Transcripts For CSPAN3 John 20240703 : vimarsana.com

Fbis investigation of links between the 2016 trump president ial campaign and russian operatives. The committee will come to order without objectio the committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Welcome everyone to the hearing on the report of special counsel john durham. The chernow recognizes the gentleman from alabama to lead us in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The chair is recognized brands keep opening statement. Three years ago at 11 months, july 24, 2019, bob miller sat in this room and that chair and told this committee, no collusion, no conspiracy, no coordination between President Trump and russia. None. What did democrats say . So we dont care. We are going to keep going after President Trump. They did not even wait one day. The next day, the phone call between President Trump and president zelenskyy became the basis for their impeachment. Republicans said maybe, maybe instead of the neverending attacks on President Trump, maybe the country would be better off if we figured out how the whole false trump russia narrative started. After two and half years of the Mueller Investigation, 19 lawyers, 40 agents, 30 million where they found nothing, maybe we should figure out how the whole lie started. That is exactly what mr. Durham has done. In his report, he told us how the dossier was funded. He told us who funded it. He told us how eager the fbi was to use it, how they put the dossier in a draft application two days after receiving it. He told us that not one single substantive allegation the dossier was ever cooperated, ever validated, yet it was used to spy on an american citizen to proceed associated with the president ial campaign. He told us there was no proper predicate for opening the investigation. Most importantly, he told us the fbi, the preeminent Law Enforcement agency in the world failed in its fundamental mission of adherence to the rule of law. Unfortunately, i think once again, the democrats will say, we dont care. It does not matter. We are never going to stop going after President Trump. In fact, eight days ago, we saw how far they are willing to go with the indictment of President Trump. Frankly, this should not surprise us. They told us their objective. There was an agent on the case who told us what their objective was. You all remember the text message that said dont worry, we will stop trump. Started with the crossfire hurricane investigation. Mr. Durham has told us how wrong that is. Now we have an indictment of a former president who is winning at every single pole by his opponents Justice Department. In between those two events, we had the Mueller Investigation, we had 51 former intel officials falsely tell us the biden laptop with russian disinformation, we had a raid on President Trumps home. Seven years, nothing has changed. Dont believe me . We interviewed stephen, former head of the Washington Field office when the Trump Classified document case began. He told the Committee Just two weeks ago that when he asked the department of justice why is there no u. S. Attorney assigned to the trump ossified document case . Headquarters said because we are running it. He suggested the Miami Field Office would do the raid instead of sending the Washington Field office down to miami. Have the folks do it. He suggested there should not be a raid. Instead, they should continue to work with the lawyers. Once again, headquarters said no. He even said, how about when we get there . And we arrive at President Trumps home, we then call his lawyer and we do the search together. Again, headquarters said no. Another interesting fact. The lawyer who turned down the request happens to be the same person who was alleged to have pressured the attorney representing a trump employee about a judgeship. Nothing has changed and frankly, theyre never going to stop. Seven years of attacking trump is scary enough but what is more frightening, anyone of us could be next. In fact, it has already started. Parents at School Board Meetings are terrorists. Prolife catholics are extremists. Even journalists are insane. The federal trade commission, 13 letters. One of those said, who are the journalists you are talking to . They named four people personally. Two, testify in front of this committee. While they are in front of this committee, democrats are asking them to reveal their sources, violate First Amendment principles. One of them, while he is sitting at the table testifying to the Judiciary Committee, the irs is knocking on his door. Parents, catholics, journalists, guess who gets it the worst . Guess who gets it the worst . Whistleblowers. If you dare come forward and Tell Congress what is going on, look out. They will come for you. They will take your clearance. They will take your pay, they will even take your kids clothes. Over the next few hours, we will hear the facts and details about the whole false trump russia narrative, the crossfire hurricane investigation and, hopefully it will help change things at the department of justice. Regardless of what the Biden Administration and the Garland Justice Department do, i know what republicans in the house are committed to doing. We will work to dramatically change the law and we will do everything we can in the appropriations process to stop the federal government from going after the American People. I now recognize the Ranking Member for Opening Statements. Thank you, mr. Chairman. On june 8, a grand jury in miami indicted former President Trump on 37 counts related to his mishandling of extraordinarily Sensitive National security information including information regarding defense and weapons capabilities of both the United States and foreign countries. The United States nuclear program, potential vulnerabilities of the United States and its allies to military attacks and plans of possible retaliation in response to a foreign attack. According to the indictment, the unauthorized disclosure of these classified documents would put at risk the National Security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military and human sources and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods. Indeed, the indictment goes on to describe how the former president made such unauthorized disclosures. Even if you believe, as chairman jordan claims, that President Trump has committed no crime, surely you can agree that it is dangerous and profoundly irresponsible to have taken these documents from the white house and left them unsecured at maralago. Dont take my word for it. Trumps secretary of defense said that the former president s handling of this information with u. S. Service members lives and our National Security at risk. Trumps handpicked attorney general, bill barr, with whom i agree on very little, hit the nail on the head when he described the former president s legal troubles as, quote, entirely of his own making. He had no right to these documents. The government tried for over a year quietly and with respect to get them back and he jerked them around. When he faced a subpoena, he did not raise any legal arguments. He engaged in a course of deceitful conduct. That was a clear crime if those allegations are true. The former president could have, at any time, for months, simply returned the documents and avoided prosecution. House republicans do not want to talk about any of that. They seem incapable of assigning any agency or responsibility to donald trump. Instead, republicans have planned this hearing and constructed an entire false narrative around this work of special counsel durham in the effort to distract from the former president s legal troubles and mislead the American Public. To be clear, the report is, by itself, a deeply flawed document. After four years, thousands of employee hours and more than 6 1 2 Million Dollars in taxpayer dollars, special counsel durham failed to uncover any wrong doing that was not already found in 2019. He brought two cases to trial and lost them both. Both defendants were acquitted in mere hours. A single conviction that was obtained involved a single charge of lying to the fbi. The case developed and handed to him by the Inspector General and one resolved by a quick pleabargain. The report itself outlines some fairly glaring investigative missteps. The fbi apparently never even looked at a thumb drive of key evidence related to allegations of facts between the Trump Campaign and the russian government by a russian cell phone. Nor sent the report to the fbi and examine computer contract between the Trump Organization and one of the largest tanks in russia. The report also fails to recommend a single remedial measure that the Justice Department or the fbi might take to address certain process related concerns, largely because doj and fbi have already implemented the changes recommended by the Inspector General 3 1 2 years ago. Now, i understand that like the former president , many republicans have a lot riding on this investigation. I understand that they might be disappointed with where it landed. That is no excuse for making things up. First, the Durham Report and equivocally concludes that the fbi not only had the evidence to open an investigation into russian interference in the 2016 election, but had an affirmative obligation to investigate ties between the russian government and the Trump Campaign. It is simply not true, as some republicans have claimed. The Durham Report suggests that there should not have been an investigation. Affirmative obligation. Those are mr. Durhams words, not mine. The Durham Report shows that the fbi began its investigation when an aid to the Trump Campaign disclosed may 2016 at the campaign knew that russia had thousands of emails that would embarrass Hillary Clinton. They bagged brag about it at the bar. The australian to foment overheard it and reported it and the investigation began. It is simply not true as the most extreme voices in this room have claimed that the investigation was somehow launched by the Clinton Campaign. That particular Conspiracy Theory is off by several months. Nor is it true that the fbi was opposed to trump from the beginning. For example, the report tells us that the fbi encouraged the confidential human source to infiltrate the Clinton Campaign, not the Trump Campaign and take steps to entrap, unsuccessfully, secretary clinton. This story is right there on pages 74 and 75 of the report. I suspect we wont hear a word about it from House Republicans today because it does not fit the maga narrative. Finally, nothing in the Durham Report disputes the central findings of special counsel are robert mueller, specifically that russia interfered in the election and did so to help donald trump and the Trump Campaign welcomed this interference. This last point is important because it tells us how mr. Durham became special counsel in the first place. It goes to the heart of the foley false narrative. From the day that special counsel mueller began his work , donald trump and his political allies have rallied against the conspiracy. The Russian Investigation was a setup, was a witch hunt. We need to investigate the investigators. Then came the Mueller Report. The Mueller Report was delivered to attorney general barr on friday 2019. The next monday, mr. Durham was in barrs office. A week later, a colleague emailed mr. Durham to ask about, quote, the project that durham and barr were working on. While we were fighting to get access to the Mueller Report, mr. Durham was already working on an investigation to undercut the central findings. A few weeks later, the Trump Administration announced mr. Durhams investigation into the investigators. By august 2019, mr. Durham and attorney general barr were on a plane to europe, jointly hunting down nonexistent evidence of Donald Trumps deep state conspiracy theories. If the duo ever found evidence proving that donald trump was right all along, that evidence never made it into the Durham Report. It has been alleged, however, that they found evidence implicating the former president in certain financial crimes during that trip. Incidentally, that information too is missing from the final pages. When he did not give donald trump evidence of a deep state conspiracy, mr. Durham gave them the next best thing, a public narrative with Hillary Clinton as the villain. Over the ensuing years, mr. Durham constructed a flimsy story built on shaky entrances and dog whistles to farright conspiracy theories. Although he lost both times, he took a case to trial. By prolonging his investigation, he was able to keep Donald Trumps talking points in the news long after trump left office. With a loose approach to doj norms, protecting the reputation of the agency and the cavalier disregard to the privacy and reputational rights of others, mr. Durhams investigation operated a headline generator for maga republicans. Less than half a year into his investigation, mr. Durham publicly disputed the conclusion that the fbi was warranted in opening a full investigation. The violation of doj rules protecting investigations from appearances of political bias. He similarly flagged these guidelines, designed to protect thirdparty from reputational injury when he used the two indictments to accuse the Clinton Campaign of a vast conspiracy to tie trump to russia. At the end of the day, mr. Durham never found what he was looking for. He cannot dispute a single conclusion in the Mueller Report. He cannot prove a magnificent deep state conspiracy and he cannot say that the fbi investigation into the Trump Campaign never should have happened. Again, i can see why this would be disappointing to some. Instead of owning up to his failure, the Durham Report doubles down on theories. The report also represents classified material that has been likely disinformation to lay out a series of accusations against the former president. By presenting the findings in this way, swiping a republican bogeyman and hiding an Inconvenient Truth and footnote, the Durham Report gives donald trump one last talking point. It did not have to be this way. Hard to remember that at the outset of the investigation, mr. Durham was a wellrespected prosecutor with a solid reputation. The attorney general is supposed to point to special counsel to prevent the appearance in the criminal investigation. Mr. Durham could well have lived up to that expectation. Instead, what we got was a political exercise that operated with ethical ambiguity and existed to perpetuate Donald Trumps unfounded claims. Investigations failed the political objective but did real damage to the department and are still recovering from the excesses of the Trump Administration. Despite mr. Durhams best efforts, a reckoning is well underway. Do not be misled. Former President Donald Trump is not a victim. He did this to himself. The Durham Report does not show that anyone else is responsible for the president s legal woes, past, present, or future. Anyone who tells you otherwise is making it up. I yield back. All Opening Statements will be included in the record. Todays witnesses the honorable john durham. He was appointed as a special counsel in 2022 investigate intelligence activities rising out of the 2016 president ial campaigns. He is a career prosecutor having served as a you as attorney for the district of connecticut and in various other roles with that office since 1989. Prior to that, he served with the department of justice and the boston strikeforce on organized crime. We welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today. We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and raise your right hand . Do you swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information . The witness has answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. Your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. We ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes but we will give you extra time if you need it. You may begin. Hit your microphone and keep it on if you can throughout the day. Good morning, chairman jordan , members of this committee. As the committee knows, on may 13, 2019, attorney general barr directed me to conduct a preliminary review into certain matters related to federal investigations concerning the 2016 president ial election campaigns. That review subsequently developed into several criminal investigations and gave rise to my subsequent employment as special counsel in these matters. Many of the most significant issues documented in the report we have read, including those relating to lack of investigative discipline, failure to take logistical, logical investigative steps are relevant to important National Security interests at this committee and the American People are concerned about. If repeated and left unaddressed, these issues could result in significant National Security risks and further erode the publics faith and confidence in our justice system. As we said in the report, our findings are sobering. Having spent 40 years plus as a prosecutor, they are sobering to me. Some of my colleagues spent decades in the fbi themselves, they were sobering. While i am encouraged by some of the reforms that have been implemented, the problems identified in this report, anybody who reads the report, the details of the report, the documented portions of the report, i think would find that the problems identified in the report are not susceptible to overnight fixes. As we said in the report, it cannot be addressed solely by enhancing training or additional policy requirements. Rather what is required is accountability both in terms of the standards to which our Law Enforcement personnel hold themselves and in the consequences they face for violation of laws and policies of relevance. I am here to answer your questions. I appreciate the opportunity. I will answer them to the best of my ability and i hope to be of service to your oversight function. As im sure you know, the department of justice has issued some guidelines as to what i am authorized to discuss and those i am not authorized to discuss. In this regard, i will refer principally to the report. I do want to emphasize a few points at the outset. First, i want to emphasize in the strongest terms possible that my colleagues and i carried out our work in good faith, with integrity and within the spirit of following the facts wherever they lead without fear or favor. At no time or no sense did we act with a purpose to further partisan political ends to the extent that somebody suggests otherwise, that is untrue and offensive. Second, the findings set forth in this report are serious and deserve attention from the American Public and its representatives. Let me briefly highlight a few of those. We found troubling violations of law and policy in the conduct of highly consequential investigations directed at members of the president ial campaign and ultimately the president ial administration. To me it matters not whether it was a Republican Campaign or democratic campaign. It was a president ial campaign. Our Team Dedicated and experienced prosecutors and Law Enforcement agents who work day in and day out through the entire covid epidemic, in the office trying to interview people, all in an effort to try to get to those facts and truth. That group of people made these findings, experienced fbi agents, experienced prosecutors, not people by and large from washington but from other parts of the country. These people made these findings as reflected in the report. It is a concern. It should be of concern to any american who cares about our civil liberties, the rule of law , whether we are friends, foes, it ought to apply to everyone in the same way. During our investigation, we charged a former fbi agent who pleaded guilty to the felony defense of altering and fabricating a portion of the document used to obtain a court order of surveillance of the United States citizen which is a significant problem. Several of the relevant applications in the crossfire investigation omitted references to what was clearly relevant and highly exculpatory information that should have been disclosed to the court. Multiple fbi personnel who signed or assisted in preparing renewal applications for that same form acknowledged that they did not believe that the target was a threat to National Security, much less a knowing agent which is what the law requires. It appears, from our investigation that the fbi leadership dismissed those concerns. Another aspect of our findings concern the failure to sufficiently scrutinize information it received or to apply the same standards to allegations it received about the clinton and Trump Campaigns. As our report detailed, the fbi was too willing to accept and use politically funded and uncorroborated Opposition Research such as the steele dossier. Fbi relied on the dossier and applications knowing it was likely material originating from a Political Campaign and political opponent. It did so even after the president of the United States, the fbi and cia directors and others received briefings about intelligence, suggesting that there was a Clinton Campaign plan underway to stir up a scandal tying trump to russia. The actors in the intelligence was uncertain at time but the fbi failed to analyze or even assess the implications of the intelligence in any meaningful way. When the fbi learned that the primary source of information for the steele dossier, which was the guts of the narrative about there being a well coordinated conspiracy involving trump and the russians. They learned that dan janco was the primary suv source for those reports, it was at a time when the fbi already knew he had been the suspect of an espionages investigation. He is suspected of being a russian asset. Nonetheless, they signed him up as a paid informant without further investigation of that espionage concern to say nothing about resolving it before using his information. When the fbi and special agent Mueller Office used that the primary sub source likely have gathered important portions of the information during travels to russia, it inexplicably decided not to interview him or investigate his activities. Finally, i would like to add that although our work exposed deep concerns concerning facts about the conduct of this investigation, our report should not be read to suggest in any way that Russian Election interference is not a significant threat. It was. Nor, should be read to suggest that the investigation investigative authorities at issue no longer serve important Law Enforcement or National Security interest. They do. Rather, responsibility for the failures and transgressions that occurred here or allowed them to occur. To my mind, the issues raised show close attention to the American People and their elected representatives here in washington. Thank you. Thank you. We will now proceed with the five minute rule for questions. We now recognize mr. Johnson from louisiana. This is muchanticipated. We have lots of questions for you. I will try to set the table at the outset. The American People rely on the fbi to abide by its guiding principles. We rely upon them to uphold the constitution and protect the American People. Americans deserve and expect us to apply justice blindly and that is without political bias or ulterior motives. However, your report famously states, based on the review of crossfire hurricane and related intelligence activities, it concluded that the doj and fbi failed to uphold the Important Mission of strict fidelity to the law. There is no other way to put this. The report illustrates egregious actions on behalf of the fbi that have further eroded faith in our institutions. In your report and again here today, you said that your findings and conclusions are sobering. Could you unpack more about what that means . Let me give you some real life views on that. I have had any number of fbi agents who i have worked with over the years, some of who are retired and some of who are in place who have come to me and apologized in the manner of which that investigation was undertaken. I take that seriously. These are good, hardworking people, decent human beings who swear under their growth to abide by the law and i think that exemplifies the concern here. There were investigative activities that were undertaken here which raise real concerns about whether or not the law was followed, policies in place. You wrote in your report, quote, based on the evidence gathered in the investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither u. S. Law enforcement, nor the Intelligence Community appear to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the crossfire investigation. Has any evidence of collusion between the Trump Campaign in russia ever been uncovered . There is information in the report that was prepared by director mueller but as to collusion or conspiracy, i am not aware of any. When the fbi opened crossfire hurricane, that is the issue at hand, it did not have any information that anyone in the Trump Campaign had ever been involved with russian intelligence, is that right . We talked to the Deputy Director of the cia, director of the nsa and people within the fbi and there was no such information that they had in their holdings at the time that i opened. I am going to go quickly here. You detail how the personnel working on the applications violated protocols. They were cavalier, at best. Information they received, especially information received from politically affiliated persons or entities. You said, quote, a significant reliance provided or funded by the political opponents were relied upon here. Among the alarming things is the impact of confirmation bias. You said in your report that page the real three, that stands for the general human tendency, mostly unintentional for people to accept information and evidence that is consistent with what they believe to be true. This was not innocent, unintentional human tendency. It was over political bias, was it not . There are some individuals that clearly expressed a personal bias, difficulty getting into somebodys head. Unless we have their emails, right . Peter had hostile feelings toward President Trump. He was in charge of this. He was the assistant director of counterintelligence, officially opened the investigation. He said horrible things about President Trump. How can he not have political bias . It collects a personal biased. We know now the fbi and the doj the former president because of the opposing viewpoints. They failed to follow protocols in 2016. You have suggested new protocols may somehow be affixed to this. How can the American People have confidence that they did not follow protocols in 2016 that they will . That is why i said this in the opening remarks. This is not an easy fix. It will take time to rebuild the confidence. The changes in the forms they have made are changes that are going to guard against the repeat of what happened in crossfire hurricane. The gentleman yields back. Can you pull that microphone real close so everyone can hear what you say . The gentleman from new york is recognized. Your report reads like a defense of Trump Campaign and attack on Hillary Clinton because that is exactly what it is. Donald trump wanted you to investigate the investigators to show the deep state conspiracy but you never found one. Instead, you gave him and his republicans the next best thing, someone else to blame for Donald Trumps problems. That is why you are here today. The chairman and his colleagues need someone, anyone to deflect the mounting evidence. Let me remind you that donald trump was federally indicted on 37 counts of mishandling of classified information. That is why you are here today, not because of anything that happened in 2016. Your investigation cost more than 6. 5 million, involves the work of dozens of federal prosecutors, some of whom resigned in protest and took roughly 4 years to complete. Is that correct . No. That is not correct. There were multiple parts to that. Did it take four years to complete . Correct. With all these resources you were sent to help investigate the investigators. You only file three criminal cases. You only brought two cases to trial, correct . Correct. You lost all the cases you brought to trial, correct . Two juries acquitted your dependents and the one conviction you obtained, the defendant pleaded guilty to a single count i never went to trial. I will note that in that case, the steps were all completed by Inspector General hurwitz. Perhaps it is better when it came to your report. Your report did not make any specific concrete recommendations to improve doj or fbi policies and procedures. In fact the report repeatedly references it made. All the doj and fbi have already implemented. Your investigation lasted four years. Four years and untold sums of money and you still obtain only one conviction. You did produce a 300 page report and that has given my republican counterparts plenty of material. This is the Foreign Policy advisor to the Trump Campaign in the spring of 2016. Isnt that right . Correct. In may 2016, you told the australian diplomat that the trump team had received some kind of suggestion from russia that could assist this process with the release of the campaign that would be damaging for secretary clinton. This is a fact that came out during the Mueller Investigation and your investigation found nothing to dispute this fact. Correct . There was more detail to that in the report. Expected to find anything to dispute this report . To dispute this fact . No. On page 50 of your report, you wrote that on july 28, 2016, fbi headquarters received the information and formed the basis of the opening of the crossfire hurricane. Correct . Correct. This fantasy that some maga republicans have created where the investigation was started other than a Trump Campaign operative bragging to australian operatives that would damage Hillary Clinton is not true. When the fbi received that information, according to your report, it was not predication to investigate but there was no question that the fbi had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the information. Isnt that correct . The fbi had so that is correct. It was not alpha bank. It was the trumps loose lips about his campaigns that had a profound affect on the 2016 election. That information supplied gave the fbi predication to begin the investigation. I would like to discuss one more inclusion about your report that is made its way into the talking points. Some of my colleagues across the aisle have started calling this the, quote, russia hoax. Is a theory that russia did not interfere in the 2016 president ial election. That is false. In 2017 during the Trump Administration, the director of National Challenges declassified a report on russian activity in the 2016 election. You are aware of this report, correct . Correct. This Intelligence Community found that russian president Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the u. S. Residential election. Russia schools were to undermine public faith in the Us Democratic process, denigrate secretary clinton and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assessed putin and the government to have a clear you did not dispute that trump order the campaign to influence the 2016 election. Did you . No, okay. Special counsel mueller indicted 12 russian Intelligence Officers in july of 2018, isnt that right . Correct. The 12 Intelligence Officers indicted for in tucking the Clinton Campaign. On page 55 the report, you acknowledge within the press conference in 2016, donald trump, on camera, said, russia, if youre listening, i hope we able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. Is that correct . Thats correct. And two years later trump told the press he believed russian president putin, of his own intelligence officials, when i told him russia did not interfere during the 2016 elections season. I see my time has expired. I yield back. The witness can respond if he chooses to. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from south carolina, for five minutes. Thank you mister chairman. Were here today to provide transparency, finally, to the American People. Seven years ago, the fbi launch crossfire hurricane, the left brazen attempt to keep donald trump out of the white house. This federal investigation funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign caused americans to believe that thencandidate trump was colluding with russia in order to win the 2016 president ial election. Mr. Durham has four years investigating this, 480 witnesses, 6 million pages of documents, 190 subpoenas, and executing seven search warrants. Less than a month ago, he completed this report, instigated baseless investigation and launched an attack on President Trump, despite having no true justification to do this. That was the fbi. Within three days of receiving the information from a diplomat in australia, the fbi opened a full fledged investigation into the Trump Campaign. Mr. Durham, lets get into this. The fbi opened up crossfire hurricane without speaking to the people who provided the initial information. Is that true . Thats correct. The fbi opened crossfire hurricane on the sunday, only three days after reviewing that information. Is that correct . Thats correct. Think about that for a moment, an investigation, a full investigation into a president ial campaign, over a weekend. Mr. Durham, the fbi had done crossfire hurricane so reviewing any of the essential witnesses, is that true . Thats true. The fbi also opened it without using any of the standard analytical tools, typically employed to evaluate that, is that true . Thats true. Think about that, the fbi never talk to the people who gave them intelligence information, never examine their own witnesses, never interviewed the witnesses, never corroborated the dossier. Mr. Durham, if the fbi had done these things, if they had done their homework, would have found that its own russian experts had no information about President Trump being involved with russian leadership or russian intelligence officials . Yes. So then, was there adequate predication for the fbi to open crossfire hurricane as a full investigation . On july 31st, my view, based on our investigation, it is not a legitimate basis to open a full investigation. An assessment is something that had to be looked at, gather information, such is interviewing the people who provided the papadopoulos information, checking their own databases, the databases of other intelligence agencies and the standard kinds of things that you would do in an investigation like this. Mr. Durham, i think its safe to conclude based on that report, and anyone whos read it, that they did not have the adequate basis, as you talked about, to launch this investigation of. Lets move on to a second troubling aspect of your findings. From the report, i gathered that key fbi leaders, all the way at the top, they were predisposed to go after candidate trump. This bias likely affected the conduct of fbi personnel in this investigation, is that true . Yes. Can you describe that for a moment . How the confirmation bias play into this . Confirmation bias was alluded to. It has to do with our human tendency to except things we really think are true and to reject anything else. And listen stunts, there are any number of significant red flags that were raised, they were simply ignored. If there is evidence that was inconsistent with the narrative, they didnt Pay Attention to, it they did not explore, they did not take the logical investigative steps they shouldve taken. Lets lets see how real this bias, was drafted and approved the crossfire hurricane opening communication, is that correct . Thats correct. And in your investigation, your Office Discovered Text Messages between him and lisa page, the special assistant to the fbi director mccabe, expressing strong bias against candidate trump . Thats true. For the record, let me read aloud, this was generated by staff, this is what would look like their Text Messages. On august 18th, 2016, page trump is not gonna become president , right . Right . And he responded by saying, no, no he is not, well stop it. Its clear there was no evidence of russian collusion with the Trump Campaign in 2016. The American People deserve the truth. Im proud to serve on this committee to uncover these lies that were perpetuated for far too long. With that, mister chairman, with my remaining 30 seconds, i will yield to you. The chairman yields back. We will wait for my time. We recognize the gentlelady from california. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, mr. Durham, for being here this morning. The Ranking Member explored an item that i want to explore with you, which is based on the information provided to the u. S. Government by australia that a Campaign Aide had told one of their diplomats that the russians had dirt on clinton in the form of thousands of emails that, and this is a quote from a report, as an initial matter, there is no question the fbi had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the australian investigation. Thats in the report, i think the issue might be, a preliminary versus full. You agree, there was an obligation to look at it based on the, is that correct . Thats what you said . Based on some of the premises of the question are inaccurate. He did not tell know, the question is, do you disavow you said in the report . That you had an affirmative obligation to the fbi to look at that . The answer to that question, they had to look, at it yes. All right, i want to take a look at some of the other things that i did not find any report. In looking at the fbis behavior, did you find any evidence that the fbi was taking a look at the hacking of the Democratic National committee and their investigation of that. If so, where is that a new report . That was outside the scope of what i was asked to do. In the Mueller Report, we found, the Campaign Manager, mr. Manafort, was giving inside information to private polling data to the russians. That there was a meeting in trump tower with the president s soninlaw and his son, where the russians had promised they had dirt and an email from the president sun, it was something to the effective, so, we love. It did the fbi look at that . Did you examine the . If so, where is that any report . Thats not something i was asked to look, at we didnt look at five. Im wondering, did you take a look at how the fbi evaluated the alleged ties to alfa bank . Did you hire cyber experts to actually take a look at those potential or alleged ties . Yes. Well, i didnt hire them, they were fbi experts. And where is that in the report . Its in there, i can find the page, my colleagues can find the page. There is an entire section on alfa bank, the white papers and the data provided by mr. Sostman to the fbi. No, no, my question was, did you take a look, did you hire experts to evaluate the fbis evaluation . I did not hire experts to check what the experts said, no. Let me ask another question. I thought it was a data rabbit hole, but you and attorney general barr went to italy to take a look at some allegation about foreign service. And italian officials gave you evidence that they said linked donald trump to certain financial crimes. Did the attorney general ask you to investigate that matter that the italians referred to you . And if so, did you take any investigative steps . Did you file charges . If not, did you file a memo for a decision not to charge in this case . The question is outside the scope of what i think im authorized to talk about. Its not part of the report. I can tell you this, the investigative steps were taken, subpoenas were issued, it came to nothing. Id like to yield the balance of my time to my colleague from california, mr. Schiff. Mr. , termed doj policy provides that you dont speak about a pending investigation. Yeah, you did, didnt you . Im not exactly sure. When the Inspector General issued a report saying that the investigation was properly predicated, you spoke out in violation of the department of justice, department of justice policy, to criticize the expecter generals conclusions, didnt feel . I issued a Public Statement. I didnt do anonymously, i didnt do it through third persons. Nonetheless, you violated Department Policy by issuing a Statement Like investigation is ongoing, didnt you . I dont know, that if i did, i did. I was not aware that i was violating a policy. And you also sought to get the Inspector General to change his conclusion, they do not . When he was concluding that the investigation was properly predicated, did you privately seek to intervene to change that conclusion . This is outside the scope of the report, if you want to go there. The Inspector General, we asked him to take a look at the intelligence thats included in the classified appendix that you looked at. And so about ought to affect portions of his report. You thought it was appropriate for you to intervene with an independent investigation by the Inspector General because he is reaching a conclusion you disagreed with, you thought that was appropriate . It isnt right, the Inspector General circulated a draft memo for a number of agencies and persons. Our group was one of them, we were asked to review that draft and bring to his attention any concerns we have our. [inaudible]. Mister chairman, i insist on regular order. Its not even his, time its miss lofgrens. Time the gentleman yields back to miss lot, from the times expired. Mr. Durham, in the summer 2016, did our government receive intelligence that suggested secretary clinton had approved a plan to tie President Trump to russia . Yes. Was that intelligence important enough for director brennan to go brief the president of the United States, the Vice President , states attorney general United States, and the director of the fbi . Yes. And was an intelligence put into a memorandum . Or for all memorandum . Was that then given to director comey and agent struck . Yes, it was addressed, yes. The director comey share that memorandum with the court . Im sorry. Did he share that memorandum with the court . Did director comey do that . Im not aware that if he did. Did he share it with the lawyers preparing the fisa application . Not to mileage. Did he share with the agents on the case working the crossfire hurricane case . No. Didnt share with agents on the case . Can you tell the committee what happened when you took that referral memo and shared it with one of those age, and specifically supervisory special agent number one . We interviewed the first supervisor of the cross fire investigation, the operational person. We showed him the intelligence information, he had never seen it before. He immediately became emotional, got up and left the room with his lawyer. Spent some time in the hallway, came back. He was ticked, off wasnt he . He was ticked off, this is something he shouldve had, as an age on the case, as Important Information that the director of the fbi kept from the people doing the investigation. The information is kept from him. Who is Charles Dolan . Charles dolan is a Public Relations person here in washington d. C. He had prior involvement, professional involvement with russia, representing russian government interest. He was the Person Associated with your dumb zhengzhou. Also buddies with the clintons, wasnt he . He had held positions when president clinton was president. Their Campaign Advisers to president Clintons Campaign thats the same Charles Dolan were talking about . Yes. Yeah, wasnt else okay source for information in the dossier . He provided some information that was to include the manafort stuff . The crossfire hurricane investigation the Mueller Investigation, when the fbi interviewed mr. Dhillon, would it have to say . To my knowledge, they didnt interview mister him. They didnt interview him . Source for the job, seeking information for the dossier, but hes with the clintons, even talk to them . We reported, not even christopher steele, in october of 2016, identified dolan as somebody who might have information. I find it interesting didnt talk to him. Where their agents on the case who wanted to talk to mr. Dolan, mr. Durham . Yes. Why havent analysts number one . She kept pushing to talk to mr. Dolan, she was ultimately turned down, what happened her the day she was turned down and said, no, were not talking a dolan, what happened to her . After about the same time, she is assigned to different projects. They moved her. They said, we cant have this, we can have, we cannot be looking into the clintons body, a key source for the dossier, they reassigned her. What did she do . She memorialized. She entered a memo to the file, she said, at some, point Inspector General is gonna want to nail this information. Im going to make contemporaneously, she put it in the file. I mean, its crazy, they talk to the key source, they kept key intelligence from the investigators. This is how bad this investigation. Was but here is the scary part, i dont think anything has changed. The day report came out, five weeks ago, may 15th, you got a letter, mr. Durham, addressed to you from them. General counsel at the fbi, mr. Jason jones, wrote you this sixpage letter and he says not to worry, everything is fine, its all been worked out at the fbi. He even says, on page two, he says, had the reforms implemented by current fbi leadership, summarize below, been in place in 2016, detailed in your report, never wouldve happened, he said, this never happened because the reforms are implemented in 2019 and 2020. Then he says, on page four, the specific reforms, he says, fbi executive management has instructed investigation should be run out of the field and not from the head court. That statement is not true. Five weeks ago, the fbi wrote you and said, everything has changed, when in fact, it hasnt, in a statement in there is absolutely false. We know its false because two weeks ago today, we interviewed stephen down to 10, former head of the Washington Field office, heres what he said in his transcript, as the Washington Field office, the Trump Classified doctrine investigation again, he said, that case was handled differently than i wouldve expected to be than any other cases handled. We learned a lot of stuff from crossfire hurricane that headquarters did not work the investigation, its supposed to be the field offices. My concern is that the department of justice was not following these principles. Nothing, thats the thing that scares me the most, nothing is changed. Mr. Durham, let me finish with this, 60 of americans now believe there is a double standard at the Justice Department. You know why they believe that . Because there is. That has got to change. I dont think more training, more rules is going to do it, i think we have to fundamentally change the process, we have to use the appropriations process to limit how american tax dollars are spent at the department of justice. I yield back. The gentlelady from general lady texas is recognized, miss jackson. From texas to recognize miss jackson. Good morning. Good morning. Do you value the idea. And the letter of attorney general garland, you asked him to allow you to continue your investigation unencumbered, you said we want to thank you, and your office for permitting our inquiry to continue independently, as you ensured the members of the Judiciary Committee would be the case during her confirmation hearings, to become attorney general of the United States. You value special counsel status. So it is accurate that attorney general garland let you proceed on your case as you wish, is that true . Thats true. And yes or no it was important to you that as a special counsel your investigation was supposed to be independent, is that correct . That is correct. Because special counsels, and special attorneys, are supposed to be independent. Right . Special counsels. Yes. And independent are supposed to be independent, is that correct . Special counsel is independent of the attorney generals office. Thank you. Why is that the case in your view . So they can be some confidence on the part of people looking at the investigation. That were made thank you. Special counsel and special attorneys are supposed to be, for the American Public, to present the potential of a conflict of interest between the government and a sensitive investigation. By appointing a special counsel attorney general, you are supposed to be finding an unbiased party to do the investigating. This was a very high level. This was dealing with potential president ial candidates, this was dealing with russian collusion, undermining the very fabric of the United States of america. And they are supposed to leave that person alone, as you commended attorney general garland for doing. So, id like attorney general garland, treasures min barr was very involved in your investigation. Was it he . He was not involved when i became a special counsel, prior to that, i worked under the supervision of the attorney general. He was very involved, let me not . Let me just bring you to this point. It was established early on that he is very interested in your investigation. June 8th, 2018, he said then rod rosenstein, an unsolicited memo arguing that the Mueller Investigation should not be able to force the president to submit to interrogation about obstruction. In a text message sending the memo, our wrote that he feels very deeply about some of the issues taking shape in the matter. How often did you meet with attorney general barr in 2019 . Before i was special counsel, maybe, well, with him himself, i dont know, maybe every two weeks, three weeks, something of that sort. Sometimes more frequently. And then after . After i had been appointed special counsel, i dont know, i mean im sure i saw him, but i did meet with him. A lot. Now its not a lot. How often did you speak or text with the attorney general . This is during the investigation. During the, when i was special counsel, or prior to that . Special counsel sir. I dont know how many times. According to now public records, barr scheduled at least 18 meetings or calls with you between 2019, march, and october 2019. And you and he text message with each other frequently. Didnt you . Text messages . I was appointed as special counsel in october. So before that, yeah, but there are probably a number of Text Messages. After that, i dont know. Here are some example. August 31, 2019, he sent you a message that said john, i strongly suggest that you, a lot of interesting things on february six 2020, you text him, sir, just emerging from a scif. Are you open to a call early this morning . Barr text you, kollywood you get a chance. On march 19th, 2020, barr, texarkana call you later. You responded most certainly. March 27th, 2020, you sent him the best phone number for you, all during the time of the special counsel. Heres an interesting one. On september 24th, 2019, the day the Speaker Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump, attorney texted you call me asap. And later that day you text back, do you have a minute for a quick call, durham. What was the purpose of this call mr. Durham . Were you discussing the impeachment inquiry . I never had any conversation with the attorney general barr about the impeachment inquiry. Mr. Durham, this is an awful lot of direct interactions with the attorney general for imposed, supposedly, independent counsel. During these messages, that found to you like appropriate interactions, do they sound like appropriate interactions between an attorney general, and prosecutor investigating the administration . Before i was appointed special counsel, i worked for the attorney general of the United States. But you subsequently became special counsel, i know that. You subsequently became. Not only did you interact with the attorney general frequently, you also readily engaged with one of his what was your relationship with mr. Do trunk . Order Eastern District of new york. He works with one of my sons friends at the time, he was working in the office of the attorney general. Time general lady has expired. There was a lot of interaction between the gentlelady has expired. Which shows that with the attorney general, was actively directing your work. The general lady yields. I think this is amazing mr. Durham. You had a Text Messages with the attorney general of the United States in an 11 months time period. Thats amazing. I cant believe it mister chairman, parliamentary inquiry. Whos time is that that you are speaking on . That was a time that was yield. I yield it back. Mister chairman, that is absolutely inappropriate. I was just pointing out something that i think mister chairman that is not appropriate. We will go to mr. Cline for five minutes. The gentleman from virginia excuse me is recognized. Mr. Durham, your report is not just sobering as you have stated, it is outrageous, and deeply troubling. Can you confirm these several main points that it found. The fbi did not have an adequate basis on which to lost crossfire hurricane. Is that correct . The fbi filed evidence, is that correct . Correct. Fbi leadership continue the leadership, even when case agents were unable to verify the evidence. Correct . Thats correct. The fbi did not interview key witnesses in crossfire hurricane, is that correct . Correct. Individuals within the fbi abuse their authority under the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. Correct . Correct. The fbi immediately opened crossfire hurricane as a full Counter Intelligence investigation. What other options could the fbi have taken rather than immediately opening such an investigation . The attorney general, edward lady, he essentially created the guidelines in this area, at these three divisions of assessments, preliminary, although there were different names at the time. That has evolved over time, and become more particular. In this instance, the information that they had received from about a suggestion of a suggestion, and not anything about emails, but just a suggestion of a suggestion, was sufficient. And it would have been, it wouldve required the fbi to take a look, at will what is this about. We open it as an assessment, and analytically, you would go try and collect intelligence that either, supports or explains that information. That is the whole purpose of it, you assess, it and you move to preliminary investigation. And if evidence you do a full investigation, where you have all of the tools available, including the most intrusive physical surveillance and electronic surveillance of u. S. Citizens. Here they just immediately want to open as a full investigation, without ever having talked to the australians, or gathered up their evidence. Investigators relied on misstatements by the confidential human source, ignored expel pretoria statements made by. Correct . That is correct. Is it true that an fbi employee fabricated this evidence, can you expand on that fabrication, in the reliance to support that . In connection with one of the extensions, the final extension renewal, on the carter page, one of the agents who had come on board wanted to be certain that there was information that was their information, whether carter page had better source of information for the cia. Impress kevin klein smith, and General Counsel Office on that point. Client smith got a hold of people of another Government Agency, an intelligence agency, on the issue, and that person indicated, not indicated, said, that yes, fbi parlance, carter page was the source. And he put that in writing. One client smith, the agent who said, we want to be sure on this, was he or was he not a source, clients must said, he said hes not. He said can we get that in writing. Klein smith said yes. They said, well i want to see it. Cline smith altered the other Government Agency document to reflect this, to say that page was not a source, when he in fact was the source. Thats the gist of it. What did the investigation mean when they said they hope the turns on the would quote self corroborate . That was another troublesome thing. The agent was, he thought, well if we can get surveillance, electronic surveillance, of page, and then well find out essentially whether we really do have probable cause or not. We would selfcorroborate in that sense. Our investigator supposed to corroborate information before or after it is included in an application . You have to have that before you intrude on the liberties of an american citizen. Effect the fbi is required to follow it woods procedures, which they adopted to assure accuracy of information contained in applications. Correct . Thats correct. Did the fisk ever criticize the fbis handling of the page five application . Yes. What were some of those concerns that they raised. Ultimately, the fisk issued an order, a memorandum, indicating that had the information, that was disclosed done by Inspector General horowitz, a very thorough job, and a good job, and a well written report. Had they known that, at least the second and third renewal application would not have established probable cause. I think the bureau, im sorry. The department of justice acknowledges that as well. If the fiscal at all of the information, which i think is included in this report, i think its highly doubtful that they would have ever been an application submitted. If it was submitted, the fist would not have granted that order. Thank you, i yield back. Gentleman yields back, the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. Thank you mister chair. Mr. Durham, you were appointed by whom . I was who recommended you and appointed you . As the special counsel . No as u. S. Attorney. U. S. Attorney was President Trump at the time. With two Democratic Senators from connecticut supporting the nomination. Mr. Trump appointed you. Do you believe mr. Trump has a good judgment on people . Theyre abilities . Their character . Im not characterizing mr. Trump or my thoughts about mr. Trump. Mr. Barr appointed special counsel, is that correct . Thats correct. Mr. Trump has called mr. Barr a got loose peg, a coward, in a rhino. Which of those is correct, which is a . In my experience none of those are correct. So mr. Trump isnt that good of an expert on character and judging people . In your opinion he isnt, because hes on those. He is not a godless pig. But trump says he is. Thats outside the scope of my report. Also on the outside of your scope of your report apparently. [laughter] also outside the scope was apparently a meeting at trump tower between the russians and the trump boys, where they talked about allegedly adoptions. We know it was really about sanctions. How is that outside of your report . Yeah, im not, im sorry, i dont quite follow that. The meeting at trump tower, attorney, the russian attorney came to trump, and donald trump jr. , they said, wonderful, wonderful, we love it, we love it. Im russian decisions to interact with the Trump Campaign, and influence the actions of the campaign, allegedly for adoption law. But really for sanctions relief. The fbi came up with that. Did they not . Im a meeting took place a trump towers on june 9th, the lawyers, as i understand, there was information, derogatory information about clinton that was to be provided. I believe in the hips the report, it fully lay that out, the discussion that a trump towers was about adoption, not about anything relating to mrs. Clinton. It was totally about sanctions. Youre trying to get rid of the magnitsky law. The adoptions was a roof. Should you not have gone and looked into that is seen what the russians were wanting in return for that. Thats the biggest thing putin wanted in the time. Was to get trump to lead his people of magnitsky sanctions. I think that direct mueller invested that. And i believe one of your house committees explored that. That was outside the scope of what we were looking at. And it was outside the scope of your authority to look at claim nick and manafort meeting at a. Im sorry, im not following you. Manafort. Remember the crook that managed to campaign for nothing, but got tons of money from different russian people over the years . You guys pardoned. Mr. Barr later helped him with a pardon. Metaphors. I know who he is. He met with kilimnik. And they discussed polling data. You dont know about that . I know that mr. Clinic met with a lot of people. He met with manafort and discuss polling data. Are you aware of that . Im aware of that. Why did you not think it was a good idea for you to look into and see if the fbi wasnt correct in that there was collusion, a connection between russia and the Trump Campaign to elect trump. My five it was to look at the conduct of the Intelligence Community agencies. Not to conduct a separate investigation that was done by the house or the senate or directive mueller. You dont think that the Intelligence Community, the fbi, others, that they came up with this information and did good work, that that should be part of your balanced report . Yeah. Im not, im not following your question. I apologize. If its a question ive tried to follow your report. Mister don trump jr. Wouldve called it a nothing burger. You have no convictions, you have nothing. It was all set up to hurt the Mueller Report, which was correct, and it was redacted, to hurt the bidens, and to help trump. And you were a part of it. You have a good reputation. You had a good reputation thats why two democrats supported you. But the law where you hold on to mr. Barr, and this report, that mr. Barr gave you a special counsel, your reputation will be damaged. As everybodys reputation who gets involved with donald trump is damaged. He is damaged goods, theres no good dealing with him, you will end up on the bottom of a pile. We presume the gentleman is undecided on how he feels about the former president. [laughter] gentlemen, witness can respond. My concern about my reputation is with the people who i respect, my family, and my lord. Im perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them sir. Well said. God bless you. [applause] the chair recognizes the gentleman of wisconsin. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Durham, thank you for being here today. On october 3rd, 2016, the fbi met with christopher steele, who confessed to relying heavily on a Russian National living in washington d. C. As a sub source. That sub source was later identified as still not only used to create the dossier, but according to your report, steele was unable to corroborate any of the substantial of allegations made in the dossier. Is that correct . That is correct. Even after the fbi offered steal 1 million if somehow he could actually follow through and underscore some of those specific items. Is that correct . Thats correct. The fbi interviewed dan zhengzhou, and steel sub source for three days, from january 24th, january 26, of 17. However, according to your report, dan zhengzhou could not provide any of it is corroborating the allegations contained in the dossier. Is that correct . Thats a fact. And yet the fbi paid danilchenko 220,000 during his time as a confidential human source. Is that correct . Thats correct. And did the fbi proposed making continued future payment to dan zhengzhou, totaling more than 300,000 . Thats correct. Dan shankle becomes a confidential human source, and enlist his own sub source, Charles Dolan, who was brought up earlier, who is a democrat operative, and had previously served as an adviser to Hillary Clintons 2008 president ial campaign. Is that your understanding . Is that correct . Thats correct. Did dan chan go ever disclosed his relationship with Charles Dolan to the fbi, that your wear of . He did not during the interviews that were conducted in january, subsequently he was specifically asked in an interview with his then handler, you know, Charles Dolan, listen to the recording. He hesitates for some awkward period of time, and says yes i know who dolan is. He acknowledged knowing knowing mr. Dolan. Do you think it had anything to do with he was simply worried that disclosing a democrat operative as a sub source may jeopardize the whole payroll deal that the fbi had set up . When you lay these facts out, as we do other facts of the report. We leave it others to draw reasonable conclusions or inferences from those facts. Very good. Of the 100 of individual who the fbi interviewed, throughout the course of crossfire hurricane, and Miller Special, counsel investigation, this came up earlier, was Charles Dolan ever interviewed by the fbi . He was not. Do you have any insight as to why the fbi would not interview him . Or would overlook such a highprofile person in this investigation . Its somewhat of a mystery, going back to october 3rd, according to the a lot, the assistant, the bureau, when he first, im sorry, going back to july 5th, when he first met with steel, steele had indicated to him at the time that agency was aware of what steele was doing. When the bureau went back to interview steele on october 3rd, about matters relating to crossfire hurricane, still in fact had provided the bureau with dolans name, as someone who may have information relating to trump, but was never interviewed. So yeah, i dont know why they never interviewed trump, or sorry, why they did not interview mr. Dolan. But they didnt. The explanation that was given to the intelligence analyst, who is referred to in the report, essentially was, that it would be outside the scope of their mission. Outside of their role. Pretty good. You know in your report on page 168, that one of the analysts of the mueller team was told quote, to cease all research, and analysis related to dolan. Unquote. This was the same analysts who according to your footnote, prepared a timeline in the event, who were later interviewed about her role on the Miller Special counsel investigation. Is that correct . Thats correct. Igor don zhengzhou also relied on other sub sources, mainly all gulkana, and surgeon melon. When the fbi interviewed those two subs sources, were either of them able to verify the information in the steele dossier . Well, speaking first 2 million, we interviewed million as well, he was outside the country, claims to fear for his safety, and whatnot, but he adamantly denied ever talking to dan shank a, or providing any information akin to what was being reported. In fact, he was a supporter of President Trump, which made it seem highly unlikely that he would be providing derogatory information to somebody he had never met or spoken to. With respect to miss kolkata, miss calking it was somebody who provided some information to drench anco, provided some information to dolan. I am out of time. The gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from georgia. Thank you mister chairman, special counsel durham in march of 2019, before releasing the Mueller Report to the public, attorney general barr released a statement mischaracterizing its findings and conclusions. Shortly thereafter, attorney general barr announced that he was investigating the fbi for investigating putins interference in the 2016 president ial election and then, in april, or may of 2019, attorney general barr appointed you to lead that investigation. Is that correct . He did appoint me to lead the investigation, yes sir. Then in october of 2020, attorney general barr appointed you as an independent special counsel, so that you could continue investigating the origins of the russia, russia, russia investigation once trump was out of office. Correct . I was appointed special counsel in october, yes. By that time, your investigation had already caused the american taxpayers over six and a half Million Dollars. Is that correct . At that point probably not know. Well at this point, how much of it cost . As i understand the figure after three and a half years and six and a half Million Dollars with taxpayer money spent, your investigation led to the indictment of only three individuals, correct . Thats correct. And contrary to the fervent prayers of some on this panel, former director jim comey, and former cia director john brennan, were not among the three that have been indicted. Is that correct . Thats correct. To the extreme disappointed of some on this panel, your investigation failed to produce indictments against Hillary Clinton, correct . That is correct. Didnt indict barack obama. Thats correct. Didnt indict joe biden. Thats correct. Couldnt even indict hunter biden. We didnt investigate hunter biden. Three prosecutions, one ended with a guilty plea to an unrelated, and unrelated to the origins of the fbi investigation. That individual received a probate of sentence with no jail time, correct . Parts of that are correct. The other two men you prosecuted went to trial in the charges, charging, they were accused of lying to the fbi. Both were slam dunk acquitted, is that correct . They were acquitted. None of the individuals you prosecuted were ever charged with being part of a hoax, a fraud, or witch hunt, or politically motivated deep state conspiracy against donald trump. Isnt that correct . I would not say the thought is accurate. You mean you did charge somebody with being a part of a hoax . We charge mr. Sussman of having knowingly provided false information to the fbi regarding alfa bank. But he was acquitted though, right . But that wasnt your question. Mr. Sussman was acquitted after you charged him. Correct . Grandeury found he was found innocent by a jury of, by a unanimous jury of 12. Thats not true. Well whats true is a great jury found a probable cause to indict. A jury of his peers acquitted him though, correct . Youre not gonna disagree on that, are you mr. Durham . Im gonna try and answer your question as asked. Let me ask you this. Because in your report, you related, or eluded to allegations of misconduct against mr. Sostman, and mr. Danilchenko, as if those allegations had been proven true at trial. When in fact, both those individuals had been acquitted, in your allegations were disproven. Do you believe that it is ethical to state something as a fact, it in official government report, when the court system found that you could not prove those allegations . I think if you read the report, you would see that we talked about the results of the trial, and we included all of the evidence that we had available. Unfortunately not all of which was admitted to trial. Let me ask you this mr. Durham. You close your investigation after you failed to find that the fbi investigation into putins interference in the 2016 election was politically motivated, and was a deep state conspiracy against ex President Trump. You were unable to prove that that was true. That is not what i was investigating. Well, but you did not find that that was true. Correct . You found it to be false as a matter of fact. If, you have a chance to read the report i did the time has expired. Can the gentleman allowed to be asked a question . The witness can respond. If you read the report, we lay the facts out in the report as of these matters. Im not here to talk about mr. Trump. Im not here to talk about deep state, or whatever other characterizations youve made. This report is factual. Nobody has raised any issues as to whether it is factually inaccurate in any way. People can draw their own conclusions based on those facts. Senator weve been at it now and a half here. We can keep going if you can keep going, just let us know if and when you need im fine with whatever. We recognize the gentleman of california, mr. Issa. Each of us on the panel has a different background, and a different idea of whats best to get out of this report, and the work that youve done so faithfully. Not just for the last four years, but for your entire career. Im going to start off by asking, is a true that you have the attorney generals Exceptional Service award decoration for your service . Thats true. Is it also true that you have the attorney generals distinguished Service Award . Thats true. And who awarded you that . Goes back in time. Attorney general that we know no, 2012. Im sorry, 2012, im trying to remember, i dont frankly recall. Just for the record, its eric holder. Yeah . That was the cia investigation. Thats right, attorney general holder. It was. And you had to deal with some of the most despicable people, and do the things that we do sometimes when wrong has been done. So i want to thank you for that. It seems like for your entire career, you have been a goto for difficult situations, not necessarily the standard, i have tried to rise quickly award. But in fact, your career investigator. I would imagine pretty closely that you have got your 82 overall. I want to talk about something that im not qualified to talk about. But i can ask you. Are there, what you would call, unindicted coconspirators in this . In other words, are there people at all levels who did things wrong, who are not charged with crimes, because of the limitation of the ability to bring charges against them for what they did, even if it was wrong . We brought charges where we thought, in good faith, that we could prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Okay. Evidence beyond that, was there, of course. Sure, in your experience as prosecutor. When people break the rules, and it changes the outcome of Something Like launching investigation without predicate, like the president , the Vice President , the attorney general, and a host of others. Fbi director, knowing that this had been started with the false predicate, knowing that Hillary Clintons campaign, with her approval, in fact had authorized this, not research, but this weaponizing of a false claim. When they did that, they in fact change the outcome. Whether criminal or not, of many things, including certainly, some things in voters minds. Isnt that correct . Generally speaking theres lots about things that people do that are crimes. We can only charge those that are crimes. I appreciate that. So people are constantly making this point that somehow you didnt put enough people in jail, you gave us 300 pages that give us a responsibility, and as i said, im not gonna try and pretend that im a smart lawyer appear at all. Or even a lawyer. But i am somebody that understands organization oversight, in transparency. In your report, you do note the changes made, and so on. Unless we make changes in transparency to outside individuals, who can be counted on to the to the process. Isnt it true that the president , the Vice President , the attorney general, and a host of other top people at the Fbi Department of justice choose in the future to push to make outcomes occurred that would not occur according to their own printed rules, that no rule per se is going to change that . I think thats true. As we say in the report, ultimately what this comes down to is the integrity to people who are doing the job. Are they adhering to their oath, or are they not . Are they following along, are they not following the law. In my 20 plus years on this side of the dais, what i found is that people, when the light of day is shut on them, they follow the rules much better than they arent. So for all of us up here. I want to thank you for your contributions, and your service. Hopefully, i know youre gone into retirement, but hopefully in the future, as we begin looking at reforms that can be counted on, it believed by the American People, and reforms that create better transparency, and reforms that do not allow judges to be misled by people with an agenda, that you will be available to at least give us some of the guidance from your decades of knowing how it is done right at the department of justice. Mister chairman, i want to thank you for your indulgence, and so many people. I will not take excess time. I believe this witness is 300 plus pages speaks extremely well for itself. I yield back. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman of california is recognized. Mr. Durham, just so people remember what this all about. Let me ask you, the Mueller Investigation revealed that russia interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion, correct . Thats correct. Russia did so through a social Media Campaign that favor donald trump, and disparage Hillary Clinton. Correct . As the report says, yes. Mueller found that a Russia Intelligence Service hack associated with the Clinton Campaign, and then release the stolen documents publicly . Is that right . The report speaks for itself as well. Mueller also reported that though he could not establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he also said quote, a statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts, does not me that there was no evidence of those facts. That also appears of the report, doesnt it . Yes. In fact you cited that very statement in your own report, did you not, as a way of distinguishing between proof beyond reasonable doubt, and evidence that falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt . Correct. As an illustration of this, mueller and congressional investigations found the Trump Campaign chairman, paul manafort, was secretly meeting with an operative linked to russian intelligence, konstantin kilimnik, correct . Thats my understanding us. Manafort, while chairman of the Trump Campaign, gave that russian intelligence operative the campaigns internal polling data, correct . That is what ive read in the news, yes. And that manafort provided this information to russian intelligence while russian intelligence was engaged in that social Media Campaign, and the release of stolen documents to help the Trump Campaign, correct . You may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge. Well let me say very simply. While manafort, the Campaign Chairman for donald trump, he was giving this russian Intelligence Officer internal Campaign Polling data, russian intelligence was helping the Trump Campaign, where they . I dont i dont know that. You really dont know those very basic facts of the investigation . I know the general facts, yes. Do i know that particular fact myself, no. I know that ive read that in the media. Are you aware, mr. Durham, that mueller, and congressional investigations also revealed that don jr. Was informed that a russian official was offering the Trump Campaign quote, very high level inSensitive Information, unquote, that would be incriminating of Hillary Clinton, it was part of quote, russian and its Government Support of trump. Are you aware of that . Sure, people get phone calls all the time from individuals who claimed to have information like that. Really, the thought of a president ial candidate gets calls all the time from foreign government, offering dirt on their opponents. Is that what youre saying . I dont think this is unique in your experience. You have other instances of russian government offering dirt on president ial candidates, to the president ial candidates on . Is that what youre saying. Could you repeat the question. You said its not uncommon to get offers of help from a hostile, for, in government. Directed at the president son. You really stand by that mr. Durham . I say that people can make phone calls, making claims all the time, that you may have experienced. Are you really trying to diminish the significance of what happened here . And the secret meeting that the president sunset up at trump tower, to receive that incriminating information, trying to diminish the significance of that . Im not trying to diminish it at all. But i think the more complete stories that they met, it was a roof, and they did talk about mrs. Clinton. And you think its insignificant that he had a secret meeting with the russian delegation for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton. In the only disappointment expressed in the meeting was that the dirt they got wasnt better. I dont think that wasnt significant . I dont think it was a well advised thing to do. Oh. Not well advised . Right. Well thats the understatement of the year. You think it is perfectly appropriate, or maybe just fill in devised for a president ial campaign to secretly meet with a russian delegation to get dirt on their appointment . You would say that merely inadvisable . If youre offering, if youre asking what i would do, i hope i wouldnt do it, but its not illegal. Its stupid, foolish, illadvised. It is illegal to conspire to get incriminating Opposition Research from a hostile government, that is a financial value to a campaign. With that not violate Campaign Laws . I dont know all those facts to be true. Will your report, mr. Durham, it doesnt dispute anything mueller found. Did it . No. Our object, our aim, was not to dispute, i have the greatest regard, the highest regard for director mueller. He is the patriot. You only distinguish between his investigation in yours is he refused to bring charges where he couldnt prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And you did. I yield back. Bill jonathan yields back. Gentleman from colorado is recognized. Thank you mister chairman. Mr. Durham, i want to, as a fellow alone of the doj. I want to thank you for your service. Number one. Number two, welcome you to congress. Its a real pleasure to be here. [laughter] i want to ask you questions about fisa, and some of your most recent experiences as the special counsel, and what your specific advice would be i guess. I am concerned with the conclusions in your report. I just want you its been mentioned several times here, but in your opening statement, you talk about lack of investigation, discipline, failure to take and bias. It appears to me that the lack of investigative discipline in, and the failure to take logical investigative steps are a result of bias. Its not fair . I think that its fair. When you look at this is the president ial campaign. Its not an runofthemill investigation. Its so highly sensitive it could affect the outcome of a president ial election, in the future of the nation. You would expect that the discipline that wouldve been followed would have been higher than ever. That didnt happen here. There was sort of analytical rigor, discipline, how they investigate criminal matters. That was absent here in large measure. Fair to say that there was a rush to judgment . Im sorry . Fair to say that there was a rush to judgment . In other words, the judgment of proceeding with the investigation before, following proper procedure . Its been alluded to here. The information that they had received from the australian diplomat is not australian intelligence, Law Enforcement, what australian diplomats about something that was centered a bar. Within three days of that information having been received at fbi headquarters, the Deputy Director of the fbi, according to mr. Strzok, told him to immediately open, and it was opened as a full investigation on a weekend, with mr. Strzok, not only opening electronic communication, but proving that memo as well. This is the same mr. Strzok who we saw the text message from that had clear bias, regarding President Trump . Its the same person us. How long would a director comey served in the fbi before he became director . Im not saying department of justice. Im saying fbi. My knowledge, he was not in the fbi prior to becoming director. And he promoted the people, anti mckay, peter strzok, others, to the position, and dealt with them there. Is that fair . He wouldve certainly had a role in the advancement of people, in the upper management of the fbi, yes. My concern is that the bias that has been demonstrated there, whether it has been eradicated, or dealt with, could exist in any of these agencies. These agencies have access to very Sensitive Information, has counterintelligence activities. A really goes around the constitution that deals with u. S. Citizens. Im talking about the fisa rules now. Have you heard of backdoor searches . Ive heard the term, yes or. It refers to the ability of an agency to look at a u. S. Citizens communications, because the communications because that foreign individual was being looked at. Is that fair . Thats fair. If there was this bias in an agency, like the fbi, that we saw previously, and they wanted to go after u. S. Citizens, they could use that technique to go after that citizen. My question to you is, how do we prevent that, how do we congress, take a look at fisa, try and maintain the National Security interest, but at the same time, protect u. S. Citizens from a rogue agency, a bias agency, or agent i should say. But in individuals in the agency. How do we protect american citizens from what could occur . Let me give you another quick example. Going out and buying information from private data sellers, to obtain information that you couldnt obtain with a search warrant, because you dont have probable cause. Those techniques are all available under fisa. What should we do . That is clearly beyond my background. And experience. These are very complicated questions. Particularly when we have known adversaries doing the same thing. What do we do on those circumstances . I think you have a very tough job in figuring out how do you balance the liberties of the American People, while protecting the country. I dont feel quote will fight to provide you with any helpful information along those lines. I know it is a serious issue, a serious concern. I think you and i yield back. The gentleman yields back. Before the gentleman of california, the gentleman of texas, has unanimous i believe . Mister chairman. I ask unanimous consent to wreckage of the department of justice, reflecting meetings with u. S. Attorney, john durham. These records were in response to american oversight request for doj communication, between offices of the attorney general. And durham, or his first assistant. I ask unanimous consent, places in the wreckage of this hearing. Gentleman from california. Mr. Sherman, junior colleagues have continued its leaside to steve now you know transcribed interviews, using selected statements taken out of context. I used to unanimous consent, putting into the record, the American Public and seaford self exactly what was said. We will work on that. We will work on that. We have to, well talk, we want to make that fully available. Mister chairman, your objecting mister chairman, i object. Okay. If i understand correctly mister chairman, youre happy to cite selective portion of the transcript out of context, but not happy to mr. Chairman, is there further action, theres been an objection . You dont want the American Public to see this . Roll call vote please. There is no vote on that. I was one of clarify for the gentleman, we want to we have to redact certain names, for obvious reasons, but yeah, we definitely want to put the transcript out. I suggest i want, i thought it was an amazing interview, former head [inaudible] i will make sure it happens. Can i suggest that you grant the requests, subject to redactions supertight for sully private information . Without objection. Thank you very much. Gentleman from california. You have accepted my submission . Right away. Thank you mister chairman. Gentleman from california is recognized. Mr. Durham, many of my mega colleagues want you to be someone who you are not, and to Say Something that you clearly want. I want to start by thanking you for your many years of service to our country as a federal prosecutor. I want to talk a little bit more about the independents of a special counsel, and just clarify, you did send multiple text to the attorney general after you were appointed a special counsel. Did you ever text message with attorney general garland once he took over as attorney general . No, attorney general garland had me communicate through the Principal Deputy attorney general, mr. Weinsheimer. Did you ever travel overseas with attorney general garland . No. I did not travel overseas with him. And president biden, through the attorney general, he couldve had you removed, fired, is that right . I am, im sure he could have. And you stayed on. Yeah, i completed my term as special counsel. Was there anyone you want to indict that you are prohibited from indicting by attorney general garland . No. So if you wanted to, you could have indicted Hillary Clinton, but you never asked, is that right . If i had evidence. Yeah. I could have, for sure. If you want to indict president biden, you couldve asked, right . Yeah that was not part of our mission. We werent really looking at that. If you couldve indicted director comey, you couldve asked, is that right . And he didnt. Yes, the attorney general garland had never asked me not to indict somebody. I just wanna make it clear to my colleagues, you had all the power in the world to indict anyone you had evidence to indict, and you are never blocked from doing it, thats correct . Thats correct. I also want to compare you to the last Major Special counsel investigation that we had, do you agree special counsel moral or charged dozens of individuals, into indicted three, its not cracked . I indicted two, and a third pleaded guilty. Right. And special counsel mueller had dozens of convictions, some at trial, but no defend it was outright acquitted. Is that right in the Mueller Investigation right, i dont believe there any acquittals. Im not sure there are dozens of convictions. There were dozens, yes, more than a dozen people who were indicted. You are wise earlier to not weigh in on Donald Trumps character, you are under oath after all. But did anything in your report prove false, that russians met with trumps family during the campaign at trump tower after an offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton . Any proof that that meeting didnt happen . I dont have any evidence that it did not happen. Anything prove that in the 2016 Campaign Donald trump tried a concealed from the public a real estate deal he was seeking in moscow . I dont know anything about that. Theres nothing in the report about, its not something we investigated. Anything that proves fault that donald trump publicly asked russia to hack hillarys email. An hours later dead . If you are referring to donald trump not say at a press conference, russia, if youre listening, you should get hillarys emails . Did you prove that he didnt say that . No we didnt. We dont investigate it. Did you prove false, in the 16 campaign, the Trump Campaign manager gave polling data to a spy for a russian Intelligence Service . We did investigate thought. Anything in your report say that donald trump, in 2016, acted the way that americans would want a president ial candidate to act with regard to russia . Im sorry, could you repeat that . Were you signing off on the way that donald trump acted in 2016 . All, report doesnt address that. You agree that russia interfered with the 2016 election. I agree that there is substantial evidence to show that. Thank you. Mr. Durham. My makeup colleagues want you to be someone youre not, they want you to Say Something you wont. They want you to join the law firm of insurrection llc, which incidentally, and probably appropriately is chaired by a guy who never passed the bar exam. And you are wise to not do that. You see my colleagues today, they are making themselves footnotes, and footsoldiers in the history books. That will chronicle Donald Trumps corruption. I yield my remaining time to mr. Schiff. Mr. Durham, returning to your decision to speak out during the head and severe investigation. Did you have staff on your team advise you against making statements during the penance of your investigation . They devise me otherwise, no. And if your staff raises ethical concerns about your speaking out, either in an interim report, or after the Inspector General investigation . Any of your staff raised ethical concerns with you doing so. Not that i recall now. Not that i am aware of. Did they raise concerns with your speaking out trying dependency of the investigation . Time the gentleman has expired. Witness can respond. Im sorry, did any of your staff raised concerns about your speaking out during dependency of your investigation in contrast to doj policy . Not that i recall. Thank you. Gentleman yields back. Gentleman from florida is recognized. Good morning mr. Durham. Can i completely answer. I dont want to lay any blame. I made the decision to make a statement. They were not involved in it. Nor dana he. Gentlelady from florida. Right, laura dan he, a friend of mine, a very good lawyer, an honest person. Why did she resign . Thats why she we brought her on. Why did she resign . The gentlemans time has expired. Answer the question if youd like. Mister chairman, who is in charge here . I dont think its mr. Schiff. Its a ladys time from florida. Good morning mr. Durham. Good morning. As a former federal prosecutor, i want to begin by telling you how much i appreciate your work, that if your team, and your presence here today. And you may begin by answering the prior question if you wish. With respect to miss danny, i have the greatest respect for her, she is a friend of mine, she is very well educated. She is an honest person. We have some disagreements on issues, and i really dont have any comment beyond that. Im not gonna discuss internal management, and decisionmaking. Ill tell you this, every agent, and every lawyer who worked on this project had a full voice in the decisions that were going forward. I made the final decisions. Thank you mr. Durham. I would like to focus on the department of justices procedures, as applications, when that process is conducted appropriately. To begin with, surveillance application must include from a federal Law Enforcement officer, correct . Thats correct. That affidavit must demonstrate cause to believe, that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. Its not also right . Right. If it relates to a u. S. Citizen, it has to be that there knowing agent. If its not u. S. Person, and knowing element is not required. Its intended that affidavits would rely upon reasonable, trustworthy information. Is it not . Thats correct. And in some cases, in including the case of carter page, those affidavits, that information, it can include the use of information obtained from a confidential human source. Correct . Thats correct. When information from a confidential human sources included, would you agree that it is important that we serial related to the reliability, or trustworthiness of that confidential human source is disclosed within the affidavit . Yes. I believe that you testified here earlier today, that in this case, information at the partner relating to roadbuilding credibility was not included in these applications, is that right . I believe that is correct. Would you tell us, in your experience, in your many years working with the department, why is it important that that type of information is included in this close to both federal prosecutors and to the court . There is, when matters submitted to the court, for reason, to a judge. And shipped usual officer of the way the problem causes, exists or not. And providing that information to an independent of a judicial officer, judicial magistrate. If there is confidential human source information, being provided, its important for the person the judges are reviewing this, to know what is the basis of the persons knowledge . Is it hearsay . Or do they have personal knowledge . As an example. And then whether or not, your track record or basis to believe that the information would be credible, coming from this person. And of course, at this stage of the proceeding, the person who is the subject of the investigation, has no idea that this application is even being, made or considered, or reviewed by the court in most cases. So it is solely lest, resting with the government, the responsibility to ensure that this, power the surveillance power, that is being used, is being done in a way that is appropriate and complying with the law . That is correct. And you mentioned something, earlier about in this case, agents immediately moved to the most intrusive investigative means that were available, referring of course, to that interception of live communications, correct . That is correct, in this instance, the bureau almost immediately, when they opened up a full investigation, the umbrella case, a classified hurricane, and some files, they immediately went to advise coverage on what they were not able to do. And then and some of the techniques, for Law Enforcement, there are a myriad of other things they can do to collect surveillance information, short of this, interception of communication. Like pole cameras, pen registers, tracking traits, trash polls, correct . Many other things that in an investigation, is often utilized prior to taking the step of attempting to intercept live communications. Those are typically Building Blocks for electronic surveillance. So, based on your testimony so far. We are hearing, what were hearing, hear a fisa application was pursued. Without disclosing some relevant information to prosecutors or the court, without following standard procedural rules, utilizing investigative techniques that were the most intrusive, without first exhausting other techniques, and instead pursuing the most invasive method possible from the outside against mr. That is essentially correct, yes. Now, one other thing you mentioned earlier, during your testimony, that the failures identified during your investigation. That, if they were not addressed, they would result in National Security risks, and continued public lack of confidence in our institutions of justice. There were no overnight fixes, but we needed accountability standards and consequences. Would you elaborate please . Witness can respond. The National Security interests hearing include, liberties, of the American People. One of the things that was most disturbing about the dossier, the steele dossier, is whether or not this is, certainly some of it, with russian disinformation. Weather, i igor, who personally wrote he was first fanciful for the intelligence in the dossier. 50 of the analysis. Whether or not mr. Deng zhengzhou was the source of rust in formation, if you do not run with those things, it does affect the liberties, potentially affects the liberties of the American People, and a National Security interest of this country. Thank you sir. Gentleman yields back, gentleman from california is recognized. Thank you mister chairman, before i begin my questioning, i want to say that the house Judiciary Committee is responsible for helping to ensure the rule of law is chairman of this committee ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena. The president sent by this chairman, has damaged the ability of congressional committees to get information from witnesses, and damaged the rule of law. Mr. Durham, thank you for being here voluntarily today. In your report, now only did the fbi have information in a state before, that their australians knew the trump Foreign Policy, advisor, had suggested the russians were going to release anonymous information, with clinton. The fbi also knew and had information that the Democratic National committee, was hacked, by the russians. And, information was being released to the American Public. The faa also had information, for various media reports, that trump had relations with different russian businessmen, and the fbi had information that trump said quote, russia, if youre listening, i hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. The fbi had all of that information prior to opening up operation hurricane, correct . Crossfire hurricane, is that right . That is correct. Okay, if the fbi had chosen to do so, the multiple pieces of information they had would have allowed them to open a preliminary investigation, is that right . In our report, we say the fbi had an obligation to assess the information, perhaps make it a preliminary investigation. It would have been a dereliction of duty for the fbi to have just sat on their hands and done nothing with the information they. Had is that right . The fbi should not have ignore that information. Okay, its also true isnt, it that the Inspector General of the department of justice, looked at this situation and concluded not only did the fbi have enough information to open up a preliminary investigation, the fbi had enough information to open up a full investigation, that was the conclusion of the inspector, general correct . My recollection is that the Inspector General sets a low, bar and Inspector General did not necessarily thank you, id like to enter the Inspector Generals report, december 2019 into the record mister chairman. Without objection. Turns out the fbi was correct, the department of justice found that the russians interfered in our interruptions, in a quote sweeping and systematic matter, a bipartisan u. S. Senator report confirmed the russians interfered in 2016 elections, and that that infects benefited donald trump. Trumps former Campaign Chairman, also publicly admitted to giving internal Trump Campaign data to the russians, and the u. S. Department of Foreign Affairs found, this was Sensitive Information on polling campaign strategy, within past to russian Intelligence Services. There is a phrase to describe the facts, i just said fourth, its called russian collusion. Mister chairman, id like to Treasury Department documents, as well as a senate report, Intelligence Data august 2020. Without objection. Now i would like to ask you the following sin, trumps former Campaign Manager was convicted, correct . Im sorry could you repeat that . Trumps former Campaign Manager, was convicted correct . And his Foreign Policy adviser to the campaign was convicted correct . That is correct. Trumps former deputy Campaign Manager was convicted correct . Not in connection with russians, but. Mr. German you can hold yourself out as an objective, or as a partisan hack, the more you try to spin the, facts and not answer my questions, you sound like the latter. Im just going to ask this simply, trumps former National Security adviser, Michael Flynn was convicted correct . That is correct. Trumps longtime adviser, was convicted, correct . Im sorry miss the long thing. Trumps longtime adviser roger stone, was convicted correct . Correct. Contrast the people, convicted you brought this case to a jury, and you lost both. I dont actually know what were doing here. Because the author of the Durham Report, concedes that the fbi had enough information to investigate, and thank goodness the fbi did, because multiple Trump Associates, who committed crimes were held accountable in the best way to summarize what happened is thank you to the brave men and women in the fbi for doing their jobs. I yield back. Gentlemans time expired, to yield back. Jenner from california, mr. Clean, top recognized for five minutes. I apologize for the personal attacks, that were on you, by sources on the other side of the aisle, this is what they, do this is how they argue, so we have gotten used to, it and i hope you will to at some points. The central charge in the russian collusion hoax was that Trump Campaign operatives were in contact with russian intelligence, with russian where Clinton Campaign contacts were in contact of russian intelligence sources . Thats beyond the scope of our report, there was no such evidence, we reported was dan zhengzhou a russian intelligence source . Mr. Dent zhengzhou had been investigated, by the fbi for espionage, we close the case when they mistakenly thought he had left the country mr. Deng zhengzhou status in connection with the espionage matter, the bureau never opened it again. He was the source for much of the steel dossier . He said he was responsible for 80 of the intelligence in the dossier. Who commissioned this deal dossier . The steele dossier was done by, who was hired by who was represented the Clinton Campaign. So what role did the Clinton Campaign play in this . Im sorry did they play . What role did the Clinton Campaign play it is hoax . The Clinton Campaign funded the work, Opposition Research that was done by fusion gps, and gps paid mister steele for the dossier. And who in the Clinton Campaign, approved that relationship . Well, we lay some of that outs in the report. I think it was mr. Elias, who is general counsel to the campaign. Who engaged the sources of fusion gps. Mr. Jordan, reference the clinton plan intelligence. Exactly what was the clinton plan . Based on declassified documents, in the public, record there was intelligence information that was received, adversely the same time that the information came from the australians. Within a day or two. That intelligence, included information that there was a purported plan, designed by one of mrs. Clintons former policy advisers, to create less candle tying donald trump to the russians. That is the essence of the intelligence, as contained in the declassified information. Did the president receive this intelligence . On august 3rd, of 2016, then director prime and had briefed the president , Vice President s director of national intelligence, the fbi attorney general and others. When you say at the, you made mr. Comey . On august 3rd it was conducted at the white house, the director comey himself. So mr. Comey knew about this, president obama knew about this, Vice President biden knew about this. But it was not provided to the agents on the case, or provided with the secret fisa court is that correct . That is correct. Why was it not . We can tell you what the facts are, people can draw their own conclusions from that. About the pop, at the bar, we use a justification for this for the whole thing, what would the fbi learned, had it looked into this information honestly . If before opening crossfire hurricane, they had checked their own files, and communicated with other intelligence agencies, and the light to have found that there was nothing at that, time in their files, that would corroborate the information the suggestion of a suggestion that the russians might provide some assistance, theres nothing in the files that were corroborate that. The steele dossier was entered into the congressional record, was it true, the steele dossier was entered into our congressional record, was it true . There is not a single substantive piece of information in the dossier that has ever been corroborated by the fbi, or to my knowledge anyone else. You mentioned, the fisa court criticized the misleading and false information that was used for fisa warrants, did the fisa court hold anyone in contempt for that . Not to my knowledge. Did they apply any sanctions to anyone responsible for that . Not to my knowledge. Did they even yell at any one . They issued an appropriately harsh memo, signed what the expectation is when it documents submitted, in that court. That it be truthful, accurate. That was the expectation. It is the expectation. Gentleman yields back. We are now recognizing lady from washington. Thank you mister chairman, mr. Durham for being here today to speak with us about the report you produced, looking at the fbis investigation into russian interference, in the 2016 election. Your report took four years, and over six and a half Million Dollars, in taxpayer dollars to produce. Mr. Durham, how many cases did you bring to trial, during your time investigating the 2016 election . Im sorry can you just how many cases did you bring to trial . To. To. And at how many of those two cases of the jurys vote to convict . Neither one. Neither one. Neither jury voted to convict the gentlemen that you prosecuted, and in fact, in one case the trial judge threw out one of your charges, because the claim that you are charging us false was as he put it, its literally true. Mr. Durham i think you are given an impossible task, by attorney general bill barr. He asked you to figure out how to make donald trump spygate claim is true. But you couldnt do that, because you quickly realized, the claims were false. And so, you sat about as many republicans on cable news due, trying to find a way to blame Hillary Clinton for Donald Trumps woes mr. Durham, do you know how many, people with special counsel mueller, indicted, or obtain guilty pleas from . He indicted a charge number of people. It was 34 people, and three companies, do you know how many of those indictments have, were of individuals who are acquitted in court . I dont know that anyone was acquitted. Thats, right none. I think the difference between your investigation, and mr. Molars, was that mr. Mueller actually found actual evidence, of a crime. We know that russia did attempt to interfere, in the 2016 election. We know that russia did hack into the dnc email server, and mr. Muellers prosecutions reflected that reality, such is the case of 12 Russian Military Intelligence Officers, who he charged with crimes related to the hacking, and leaking of leading mr. Democrats emails in 2016. Similarly, mr. Mueller found repeated instances of Trump Campaign associates, lying when asked about their interaction with russian interests. And a result of mr. Muellers investigation, george papadopoulos, quite a guilty in october of 2017, to making false statements to the fbi. Trump Campaign Aide, rip, gates pleaded guilty to one false statements, charge and one conspiracy charge. Shrimp National Security adviser, Michael Flynn, pleaded guilty to making false statements to the fbi. And in november of 2019, trump adviser roger stone, was convicted on seven counts including lying to the house intelligence committee, and tampering with a witness. , again mr. Mueller indicted or got guilty pleas, from 34 people and three companies. Mr. , durham you are a prosecutor correct . Correct. You started working as a state prosecutor, in 1977, and you joined the Justice Department in 1982 . Yes or no, prosecutors prioritize bringing cases to courts that have a high likelihood of winning . I would not say that is the standard, no. So you dont think that to call an investigation successful, you should at least reveal some new information, most of your report, mr. Durham, is a rehashing of old news, including process related concerns, at the fbi had already addressed. In fact, that is why you said, you were not recommending, or, recommending any further charges, or changes, to fbi policies or procedures. So, at the very least, i would think that you would need to win some of the cases, on their merits. But, that is not what is happening. And thats not what many republicans are looking for. Chairman jordan seems to be looking for any excuse to discredit Law Enforcement, doj, or filing Holding Donald trump accountable for his serious violations of the law. Violations, by the, way that donald trump just admitted to last night, on fox news. Americans will see through this facade, and i wanted to ask mr. Schiff if you want to my additional 40 seconds of time. If so, i yield. Thank you i just want to follow up on my question before, nor is a very well respected member of your team, when did she resign . Norah dan he was a very well respected member of your, team why did she resign . That is not reported, and im not going to discuss internal matters, did he resign over disagreement she had with you over how you were handling the investigation . Now part of the report, im not going to discuss it. I highly regard missed in. He you know the answer, why wont you tell us. Because its not part of the report, as not part of the admission, and im not going to discuss internal discussions, i can tell you this. With respect to every major decision that was made by our team, every agent, and every lawyer. At full voice, expressing their opinions, and preceded accordingly. The time of the gentlemans lady has expired. I yield back. Gentleman from texas has the floor. Thank you mr. Durham, thats not part of the report, a lot of what i heard from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, one of my colleagues in california said i do not know what were doing here. What were doing here is going through this very damning reports. The fbi has failed many times, over the years to investigate them. Id like to ask the fbi open crossfire hurricane without speaking to the people who provided the information . Yes. Did the fbi opened crossfire hurricane on sunday, only three days after reviewing the information . Yes. The fbi opened crossfire hurricane without any significant review of its own Intelligence Database . Yes. Did the fbi open crossfire hurricane without interviewing essential witnesses . Yes,. Did the fbi open crossfire hurricane without opening any state in a legal tools, particularly employed, with evaluating intelligence . Yes. Did the fbi consider the possibility that it was the target . It did not appear so, to me, from the evidence. So, i am curious, if you can tell me, i am not a prosecutor, some of my colleagues here, are above the average american is not. Can you tell us, why and under what motivation, what a prosecutorial agents act in such a way, where it willfully ignores multiple instances of exculpatory evidence throughout the course of its investigation . I just dont understand that. In my experience, that is not the norm, thats not how the fbi performs, in this particular case, as is reflected in the report, it appears to be people, persons, in the fbi who were central to opening the investigation, that had rather strong views concerning thencandidate trump. We have heard in your report, you reference confirmation bias. A lot of the times, or sometimes, we see that, the investigators perhaps the fbi investigators, they have a confirmation bias because they want guilty outcome, they want to find the suspect guilty. We did not see that to be the case for Hillary Clinton, so it makes me think that based on the investigation, and the conduct, and the continuous disregard of duty, there is obviously a special motivation to find this suspect, donald trump, and his campaign, guilty above anyone else. Would you agree . I can speak to what the facts show, in this document, in the report, again people draw their reasonable inferences, conclusions, from those facts. With an anonymous reading of the report, an honest reading of the report. If either you or someone on your team willfully ignored exculpatory evidence, refused to interview key witnesses, favored one suspect over another, or did any or all of the things that the fbi did in a crossfire hurricane, would you face repercussions . There ought to be repercussions if that ever happened, in connection with an agent that i was working with, and i knew about it. The first thing would be to report to the courts, and then probably the second thing would be to report it to the superiors. The third thing would be to make sure that the agent ever worked with me again. I appreciate, that i also appreciate your remarks earlier in your open testimony, where you said my colleagues and i carried out our good work when good faith, with integrity in the spirit of following facts wherever they lead, without following fear or favor. I believe you did, that im disappointed in some of my colleagues, that have said disparaging remarks about you. I have seen very few of it actually talking about your, port they want to talk about everything, else which tells me youre on to, something i would also yield the balance of my time to the chairman. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, theyre the primary sub source a few years before, he does this, work he was investigated by the fbi for espionage, is that right . That case was halted because the fbi thought he left the country, right . And he left the country, how he left the country . Where was he living . He remained living in the place of his living when they open investigation right here in d. C. . He hadnt left, he was right here in d. C. . And then they go hire him, use the tax money of the people i get the privilege of representing, to pay this, guy who they obviously knew was a russian spy, they hire him, who is the source of all the false information, is that true . They paid him, they hired him, and they paid him. A couple hundred thousand if i recall, right . Over 200,000. And then this guy is hanging out, with dolan, Charles Dolan, who was a buddy of the clintons, whos also a source for the false dossier, that was used to spy on an american citizen. He is hanging out, dont they meet on a park bench somewhere and Arlington Virginia . On new years day . New years day, in the middle of the day. This is straight out of the movies, right. But the fbi says were not gonna chart off to Charles Dolan. This is two of the dumbest things ive ever heard of. They will not talk, they pay a guy who is a russian spy, who is the source of the dossier, the other source of the dossier is Charles Dolan, who meets with that guy on a park bench in arlington, and they dont want to interview him. You cannot make this stuff up. But that is what colemans fbi did. They are still doing this kind of, baloney because mr. Antjuan o told us so, in operations, running operations in headquarters, a job you did for a very long time, you did very, well instead of doing, that in your report, thats what your report is here, valid. Gentleman a yield back to the gentleman whos out of, time we now recognize the gentleman from, mr. Curry. Im sorry, right here, gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. Thank you. Thank you for coming to testify today, i know it is not comfortable, obviously. Clearly, the questions have exposed that we have many areas of disagreement across the aisle. I am relieved that we have no disagreement about one of the fundamental conclusions of your report, that it was incumbent, upon the fbi to open some form of investigation, when presented with evidence that a president ial candidate, and its associates, are either coordinating Campaign Efforts with hospital, hostile nations, or being manipulated by such a hostile nation. That is a fundamental conclusion, right . Some form of investigation was necessary . Right, the fbi when they receive, information and disinformation, they almost always have some obligation to assess that information. Sure. Thats what the assessment is about. Sure. So, we have established over the course of questions, that the current attorney general, eric garland, allowed you to run your investigation, independently and without interference, right . That is correct. And you talked about the third onus of your investigation, as you performed it over the course of four, four and a half years six point 5 million hundreds of fbi agents, 6 million pages of documents . Hundreds of personnel working with you. That would not be, accurate but. Okay, you also had the benefit of prior investigation, including, the Mueller Report. Correct. The 2019 department of Justice Office Inspector Generals report. Which concurred with you that there was an obligation to investigate, right . Yes, although it disagreed with you about precisely the form, correct . I think its more than, form we had in a disagreement in that regard. There was also a 2020 select senate, select Committee Report on intelligence, run by senator rubio, that affirmed that russian sought to interfere in our election, to trump benefit the Trump Campaign, correct . I dont remember senator rubio was the chairman or not. But i think he was. Okay, so with all of that, you, and attorney general, barr had both been appointed by President Trump, right . Can you just repeat that . You and attorney general barr had both been appointed to serve at that time by President Trump, correct . I had been nominated by him, President Trump, and i believe mr. Barr was nominated to the attorney general, by mr. Trump. Okay in the a. G. Barr, appointed you to the special counsel, right . He appointed me as special counsel, yes. But in contrast to the independents in lack of interference, which you have noted on multiple occasions, that has been performed by a merrick garland, agent barr had a very active role in your investigation. And i just wanted to mention a couple instances, first of all, shortly after your appointment. You and agent barr both traveled overseas, and met with italian officials, who provided some allegations with respect to criminal activity by the former president. Correct . We traveled to, this is outside the report, im not sure that im authorized to talk about, it we went to italy, try to, involving a particular mysterious professor. Okay. So you dont mention in your report those allegations, of misconduct concerning the former president. Correct . Its not a new report. You did not include that information in your report, right . Which information . About your trip to italy with a. G. Barr. No, i dont know why it would have been in the report. And the day the Inspector Generals report was published, you issued a press release saying you did not agree with some of his conclusions, did a. G. Barr ask you to issue the report, that press release . Absolutely not. Who did . I made that decision, do you want to know why, or no . Actually i want to know first, can you identify any other occasion which a special counsel has released a press statement, questioning another special counsel, or Inspector Generals report . Can you name one. I dont know of any. They may have, but i dont know about it. Okay so did, to communicate with a. G. Barr about your press statement . Before his was released the same day, or was that just a fantastic coincident . Did i communicate with attorney general, barr about what . About your press, released questioning the igs report . I toured a ten year old jenny bar i didnt asked his permission, i told him i was going to do it. Okay one more question, theres been mention of the resignation of one of your colleagues, norah donna he in the fall of 2020. Isnt it true that she resigned, in protest, concerning pressure by agent, bar for you to deliver, and interim report, or other results before the 2020 president ial election . You would have to ask miss dan here that, im not going to discuss the internal discussions, in our group. Or we could google. It thank, you i yield back. Its a pretty good source of information. Sure, is. Thank you mister, chairman thank you for being here today and for your patience with us. I want to talk about that space between law and policy. I guess if you will, i want to go back to, i think, i got your words written down. A new statement where you said there were troubling violations of law and policy. Do i have that right . He the assertion has been, that perhaps there should have been more indictments, more people, brought before the court, for their actions. But it appears to me that you tried that and perhaps encountered, i havent looked at your trials, that turned out not to be, reaching convictions, what was the situation, was there something wrong, that it did not rise to the level of crimes . Was that what was going on in that space . You conducted an investigation, you conducted this investigation, and other public corruption investigations of organized crime investigations. When there is sufficient, evidence that you believe the evidence is sufficient, to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt that k should be brought, and maybe evidence you have, youre not confident that it is sufficient to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and sustaining a case on appeal, and you dont bring it. Here, there is conduct, some of which was misconduct there is conduct that was probably criminal but we couldnt prove it. Thats true, here look a theyre instances as well. I think the phrase, political bias, or confirmation bias, has been used a number of times. Its not a crime . Confirmation bias is not a crime. It is part of our human condition, i suppose. And, so you may well have, found in sounds like you did, troubling violations of law and policy, which perhaps would not lead to and did not of course convictions. But does it make any less wrong, when we have our Law Enforcement agencies engaging in this kind of conduct. I think that is why you call it troubling. Do i have that right . You have that right. The question i suppose, is, what can we do about this situation looking forward . If its not a crime, but we know its wrong, what should we be doing, i think you made some suggestions, can you recite those, for us and what, you spent four years in the space. Theres obviously things going wrong we cant convicting people, for or doesnt rise to the level that will warrant that approach. What should we be doing . The real difficulty, and view is trying to figure out how to hold people accountable for their conduct. Its not a simple problem, the context of fisa for example, maybe it would be the case for any instance in which their whats referred to in the bureau as saying sensitive investigative matters, let there are additional rules that apply here. Maybe its come time, where if an agent is going to sign, a fisa application in a sensitive investigative matter. That they not only understand that they are signing under the perjury but if the bureau determines a potentially intentionally misstated anything, their point will be terminated. When someone signs an affidavit, swears to a new general officer, there are consequences if that is untrue, there are criminal penalties but they sure as heck have to be other penalties as well. Look in these sensitive cases, this is not a normal case. This is a president ial election, and it affected the nation. Maybe they ought to instill practice for example, look which we try to do to an extent in our investigation, which is, you have a group of people who take the opposite side and make the arguments, and try and point out either where the weaknesses are, or where additional evidence to be developed it may be that the benefit, the bureau would benefit from having something of a ombudsman that would look at fisa, applications, or look at the investigative effort under taken in the setups, in the sensitive investigative matters. Who look at how the investigation is progressing, and whether or not that person, their estimation investigation is being done independently and it is disciplined way. There are those kinds of things. Ultimately i dont know how you pull people responsible, i and absent their integrity in that kind of overview. An overview of law what the investigation is doing. Thank you mister, dormant i yield back. Gentleman yields back, gentleman from colorado is. Mr. Durham, thank you for testifying today. Thank you for your service. My pleasure. We appreciate your service to our country to the department of justice. I read your report, as i suspect most of the members of the committee have, i appreciate your work. I want to talk a bit about your interactions with main justice. The department of justice in a particular literally general garland. Did attorney general garland permit your inquiry to proceed independently . Yes. Did attorney general garland interfere with your inquiry, your investigation in any way . No. Did attorney general garland attempt to prevent or stop you or your team from taking any investigative step that you deem necessary . He did not. Did attorney general garland provide support for your efforts in terms of occasionally, we would need some additional personnel land couple incidents we had someone who was from justice, in that, respect yes. Did attorney general garland decline, implement any of the recommendations you made . I dont know that. The letter, the report, i believe its on page three. Of your report. You say in a quote, after the inauguration of president biden. Attorney general garland met with the offices of special counsel. The office very much appreciate the support, consistent with his testimony, referring to attorney general garland. During his confirmation hearings, that the attorney general has provided to our efforts, and the departments willingness to allow us to operate. Do you stand by that i suspect . I do. Correct. Sounds like the department of justice, and the attorney general are supportive of your efforts, and not interfering in any way with the work that you did, over the course of the last several years. There are some folks here in congress, some colleagues of mine on the other side of the, aisle who have talked about, or indicated their desire, to defund the department of justice. Do you believe the department of justice should be defunded . Leigh i dont believe these discussions about defunding the police make any sense at all for the security of the nation. I dont think defunding cornerstone Law Enforcement entities make a whole lot of sense, maybe more oversight, but defunding our cities, and streets, and so forth, no that does not make sense to me. But ive only been at this for 40 years. Law as i said, im grateful to your service, for your service rather. I want to put a finer point on you, i guess i didnt hear that in your, you said cornerstone of Law Enforcement, i think that you may department. Justice department justly should not be defined, it right . You have committed your career to the department of justice, your former u. S. Attorney, a former u. S. Attorney acting, 35 years assistant u. S. Attorney, you have a decorated record of service, im hoping you are willing to say on, record clearly, you dont believe the department should be defended . I dont believe the department of justice, or the fbi should be defunded. I think there may be, ought to be some changes, and alike. But defunded no. Thank you, and i appreciate your candor. I agree with you. Look with respect to the office of the special, counsel of course, you have concluded your service, and you know there are different special counsels that are appointed from time to time. You serve in that capacity multiple times yourselves, there is discussion of defunding special councils, do you support more broadly, the principle of defunding the office of special counsel . I guess i would have to know the particulars of what the discussion, is but the general notion of, that you would establish special Counsel Office and special counsel is doing an investigation to get defunded. That would not make sense. I agree, just put a finer point on this, you served as special counsel for a period of years, during the course of your investigation, for the both of that time, democrats were not in control of the United States house of representatives. There was no efforts, that im aware of, to defund your office, and i assume, that you would have construed that, if someone had made an effort to defund the office of special counsel. You are, offers as you are undertaking your investigation. As political interference. To the extent that was being, done to try to impair or impinge on your investigation. Its not an accurate statement . If it, were our office in team, would have to know the basis of, that so i would know if it was political. Lets say its because peak because people disagreed with the work you are doing, they did not like the investigation, the disagreed does fundamentally with the decisions you are making. I presume you would construe that as interference. Special counsel should evaporate independently, that is the whole point, purpose of special counsel. I certainly. I certainly, agree thank you for being, here yield back mister chairman. Gentleman yields back, gentleman from alabama is recognized. Thank you mister chairman, mr. Durham i appreciate you being here today. I think thats a pretty good word of what were talking, about when i talk read your report, as we talk about, it emmet the district very often. One of the Major Concerns is the weaponization of investigations, and the department of justice against certain people in our society,. Yes you know did the fbi placed significant lies on information given to them by trumps political opponents. Im, sorry can you repeat that . Did the fbi play significant reliance on the information given to them by President Trumps opponents . They cross fire, hurricane investigation, well the fisa in particular, the fisa bureau had concluded itself, absent to the dossier, they would not have been able to establish probable cause. Did the dossier come from President Trumps political opponents . It was funded by the Clinton Campaign. And the dmz. So in that degree, yes it thats how it was paid for. Can you connect the dots between the Clinton Campaign, and the investigation of the fbi . We were investigating, did investigates, what was behind that investigation, how did it get started. Was it properly predicated. Says as a formal investigation by the fbi. And why did it then continue even after director mueller had found lack of sufficient evidence concerning conspiracy or collusion . Mr. Durbin is that what you call sobering. With the happy sobering to you . Sobering to me in connection to this investigation is the fbi, people involved in the crossfire, and investigation. Ignoring exculpatory information discarding information inconsistent with the investigative narrative. Who is using information in instances from the steele dossier to establish probable cause, to electronically surveil United States citizens, who happen to be a Naval Academy graduate. Those things are sobering. I would agree with that. Did the fbi ever fail to take or delay taking investigation involving Hillary Clinton. That was not, there is a portion of the report where it relates to the district treatment. Did the fbi delay . . There are three instances that are identified in the report. Where the fbi investigated efforts were considered considerably more disciplined, then was the case with respect to mr. Trump. More discipline than you mean did the fbi give Clinton Campaign a repeat . They gave in a particular manner, the fbi gave mrs. Clinton legal representatives defensive nature. Why wasnt the same done for the Trump Campaign . For President Trump . We explore that during the course of the investigation, what we learned in the report and it would appear from at least what we were told, the very little, that went into whether they should give anyone in the Trump Campaign defensive. A lot of thought one get to giving Hillary Clintons defensive briefing apparently, but not President Trump. In once incidents, i think youre referring, to the submission of the fisa application, in that, matter against the foreign interest was pressed on giving defensive briefing of mrs. Clinton, and some other political mr. Durham is it safe to say the Clinton Campaign colluded with the, russians to accuse donald trump of colluding with russians . Look i could not phrase it that way, the Clinton Campaign fronted the information that showed up in the dossier the Clinton Campaign funded the information thats put together concerning an alleged secret Communications Channel between trump and alfa bank which is resent to the fbi through mr. Sussman there are those things that definitely occurred in the evidence establishes them. Thank you mr. Durham i appreciate your sentences, i play back. Connor page is an american citizen Naval Academy served our country, why not just talk to him before you smile or spy on him . In this instance i dont know people visited the report there were particular pieces of information that were given to isikoff that appeared in a yahoo news article on september 23rd, in which mr. Isikoff plays out when he is obviously been told, its clearly the information from steele, but it also included statement that a senior Law Enforcement official confirmed that carter page was on the radar screen. That martyr was never referred before investigation as to who leaked that this is an investigation, thats supposed to be closely held, confidential sensitive investigative information, thats never referred, to no one ever looked at it, who is the senior Law Enforcement officer who gave the information to michael isikoff, and carter page . On the radar screen . Thats number one. Who do you think it was . Chairman, time as well, inspired witness can it so the, question you can question another one. Thank you breaking member for putting that fact out. Am i supposed to answer, not am i done . I will let you answer. Okay, with respect to carter page carter page within two days of an article wrote a letter to director comey saying i did not do the things that are suggested i didnt meet with these people i am willing to sit down and talk to the fbi to tell me when and where essentially thank you very much to mr. Chairman let me submit into the record an article dated 16 23 after years of lawyers the durham failed to deliver, objection. A letter directed to mr. Durham on may 15th 2023, the federal government of investigation appreciate special counsel and even interviewed, we also appreciate your acknowledgment of the extensive cooperation fbi provided to your team throughout the review including production of nearly 7 million pages of documents assignment of fulltime, fbi special agents instances in your factfinding process, and provision of technical objection. Thank you mister chairman, i yield back. Thank you mister, chairman and thank you special counsel durham for being here today. As it has been noted, its been four years and six and a half Million Dollars of an investigation of an investigation, and the Durham Report makes no new recommendations to change fbi policy or procedure it does not conclude that the cross fire hurricane investigation should not have been opened and it even acknowledges that the Clinton Campaign did nothing for the prosecution. Sadly the Durham Report judges of allegations from on successful prosecutions. Including claims that couldve been rejected by judge and jury. The flaws of the durham process were so troubling that some resigned in protest. I did google, and in fact read the news articles around the resignation of norah donna he, that it is reported that she resigned because of pressure on you, and the special Counsel Group to produce a report, or interim report, prior to the president ial election. You cant comment on or done hes personnel matter, were you ever encouraged, persuaded, pressured to issue an interim report, prior to the president ial election . I can say without hesitation, i was not pressured into doing anything. Was it suggested to you . It was not suggested to me. And yet it might have been suggested to someone who worked under you . Separate from you . I do not believe so. Okay. Mr. Durham, what had have been a dereliction of duty, if the fbi sat on its hands, and did not investigate with the information they had in front of them . I mean, im sure the bureau has an obligation to investigate. They should investigate. Information that they received from the public or otherwise generally speaking yes they have an obligation to look at and assess information. And in this case, they had an affirmative to investigate, would you agree . They have affirmative duty to assess the information they had gotten from the australian diplomat. Which would be investigation. You were assigned to investigate that investigation, mr. Durham, when did you first meet with attorney general barr, about the potential investigation into the Mueller Report . Mueller investigation . You know, i was appointed in may, of 2019, i had met attorney, general barr and not a connection with these matters, but initially i met attorney general when i became the u. S. Attorney for let me just, put the calendar together. It was on march 22nd, that the Mueller Report was submitted to attorney general barr, would you agree with that . Yes, march 22nd. And according to public, records you met with attorney general barr, you met with him on march 25th, three days later. And then on march 24th, he released his socalled summary documents, of a 448page report, which blatantly mischaracterized the findings in the report, would you agree with that . No. Did you discuss the mueller, report during your, meeting with mr. Barr on lunch march 25th . I dont believe so, the timing was three days after he received the report, and you dont think in your meeting, you talked about the Mueller Report . I do not think that was, i think it was when i was meeting the attorney general, because i had come the u. S. Attorney in connecticut. And mid to late february. Maybe you can search your memory, and get back to us on that. It is troubling to me, because it is clear, you are brought in by attorney general, barr at the same week the Mueller Report was released, and the day after his misleading letter, which hung out there for 25 days. Before the public at our hands, in our, eyes on the redacted report. You were hard to investigate the investigators, one week after you met with mr. Barr on april 13th, attorney general barrs counselor said, the charm, emailed you offering assistance on behalf of barr saying, john, the a. G. Has may be aware of the redacted, material you are working with and he asked me to provide you with my support, in assistance, is that true . I think that is correct. I do not remember the day, but that sounds right. That is only april. I am wondering if you want that put into this field. Donald trump was very vocal on twitter, as he always has, been about his belief that the Mueller Investigation should never have been, taken or you wear of his tweets . I know that the former president was a tweet, or yes. He was a tweet. Or some republicans on this committee believe that part of the purpose was to exonerate mr. Donald trump. I want to take you back to your opening statement, a paragraph for. As you know, mr. Durham, you said this morning, if repeated or left on a draft, these issues could result in significant National Security risks, further unloading public, faith in our justice system. We now sit with the former president , indicted, 37 counts of, around the documents, the classified documents that he took, he held, he moved, he concealed, he lied about, he showed to other people, 37 counts. If repeated, or left unaddressed these issues could result in significant National Security risks, and further erode public faith in our justice system. I thank you for your service, for pointing out what really matters, when we have a very dangerous former president and criminal indictments to come, a mess of mr. Trumps own making, i am baffled by this committees lifting up of a corrupt president. And i thank you for indulging, the just a few just as you handled yourself. God bless you. Mr. Durham if, if you could go one more round, you do this every day . Yes, this is relatively calm. Some hearings we have. If you go one more, well give you a break, well recognize a gentleman from california, look at your quick, break maybe ten 5 10 minutes, and will come back and finish . Gentleman from california is recognized for five. Mr. Durham, several people, today including represented from caught california, mr. Schiff, mr. And mr. Lieu. They have a talk to you, mr. Ranking member nadler, called your report an exercise of and ethical ambiguity, mr. Lieu called you a partisan hack. However, it seems that they are taking issue not so much with the conclusions of your report, as those of mr. Muellers report. Which concluded the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign, conspired or coordinated with the russian government, in its election interference activities. That conclusion, directly contradicted statements made on the record, by those representatives. For example, mr. Schiff, in 2017, 2018, the statement he made such, as the russians offered help the campaign accepted help, the russians gave help, and the president made full use of that help. That is pretty damning. He also, said its clear evidence on the issue of collusion, he said i think theres plenty of evidence of conclusion pollution, or a conspiracy, in plain sight. It to the gentleman yield . Are those statements well the gentleman yields . No. Mr. Durham, are those statements ordered . I do not believe so. Mr. Nadler stated its clear the campaign concluded, and there is a lot of evidence of that. The question is, will the president be involved . He also, said theres obviously a lot of conclusion. Mr. Durham where those statements reported by the Mueller Report . I do not believe they were supported by the Mueller Report. Mr. Lieu stated, in a press release and march 2017, that a bombshell revelation u. S. Officials have information that suggests Trump Associates may have colluded with the russians, means we must pause the entire trump agenda. We may have an illegitimate president of the United States, currently occupying the white house. Mr. Durham, the Mueller Report did it establish we had a legitimate president occupying the white house . Not to my knowledge. Mr. s stated in 2018, in our investigation we saw strong evidence of collusion, did the Mueller Report support that there was strong evidence of collusion . Not to my knowledge. Even here today, we have mr. Schiff, raise questions about your Public Statements. During the investigation, saying somehow this violated a doj policy. However, mr. Mueller himself made it a Public Statement in january of 2019, this is a article from cnn, headline, muellers office disputes buzzfeed report that trump directed Michael Cohen to lie to congress. So whatever policy that might exist in the doj, with respect to Public Statements by put special counsel. It would seem you and mr. Mueller would be on equal footing, with respect to, it is that correct . It would seem so. Mr. Ranking member not, you are also suggest we are only here today because of the recent indictments, of President Trump. However, he received your sign of special counsel in 2019, correct . Special counsel, 2020. In 2020. In 2020, was that before after the events allege by the recent indictment of the president . That was before. Its a customary for special counsel to testify in front, congress . This is my first experience, of the sort of thing. I know that director mueller had to testify before congress, so this is not unique. Its pretty likely, you would have been here, whether or not the president would be indicted . Contrary to Ranking Member nadler statement. I want a quote from you, a part of your report, where you say, there are reasons why, in examining politicallycharged and high profile issues, the office must exercise and has exercise special care. One of those statements you said is that even when prosecutors believe they can obtain conviction, there is some instances in which it may not be advisable to expend government time and resources, on a criminal prosecution particularly where could create the appearance even if unfounded that the government is seeking criminalize behavior of political opponents or punish the activities of specific Political Parties or campaign. Could you just expound on that a little bit . That there are credential considerations, that make council guns prosecution, even if there has been some type of violation of statute . Sure, the standard principles, federal prosecution, conclude, its a bedrock, that you ought not to bring the prosecution, unless you believe in good faith, that there is sufficient evidence, to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, and the jury will convict. And the conviction, a conviction will be sustained on appeal. Maybe those instances in which youre well convinced the crime was committed. You can identify the person who committed, it but you cannot in good faith, say, a jury is likely to convict in this case. We believe a jury will convict, and we can sustain it on appeal. Those are the principles we try to apply here, we follow here. The same principles i would follow for 40 years, as a federal prosecutor. What are you referring to when you say, there might be additional considerations involving the perception, that youre criminalizing the behavior of print little opponents . These are difficult things. For example, in this case. I think all of the members of the committee that have had access to, or took advantage of it or not, i dont know. That filed a class appendix here. There are some prosecutions where they may very well, be what it looks like, and you think you can prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond but, because of the classified nature of must of your most of your, evidence its never gonna see the light of day. So we can preclude a prosecution. Things of that sort. They come up, theyre part of the potential, judgment that a prosecutor has to make, in this matter. I yield back, thank. You gentlemen yelled, back we will take a short, break short recess, we can come back in ten, minutes 12 05, we will come back and give everyone a short break before we resume