back. I think, i want to remind my colleagues that fusion gps 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. In 1979 Small Network was an unusual name for that a big idea, it lets viewers make up their own minds, cspan opens the doors to washington policymaking for all to see, bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond, a lot has changed in 40 years but today that big unveil is more relevant than ever. On television and online, c span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind, brought to you as a Public Service by your cable or satellite provider. Cspans washington journal, live eveda