Warrants . The concern grows out of the fact that all of the failures and the and The Information that shouldved been given and wasnt given. And the question being what was the intent . What what washa their intention . Their motivation there. And what we determined was we couldnt definitively say what the motivation was. Are these pretty smart people . Fairly welleducated . At least welleducated. I dont know if theyre smart. I dont know if were very smart to beow honest with you. I was b going to say they have law degrees, right . At least somehe of them do. So you think the woods review for people at this level of the organization. To be clear, the stuff that didnt happen on the woods review was basic stuff. Yeah. You didnt need to be a deeplyexperienced fbi agent to be able to do it the right way. Well, thats my point. So wouldnt you think that would almost be muscle p memory for people who are going through this process to know they had an obligation to go through that . They clearly should have. And so wouldnt it also seem
reasonable that if they didnt you cant answer this question but to me, it seems like if something is as standard as that process, before you go to a fisa court, to not do it was something they intended not to do. They didntt want to go throug it. I mean, it seems to be a logical conclusion. And then youeebe ask yourself, . Well, because we dont ever want this guy to get elected president. And if he does, sounds like they want to impeach him. I mean, i cant understand anybody working in this organization. Understanding the scrutiny that we placed under the fisa courts. And by the way, count me in. Because we now seen the abuses youve warned us about. You can smirk again because you were right. But i mean, were it it just seemse to me that this organization. This closelyheld organization of highlyeducated, highlyexperienced people, i have to believe they were handpicked for this process. They were picked because they had some of the best reputations in there. They had to know that this was
going it was going to come to this. That it was going to be scrutinized. Regardless of who the subject of the investigation was. If the if the names were changed and the parties were changed, wed still be here. And it looks like they were trying to skate along the edges and get away with something to me. And i cant imagine that they did it for any other reason than a political motivation. And i dont expect you toa respond to that because youre doing a great job of holding to the scope of your report. Re but nobody can tell me, with people of thisl caliber, with e record of partisan, vitriolic, to say we just forgot to do a standard procedural review that you would probably expect one of their staff twora or three levels down to know you need to do it. It just doesnt make sense to me. Now, youvet gottenen a lot of questions today that had nothing to do withqu your report. I think youve done a very good job of saying im here to talk about my report. You didnt do a russia collusion
investigation, did you . We did not. You Didnt Reprosecute the Special Counsel report, did you . Po we did not. Would you agree that you got a lot of questions today that had nothing to do with what you were here to talk about today . I certainly had dseveral. Yeah. So i also wonder whether or not that was politicallyo motivate. Lets focus on this. What i found interesting was that weat do have people who ar using this asav a platform on t other side of the aisle that says, well, now we need to the we need to look at the fisa process. I dont know why youd use this as a platform to do that. Unless you thought that this is a clearho case where the fisa process was abused. And then if you look at this information, this ecosystem of smart people who i think turned a blind eye to damning evidence to serve as a basis for renewing thefo fisa report. Its just beyond my comprehension. Of this evidence in yourf report, i think is prett strong. I hope that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle, when we take up impeachment next month, have that same standard for the weight of evidence that were going to be asked tof look at. Thank you, mr. Chair. Senator rona. Thank you. You r identify significant issu with the Fisa Application Process for conducting surveillance on carter page. Before this investigation, were you aware of the use of the fisa process . I was not personally. Although, we have done reports, as you know, senator, since 9 11 my office. Well, you cant sit here and tell us that these errors only occurred with regard to this Fisa Application Process. W we weve identified problems in the past. I will sayms weve never done a dive into one as deep as this. As have a number of us, by the way. Senator lee and others of us. We understand that there are issues relating to the fisa process. And, in fact, after you pointed out your the errors, et
cetera. The director acknowledged your findings. And, in fact, he is moving ahead to make improvements to the fisa process and as he put it to make the fbi a much stronger institution. Thats correct. Would you agree that it is a major decision to seek authority from a fisa court to conduct surveillance on ant american . I agree. If fbi officials were politicallymotivated and wanting to conduct surveillance on a particular american, Wouldnt The Decision to seek Fisaee Approval be a point wher political bias could affect the process . Could. Yes. Yes. Actually, that would be a pretty good time for any kind of political bias to manifest itself. But here, you found no evidence of political bias in deciding to seek fisa approval. We did not find such evidence. When you released your report on monday, both the Attorney General and mr. Durham immediately issued public statements that challenged the
findings in your report. Attorney general barr stated, quote, the Inspector Generals report now makes clear that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of a u. S. President ial campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. End quote. An you point to the page or pages in your report that found that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation on the thinnest of suspicions that were insufficient to justify the fbis actions . T we concluded that there was sufficient predication. Asuhhuh. Would you consider words like the thinnest of suspicions, intrusive investigation, neutral words . To describe the work. Going to let others answer for their own comments and stick to what weve written. Youve said that and everybodys entitled to characterize your investigation. Buty you know what, i think we all know what constitutes fair. A fair characterization. I would say those are not fair. Yesterday, Attorney General barr went on a tv to challenge the validity of the findings of your report. And suggested that his own fbi agents have acted in quote bad faith and with improper motives. And that it was premature to conclude otherwise. These insinuations are inconsistent with your report. And one justification that he gave foron disregarding the key finding in your report was that unlike the investigator he handpicked, mr. Durham, you could not compel testimony. You interviewed more than 100 witnesses for your investigation. In your report, youur note you were unable to compel testimony from two people. Glen simpson and jonathan winer. Were these the only two people who wouldnt testify or talk to you . Dnti those were the only two people that we asked to interview that turned us down. And do you think that the fact thatnd you did not intervi these two witnesses undermined the conclusions in your report . That you found no documentary or Testimony Evidencent of politic bias in opening the investigation or Seekingn Fisa authority for carter page . I dont believe they undermined any of i our conclusions. It would have been good to have their evidence, like it isbe normally. Is do you think that the findings inin your report are inaccurate because you r lacked the authority to compel witnesses . Not in this instance, no. In april 2019, Attorney General barr told congress, quote, i think spying did occur. End quote. When talking about the fbis investigation of the Trump Campaigns ties with the russian government in the 2016 election. And yesterday, Attorney General barr reiterated the Trump Campaign was clearly im quoting himly now clearly spd upon. Helypi claimed the fbis investigation investigative actions, which you discuss in your report, constitute spying. And the word spying carries, i would say, negative connotations. Dont you think . I mean, it sounds like Law Enforcement is doing something theyre not authorized to do. That they would spy on us. And thats why we use and only rely on the word thats in the law, which is surveillance. And yet, we have the highest Law Enforcement person in our entire country using a word not just once but twice. Using the word spying. So clearly, your report found that the, fbis investigation s for an authorized and with an adequate predicate. You would not use such a word in your report. We dont use that in our report. Do you think questioning the motivesin of your staff is possibly involving bad faith . Or accusing them of spying would be demoralizing to your people . Let me put i i would not speak to my folks about them
acting in that manner. Do you think thats i d havent seen that either characterize what you all do in your professional capacity . I think thats a rhetorical question. Yeah. You r know, so point taken, though. Law enforcement staffs investigations as intrusive and based on the thinnest of suspicions also cast dispersions on the professionalism of your people. And i think that is probably also not terribly edifying or supportive. Did the Attorney General provide you with any evidence to support his claim that the fbi agents were spying . We in terms of evidence we didnt get any evidence from the Attorney General. We did meet with mr. Durham. Had a discussion with him. But we, as i said, are standing by our conclusions. Ai does it bother you that you have the Attorney General using
words like spying to characterize what the fbi did under an authorized process . You know, as Inspector General, im going to stick to what we do and what weve said and notha try and guess the motives or ideas or thoughts of anyone else out there. I dont see you jumping up and down with use of such words. Let me go on. On november 21st, dr. Fiona hill, the former National Security council Seniorfo Direcr for europe and russia, warned that russia has, quote, geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. Even as we speak. Thats what russia is doing. She also warned congress against promoting the fictional narrative that ukraine, rather than russia, interfered in the 2016 u. S. Election. These conspiracy theories, she said, clearly advance russian interests. Fbi director stated on Monday Thatdi the fbi has no informati that would indicate that ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016
president ial election. When we talk about interfering, were talking about the kind of systemic governmentsanctioned interference with our election process that russia engaged in. And theres no way that ukraine engaged in that kind of systematic interference. So in all the documents that you reviewed, 100 witnesses. Did you find10 any evidence tha contradicts fbi director rays statement that the fbi has no information that indicates ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016 election . We didnt see any such evidence. But ieeny emphasize that was izyes, i know. But, you know what, you would think that youre looking through a million documents. Fortunately, not me but the team. There might have been something there that referenced that maybe ukraine was engaging in the kind of systematic interference that russia did. I know that senators asked you about this butha i want to maket
clear. Is there anything in your report that calls into question the conclusion of the Mueller Report that russia interfered in the 2016 president ial election in a Sweeping Andde systematic fashi . No. And of course, you all know that the Mueller Investigation resulted in 37 indictments and six convictions of trump associates. Is there anything in your report that calls into question Special Counsel muellers conclusion that the Trump Campaign not only knew about russias Election Interference but they encouraged it and expected it to and expected to benefit electorally from it . No. I know you receive a lot of requests from republican and democratic members of congress to do certain investigations. And ive been among those. I realize you have to take certain factors into consideration because you only have soca many resources to conduct all these investigations. And one of the requests that i
and my colleagues asked you to investigate was whether Attorney General barrs handling of the Mueller Report was h misleading. And whether he demonstrated bias in dealing with the Mueller Investigation. In light of the factors that i that im sure you consider, will you take another another look at the request that i, and my colleagues, sent you . Toue see whether you are able t investigate any of them. So on that, senator, first of all, id be happy to come up and meet with you andto talk about with you in person. Let me say i ive had conversations with some of the members of the committee about this issue. Its the the letters asking us to look at the conduct of senior lawyers at the department. Er directly implicate section 80 of the Inspector General act, which prohibits me from looking at conduct of lawyers in their capacity as lawyers. Senator lee has sponsored a bill that passed the house unanimously. Bipartisan, full support. Pending here. Several members of the committee
have cosponsored it. That provision prevents me from Undertaking Investigations of misconduct by Senior Department lawyers. Or actually, any Department Lawyers justny to be clear. T well, this is one time whei actually i think agree with senator lee in that needing to make that kind ofin change to enable you to makeki the kind o investigation that were asking you to make. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Id be happy to come up and talk about it with you further. Thankt you. Ill keep doing this and ill apologize. Has anyone been convicted of the crime of working with the russian government associated with the trumpng campaign . That you know of. Not that i know of. Well, they havent. So i just whatever convictions have been attained got nothing to do with colluding with the russians. Thats what got us here. And about what happened here. If the government is surveilling an American Citizen, pursuant to
a fisa warrant, and the government informations given to the government that questionsto the foundation of t warrant, is there an obligation to tell the court . Absolutely. They did not do that, did they . Correct. They lied about The Information that was exculpatory to mr. Page. They gave misleading, inaccurate information. At what point does ad can surveillance that d started lawfully become illegal . It can it can become unauthorized, inappropriate, illegal. Depending on would you apply all those terms to what happened in this case . Im going to let others, who have the ability to address some of these issues, decide what the precise level of intent was. Heres what im going to say. It may have started lawfully. It got off the rails quick. It r became a criminal conspira to defraud the fisa court. To put mr. Page through hell. And to continue to surveil President Trump after he got elected. And i hope somebody pays a price for that. Youve certainly done your part, mr. Horowitz. Thank you, mr. Chair. And thank you very much, Inspector General, for being here today and presenting this information. And i know that a couple others have focused on this. Andoc id like to dive back in. But but first. There is a lot of respect out there or there has been for the fbi. E is and i remember as a kid, you know, watching movies or shows that portrayed the fbi. And we really thought, wow, those are the good guys. And i think what we have seen through the past number of years, number of months, is that a few bad actors have really squandered that away. And i think the American People look at the fbie and they thin wow. If theyre doing this to a president ial candidate, what would they do to me, as just a
normal, American Citizen . Are they really there for me . So im just so sorry that this has led to this. Again, a few very bad actors. I heard somebody earlier saying, oh, the mistakes that were made at the fbi. The mistakes. Its not like, oops, i accidentally filed a fisa warrant or an application. A fisa application. Oops. That accidentally happened. Thats not a mistake. That it just wreaks of of ill wishes to do harm. So, again, i just think the fbi. Weve always thought of it as a such a great institution. And now, im looking at all this information. Weve all reviewed the report. And i think, for god sakes, what is going onod here . So thank you for doing this work. I think its f just really important we take a look at whats going on. Why it happened. And id like to focus a little
more just on on the discipline aspect of this because these mistakes were made by somemi people that really wanted to do bad harm. To an individual. Illegally. So peter strzok was fired from the fbi. Is that correct . E thats correct. Okay. So he still has a Merit System Protection Board that has not yet adjudicated, is that correct . Thats my understanding. Doesth that mean that the termination is final . Or not final . Im going to get ahead of my Legal Employment law capabilities if i give you too many opinions on what his legal rights are inha that regard. Okay. Re very good. Th thank you. Ka it seems that there was only one individual referred for possible criminal prosecution. Based on the ig review. And thats the person that altered the email. To imply that carter page was not or never a source for another agency. That apparent concealment of facts from the fisa court, especially as relate to the accuracy of steeles reporting, can you explain why there were no more criminal referrals . What we ultimately decided wasat that the conduct here warranted sending the entire report to the fbi and the departmentrt for review. For review from the line agent all the way to the top of people who were still at the fbi. And, as we said, we didnt see documentary and Testimonial Evidence of intent. But we also didnt hear good explanations, which left us with an Open Question on what the motive was and what the State Of Mind was. And the Adjudicative Process that the fbi and department will now assess that and look at that. An sure. So so wet dont know of anye else that has been fired or reassigned. I dont know as i sit here. That would have to come from the fbi orld the department. Okay. So with that, how many how many case agents involved with the fisa applications in your report are still active case agents today . As i sit here, i cant tell you the precise number. There are several who still are. That are active. That are still active agents. Whether theyre still in certain roles or not, i dont know. Okay. Because you dont know specifically if they are still working as casely agents, do yo believe, if they were working as case agents, that The Information contained in your report as it relates to those case agents should be released to other criminal defendants under the departments policy . I think this raises those kinds of issuesnk for the department to review and consider what they have to do to remedy any wrongs here. And for those folks that are
watching this back at home in iowa. Can you talk a little bit about the Giglio Policy . Yeah. So in criminal cases, for example, when an agent is found to have engaged in misconduct, whether by a judge or by the Department Of Justice, there is an obligation under Supreme Court case called the giglio case, to notify the defendant of the wrongdoing or harm or misconduct. Impeachable evidence. Those sorts of things. And that obligation is taken seriously. Has to be taken t seriously. As i said, ive done Law Enforcement Corruption Cases as an ausa. And one of the first things we do, including now as ig when we find issues, is notify prosecutors and the department and laws enforcement to ensure that they take appropriate steps in a timely way. To make sure those agents or if its prosecutors, but agents were here talking about, arent
continuing toar pursue cases. Or arent allowed to stay in those positions if theyve violated the trust that theyve been given. I think thats important. The reason were talking a little bit aboute this and discipline, pollty, aicy, and procedures, is because the American People, when the look at an institution likehe the fb. They want to know that they are good guys. And if they are not good guys, they need to go. I think the American Public gets tired of seeing bad actors with no repercussions. Very important from our standpoint as i as the Inspector Generals office that there bes accountability for a conduct across the board. But certainly, for misconduct. And performance failures. And those need to be taken into account. Yeah. Performance failures. Lying. I mean, there was a lot going on in the department. They werent just d mistakes, a somebody casually mentioned. These are not just mistakes. This was bad conduct. It was intentional. So i i do think that as we see this move on, move forward, that anybody that was involved in those malicious activities is gone. So a little bit about policy and procedures, just very quickly. It the igs office has previouslily identified a pattern of leaks and improper contact between fbi employees and the media. Part of the decision to work the Crossfire Hurricane Case out of the fbi headquarters. It does seem to be due to the fear of leaks, if it were actually worked out in the field. So can you characterize how much of a Problem Leaks are . And those unauthorized contacts between the media and members within the fbi . Be so we identified this last year in our clinton collection report. The number ofec contacts. And weve seen it as weve sedo
these reports w subsequent to tt in finding inappropriate, improper contact between agents and theop media. Since our report last year, director ray has put out a new policy and ordered to take a new training to deal with that. Or try too address that and to change theo culture, which is what we talked about a year ago. The culture and the viewpoint in a federal, criminal investigation, fairness to the defendant or the subject of the investigation. Fairness to victims, if there are victims. Fairness to the process requires people, agents who are Working Theseop cases, to keep their he down. Work theea case. And not disclose information to outsidet parties. Whether its the media, friends, relatives, neighbors, whomever. That information has to stay in the office. And so there has been a policy change. But what are the repercussions if someone is found guilty of engaging in those unauthorized contacts with media . So thats one of the things were going to follow up with the fbi on. As weve done these cases over the last year, as weve referred them, whats actually been the penalty thats been imposed . Whats happened to those folks . And how is that message getting out . Not just publicly but internally that there are going to be consequences for that. Because without the consequences, the Deterrent Effect goes away. Right. Absolutely. And there is no restoration of trust in the agency if there are not repercussions to those that are maliciously pursuing these types of activities. So i appreciate your time. I appreciate your team. I and the work that they put into the report. And, in all fairness, weve got to do better. And weve got a long ways to go to restore trust in the fbi and anyone working with the fbi. So, again, i appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you, mr. Chair, i yield back. Senator harris. Welcome back. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General horowitz, thank you for conducting yourfo thorough investigation into the origins of the Department Of Justices russia investigation. So your report makes clear that the fbi had a legitimate reason to investigate the Trump Campaign. Is that correct . Sufficient predication. And your office found no evidence that the fbi launched a politicallymotivated investigation, is that correct . Thats correct. And another key findingator that the f fbi committed severa errors in his applications in their applications to surveil carter page. Or maybe moreo than several andre as the fbi director ra himself has acknowledged, your investigation found serious fbi misconduct that needs to be addressed and director ray also said that the fbi fully accepts your investigations findings. Is that correct . Thats correct. On the other hand, Attorney General barr has been highly critical of your findings. During the final stages of your investigation, he evenof embark on his own personal investigation by meeting with
foreign leaders in foreign lands. Apparently, in search of evidence that contradicts the fact that russia interfered in the 2016 United States president ial election. Russ to benefit trump. Clearly, barrs investigation, which was launched to do the bidding of President Trump, has two objectives. One, to undermine the integrity of our intelligence community. The goal, to cast doubt on the Finding Thatdo Russia interfere in the 2016 election in order to benefit the Trump Campaign. And, two, to intimidate the men and women of our intelligence community. By suggesting that our National Security professionalsin will fe seriousro consequences if they investigate wrongdoing on the part of this president or his operatives. So, general horowitz, i appreciate your extensive work and the work that your office has devoted to this investigation. But, in addition, you have the power and the duty to
investigate misconduct committed byve the Attorney General of th United States. Ct who is doing the bidding of the president to undermine our intelligence community. And i trust you take that duty seriously. I i do. And id just like to add that, under the law, under the Inspector General act, it carves out for my authority, the ability to look at misconduct by Department Lawyers from the line lawyer all the l way to the top and the Attorney General. History has also shown us that the Inspector General can participate in an investigation of the Attorney General. And that, in fact, happened with general gonzales. Do you recall that . That happened and go its worth noting that happened after the Attorney General said our office was not going to get the case. It was going to go to the office of professional responsibility. And the choice for our office was whether to join that investigation or not. Or but that wasnt initiated through us. Thats the important point. The law has to change, senator. So are you recommending absolutely. If i propose legislation, would you support that . Absolutely. In fact, theres Legislation Senator Lee has sponsored several members have cosponsored. The house has passed this unanimously. And you would support it . Absolutely,th 100 . So it was recently reported that the president s personal attorney, rudy giuliani, asked ukrainians to help search for dirt of the of the political rivals of the president. In exchange for the help, giuliani offered to help fix criminal cases against them at doj. Giuliani and his associates, two of whom have been indicted and are now in federal custody, allegedly reached out to a Ukrainian Energy tycoon, who faced legal problems in america. T in exchange for helping find dirt on the president s political rivals, giulianis associates reportedly connected the ukrainian with lawyers who could get a toplevel meeting at the United States Department Of Justice. In essence, Giulianis Scheme was an attempt to trade get out of jail free cards for political favors. As part of giulianis plan, Attorney General barr met with the ukrainians lawyers, who asked that the Department Of Justice Withdrawal Evidencehe i the tycoons bribery prosecution. Wi earlier today, you said you are not investigating matters related to ongoing ukraine issues. Does that mean that you have decided not to investigate these incidents . No. As i think mentioned in a recent letter and ive been in touch with fellow igs who have been asked by members to look at those issues. Weve been in communication with each other. I think as mr. Fine, the Defense Department wrote to several members of congress. He was foregoing at the time. Work while the house investigation proceeded and any matters here in the senate. At and, you know, as i mentioned, we will looki accordingly at a action that we have the jurisdiction to review. Getting back to the section 80 section. No other ig has that limitation, by the way. So they can investigate their secretary, deputy secretary, administrator, whomever. Y i just point that out because thats important to keep in mind as we get requests. And why are we different than the State Department Weig . The epa ig . Couldnt agree with you more. Couldnt agree with you more. Do you agree that if true, Giulianis Scheme isru alarming . I think s anything like that would be very concerning. And mr. Giuliani recently returned to ukraine in search of dirt on the president s political rivals. Apparently, in order to cook up a dossier of his own. N ri yesterday, he told reporters that President Trump asked him to brief the Justice Department and Senate Republicans on what, if anything, he finds. Do you and are you concerned that the Justice Department would coordinate with the president s personal lawyer on a scheme clearly designed to benefit the president s Political Campaign . Le
im going to look at the evidence myself and facts. Ive learned to, before taking any action, to not just rely on news reports or other allegations. But to actually spend o the tim to to look at them. Soto id id ask to take a lk at that. And happy to come in and meet with you. Please do. Id appreciate that. Is it appropriate for the Attorney General or anyone at the Department Of Justice to take actions that are slowly solely designed to benefit the president politically . I think that would create questions about on various rules that the department and practices at the department. During Attorney General barrs last g appearance before this committee, i asked him, has the president or anyone at the white house ever suggested that you open an investigation of anyone . T uhhuh. After pondering the word, suggest, the Attorney General declined to answer. The Attorney Generals
nonresponse suggested to many that hese has opened politicallymotivated investigations. Indeed, we know thaty during a call with the president of ukraine, President Trump said that Attorney General barr would follow up regarding the quote unquote favor. That the president demanded. Did the Attorney General or anyone at justice follow up with the president s call . I dont know the answer to that question. And again anyone in your office know the answer to that question . I dont believe anybody in my office would know it. And, frankly, it gets to the question of a decision by the Attorney General. Whether to open an investigation or not. Which, in most instances, i wont foreclose it completely but in most instances, would fall squarely within the predicti prohibition on my jurisdiction. President trumps Phone Conversation wasnt apparent efft to solicit interference in the election. And the call involved officials at multiple agencies, including Department Of Justice, state department, the Office Of Management And Budget and others. Are you workingud with the
inspectors general of these various agencies on that issue . As i mentioned, im you know,yo allegations that come i. Well talk with our fellow igs. On that specific one, are you working with other igs . Were not i dont have any ongoing work at this point. Again, im not sure what my legal if id have a Statutory Authority to look at actions by lawyers at the Department Related to misconduct. Have you been approached by any other igs to work with them on an investigation that related to that phone call . Ill say weve had discussions generally. I dont know what whether other igs at this point have or do not have ongoing investigations. You have had conversations generally about this phone call . About about, generally, ukrainerelated matters and discussions, generally. , how about specifically about this phone call . I dont recall, as i sit here, discussions about it. You have to refresh your memory . Refresh my recollection on this issue. Obviously, been spending a fair amount of time preparing to deal with the 400pluspage report that were talking about today. Involving ukraine. Yeah. No, right. This ri okay. The american system of justice waste founded on the principle equal justice under the law. And that principle obviously means there cannot be one system of justice for one group of people and a different system of justice for others. And i have spent my Career Fighting for equal justice. Andca ill tell you that everyby in the Department Of Justice obviously has a duty to make sure that people get a fair shot. Ar unfortunately, recent reports that the actions taken by thet Justice Department leaders fall far short of their obligation toho pursue equal an evenhanded justice. For evexample, in 2011, the department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion that paved the way for states to legalize online gambling. This opinion was opposed by Sheldon Adelson and who is a major donor who spent millions ofwh dollars to support preside
trump. And hisid lobbyist also sent a memo to top doj officials asking that the opinion be reversed. And, of course, then the llc reversed the opinion in january of 2019. Has your office investigated whether Political Considerations motivated Ther Department of justices abrupt reversal of online r gambling . Li im fairly confident that would be barred from doing that by the statutory prohibition. I dont think we would have Legal Authority to look at why theoo office of Legal Counsel me a decision one way or another. Unless there was a criminal allegation connected t to it. My time is up. Thank you. Al thank you, mr. Chairman. Again, i join with everybody else, mr. Horowitz, for thanking you and your team for the work you have done here. Ea im going to go back to an issue thats beenck talked about by my of mybo colleagues today and th is this question of bias. Actually, i want to start by going back towa june of 2018. When you were last here before theen committee. And when i asked questions of you at that time, i talked about your findings then with regard to bias. The specific focus that i recall there was peter strzok and lisa page. And The Information thats already been wellpresented here about thees what i consider be the undeniable bias that they had against the president President Trump. At that time, you made similar statements to those you made today. Which is that youma did not fin bias in the decisions that you were evaluating in that report. But as i went through that with you, i think that you also confirmed that you were not saying that there was no bias by those who were involved in making decisions. Other rather, you were saying you could not prove that that bias was a factor in their management of the activities they engaged in on behalf of the fbi. As i understood it, you said
that there was bias. But,th in fact, that you had asd them whether their bias influenced their work performance. They had told you that it did not. And you had no contrary evidence to dispute that. Is that correct . Let me clarify. Let me explain. I we found that those Text Messages evidenced bias. And what we ultimately found was that other people were involved and made many of those decisions, not them. And that was the base not because we didnt know whether they were bias. Those text evidenced bias by them. The question b was the other individuals who we didnt have Text Messages for. And that would be consistent with what your report here today says. As im reading from the executive summary. Deputy Attorney General i believe thats his title. Assistant director. Depending on the time period. Okay. Hes the one who made the final decision to open each of the four investigations. Correct. He didur that in consultatio with a number of others, including peter strzok. Correct. And you dont necessarily know what advice was given in those conversations, do you . I dont. But he made the final decision. Ut and because you had no and and you used the phrase very consistently here today. You did not find documentary or Testimonial Evidence that political bias oria improper motivation influenced the decision to open these four investigations. Right. Did you ask him whether he hadsk bias . We asked all the witnesses, not just him, as to whether as to whether bias or other improper considerations had any impact. But we also looked for emails, Text Messages, documents that
could show what we found, frankly, with strzok and page. I mean,st that is how you find evidence of bias. Now, beyond that,ev im stuck trying to understandi whats i somebodys head. I understand. I just want to make it really clear what it is you are saying and what you are not saying. Correct. Cl i and in this case, what youre saying is thatas you could not find anyou documentary or Testimonial Evidence to contradict the statements of the investigators that they were nof letting bias influence their decision. Correct. T do you believe thats an Open Question . I can only i can only speak to the evidence we found. I think the important point here, and i made earlier is, all the evidence is here. People are free to consider or evaluate c what they think ultimately what they think peoples motivations were. We dont reach a definitive conclusion. You werent making that decision. Were not making a decision on, ultimately, information,
evidence we dont have that somebody t acted may have acted. In my opinion, and i think in the opinion of most of us who have m on this side of the aisle at least who have talked to you today. I think theres tons of evidence of bias here. In fact, you have referred for further action to the Attorney General. One case, for criminal prosecution, if i understand it right. And other cases of how many other individuals . So but i want to be clear. Were talking nowto about the fa as opposed to the open. I understand. There is a distinction between the opening of the investigation and the conduct of the investigation. Correct. And so im i understand that. I appreciate you for making that clarification because in the conduct of the investigation, it appears tot me there has been intense bias. But youre not making that judgment. I understand that. Youre referring that to the Attorney General,ha correct . Uhhuh. And the fbi for adjudication,
consideration. Understood. And i believe inio response to senator ernsts question on this same issue, you indicated that similarly, since you could not find any Documentary Evidence or Testimonial Evidence to contradict theirce statements tt they were not biased. That that leaves an Open Question as to what the fbi or the Attorney General will find withat these referrals. There are significant, serious failures here on the operation of the, particularly in connection with the fisas. Whether it was sheer, gross incompetence that led to this. Versus intentional misconduct and what the motive or anything in between and what thean motivations are. I cant tell you. Youre not making that decision. I cant tell you, as i sit here today, because i dont have enough evidence to reach a conclusion. But if someone were to characterize what you are telling us to be that youre telling us there is no bias here. Thatsg not what youre tellin us. That is not as to the operation of these fisas is what im telling you. All right. Understood. And i did want to get to this question, though, about the operation of the fisas. And, again, you may not answer this and thats fine. But it seems to me, if we go beyond the bias question. To intentional versus grossly negligent. It seems to me that the kind of misconduct that has been presented by you and reviewed by our chairman and many others here today is mind numbing to consider that it could be just accidental. Can you reach a conclusion like that . Id be skeptical. But i understand why people would be skeptical of that. There is such a range of conduct here that is inexplicable. And the answers we got were not satisfactory. That were left trying to understand how could all these errors have occurred over a ninemonth period or so . Among three teams, handpicked. One of theam highest profile, i not the highest profile, case in the fbi. Involving a president ial campaign. I understand that. I appreciate that. I think it is explicable. But i understand that you cant or at least arent going to make that jump. You are going to refer these cases. Heuhhuh. And ca and i appreciate th. Is criminal prosecution a possible action in the cases other than the one youve specifically referred . Ct i i wouldnt want to prejudice or prejudge anything. Id leave it to the department to speak to you on that. All right. Let me go on for just a moment. When when when let lets move to the whistleblower question just once more. Im shiftinges topics completel. Its come up several times today and i understand your point that a whistleblower is entitled to anonymity. Uhhuh. To me how it happens
that the person accused when a Whistleblower Makes an accusation can have the right that Mostcu Americans think the should have to confront those testifying against them . How how is thatng accomplish . So ill speak to what we do. We get anonymous allegations frequently. We get people coming forward who are Reporting Misconduct who want to be anonymous. Want to stay anonymous. So we get them both ways. We get people walking in saying keep me anonymous. And anonymous complaints. G in we move forward on both if we think they aree sufficient to move forwardre on. And predicated and have support. But we then have to prove the allegations and get corroboration for its because youre right. The individual, if there is a finding ofhe misconduct, has a right to ultimately challenge the evidence found. But it doesnt necessarily mean that they get all the way back to where the nugget started. If that information is corroborated through other means. And the ig act requires us, actually, the congressional the law says Senator Grassley obviously has had a role in this. Makes it quite clear. We are not unless were legally obligated to provide e information, the law requires us to do so. Its our obligation as igs to keep that information. Well, i appreciate that because, as you know, we may face that question here in the senate relatively quickly. Last quick question and im running out of time. So i just would like a quick answer if you could. Im trying to find out who brought the steele dossier to the attention of the fbi for the investigation . Was that Andrew Mccabe . Or was that bruce ore . So it was steele in July 5th Of 2016 going to his handling agent. The agent there is a dispute whether he was a confidential source or not. We spend a number of pages on
this. But the agent that steele had a relationship with is the agent he went to with some of his reports. That agent then took put it through a process at the fbi. Ok and it then took from july 5th to September 19th to get The Information to the crossfire Hurricane Team. Eventually, in that meandering over the what is that 2 1 2 months, there is information we conclude in he that mr. Mccabe was involved in referring it over to the crossfire Hurricane Team. All right. Thank you. Long day, general. You got sturdy kidneys. Hopefully, for 20 more minutes. Im gonna try to land this plane early. I believe the the fbi is the
premiere Law Enforcement agency in all of human history. Would you disagree with that . I would not. U clearly, weve got some bad apples. Uhhuh. I want to thank you and i want to w thank your team for yr usual superb job. After i i i havent read the entire report. Im about 70 of the way through. But im gonna finish it. Its tedious. I dont mean that in a pejorative sense. Its supposed to be tedious. Right. After about 15 of the way through, it made me want to heave. After about 25 of the way through, i thought id dropped acid. Its surreal. I mean, i just couldnt believe it. Ive read iti multiple time. And every time i read it, im let me ask you this. How many members comprised the misfire Hurricane Team . There were three teams over that period of time. I would venture to guess, again depending on how you count them. Just roughly. At least half a dozen to to a dozen. On each of those iterations. Ill turn around and see if im somewhat close. Does that include their supervisors . Generally speaking. Half dozen to a dozen . Probably a little bit more if youre going to go all the way upyo the chain through all the Different Levels at the bureau. Do you or your team have a feel for how many how many of ts
are still at the fbi . I know you tried to answer that. Well, the higherlevel people, as you know, have changed over in the last year so that actor deputy director, the assistant director, a lot of people at the upper levels but are some of the actual agents . Some of the agents are still there. Are they still working on fisa applications . I would encourage you to speak to the fbi about that. I think we will. I think they have taken some steps in that regard. Its easier to divorce your spouse than it is to get fired. Thats clear. At least at the fbi. Uh, is mr. Ore still at the Department Of Justice . My understanding yes he is. Hes still there . Thats my understanding. How long within the fbi i know you just issued your report but how long within the fbi has this been knowledge . So, we sent the draft for classification not your document, excuse me for interrupting but just the fact thatr there was a major league screwup here. It evolved over time. They did not know a lot of this until we found it. But they know it now, right . Chris wray knows it now, right . Yes. As of the end of august. Does your report vindicate mr. Comey . Mr it Doesnt Vindicate Anyon at the fbi who touched this including the leadership. Does it vindicate mr. Mccabe . Same answer. How about ms. Page . S. Um, a little different the, because, as wedi found here, sh wasnt involved in this, largely wasnt involved in this. Shet participated in the in some discussions but was not in the fisa chain. On that note, who briefed the
agent that was sent to surveil Michael Flynn during the meeting with President Trump . Um, that was discussed up and down the chain at the fbi. So that was not a hidden fact or hidden information. All right. I like the fact that you and your team are very precise in your language. I mean, for instance, i wish i wrote as well as you and your team did. And i noticed you were careful to say im going to quote here. M we did not find documentary or Testimonial Evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations. Your words. Correct. No Documentary Evidence and
no Testimonial Evidence. So you didnt find any documents that said we did this to get trump, right . Or Text Messages like the strzok page textli messages. Xt right. And nobody who was involved in this circus without a tent looked you in the eye and said, yep,e i did it to get trump. Nobody did that . Or, for example, a whistleblower come in or other people tell us pe right. That they heard something looked you in the eye and said, yeah, youre right, i did it to get, trump . And nobody with different means and said ive got a problem here. I mean, you dont have to qualify as mensa material to know not to do that to the Inspector General, heright . Yeah. Look at some of the Text Messages we found. So im not sure i understand. That may be a counter narrative to that. Well, i dont want to get
too i mean epistimological here. But is the absence of evidence always the evidence of absence . No, it isnt. So, can you rule out categorically, unequivocally, and unconditionally that there was no bias here by the fact that you didnt find anything in writing, and none of these chuckleheads looked you in the eye and said i dideh it to get trump . T its rare that i could tel you, i could unequivocally 100 say this actually happened. So i get it. I will say, somewhat the difference on the opening is we concluded based on the events that mr. Prestap opened it. We have not seen in last years investigation or this investigation looking through
texts, emails, et cetera, talking e to other people, any evidence thate, he did it for a improper purpose. Can i tell you a thousand percent someone wont walk in, in a wake and say, ahhah, you missed this . Im sorry. Go ahead. Lets talk about the people involvedab in the initial fisa application and the renewals. These are experienced people, right . In this case, these were experienced people. Many of them had professional degrees including but not limited to law degrees, right . I actually dont know what all their degreesn were. They knew the law . Shouldve not only known the law, they shouldve known every single policyou that they had t deal with. They were handpicked by mc bcabe . They were handpicked. This Wasnt Their First Rodeo . It certainly wasnt with maybe an exception or two towards the end of relatively new agents coming on board. Well
but that should not have been an excuse, just to be clear. Well, it just seems to me that it has to be one or two things. Either incompetence or intentional conduct. I agree. Its either sheer incompetence, intentionality or something perhaps in between. So which do you think it is . Weve got so many different people here. First of all, it wouldnt be fair to lump everybody into one because there are different actorsry coming in at different times. Some people have more touches of this than others. I think its fair for people to sit there and look at all of these 17 events and wonder how it could be purely incompetence. Well, i want to thank you again. I know this puts you in a tough spot. And i hope you will tell your colleagueste back at the fbi th
we appreciate their work. A absolutely. But this has got to be fixed. At a minimum somebodys got to be m fired. Agree completely. Theres got to be a change inee the culturee also. Im done. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And, general, i know youre happy to see the end of the dias coming at you. Youre going to get out of here. Let meo pick up right where Senator Kennedy left off because i will tell you the perception by the American People, from reading your report, and weve all put up links so that people can read it, is that this was intentional, that it was deliberate, that it was malicious, it was premeditated and wellthought out, and that it is conducted by people who wered desperate. In essence, it is the epitome of the swamp. It is murky and muddy. And people werent going to get their way. And this guy who was going to
win and then did win didnt deserve to win. And it does have the appearance Ofea Intentionality because you would not have this series of unfortunate coincidences. That is not what it is. It is the Surveillance State at work. This is what they did. And they took their professional place. And those tools that they had at their disposal to go spy on a campaign and on u. S. Citizens, which is unbelievable. And youveic heard it from sevel today that people cant believe this happened. And you can say, yes, there are sins y of omission here, but the are also sins of commission. And they were deliberate and
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.