sitting president of the united states. another mark up hearing tomorrow morning which is expected. the imminent impeachment on the house floor of president trump. i want to bring in our correspondent, i believe we have garret headache aake on the hil his first appearance here on the hill. we have seen you a lot garret. we have some folks looking at that hearing, you have been looking at impeachment. speaker pelosi has telegraphed a narrow case that could be pushed through judiciary, our colleague geoff bennett did not see the democrats splintering or holding other amendments here. they want to get this through you kn unified. what does your reporting show about that? >> that's right. we have been starting to put the pieces together on a senate trial which is mostly fan fiction of what you have been hearing about it that both sides speculated of what it looks like. we heard from mitch mcconnell yesterday afternoon saying they'll wait until the new year getting it started. it will push all businesses aside including the senate taking up usca for the white house. what i am hearing from republican lawmakers including senators and some house members close to the president that the president is probably not going to get what he wants which is a big show on the senate floor with witnesses call. the president wants adam schiff and hunter biden and the whistleblower. there is not much an appetite for that. to come over to present the case. then you would have votes and you would have a vote to dismiss a vote up or down on the charges or vote to go foreign witnesses. republicans may want to see president's witnesses to be called to be possible to have defense witnesses essentially in this case and not the prosecuti prosecution. mike pompeo and rudy giuliani himself perhaps could be called republican senators do not want to see that fight. if there is one thing that animates -- you are hearing members including lindsey graham and mark meadows, advisor to the president, let's wrap it up as soon as possible. republicans assuming that the president is exonerated at this point, they make the argument let's do it fast. i suppose that could change the holida holidays. >> any republican senators or staffs are concerned of donald trump of the statement they made, defense's case are harder? >> it is possible. the reality here is the idea there would be 20 republican senators who would defect anything the president says now is unlikely, right? you have to think if you stood by the president this long and if you decided after this much coverage public testimony of the facts in the ukraine case setting aside of the elements of the mueller report which is not included here. what's going to make you change your mind now? is there another tweet, 6,000 others didn't? >> i am not talking about the vote counting. the case, you mention if they don't want to get ugly, it would seem that the president not publicly admitted that his corrupt goal of targeting arrivals rather than saying foreign policy of security. it may have been a better position. i want to tell viewers we are keeping an eye on chairman graham who's explaining some notes about his coming hearing and bringing senator cornyn in it. >> i want to join my colleagues and thanking you in your professional staff for the outstanding work that you have done. this got to be one of the hardest jobs in government to be impartial watchdog and pull government agencies and justice accountable. i want you to know how much we appreciate your work and your team's work. leadership of the fbi of the last administration and the way they mishandled this counter intelligence investigation, i think the ranking filing agents in the fbi and their colleagues committee to know we are there for them and support them in the faithful thinks charge of responsibiliti responsibilities. i would like to think there is no more supporter of our law enforcement agencies or intelligence committee. i believe general hayden when he wrote his book about the cia, it is called "plain to the edge," it is not over the line but up to the edge in the interest of our national security. that makes it important for us to rule out illegality and exercise authorities are given to our intelligence community. let me ask you a little bit about that. because i can't think of anything more damaging to the intelligen intelligence committee, the doj of what you have uncovered in this 400 page report than what we have seen here. it really is troubling. can i ask you, the surveillance court as you have pointed out considers the application of a foreign intelligence surveillance for a warrant by the fbi working with the national security division of the department of justice, do you believe that the court knew what you know now that it would ever issued the warpt rant in t first place? >> we are careful of not predicted of what the judges do. i know they would not sign a warrant if they were told not all relevant information included. >> or if they were lied to. >> do you know if the court would consider this matter? >> if they have the report or a follow-on letter from the department about this matter. >> i hope they'll not let this pass because this behave, this illegality and this deception becomes a routine. i agree with senator graham that it will be the end of authorities that congress granted which is very damaging to our national security. >> the surveillance act includes the word surveillance obviously and you can't surveil an american citizen for intelligence services except under special eyes and exact circumstances, would you agree with that? >> that's correct. >> the rights given to the constitution are laid out in the bill of rights among other places and there is a more higher standard with giving a warrant, let's say to wiretap or investigation in american citizen then it would be foreign agents. >> the whole exception here which authorizes surveillance of mr. page was based on some proof or some indication or suspicion, he was an agent of a foreign power, correct? >> they have probable cause that he was an agent of a foreign power. >> they got incomplete and misleading information in that process. >> the court got inaccurate and incomplete information. >> what's the difference between surveillance and spying? >> well, surveillance and the term that i am going to use in the report is what's in the law. >> you don't like the vernacu r vernacular? >> i am going to stick as what we do as igs and stick to the law. >> to my mind there is no difference, although it is legally authorized. it is an act of covert intelligence gathering to hear a foreign power. let me ask you about the defensive briefing. you explain in response to senator graham's questions, i believe some point during the last few year, i remember the attorney general said, defensive briefings were routine and counter intelligence investigation, would you agree with that? >> i frankly don't have enough experience on the national security site to tell you one way or another. >> i heard that being said but i don't know specifically. >> you don't have any reasons to disagree. >> no reason to disagree. >> if they are routine, attorney general lynch is correct, the decision by the head of the division of the fbi not to provide an extensive defensive briefing to candidate trump and his campaign would be unusual. >> if it is usual then it is not doing it. it would be unusual. >> what was more unusual is the fact when the director of national intelligence went to provide what turned out to be a briefing to the trump campaign lasting about 13 minutes, i think you indicated in your report. that they had implanted into that group, an agent, an fbi agent that was part of the investigative team for across fire hurricane. >> the agent, there was one fbi agent there and they chose the agent from the intelligence investigation. >> instead of their mission to provide candidate trump and campaign to arm them with information so that they can prevent the russians from infiltrating their campaign, this briefing such as it was had a duo purpose. the agent it says on page 342 of your report prepared himself going through mock briefings, headed by stroke and lisa page and the general counsel unit chief, correct? >> that's correct. >> this was not just an accidental sort of thing. there were plans made for the ajept to go in as part of this defensive briefing and perhaps get general flynn to offer information that may be helpful to the fbi in their investigation. >> it was duo purposes, one was to see if anything was said in response to the briefing that would be useful for cross fire hurricane but also agents told us for future interviews of mr. flynn. >> so mr. flynn was clearly the target. >> he was the three people there from the trump campaign from the only one of the three about whom who was a subject of the fbi investigation. >> he was not told that he was under investigation or the ajget was there hoping to bait him or providing krcriminology -- >> he certainly was not told it is a duo purpose investigation. >> you pointed out this will never happen again, is that what you said? >> that's correct. >> are you familiar with the fact that director comey had a meeting with president trump january 2017 to talk to him about the steele dossier. >> i am and we referenced that of the report of him handling the memos. >> why do we believe director comey so-called defensive briefing of the president, was there anything more than in an attempt to abate the president and be useful to the fbi and counter intelligence and some future investigation. >> as mentioned earlier, one of the concerns doing that here is that it leaves open the possibility that people may ask it may happen elsewhere. >> it strikes me, it fought with danger just like it was for general flynn for the director to go in the white house, the oval office and the white house not to tell the president that anything he says could be used against him in an ongoing investigation including criminal charges. i agree with the chairman. if this is going to happen to a presidential candidate or the president of the united states, what kind of protection the average american citizens have that their government won't erase this vast power against them and essentially ruin their lives. to me that's a profound concern as a result of your investigation. >> thank you, mr. chairman. picking up on that. i have been joining senator lee for year talking about this court. we have ample record here. internal fbi revealed dozens of in accuracies provided by the court. the list goes on and on. let's haves the future of the fizor court and the reputation. >> mr. hardwick thank you for being here. the chairman gave an uncharacteristic opening and went on for 40 minutes and produced lent thigthy e-mails. when i read your summary, you didn't find either of them to be in charge, did you? >> on this investigation, we did not. >> when it comes to expletives, on page 339 in the report found some agents of the fbi who had opposite viewpoints and positive towards candidate trump and open on their expertists to demonstrate that. >> we are in a different field office. >> we don't believe anyone in the capacity with life-changing decision like every single day should be so politically bias to call into question of their values and character. >> that's correct and i made this point last year when this issue came up. individual of the usjustice department. they can't go tie their personal use to theirnvestigative. >> that's one of the things you sheared with director wray. >> correct. >> the chairman made a point talking about the fact that the trump campaign was not notified of this ongoing investigation until a much later day after been initiated. >> and i would just say be careful what you wish for. there are those of us who looked at the james comey, october 28th, public declaration of the hillary clinton investigation as being deadly in terms of the outcome of this election. there is a notion of the fbi publicizing investigations and making it known to many people can cut both ways. it is good to know them, i am sure. you run the risk as more people come to know it, it becomes a public knowledge, is that an issue? >> we wrote a report about that, concerns of what the director did in that regard and you want to control the information and make sure the only people need to know it. >> did the chairman's opening suggested a bias in this instance with the fbi and others against donald trump that he believes those manifest in many things have followed. i can argue from our side of the table, we can finds bias including comey staples before the election, really had many in our points of view determines the outcome. >> let me go back to rudy giuliani. here is something during the 2016 campaign, rudy giuliani was trump's campaign surrogate. bragged about having access to information of the investigation. he teesased in september that a surprise is coming. >> rudy giuliani says and i quote. i expected this, did i hear about it? you are darn right i heard about it." >> how could we be dealing with those kinds of statements that long ago and still not have some evolution. if i remember right, one of comey's rational, is public announcement was, i could not do it through the new york office. has there been no investigation of this? >> as i mention last year when we released our report on the clinton e-mail investigation, we were looking at that question and the challenge as i mentioned back then and i will mention it again proving who spoke to whom and when based on the record of the fbi and understanding there is rarely going to be submiss e information we'll get. we are trying to follow-up and continue to do that. we issued two reports so far about findings we have of leaks and misconduct. we have extradition ongoing. >> are there any concerns that mr. rudy giuliani is continuing to obtain information and sources of law enforcement. >> i am not going to speak to what we have learned or what we know about our ongoing investigation and i am not investigating matters related to the ongoing ukraine issues that i can do referencing. >> let me ask if i ccan ask question about problems within this case as it relates to the treatment of individuals who are engaged and i am thinking particularly of ongoing questions about whether or not -- in your conclusion that he was not a russian agent. did not have important context that were not in the best interest of the united states with the russian leadership? >> i am not in position to assess that. what i can say access is looking at the evidence that the fbi put forward to the court, significant number of pieces of that evidence do not support their theory. they're the experts and not me. >> could we speak to the steele dossier. i believe you had a standard statement about what impact that steele file had on the initiation of this investigation. what was your conclusion? >> in toeerms of initiation, it had no impact. it was not known to the team that opened the investigation the time they opened it. you concluded several different ways of no evidence of political influence but the opening of this hurricane investigation, is that correct? >> correct. >> on the reform issue, let me get there later. one thing that's interesting here and he introduced the bill which would give the inspector again general's office to investigate in the department. right nous thatw it is not corr under the law. >> it was not. >> back in 1988 when the ig created the justice, the compromise was attorneys would be carved out. so as the fbi and da at the time. after the audrey james spy scandal, attorney ash changed out and gave us the authority of da and congress codyfied it in 2002. we are the only ig can't view conduct of all the employees including attorneys. >> he has the authority to do that. this statue in change took that away. >> mr. chairman, i hope you are considering that. >> thank you for your service. >> thank you, i will go to senator sass. 30 second s here. >> has anybody been charged with working with the russians illegally working with the russians that were part of the trump campaign that you were apart of. >> not that i know of. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i find the conclusion that some have raised, your report, m missister, exonerate the fbi in this matter. to the point that it makes me wonder whether those were making this argument read the same report that we are talking about today. perhaps, you are talking about a different report? there is no planet on which i think this report indicates that things were okay within the fbi and in connection of this investigation. they were not and stunningly, former fbi james comey took to the pages of "the washington post" to declare that this report, your report shows the fbi fulfilled its mission protecting the american people and upholding the u.s. constitution. i don't understand that. i find it absolutely stunning that he would reach that conclusion. >> this is nonsense. >> i don't care where you sit on the political spectrum, if you are a politicians or a non poll traditions or a liberal or civic center park. regardless of your age. you should be deeply concerned about what's in your report. >> is report a scathing indictment of the fbi, o f the agents that were involved and i want to be clear about that. the fbi is an institution that has a long history of respect in this country. as a federal prosecutor, i work with the fbi, i am so concerned by your reporting and findings. i think this really damages that. there is a lot of who in this country that comes not just from the fbi being good but also understood to be good. the behavior out lined in your report is at a minimum. so negligence, i would say so reckless that it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire fizor program. i don't say it likely. i question the program and how it could be abused but this really pushes us over the edge. i will get back to that in a minute. >> the report includes that the report ecologist did not find documentary on the part of the case's agents who were involved in investigating the trump campaign. the report goes onto call the conduct of the agents and the supervisors involved to be quote, "serious performance failure." which you noted were failures for which you did not receive a satisfaction explanation. is that right? >> correct. this >> this is the failure that jim comey considered a fulfilled mission, protecting the constitutional rights of the american people? i think not. this is simply not good enough. maybe it is not good enough for mr. comey, it is not good enough for the american people. every american should be terrified by this report. the fbi team that investigated the trump campaign as was as been pointed out hand picked. it was not the case that they would just pick any ordinary investigators to investigate a presidential campaign especially the presidential campaign of one of the two major party nominees. it is in the report which is the most sensitive fbi investigation is agents were supposed to be the best of the best. we would not expect anything less of that. they were supposed to be the highest character and professionalism and committing in protecting civil liberties of all americans. our privacy is not at odds with our security. we can't be secure, unless our privacy is guaranteed. our republican form of government is i mperial. we are faced with two possibilities. either one, the fbi agents purposely use the power of the federal government to wage a political war against a presidential candidate they despise or these agents were so incompetent that they allow a paid foreign political operative to weapon size the vizer program. they're both horrifying for slightly different reasons. now the fact that you said there was a cause of connection between them, if there was a sonic -- a causal change was besides the point. they made their bias clear and they went after someone in part because they did not like his candidacy and that's unexcusable. the report in the fbi, abuse. i believe it is long standing abuse or inevitably abuse and the. >> should it not be a tremendous surprise for us. >> men were angels, they would not need a government. if we had access to angels to govern us, we would not rules. we are not angels, we don't have access to angels to govern us. we have to have checks and balances to make sure no one entity gets too much power and added to those checks and balances. we have the fourth amendment, we have things that are there to protect us. >> i believe for some time as been noted earlier in the hearing and i have teamed up with people at the opposite end of the political idealogical . i observed in the senate, i believe these programs are subject to abuse. i have been warning for years that inevitably, it will result in abuse. it is not a question of "if" but when. how soon will government officials get caught doing it. it surprises me in some ways that took us this long. again, that's what happens. when you take a standard that's malleable that requires virtually no public accountability, you render all but a small handful of intelligence committee lawmakers in the house and in the senate, you render all citizens other than them and the intel committee themselves. ineligible to review their work and then you make it possible for them to gather information, this kind of thing is of course going to happen. it is never not going to happen and that scares me to death. >> now, inspector general, you stated several times in your opening statement and response to question that you did not find documentary testimonial evidence of bias that influenced the fbi's decision to conduct these operations. but, is not the lack of evidence that you are talking about, itself is evidence of bias? is it the lack of evidence on bias? evidence that we should take as bias but in any event, it is not in itself indicative that no bias occurred. is that correct? >> as to the opening which is in a different place than the fisa issue that you identified and i talked about it earlier, i think it is different situations. on the fisa side, we found as you noted a lack of documentary of intentionality, we notice the lack of satisfaction and leaving open the possibilitity for the reasons you indicated. it is unclear what the motivations were. on the one happened, gross, incompetence and negligence. my point is your lack of evidence here is not evidence that there was no bias. >> it is solely correct on the actual evidence that we have. thank you very much. >> you did make a finding of that question, did you not? i direct you to page 14 of the summary. management and supervisery that were not particular to this case but epidemic. >> on the fisa side? >> it raises significant questions of management and supervision of the process. you then go onto describe as a failure of managers and supervisors. >> right. >> and you go onto say your remedy as an oig audit not only of this case but of other case. >> so you actually make a finding about this is you attribute a failure here and supervision that can well go on particular case. >> you make no finding that it was attributable to deep state or conspiracy or any such motivation. we make no findings, we explain in there that we did not have document testimony evidence that it was intentional and we point out the lack of satisfaction explanations and from there, i can't try any further conclusions. other than you do, what you go with is there is a failure of management and supervision over this complicated process that needs to be prepared from top to bottom. what's the timeline on the attorney general getting notice on this report. how long did it take for when he fe first saw this or credit this to the department of justice. we first provided the draft for classification marking purposes right at the beginning of september. so he and his team got it for well over a month. we got it back with them with the markings and did normal process in a classified review and incorporated the markings and produced back. >> the director of the fb fbi -- time frame? >> same exact time frame. >> he complimented you on professionalism and he accepts the report findings. >> correct. >> with plenty of time to review it. >> correct. >> then we get to mr. durham. did he have access to this report at the same period of time? >> no, we did fot ginot give it him. it was for classification purposes. he had no reason to see it. >> we were careful as to who could see it and who could not. the department keep list of who could see it or could not. he was not on the list. we provided to him in the november as part of our factual accuracy. >> november when, do you remember? >> i could check, it was probably roughly mid november. >> are you familiar of whattest under taking at all. he notes that he does not agree with some of your report conclusion of how the fbi case was opened. what information do you think he has access to that you did not have access to? >> i have no idea. >> when you look at director wray's letter, he says his organization, the fbi provided broad and timely access to all information, requested by the oag including highly classified and sensitive materials and accepts -- i am trying to figure out where the world of evidence exists about predication that you diplomat have access to and that fbi director wray would not have access to. where could john durham be doing where you have access to or director wray has access to. >> you have to ask the attorney general. is there some area of evidence that you are aware of that you did not get access to? >> i did not. >> i have no idea and i could not say. >> going overseas. >> no idea, you have to talk with him. predication involves a threshold, did it not? when you hit your threshold, more evidence does not take it away, correct? >> correct. >> em also trying to figure out how it ends that even if he has more evidence that you did not have that takes away from the conclusion that the predication was adequate. >> you have to ask the attorney general that. >> you can't think of a way to get there? >> i don't know, we standby our findings. >> you describe serious performance failures in the pride of process. those are likely to lead to disciplinary action or sanctions by the court to be considered for those things, correct? >> you have a chance to defend themselves. that goes to the department, the core or any entities that m may -- >> so we may find more if those process go forward in that content. >> now, let's look at the intelligence briefing. at the time of that intelligence briefing, what did the fbi know about how far russian interests have penetrated in to the trump campaign. i don't know as i sit here. we were looking at the origins of these four cases. >> the fbi clearly knew there was an investigation going on. >> we laid out here of some of what they knew. >> he was associated with the trump campaign. >> correct. >> they knew and had an investigation going on in to michael flynn at the time? >> correct. >> did you know if they knew about the trump tower meeiting two months before the intelligence meeting? >> i don't know one way or another. >> going into it would be reasonable to expect the fbi did not then know how far russian penetration ended the trump campaign. >> i had no idea what stage the investigation was at that point in time. i had no reason to doubt what you were saying. >> there was no way they could rule out that people present of the intelligence briefing on behalf of the trump campaign may have been involved in the operation? >> i have no knowledge. all i know as to that is they had the investigation into mr. flynn. >> they could not rule out when he was in that briefing, potential participant in the matter they were looking into. >> it was bigger than the pieces we were looking at. i can't sit here to tell you what else the fbi may or may have not known at the time. >> while we can agree that, p putting, cross fire hurricane agents into the intelligence briefing of the trump campaign may have been over aggressive for the fbi to be in that intelligence briefing would be perfectly appropriate, correct? >> in fact absolutely perfect to be there. that was the debate to go on internally fbi which is what to do. they never discuss it with anyone at the department. >> maybe i should not have been in that briefing. >> intelligence purposes. >> for intelligence purposes. and it also would have been appropriate for across fire hurricane agent to have debrief the fbi agent at the intelligence briefing to see if michael flynn have sent anything relevant to the investigation. it was information potentially relevant to the investigation, was it not? depending what occur there, you could foresee a hypothetical. it raises series of policy questions, the fbi director needs to sort through and understand leadership of the department. that briefing and those briefings are for purposes of protecting campaigns and to allow transitions to occur. >> it was an unusual circumstance. the subject of the fbi investigation. >> that's correct but it raises -- >> we should not draw the condition collusion that there is no way the fbi should be given access to evidence that arises in the context of the intelligence briefing related to counter intelligence. >> that'll be up to director wray as we in sporespond. >> thank you. the january meeting with the primary sub source, the russian guy who provided information, was there department of the justice official at that meeting? >> yes, let me clarify on that, the people present were primer sub source, his lawyer, the hurricane people and for parts of the interview, lawyers from the division, they were there not knowing the background necessarily, they were there because the primary sub source has a lawyer. the fbi wanted a lawyer there. >> we are big on the fbi, department of justice, they were in the room, too? >> they were in the room but the reason we -- there is a number of instances with people getting dri drive-by and somebody tries to tag you something. >> fair enough. >> chairman. >> can i just close? >> one point from page 341. the fbi, mr. baker, holds the ig in the report as saying the agent in that investigation briefing, quote "was not there to induce anybody to say anything, he was not there to do an under cover operation or elicit some type of testimony." >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to start by taking the opportunity to thank you and the men and women who are gathered here. the work that you have done and the inspector general office is incredibly important. this is a 434 page report that lays out what i call a stunning indictment of the fbi and department of justice of any pattern of babusive of power. i would say the department of justice and the fbi have had principle professionals with the fidelity of the rule of law. this indictment, i am an alumnus, it makes me angry. it should make them angry as well. the press have focused on your conclusion that you did not find evidence of political bias. that's a judgment you have, i disagree with that judgment. i think that judgment is in many ways the least significant component of this report. the facts that are in this report needs to be understood or deeply chilling to anyone who understands the facts in this report and people can draw inference as to why that pattern of abuse occurs? >> do you agree with that in. >> the purpose of this report is to lay out the facts for the public and everybody can debate and decide what they think this information is. i absolutely agree. so this 434 page report, outlines 17 major errors and misstaples that were made by the fbi or the doj insecuring fisa warnings. a number of them are deeply troubling. f them are deeply troubling. was what is referred to in your report as the interviewed that prime sorr so that is the basis of this dossier. what did the primary sub source say as the oig report says, interviews with the primary sub source raised, quote, significant questions about the reliability of the steele reporting. what did the sub source say specifically as your report says, it says steele misstated orst exaggerated multiple sectis of the reporting. it says portions of it particularly the more salacious portions were based on rumor and speculation. it says that some of the basis of that came from conversations with, quote, friends over beers and statements that were made in, quote, jest. and the primary sub source also says to take the other sub sources, quote,th with a grain salt. the fbira had that information, knew that the basis of this dossier wassi saying it is unreliable and what did the fbi anddi doj do in renewal application number two and number three, the fbi advised the court, quote, the fbi found the russian based sub source to be truthful and cooperative with zero revisions. you note that as the most significant misstatement and that is going in front of a court of law, relying on facts that you know are unreliable without any basis. that was the number one. >> yeah. >> the number two major error in the applications was omitting carter page's prior relationship. we now have evidence that carter page functioned as a source for a united states intelligence agency. that is a pretty darn important fact. if you are telling the fisa court, hey, the fact that this guy carter page, who i don't know this guy, but the fact that he is talking to russians really suspici suspicious the that can't that he is serving asic a source for intelligence agents is pretty darn relevant. we haveda a lot of sources that are talking to bad guys. and when you don't tell the court that, you are deceiving the court. but it is worse than just deceiving the court. because as the oig report details, an assistant general counsel in the fbi altered an email, fabricating evidence. reading from the report, specifically the words am not a source had been inserted into the email. that email then was sent on to the officials responsibility to making the decisionof to go forward and as the report says from page 256, final paragraph, consistent with the inspector general act of 1978 and following oig's recovery that the ogc attorney had altered the email that he sent to the supervising agent who thereafter relied on to swear out the fifi fisa application. so a lawyer at the fbi, alters an email, that is in turn used as the basis for a sworn statement to the court that the court relies on. am i stating that accurately? >> that is correct, that is what occurred. >> and you have worked in law enforcement a long time. is the pattern of a department of justice employee altering evidence and submitting fraudulent evidence that ultimately gets submitted to a course, is that common place, is that typical? >> i have not seen an alteration of an email end up impacting a court document like this. >> in any ordinary circumstance, if a private zitd dcitizen did this -- and it wasn't just slightly wrong. it was 180 degree wrong of what the evidence said. he assert this had guy is not a source. if a private citizen did that in any law enforcement investigation, if theyt fabricated evidence and reversed what it said, in your experience would that private citizen be prosecuted for b fabricating evidence and be progsz cuted e obstruction of justice and perjury? >> they would be considered for that if there was an intentional evident. onti this one i will defer becae we noticed that we referred to the attorney general fbi for handling. >> third major omission that the department of justice and the fbi did not tell the court is that this entire operation was funded by the dnc, was funded by the hillary clinton campaign and by democrat, it was an on that poe o research dump. the most effective in history because the department of justice and fbi but pwere happye hatchet men. and they did not inform the fisa court that this is being paid for by the dnc and the hillary clinton? >> that is a not in any of the fisa plisksapplications. >> and it is not like doj didn't know. indeed one of the senior department officials bruce ohr, his wife worked at fusion gps the company being paid by the dnc, and he became the principal liaison with steele without telling anyone at the department of justice that he was essentially workingpa on behalff the clinton campaign. whoai at the department of justice -- and by the way, several democrats, interesting seeing democratic senators ti wanting want ing defend this abuse of power. senator feinstein said the fbi didn't play spies in the trump campaign. senator leahy said something similar. not spies in the trump campaign, but reading from page four of the executive summary, your report says that there after the crossfire hurricane team used the intrusive techniques including confidential human sources to interact and consensually record multiple conversations with page and papadopoulous both before and after they were working for the trump campaign as well as on one occasion with a high level trump campaign official who was not the subject of the investigation. so they didn't play spies in the campaign, but they sent spy senior levels of the campaign in the middle of the campaign when that was the nominee to the opposing party to the one in power. >> they sent confidential sources into do thouse. >> who at doj noe about this, did the attorney general, the white house? >> based on what we found, nobody had beenas told in advan. >> but once it was hatching, did they know? >> the only evidence that somebody knew were the attorney in the national security division when they were told very selective portions. nobody noouf beforehand. nobody had been h. briefed. and that was one of the most concerning thingsas here, nobod needed to be hold. >> anded i can tell you from my time at the department of justice and in law enforcement, any responsible leader when hearing that you are talking about sending in spies and a wiretap on any presidential nominee should say what in the hell are we doing. and by the way the people up the chain who are saying we didn't know if you had responsible leadership, there is no more important decision than you make. i can tellim you when i was at gchlt och doj, if someone said let's tap bill clinton or john kerry, the people would have said what in the held are you talking about temperature this was jason bourne. this wason beavis and butthead.