Consensus reached after multiple days and meetings among officials. We reviewed Department Policies and concluded Assistant Director pre steps exercise of description in opening the investigation was in compliance with those policies. We also reviewed, as we detail in the report, the emails, Text Messages and other documents of those involved in that decision, particularly mr. Pre steps. We didnt find documentary or Testimonial Evidence that indicated political bias or improper motivation influencing his decision to open the investigation. While the information in the fbis possession at the time was limited, in light of the Throw Threshold established by department and fbi predication policy which, by the way, is not a legal requirement but a prudential one in the fbi and Department Policies, we found that Crossfire Hurricane was opened for an authorized
investigative purpose and with sufficient factual predication. This decision to open Crossfire Hurricane which involved the activities of individuals associated with a National Major campaign for Party President. Was a discretionary judgment left to the fbi. As we point out in our report, there was no requirement that Department Officials be consulted or even notified of that decision prior to the fbi making that decision. Consistent with this policy, the fbi advised supervisors in the Departments National Security Division of the investigation days after it had been opened. As we detail in our report, high Level Department notice and approval is required in other circumstances where investigative activity could substantially impact certain Civil Liberties. That notice allows senior Department Officials to consider the potential constitutional and prudential implications in
advance of those activities. We concluded that similar notice should be required in circumstances such as those present here. Shortly after the fbi opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation and condu, the fb conducted several monitored recorded meetings between fbi confidential Human Sources referred to as chss and individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign including a highlevel Campaign Official who is not the subject of the investigation. We found that the chs operations received the necessary approvals under fbi policy, that an fbi Assistant Director, mr. Pre step knew about and approved of each operation even in circumstances where what was only required was first level supervisory agent approval and that the operations were permitted under department
and fbi policy because their use was not for the sole purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the constitution or laws of the United States. We did not find documentary or Testimonial Evidence that political bios or improper motivation influenced the fbis decision to conduct those chs operations. Additionally, we found no evidence that the fbi attempted to place chss within or report on the Trump Campaign or recruit members of the Trump Campaign as chss. However, we were concerned that under Applicable Department and fbi policy, it would have been sufficient for a firstlevel fbi supervisor to authorize the sensitive domestic chs operations undertake inin Crossfire Hurricane and theres no Applicable Department or fbi policy requiring the fbi to notify Department Officials of a
decision to task a confidential human source to con sensely monitor, in other words record, conversations with members of a political campaign. Just in terms of that, its worth noting that had in the midyear investigation which was the clinton email investigation or in this investigation, the fbi could have at the supervisory advisory level authorize an undercover authorized a confidential human source to have a con sensely monitored conversation with either of the president ial candidates with no notice to the Department Of Justice or any lawyer in the Department Of Justice. In Crossfire Hurricane where each of the operations had the potential to gather sensitive Campaign Information protected by the First Amendment, we found no evidence that the fbi consulted with Department Officials before conducting those operations and no policy, as i just noted, requiring them to do so. We concluded Current Department and fbi policies are not sufficient to ensure appropriate oversight and accountability when such operations potentially implicate sensitive, constitutionally protected activity and that requiring Department Consultation at a minimum would be appropriate. We make a recommendation to that effect. One investigative tool which the department and the fbi policy does expressly require express advance approval by a Senior Department official is the seeking of a court order under fisa. When the Crossfire Hurricane Team first proposed seeking a fisa order targeting carter page in mid august 2016, fbi attorneys assisting the investigation considered it a, quote, close call, closed quote and the fisa order was not requested at the time. However, in September 2016, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane Team received
reporting from christopher steal considering pages Election Acts for russian 06 fishls, the department was ready to move forward to obtain Feis Zoo Author to surveil page. The Steele Reporting pushed fisa over the line in terms of establishing probable cause and we concluded that it played a central and essential role in a decision to seek a fisa order. Fbi leadership supported relying on steeles reporting to seek a fisa order after being advised of concerns expressed by a Department Attorney that steele may have been hired by someone associated with a Rival Candidate or campaign. Surveillance authority under fisa can significantly assist the governments efforts to combat terrorism, clandestine intelligence activity and other threats to the national
security. At the same time, the use of this Authority Unavoidbly raises civil liberty concerns. Fisa can be used to surveil u. S. Persons and in some cases the surveillance will foreseeably collect information about the individuals constitutionally protected activities such as carter pages legitimate activities on behalf of a president ial campaign. Moreover, proceedings before the foreign Intelligence Surveillance court, which is responsible for ruling on applications for fisa orders are exparte, meaning that unlike most court proceedings, the government is the only party prrcht for the proceedings and fisa orders have not been subjected to scrutiny through subsequent proceedings like Search Warrants and wiretap applications, potentially through the criminal process. In light of these concerns, the fisa statute and department and
fbi policies and procedures have established important safeguards to protect the Fisa Application Process from irregularities and abuse. Among the most important are the requirements in fbi policy that every fisa application must contain a, quote, full and accurate, closed quote, presentation of the facts and that agents must ensure that all factual statements and fisa applications are, quote, scrupulously accurate, closed quote. These are the standards for all fisa applications regardless of the investigations sensitivity, regardless it is incumbent upon the fbi to meet them in every application. Nevertheless, we found that investigators failed to meet their basic obligations of ensuring that the vice is a applications were scrupulously accurate. We identified significant inaccuracies and omissions in each of the four applications,
seven in the first application and a total of 17 by the final renewal application. For example, the Crossfire Hurricane Team obtained information from steeles primary sub source. In january 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the Steele Reporting. This was particularly noteworthy because the fisa applications relied entirely on information from the Primary Subsources reporting to support the allegation that page was coordinating with the russian government on 2016 u. S. President ial election activities. However, the fbi did not share this information with Department Lawyers, and it was, therefore, omitted from the last two renewal applications. All of the applications admitted information that the fbi obtained in august 2017 sorry august 2016 from another u. S. Government agency
detailing its prior relationship with carter page including that carter page had been approved as an operational contact for that other agency from 2008 to 2013, that page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain russian Intelligence Officers and that an employee of that other agency assessed that carter page had been candid with them. The fbi never followed up on that information. As a result of these seven significant inaccuracies and omissions, relevant information was not shared with and consequently considered by Department Lawyers and the fisa court. The fisa applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case. We also found basic fundamental and serious errors during the completion of the fbis factual
accuracy reviews known as the Woods Procedures, designed to ensure that fisa applications contain a full and accurate presentation of the facts. Department lawyers and the court should have been given complete and Accurate Information so they could have meaningfully evaluated probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a u. S. Person associated with a president ial campaign. That did not occur. And as a result, the surveillance of carter page continued even as the fbi gathered information that weakened the assessment of probable cause and made the fisa applications less accurate. We concluded that investigators did not give appropriate consideration or attention to facts that cut against probable cause, and that as the investigation progressed and more information tended to undermine or weaken the assertions in the fisa applications, investigators did not reassess the information
supporting probable cause. Further, the agents and supervisory agents did not follow or even appear to know certain basic requirements in the Woods Procedures. Although we did not find documentary or Testimonial Evidence of intentional misconduct, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for any of the errors or omissions we identified. We found and as we outline here, are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate hand picked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive fbi investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the fbi, even though the information sought through the use of Fisa Authority related so closely to an ongoing president ial campaign, and even though those involved with the investigation knew that their actions would likely be subjected to close
scrutiny. The circumstances reflect a failure as we outline in the report, not just by those who prepared the applications, but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane Chain Of Command including fbi senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed. We believe that in the fbis most sensitive and high priority matters, and especially when seeking Court Permission to use an intrusive tool such as a fisa order, its incumbent upon the entire Chain Of Command at the organization including senior officials to take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a fisa application in order to provide effective oversight consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility. Such oversight requires greater familiarity with the facts than we saw in this review where time
and again during our oig interviews fbi managers, supervisors and senior officials displayed a lack of understanding or awareness of Important Information concerning many of the problems that we identified. That is why, as youll see in the report, our final recommendation was to refer the entire Chain Of Command that we outline here to the fbi and department for consideration of how to assess and address their performance failures. Additionally, in light of the significant concerns we identified, the oig announced this week we were initiating an audit that will further examine the fbis compliance with the Woods Procedures in fisa applications that target u. S. Persons, not only in Counterintelligence Investigations but also more importantly in counterterrorism investigations. The oig report made a number of other recommendations to the department and the fbi. We believe that implementation of those recommendations including those that seek individual accountability for the failures identified in our report will improve the fbis ability to more carefully and effectively utilize its important National Security authorities like fisa while also striving to safeguard the Civil Liberties and privacy of impacted u. S. Persons. The oig will continue to conduct rigorous oversight of these matters in the months and years ahead including the recommendations that we made in this weeks report. That concludes my statement. Id be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. Thank you very much for your team and thank you for your service to the country. The fbi former fbi director james comey said this week that your report vindicates him. Is that a Fair Assessment of your report . You know, i think the activities we found here Dont Vindicate anybody who touched
this. Lets run a clip here. This is what comey said in 2018. It would be nice to have sound. Do we have sound . Never mind. Ill read it. Director comey, the reporter is asking him, can i ask you a question on fisa abuse. Its a major issue for the republicans. Do you have the total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a Surveillance Warrant and also in the subsequent renewals . This was asked in december of 2018, about a year ago. Comey, i have total confidence that the fisa process was followed, that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by doj and the fbi. I think the nation i think the notion that fisa was abused here is nonsense. Would it be fair to say that you
take issue with that statement . Certainly our findings were that there were significant problems when comey speaks about fisa, you shouldnt listen . You should listen to mr. Horowitz. Hes not vindicated and to be concerned about the Fisa Warrant Process is not nonsense. Christopher steele, is it fair to say he had a political bias against donald trump . Given who he was paid for, there was a bias that needed to be disclosed to the court. Does it seem that he personally had a bias, not just because hes on the payroll of the Democratic Party . We found in the course of this and heard that he was desperate to prevent mr. Trumps election. Again, this is the guy that provides the dossier that gets the warrant over the top against carter page. Hes paid for by the Democratic Party and he personally believes its bad for donald trump to
win. Hes marketing the dossier which is a bunch of garbage to anybody and everybody. To me thats important. Is that important to you . Any evidence of bias is supposed to be disclosed to the court and to the Department Lawyers. Okay. So lets play this out. In january 2017 when they figure out the primary sub source and talk to the russian guy that provided steele all the information, what should the fbi have done at that moment . Two things. Reconsidered internally where things stood, and most importantly, told the lawyers at the Justice Department who they were asking to help them get a vi fisa. There are five people in that interview, correct . Correct. Are you going to make sure those five people are known to the higher ups. All part of the referral i mentioned earlier. Did they have a duty to report to their supervisors and eventually to the court
exculpatory information. Absolutely. They did not. They did not. Why . Thats the question i cant specifically answer for you. Can you say it wasnt because of political bias . On decisions regarding those fisa matters, i do not know their State Of Mind at this point. Fair enough. Were talking about actions now. Im trying to figure out what would motivate people. Do you think comey and mccabe should have known . Thats a challenging question as we explain in the report, there were multiple Brief Innings up the chain including to the director and deputy director. We dont have a clear record of what precisely they were told. You know, as information flows up stream would you be surprised if it didnt make it up the system . Im not going to surprise. Did struck know . Mr. Struck transitions off on
this matter in January Of 2017 oochs. Its not i might have to go back and look. In february he mentioned that steele cant verify. Correct. Pretty clear to me. So the court should have been told they were not. How did they describe this meeting to the court in the Warrant Application . In the second and third in the second and third renewals, the last two applications, they told the court they had interviewed steeles primary sub source upon whom steele relied in writing the reporting and they found the Primary Subsource to be credible. They did not tell the court or the Department Lawyers any of the information which would have allowed them to know, if you found the Primary Subsource credible, you couldnt also have found the steele report credible. Did they mislead the court . That was misleading to the
court and they did two things in january 2017. They failed to report obviously exculpatory information. And when they did report to the court about the interview, they lied about it. Let me add, also, that a year later, in june of 2018 when the department sent a rule 13 letter to the course informing them of other information that had not been provided to the court, the Department Still didnt know about the primary sub source information. So when the department in its letter said that it still stood behind the fisa application interesting, very interesting. They reference the Primary Subsource again and the fact the fbi found that so are these the best and brightest we have . Well, certainly the fbi the actions of the fbi agents on this were not so mccabe hand picks these
people. Are they representative of the department as a whole in your view . I certainly hope that that is not the way others are following these practices. Yeah, me, too. Okay. Lets fast forward to june of 2016. Mr. Klein smith. Who is he . Im going to defer on speaking about people who we dont name specifically in the report. Tell me about the guy that altered the email from the cia. There was a lawyer in the office of General Counsel of the fbi who was the Line Attorney working with the agents and counterparts at the National Security division on the fisa. And that individual in june of 2017, as the last application was being prepared and
immediately following mr. Page, carter page, going to news outlets after word of the fisa Hit The News Media and said to the news media i was someone who worked with u. S. Intelligence agencies, not someone who worked against them, lawyers and agents went and said weave got to figure out whats the story, is that what happened . The lawyer, the ogc attorney for the fbi reached out to a liaison at the other Government Agency that was at issue, asked the question is, was plfrmt page a source or contact of some sort for your organization. The report back and the email referenced the august 2016 memorandum that that agency had provided to the fbi that i mentioned in my opening statement, the fbi did no followup on and said what that
liaisons general recollection was, that mr. Page was or is someone who is still who had a relationship with the entity, with the other Government Agency, but that the lawyer should go look at the report for confirmation. The lawyer then had a conversation with the fbi agent who was going to be the affiant, the person who swore out that final application, fisa application. The agent told us and as detailed in here, was concerned about what he learned about what page said publicly and wanted a definitive answer, as he put it, as to whether page because if the agent if carter page was actually telling the truth, it changes one of the predicates to consider him a foreign agent. That was the concern of the agent. It was going to be the agent who would be swearing out if true, it would be helpful
to mr. Page. True it certainly could have and may well have been very helpful to mr. Page. But at a minimum, without any doubt, it should have been known, followed up on what did his lawyer do . When the lawyer had the discussion with the agent and the agent said i want to see it, do you have it in writing, the lawyer said he did and he forwarded the liaisons email but altered it to insert the words and not a source into the email. He doctored it. He doctored the original email from the liaison. It made it look like the cia denied knowing mr. Page. It flatly stated he was not a source. Just imagine, folks, youre representing somebody as a Defense Attorney and they do this to one of your clients. I hope somebody pays the price for this, whether you like trump or not. Why did mr. Klein smith, you havent said it, ill say it, what motivated him to do that . It is unknown as to precisely why he did it. This is the viva la resistance guy. I was going to mention we reference in here the Text Messages you mention and we have not made a determination, but rather as we note in here, when we learn this, we notified the Attorney General and the fbi director and referred it you did a great job. The old adage, if you wake up and the lawn is wet, you can assume it rained. If youve got a guy who hates trumps guts from day one, thinks pence is stupid and everybody who voted for trump is an idiot and you give him power over trump, maybe youre making a mistake. Or again, maybe all these people who had these biases did nothing about it. Maybe. Maybe not. It doesnt really matter. We know what they did. Is it fair to say that after
january 2017 when the guy who gave steele all the information disavows the dossier, not only they should have told the court they should have slowed down, do you think the second and third warrants had a legal basis after that point . You know, we dont reach that conclusion and im not going to would you have submitted a Warrant Application as a lawyer . Let me put it this way. I would not have submitted the one they put in. Okay. No doubt about it. It had no business going in what i want you to know is in january 2017, the whole foundation for Surveilling Carter page collapses, exculpatory information is ignored, they lie to the court about what the interview was all about. Is that a fair summary about january 2017 ill they certainly misled it was misleading the the court. Fair enough. In january, about six months later, when they find more
information that could be helpful to mr. Page, they lie about it. Do you feel like mr. Page was treated fairly by the Department Of Justice and the fbi . I dont think the Department Of Justice fairly treated these fisas and he was on the receiving end. You would not want to be on the receiving end, would you . I would not want agents or anybody failing to put forward all the information theyre obligated to tell the cower. I was in ausa i would be very comfortable with you investigating anybody because i think you know the difference between getting somebody and trying to find the truth. Thats what this is all about. The Counterintelligence Investigations, whats the purpose of a Counterintelligence Investigation . Its to identify potential threats to the nation. Okay. This was opened up as a Counterintelligence Investigation, right . Correct. We know the russians were
screwing around with the democrats, right . Thats one of the concerns. It was the russians who hacked into the dnc, got their emails. Correct. Its okay for everybody to be concerned, what are the russians up to. I get that. Its okay to look at whats the standard to start one of these things . There are two types of investigations, one has relatively low thresholds. Lets assume the relatively low threshold was met. Would it be fair to say if you stop there in looking at your report youre making a mistake . You would be making a mistake. Theres 400 pages here for a reason. Theres a mountain of misconduct. Please dont ignore it. So my point is if this is a Counterintelligence Investigation, who are they trying to protect . Who should they be trying to
protect . Well, if its a the threat outlined in the friendly Foreign Government information, you would be looking to protect the election process. Right. Which would include. The candidate. The campaign, the candidate and the american people. Okay. So did they ever brief Hillary Clinton about efforts to foreign influences involving her campaign, do you know . Ive heard that but i dont know for a fact. They did. Good for them. And they stopped it. Was there ever a defensive briefing given by the fbi, Department Of Justice to donald trump about the concerns . There was not. What would you call a Counterintelligence Investigation that never had a protective element . Im not sure, sorry, mr. Claire man. If without eventually trying to protect the entity being
influenced, is it legitimate . It would depend on each fact and circumstance. Here is what im trying to tell you. If you open up a Counterintelligence Investigation to protect somebody, you should do it. Did they ever try to protect donald trump from foreign influence . They did not brief him. We lay out on page 55 as a matter of fact, when they went in and gave a Vanilla Briefing the russians are out there, you better beware, didnt they have an fbi agent do a 302 on the defensive briefing itself . They sent one of the supervisory agents from the Crossfire Hurricane Team to the briefing, and that agent prepared a report to the file of the briefing. About what trump said. About what mr. Trump said and what mr. Flynn said. So when we get defensively briefed tomorrow, would it be okay for fbi agents to open up 302s on what we said . We have very significant
concerns about that, and i would note that in Director Wrays response he underlined that that would not occur going forward. To those who can set aside how you feel about trump for a minute, under the guise of protecting the campaign from russian influence, they never lift a finger to protect the campaign. Every time they had information that the people they suspected were working for the russians, it went the other way and they kept going. When they did generically brief Candidate Trump, they sent an fbi agent in to do a 302. If this doesnt bother you, you hate trump way too much. Was that fbi agent spying on donald trump when he went in there . It was a Pretext Meeting that im not going to the process by which they have to do these
meetings. If you dont have a foundation let him answer the question. Im sorry. Go ahead. Do you need to say anything else. Im sorry. The incident, the event, the meeting was a briefing, and the fbi considered and decided to send that agent there to do the briefing. The agent was actually doing the briefing, but also using it for the purpose of investigation. Okay. I hope that doesnt happen to us tomorrow. Ill be really pissed if it does. Okay. Lets play this out. They never told trump about the concerns. Is it fair to say there came a point to where Surveilling Carter page became unlawful . I will let the court decide that. The court has this report and will make that decision. Lets put it this way. If you dont have a Legal Foundation to surveil somebody and you keep doing it, is that
bad . Absolutely. Is that spying . Its illegal surveillance. Its not court authorized whatever illegal surveillance means, they did it. So all this stuff that they didnt illegally surveil trumps campaign, they did because they had no legal basis after the january 2017 data dump by the russian guy to believe that the dossier was reliable. They alter exculpatory information in june of 2017 that would have further proven that carter page is not a russian agent who was actually working with the cia. Let me ask you directly, do you believe carter page was or ever was an agent of the russian government trying to do harm to his country . Im going to refer to the evidence we found here which is that thank you. They, the fbi at the end of
these fisas told us they had found no evidence to corroborate the allegations its not that clean, folks. They knew and they ignored it and they continued to surveil him. Why . Why did they doctor the email. The people who continued getting warrants after they knew it wasnt legitimate had a buy yos that wreaked. How this thing was opened i dont know, but i can tell you mr. Durham has a different view. I respect your view that there may have been a laufrl predicate. One of the people pushing this was peter struck from day one. We have a task at hand to hold people accountable, Climate Change our laws, save the fisa court if we can. I hope this chapter in American History is never repeated. Finally, if you report this 434page report says lawful
investigation with a few irregularities, youre doing a great disservice to the american people. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As we spoke, Inspector General, we pointed out your office spent 19 months and interviewed 100 witnesses. Your report concluded that the fbi had an adequate predicate reason to open the investigation on the Trump Campaign ties with russia. Could you quickly define that predicate. So the predicate here was the information that the fbi got at the end of july from the friendly Foreign Government that reflected a meeting that the friendly Foreign Government had with mr. Papadopoulos in may. Who was the friendly government . We dont mention that in the report. So im going to stick is that classified . My understanding that is still classified. Thank you. As i sit here, im only going to speak to whats in our report. Okay. Go ahead. As i mentioned in my statement, the comment was mr. Papadopoulos made a suggestion that there had been a suggestion to the Trump Campaign that the russian government could provide information that would be damaging to candidate clinton and then president obama. Your report saying you didnt find Documentary Evidence of improper motivation played a role. Thats correct. You didnt find a deep state conspiracy against candidate or president trump. As to the opening, we found no bias, no Testimonial Evidence on that. No rags nate neal for a deep
state. We looked at mr. Pre stap as i noted was the Decision Maker. We didnt find evidence in his emails or texts in having engaged in any bias or having any bias. Fbi Director Wray provided a written response of your findings, these include the key finding that there was an authorized purpose and actual factual predication for the investigation. By contrast, Attorney General barr expressed his doubt about the legitimacy about the legitimacy of the fbis investigation in press statements. Did Attorney General barr provide any evidence that caused you to alter this key finding that the fbi investigation had an adequate predicate . No. We stand by our finding. Thank you. During your investigation
Attorney General barr stated that spying on the Trump Campaign did occur. As you said, your investigation found no evidence that the fbi placed any confidential source within the Trump Campaign or tasked any confidential source to report on the Trump Campaign. Thats correct, right . Thats correct. Further, no evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the decision to use Confidential Sources as part of the investigation. Thats correct. Did your office ask Attorney General barr and u. S. Attorney john durham to share whatever evidence they might have that might be relevant for your investigation . We asked mr. Durham to do that. What about Attorney General barr . And Attorney General barr. Thank you. Nothing they could provide altered your offices conclusion that the fbi did not place spies in the Trump Campaign . None of the discussions changed our findings. Tasked by Attorney General barr to also investigate the origins of the Russia Investigation stated and i quote, last month, we advised the ig that we do not agree with some of the Reports Conclusions as to predication and how the fbi case was open. Whats your reaction to that . I was surprised by the statement that i didnt know was going to be released on monday. We did meet with mr. Durham as i mentioned. We provided him with a copy of the report as we did others through our factual accuracy review process. We met with him in november with regard to that. We did discuss the opening. We didnt necessarily agree about the opening of a full Counterintelligence Investigation which is what this was. There is also an investigative means by which the fbi can move forward with an investigation. Its called a preliminary investigation. There are two types of investigations, full and prel prelimina preliminary. They opened the full here. He said during the meeting that the information from the friendly Foreign Government was in his view sufficient to support the preliminary investigation. As we note in the report, investigative steps such as confidential Human Source Activity that occurred here are allowed under a preliminary investigation or under a full investigation. Did either barr or durham present anything that altered your findings . No. I wanted to ask you, since we
have the author of the whistleblower legislation very proudly sitting here, you previously told this committee that whistleblower rights and protections have been one of your highest priorities since becoming ig. As you know, there have been calls for the ukraine whistleblower to be identified publicly even though that person was not a direct witness to the events. So what is your view . Should the ukraine whistleblowers confidentiality be breached and that person identified publicly . And why not . So whistleblower protections have been one of my highest priorities. Ive appreciated working with all the members of the committee, particularly Senator Grassley. We wrote a letter recently as the ig communities, quoting his statement On The Issues and the importance of whistleblowers and whistleblowers have a right to expect complete, full confidentiality in all circumstances. Its in the law, in the ig act,
that congress wrote and its a very important provision. Thank you. In a public hearing before the house intelligence committee, Deputy Secretary Of State george kent testified that politically associated investigations or prosecutions against opponents of those in power undermine the rule of law. Do you agree with that . Do politically motivated investigations undermine the rule of law . I agree any politically motivated investigation undermines the rule of law. Thank you very much. Did you find any evidence that president obama or anyone else in the white house asked the United States government to investigate then Candidate Trump or his campaign . We certainly didnt see any evidence of that in the fbis files or the departments files which was our mandate here and our authorized jurisdiction. You have a Policy Recommendation regarding the use of confidential Human Sources. Id like to ask a few questions
about it. Your investigation found that the use of confidential Human Sources was consistent with existing rules. Correct . Correct. The use of confidential Human Sources here was not solely to gather First Amendment information. Correct. Thats the standard currently in the rules. You found no evidence of the decision to use confidential Human Sources was motivated by political bias. Is that correct . Correct. With regard to your Policy Recommendation, what, if anything, do you believe should be changed and why . So, as i mentioned in my opening statement, i think we were surprised to learn and concerned to learn that in an investigation of any Political National Party Political campaign, the confidential human source usage could be approved by only a first level supervisor. In this instance, as we note here, some of them were approved at the Assistant Director level,
but they could have been approved at just the line supervisor level. For an investigation of a major Party President ial campaign of either side, of any side, thats concerning to us, particularly since there was not a requirement that any department lawyer, whether at the National Security division, the criminal division, the Deputy Attorney generals office, the Attorney Generals Office needed to be notified at any point in time. Did you give interviews about your investigation while it was on going . Im sorry. Did i . Did you give interviews during the investigation . Myself . No. I do not do that. Did anybody on the ig team . No. And it would have been entirely inappropriate for them to do so. Id just like to clear this up. What are the dangers of discussing an investigation thats on going . So i actually wrote and we wrote a 500page report about
that that we issued last year on the midyear investigation and among other things, criticized what occurred last year with regard to the handling of that investigation. On going investigations are need to be protected from outside influence. You dont know as an investigator or you shouldnt conclude as an investigator until you are done with the investigation, you shouldnt be reaching your conclusions until that point. So giving preliminary ideas, advice, guidance, statements, can be misleading and you should not be leaching final conclusions until you get to the end of the investigation. There is a lot of mis information about struck and page. Prs has attacked former fbi officials as a way to undermine the investigation. For example, the president tweeted that, and i quote, how
can the wicked witch hunt proceed when it was started, influenced and worked on by peter strzok and lisa page who exchanged Text Messages critical of Candidate Trump. Your investigation found that while lisa page attended some of the discussions regarding the opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane. You also found that while strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane, he was not the sole or even the highest level Decision Maker to any of those matters. That decision, as i understand it, was made by fbi Assistant Director pre stap as you have indicated and after multiple days of discussions of meetings. Most importantly you found that
the decision had a proper factual basis and there is no evidence that, quote, political bias or improper motivation indplunsfluenced it. So based on your investigation, personal, political views expressed in Text Messages did not motivate the opening of the investigation of ties between Trump Campaign advisers and russia. Is that correct . Thats correct. Ultimately we concluded those Text Messages which we found last year were entirely inappropriate, didnt ultimately play the role in mr. Pre staps decision to open the investigation. So your investigation also uncovered Text Messages between other fbi employees expressing support for candidate and president trump, correct . Thats correct. So fbi employees held personal political views that were both favorable and
unfavorable toward the candidate at that time. Thats correct. As we note here, and we noted in last years report, we did not find Text Messages were inappropriate solely because people expressed a view as to which candidate they supported or didnt support in an election. What concerned us, the Text Messages we outlined last year and reference again in this years report to certain individuals is the connection between their views and their work on the investigation. What do you believe are the most important points that this 400plus page report brings forwa forward . I think there are several as you might expect in a 400page report. Thats why i still have time. First it was opened with the proper predicate, Plfrmt Pre Stap who was not one of the text message persons and senior to those people. It should cause everybody to give pause as to whether its to provide accountability over decisions. And finally, that the fisa process here was not used appropriately properly and the rules were not followed. That concludes my questioning. I want to say thank you to you and your staff. Im very grateful to the Inspector General i would yield the balance of my time to Senator Leahy. Were going to have a vote at 12 00. We will try to get through
Senator Grassley and maybe Senator Leahy and take a break for lunch and come back about 30 minutes. As senator graham pointed out earlier, Senator Leahy and i have worked on trying to put in some protections in fisa, the u. S. A. Freedom act and so on. But the fbi accepted all of your findings, is that correct . Thats correct. That includes where you raised questions about the use of fisa . Correct. The five investigations that you reviewed, the only application for a fisa warrant was with respect to carter page. Is that correct . Thats correct. Out of the five. The 17 hours affecting the carter page fisa application came after and thus did not impact the launch of the broader Russia Investigation which became the special counsels investigation. Am i correct in that . Thats correct. Those occurred in october and later. It was not not in august when the matter was opened. So that came after the special investigation came after. In the Mueller Report, how many pages did the Mueller Report refer to carter page . I dont recall the exact number, but it wasnt a large number. I do know because i read it. It was seven pages. That was out of 448 pages. So barely mentioned. Im not trying to minimize fbis mistakes here, but keep it in context. The fbis errors in carter pages case do not undermine the unanimous assessment that russia and not ukraine interfered in our election. Is that correct . We describe in the report the information about russias the conclusions about russias meddling in the 2016 election. I remember in one of the political events, mr. Trump said, russia, if youre listening, take a look at this. The Trump Campaign seemed to welcome and exploit it. None of these errors correct me if im wrong minimize the legitimacy of the dozens of indictments and convictions that
resulted from the special counsels Russia Investigation. Is that correct . We make very clear here that the errors and Serious Problems we identify are concerning the carter page fisa and the people in that Chain Of Command. We dont make any findings to any parts of Crossfire Hurricane which was a far broader investigation. The reason i mentioned that that i dont want to undermine the mueller investigation. I believe they do not undermine the mueller investigation. Am i correct . Our review was not of the mueller investigation. Our review was of the fisas that were obtained and of the opening of the investigation and the additional question we got about mr. Orrs activities and the confidential human source use. You found you did a 19month interview. Is it correct that you found no evidence that the investigation was motivated by antitrump
political bias. Is that correct . We found no information that the initiation of the investigation was from political bias. It gets more i raise that, and did you conclude that theres a legitimate basis to investigate ties between Trump Campaign advisers and russia . We concluded the fbi had the predication to open it on july 31, and the subsequent sub files they opened about ten days later or so. Some of that came from without naming the trusted foreign ally. Correct. The information came from the friendly Foreign Government. Did you find the fbi exceeded
Current Department rules on who can authorize an investigation and who has to be notified . They followed all the rules with regard to that. Does it refute the claims made by some that theres a deep state involved . It finds that it was a properly predicated investigation based on the rules of the fbi. Did you find anything where the fbi planted spies in mr. Trumps campaign . We found no use of confidential Human Sources in placing them in the campaign or trying to put them in the campaign. Ive used up five minutes that are left. Youll get your ten minutes. I took her beginning five minutes. I want to let Senator Grassley go. Has anybody been prosecuted or charged with anything with
this Russia Investigation . On this matter that im handling . Yeah. No one that im aware of. Following up on a question that senator feinstein asked, did the Obama Administration or president obama himself, is the one im Interested In, know about the Counterintelligence Investigation . I dont know the answer to that definitively. Our authority was over the fbi and to look at the fbi and the department activities. In january 2018, Chairman Graham and i wrote to the fbi and the department referring Christopher Steele for investigation of potentially lying to the fbi. We told the fbi and the department that what the fbi told the Court About Steeles Media Context Didnt Match with what he told the british court. Did four questions in regard to that. Did the fbi ever ask steele
whether he was a source for the September 2016 Yahoo News Article that cited western intelligence sources, quote, unquote . If not, why not . They did not ask that question despite having the opportunity to do so. And we got a variety of explanations including that, as to some of these issues, that they didnt want to offend him or jeopardize their relationship with him. Question two, on october 11th, draft of the vice is a application stating fbi believes steele was the source of the Yahoo News Article but it was taken out in the october 14th draft. Why did the fbi originally say steele was the source and what factual basis did the fbi have to change that and tell the court that steele was not a source . This is what was so
disturbing about that event, which is the initial application said, as you noted, that the fbi assessed that steele was the direct source or was a direct source, and on october 14th the drafts changed to the exact opposite. What we found is the fbi had no basis for the first statement, no evidence in their file it turned out the first statement was, in fact, the accurate statement. The point is they had no evidence to support that. When they flipped that, they had no evidence to support that either. Thats the kind of issue that under the basic Woods Procedures, the factual accuracy procedures, had someone been doing their job and following up, they would have seen that and found that. Of course, had they bothered to ask mr. Steele, they might have found out which of the two versions was true. Maybe they werent Interested In doing their job. Question three, Chairman Graham and i sent our referral to the fbi and doj on january 4, 2018
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.