With the findings in the horowitz report. Horrow its seems to be giving the fbi that part of the investigation saying its a clean bill. They had enough reason to do this investigation. Everybody who was interviewed cements to indicate they did not open an investigation. Evan perez, thank you so much. Joining our panel now, we have with us jim bakker. You are not singled out the report makes clear the fbi failed when it came to the administering the fisa warrants, too much was left out or not presented to the court. Do you accept what the Inspector General is saying . I am there are two big groups of conclusions, one is, it was not a politically motivated
investigation and it was properly predicated with us goingforward with that investigation. It was malpractice for us not to open this investigation. All of the statements that it was a hoax are wrong. The investigation was not a coup or a coup attempt. Having said that, he does point out many mistakes that were made with respect to errors and omissions. Those have to be addressed, they should be addressed, both with respect to the individuals involved. The director chris ray is take ing it needs to have the
confidence of the American People at all times, if things need to be fixed they should be fixed. A lot of civil libertarians have been processed for years say thing that fbi agents cooke the books. Now we have some movement on that, it does say that somebody might be investigated for possible prosecution and fbi lawyer, i believe. Thats my understanding from that report. Thats my understanding hes been known for criminal investigation. Nellie moore, bruce orr an fbi official recommends he be
referred to the of professional responsibility. Its an internal watchdog specifically focuses on attorneys. Theyll mike a decision with respect to any punishment or clarification that needs to be made. You have the Attorney General criticizing the fact that the investigation started into associates of the Trump Campaign and very unusual the u. S. Attorney who is currently leading into the origins of the russia investigation issued a statement in which he said last month, we advised the Inspector General. We do not agree with how the fbi case was opened. What do you make of that . Both of these statements are
unusual. The Attorney General statement in what he says is wrong. In addition he has the statement about the fbi investigation open on the thinnest of predications or thinnest of facts thats what the a. d ag guidelines permission. The guidelines were established by a Republican Attorney general in 2008 under president bush. Those are the guidelines that the fbi has operated under since then if they dont like it, they can change that. The guidelines written in the post 911 era, to allow the fbi to open investigations on very thin information about what terrorists might be doing. They apply to Counter Terrorism cases and counter intelligence. He needs to be careful what he wishes for. With characteristic restraint
here. But lets be clear about what what happened today. For years and years, donald trump has said that the fbi and the deep state was involved in an illegal conspiracy to bring down his campaign. That they relied on the steele dossier to investigate and launch this investigation and now after years of investigation the Inspector General said not true. Didnt happen. This Conspiracy Theory that the president of the United States has been pushing was a total lie. Then we learn the Attorney General is not happy with that, he wants to continue investigating and investigating and his handpicked investigator u. S. Attorney durham out of the blue, Out Of Nowhere comes out
and says well, we disagree. Based on what. Hes not refuting it with any facts, hes just saying, we disagree, he could have kept his mouth shut and when his report comes out. Its something we got criticized for doing. There was a whole ig investigation about that, i would encourage the ig to take a look at mr. Durhams statement. It sounds or it seems political which is what everyone at the fbi is accused of being. And the Attorney General. And mr. Durham in particular who hasnt issued a report, who hasnt shown us what hes got is saying, well, we disagree. You do . Why . Why did you feel the need to do that. The administration and the Attorney General who is clearly charging everyone else seems to
be critical. They are critical to the process. They are criticizing, certainly sending a Conspiracy Theory has been that everything was launched with the Christopher Steele dossier. Papadopoulos is the true origin of that, however, we have been saying the fisa process is so important, the court is only as good as the information it receives, they have to give a benefit of the doubt and trust the investigators that give the investigation. If any part or layer of that is inaccurate. The court is at the mercy of them. The court is saying, hold on a second they should have said steele, understates his availability. That these admissions were so
clear they should have done that. Now, all these things are not against a rule, theres an ab sense of a rule due to that respect. A lot of what happened here does support the president s narrative, but there were people who were against them and not doing his bidding. Thats okay if its the fbi. It wasnt political. The president talks a lot about lisa page and peter strzok who have the text chain, in which theyre saying many unkind things about then candidate trump. The report says, while lisa page attended some of the discussions, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases. While strzok was involved in the four investigations. There were additional people, yeah. He was not the highest Decision Maker as to any of those matters. It certainly clears them of the idea that the investigation happened because of lisa page and peter strzok being biassed against him. The report says the opposite. The word to take away is scrupulously accurate. Because of the omission, the ig report is saying, they did not go to such Great Lengths to have it be scrupulously accurate. There are ways to reform that, if you are going to require people to have all the information, its going to take a toll on the intelligence community. Didnt we hit it last week . We want to have a common theme of why everyones against trump. Do you feel vindicated, youve been cleared, not that you had a necessarily cloud
above your head, but in terms of the aspersions that were being cast by President Trump. As a neat, theres nothing in here about obama tapping his phones at trump tower. Despite that long statement by the president. Im glad the ig confirmed we didnt do anything wrong in the sense of trying to do some political misuse our power. We did not abuse our power for some political purpose. Thats one of the key takeaways. People within the organization screwed up or made mistakes or left things out, that 150eseemse a valid criticism and needs to be addressed. Ive been working on investigations for 30 years now. And most have mistakes in them. Were going to go back to gerald ed thnadler. The fisa applications and
other aspects of the fbis crossfire i think if were going to the fisa report that just came up. Well take that under advicement so we can review it. Mr. Sensenbrenner. I would like to follow up on the two series of questions that Ranking Member mr. Collins directed to mr. Goldman relative to the Telephone Company subpoenas, and the inclusion of certain information in the Majority Report from the Intelligence Committee. Let me see that there are two issues involved. One that is not involved is the legality of the subpoena, i believe that was a subpoena that
is fully authorized under the law and under congressional procedures. Where i do have a problem and a really big problem, is the fact that somebody made a decision to match certain data, metadata that had been collected through the subpoena with Phone Numbers of journalists and members of congress. And that is the beginning of the Surveillance State, which i think is outrageous, particularly since the freedom act in 2013, we curtailed the nsas ability about that. Now, had chairman schiff decided to man up and come here and talk, rather than hiding behind mr. Goldman as chief investigator, as his sur gate i think we could have gotten to the bottom of this, and taken
action to make sure that this never happens again. I do not want to see members of congress through their Subpoena Power being able to subpoena the Telephone Records of private citizens without any kind of cause or to match the numbers up with somebody else to see who they were talking to, and then going The Next Step and publishing the results of that match in a report that the minority hadnt seen until it was released. That i think is an abuse of power. Were talking a lot about abuses of power here in the white house and in the Executive Branch. Here we see a clear abuse of power on the part of the people who are prosecuting this impeachment against the president of the United States. They should be ashamed of themselves. Now, i come from the state where
joe mccarthy came from. I met joe twice when i was first getting into politics as a teenager. Folks, you have made joe mccarthy look like a biker with what youve done with the electronic surveillance involved. Its something thats going to have to put a stop to now. Whether it was chairman schiff. I would have loved to put sharm schiff under oath so he could be required to answer the same way you have as one who has spent quite a bit of time accesses of the patriot act which i authored, with the freedom act
which i also authored, the Surveillance State can get out of control. This is a major step in the Surveillance State getting out of control, in the hands of the congress. A Majority Party that wants to influence political decisions relative to politicians in this case, President Donald Trump that they dont like. And they havent liked him from the beginning of his term. They have tried to talk about impeachment since the beginning of his term, they thought that the Mueller Report was going to be the smoking gun. It ended up being cap fiscal. Now theyre working on this. The steps think have gone. The violation of commence. The precedent they have started and looking at the way the chairman has conducted this hearing today and in the previous hearings not even to
allow mr. Gets to make a point of order, that he cant see what you put on the screen, i think goes against the enfire fabric of american democracy, shame on those who have done it, and if we want to get back to something objective, its time to push the reset button. Could i respond quickly . Mr. Chairman, i yielded back, i didnt ask him a question. I made a statement. The gentleman yielded back. Mr. Dolman, lets get to the facts again, during the Phone Conversation on july 25th, President Trump was narrowly focusing on his own political surviva survival, using his Public Office for private and political gain, the truth matters. Then we Heard Council for the republicans say the president s
concern about foreign aid, because you could kiss it goodbye, assuming thats referring to anticorruption. But lits look at the facts of the July 25th Call, i happened to read it recently. Which sharply illustrates the president s willingness to abuse the power of his office for his own personal benefit. The memorandum of the call is on the screen in front of you, it shows that President Trump says and by the way, right after president zelensky spoke about defense support, i would like you to do us a favor, though. Sao this had is a president s own behavior in words. Mr. Goldman, what was that favor . The favor was to investigate a debunked Conspiracy Theory related to ukraine interference in the 2016 election. Mr. Goldman, theInvestigative Committee has received evidence from multiple witnesses who testified that President Trump was provided specific Talking Points in the July 25th Call. Is that correct . The Talking Points certainly were part of the u. S. Policy and they included anticorruption efforts. Those Talking Points were provided to help the president effectively communicate calls with foreign leaders, is that right . That is correct. Its a routine process that the Security Council does. The president is able to use them or not use them. The president is not required to use them. He not only veered off from them. But he went to his own personal interest. It is fair to say such Talking Points signal the purpose of a given call, correct . Yes. Witnessed testified that the Talking Points for the july 25th
call included recommendations to encourage zelensky so to be clear, the Talking Points created for the president or the principles to discuss specific matters that really protect the American People, is that accurate . Yes, generally. But witnesses such as tim morrison, the Deputy Assistant the to the president , testified about what was not in those Talking Points. M morrison, were these references to crowd strike, the server in 2016 election and to Vice President biden and his son, were they included in the president s Talking Points . They were not. Are you aware of any witness who testified that investigating the bidens was an objective of official u. S. Policy . No, it was not before and it was not after this call. And anything ever found of those investigations that might
have occurred. Anything ever found of those investigations that may have occurred with respect to the former Vice President. Every witness said theres no factual basis for either of the investigations. So mr. Trump did not use official Talking Points . Correct. There were fact witnesses that confirmed that. When you hear those words, do you hear the president requesting a thoughtful Anticorruption Program consistent with u. S. Policy . Mr. Goldman i do not. We were hoping we recommended the president very clearly support what president zelensky run on his own election and what his server of the people party had run on in its election. That didnt come up in the call, did it . Mr. Goldman, did mr. Trump utilize public trust in order to hurt his political opponent . Yes, thats what the evidence shown. Americas values of democracy and justice must have the vital pillars of truth. The truth matters. Its clear that the president really cleared about did not really care about Fighting Corruption In Ukraine but wanted his own personal interests to be continued. The president poses a threat to pursue the truth, that is our duty, were now proceeding to do our duty to find the truth. Thank you mr. Chairman. The gentle lady yields back, the gentleman from ohio. This is a second hearing on impeachment that this committee has held in the last week. I will submit that youre
investigating the wrong guy. Lets look at the facts, mr. Caster, ukraine thats been at the center of attention in this impeachment hearing, has historically been one of the worlds most corrupt nations, is that correct . Thats correct. Under legislation that congress passed, it was President Trumps responsibility, his duty to see that u. S. Tax dollars did not go to ukraine unless they were making progress in reducing corruption, is that also right . Yes, thats right. And isnt it true that joe bidens son hunter placed himself right smack dab in the middle of that kruchgs . Yes, he did. Berisma is one of the most corrupt companies in the ukraine. Acording to what they would have you believe theyre not some sort of vast right wing conspiracy. In fact, the concerns about
hunter biden were first raised by the Obama Administration, is that right . Thats right, and also, washington post, a lot of publications and the State Department. And the Obama Administrations concerns about biden didnt end there, did they . The former ambassador to the ukraine said she was coached by the Obama Administration on how to answer pesky questions related to h