The fisa warrants . The concern grows out of the fact the failures in information that should have been given wasnt given and the question being what was the intent . What was the motivation and what we have determined was we could not definitively say what the motivation was. Are these pretty smart people come up fairly well educated . Well, well educated. I was going to say. They have law degrees, right . At least some of them do. So for people at this level of the organization . To be clear, the stuff that didnt happen on the view was basic staff. You didnt need to be deeply experienced fbi agent to be able to do with the right way. That is my point. Wouldnt you say that would be Muscle Memory for people going through this process to know that they have an obligation to go through that . They clearly should have. So wouldnt it be reasonable if they didnt call you cant answer this question but to me, it seems have something a standard at that process for you go to fisa court, to not
statement that challenge the findings in your report. attorney general barr stated the attorney general report makes clear the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of a u.s. presidential campaign on suspicion in my few words to justify the steps taken. can you point to the page or pages in the report that found that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation on the soundness of suspicions that were insufficient to justify the fbi s actions? we conclude there was predication. would you consider words like suspicion intrusive investigation neutral words? you know what, i m going to let others answer for it. and stick to what we have. you said everybody is entitled to characterize your investigation, but you know what we all know what characterizes peer constitution.