The fisa warrants . The concern grows out of the fact the failures in information that should have been given wasnt given and the question being what was the intent . What was the motivation and what we have determined was we could not definitively say what the motivation was. Are these pretty smart people come up fairly well educated . Well, well educated. I was going to say. They have law degrees, right . At least some of them do. So for people at this level of the organization . To be clear, the stuff that didnt happen on the view was basic staff. You didnt need to be deeply experienced fbi agent to be able to do with the right way. That is my point. Wouldnt you say that would be Muscle Memory for people going through this process to know that they have an obligation to go through that . They clearly should have. So wouldnt it be reasonable if they didnt call you cant answer this question but to me, it seems have something a standard at that process for you go to fisa court, to not do it with something they intended not to do. They didnt want to go through it. It seems to be a logical conclusion. Then you ask yourself, why . Because we dont ever want this guy to get elected president. And if he does, it sounds like they want to impeach him. I cant understand anybody working in this organization, understanding the scrutiny that we have placed under the fisa records and by the way, lee, count me in. We have seen the abuses that you want us about and you can spark again because you warned us. But it just seems to me that this organization, this closely held organization of highly educated, highly experienced people come i have to believe were handpicked for this proces, they were picked because they had the best reputations in there. They had to know that this was
going to come to that spirit that it was going to be scrutinized. Regardless of who the subject of the investigation was, if the names were changed and the parties were changed, we would still be here. And it looks like they were trying to skate along the edges and get away with something to me. And i cant imagine they did it for any other reason than a political motivation. I dont expect you to respond to that because you are doing a great job of holding to the start of your report. But nobody can tell me the people of this caliber with a record of partisan vitriolic profanity about this president to say, we just forgot to do a standard procedural review, that you would probably expect one of the staff two or three levels down to know that you need to do it. It just doesnt make sense to me. I want to ask another question. Youve gotten a lot of questions today that had nothing to do with your report. And i think youve done a very good job of saying im here to talk about my report. You did not do a russian collusion investigation did you . We did not. You did not do Special Counsel report . And a lot of questions to date here to do with what you talked about today . Certainly. I wonder if that was politically motivated. What i found interesting was that we do have people who are using this as a platform on the other side of the aisle that says, now we need to revise and look at the fisa process. I dont know why you would use this as a platform to do that unless you thought this was a clear case where the fisa process was abused. And then if you look at this information, this ecosystem of smart people, who i think, turned a blind eye to damning evidence to serve as a basis for renewing the fisa reports, it is beyond my comprehension. The weight of this evidence, in your report, i think is pretty strong. I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when we take up impeachment next month have that same standard for the weight of evidence that we will be asked to look at. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you. You identified significant issues with the fisa Application Process for surveillance and before this investigation, were you aware of problems with fbis use of the fisa process . I was not personally although we have done reports, senator, since 9 11 in my office. Well, you cant sit here and tell us there is only occurred with regard to this fisa Application Process. We have identified problems in the past. I will say we have never done a dive into one as deep as as this. A number of us, by the way, senator lee and us understand that there are issues and the fisa process and in fact come after you pointed out the
errors, et cetera, the director acknowledged your findings. In fact, he is moving ahead to make improvements to the fisa process and make the fbi and much stronger institution. That is correct. Would you agree that it is a major decision to seek authority from a fisa court to conduct surveillance on america . I agree. If fbi officials were politically motivated and wanting to conduct surveillance on a particular american, Wouldnt The Decision to seek fisa approval be a point where political bias could affect the process . It could. Yes. Yes. Actually, that would be a pretty good time for any political bias manifest itself. But here you found no evidence of political bias in deciding to seek fisa approval. We did not find such evidence. When you released your report on monday, both the Attorney General and john durham immediately issued a public
statement that challenge the findings in your report. Attorney general barr stated the Attorney General report makes clear the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of a u. S. President ial campaign on suspicion in my few words to justify the steps taken. Can you point to the page or pages in the report that found that the fbi launched an intrusive investigation on the soundness of suspicions that were insufficient to justify the fbis actions . We conclude there was predication. Would you consider words like suspicion intrusive investigation neutral words . You know what, im going to let others answer for it. And stick to what we have. You said everybody is entitled to characterize your investigation, but you know what we all know what characterizes peer constitution. Yesterday Attorney General barr went on tv to challenge the validity of the findings have your report and suggest that its own fbi agents acted in bad faith or improper motive and it was premature to conclude otherwise. These insinuations are inconsistent with your report. And one justification that he gave for disregarding the key finding in your report was that unlike the investigator he handpicked, mr. Durham, you cannot tell testimony. You interviewed 100 witnesses for your investigation and in your report you were unable to compel testimony from two peop people, jonathan. Were these the only two people who you couldnt compel testimony or wouldnt testify or talk to you . Those with only two people that we asked to interview that turned us down. Do you think that is a fact you did not interview these two
witnesses undermined the conclusions in your report that you found no documentary or testimony evidence of political bias in opening the investigation were seeking Fisa Authority For Carter page . I dont think they undermine conclusions but it would be good to have their evidence like normally. Do you think the findings in your reports are inaccurate because you lacked the authority to compel witnesses . Not in this instance, no. On april 2019 Attorney General barr told congress i think spring did occur. Talking about the Trump Campaign ties with the russian government in the 2016 election. Yesterday, Attorney General barr reiterated the Trump Campaign was clearly, im quoting him, clearly spied upon. He claimed the fbis investigative actions which you discuss in your report constitutes buying. And the word spying carries, i
would say negative connotations, dont you think . It sounds like Law Enforcement is doing something they are not authorized to do. And they would spy on us. And that is why we use the only word in the law which is surveillance. And yet, we have the highest Law Enforcement person in our entire country using the word, not just once but twice, he uses the word spying. So clearly your report found the fbis investigation was for an authorized and within adequate predicate and you would not characterize that as spying. You would not use such a word in your report. We do not use that word in our report. Do you think questioning the motive of your staff is possibly involving bad faith or accusing them of spying would be demoralizing to your people . Let me put it i would not speak to my folks about in that
manner. I havent seen that either. What you will do in your professional capacity, i think that is a rhetorical question. You know, so point taken though. The staff, the investigations as intrusive and the suspicion also cast aspersions on the professionalism of your people. And i think that is probably also not terribly edifying or supportive. Does the Attorney General provide you with any evidence to support his claim that the fbi agents were spying . In terms of evidence, we didnt get any evidence from the Attorney General. We didnt stomach we did meet with mr. Durham and had a discussion with him from but weg by our conclusions. Does it bother you do have
the Attorney General using words like spying to characterize what the fbi did under unauthorized process . You know, Inspector General, im going to stick to what we do and what we said and not trying to guess the motives or ideas or thoughts of anyone else out there. I dont see you jumping up and down in the use of this word. Let me go on. On november 21st, dr. Fiona hill the National SecurityCouncil Senior director for russia warned that had folks geared up to repeat interference in the 2020 election. Even as we speak, that is what rush is doing. She also warned congress against promoting the fictional narrative that ukraine rather than russia interfered in the 2016 u. S. Elections. These conspiracy theories, she said, clearly advanced russia interests. Fbi director stated on monday that the fbi has no information that would indicate that ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016
president ial election. When we talk about interfere, we are talking about the kind of systemic, government sanctioned interference with our election process that rush engaged in. And i know there is no way ukraine engaged in that kind of systematic interference. And so in all of the documents that you reviewed, 100 witnesses, did you find any evidence that contradicts fbi director statement and that the fbi has no information ukraine tried to interfere in the 2016 election . We didnt see any such evidence, but i emphasized that was not purposely. But you would think you are looking through a million documents. Fortunately not me, but the team. There would have been something there that reference that maybe ukraine was engaging in systematic interference that russia did. I know the senator amy klobuchar
asked you about this, but i want to make it clear. Is there anything in your report that the conclusion that the Mueller Report the interfering of the 2016 election and sweeping systematic fashion . Nope. And of course you all know the Mueller Investigation resulted in 37 indictments and six convictions of trump associates. Is there anything in your report that caused to push Special Counsel eulers conclusion that the Trump Campaign not only knew about russias election interference, but they encouraged it and expected to benefit electorally from it . Nope. I know you receive a lot of requests from republican and democratic members of congress to do certain investigations. And i have been among those. I realize you have to take certain factors into consideration because you only have so many resources to conduct all of these investigations. One of the request i, my
colleague, asked you to investigate whether Attorney General barrs handling of the Mueller Report was misleading and whether he demonstrated bias in dealing with the Mueller Investigation. In light of the fact of that, im sure you would consider, would you take another look at the request that i am my colleague sent you to see whether you are able to investigate any of them . So on that, senator, first of all, i would happy to come up and meet with you in person. Let me say ive had conversation with members of the committee about this issue. The letters asked us not to look at the conduct of senior lorries at the department. Directly implicate section 80 of the Inspector General act which prohibits me at looking at conduct of lawyers and their capacity as lawyers. Senator lee has sponsored the bill. They passed the house unanimously bipartisan, full support, and several members of
the committee cosponsored it. That provision prevents me from Undertaking Investigations of misconduct by Senior Department lawyers were actually in a department large years. Well, this is one time i actually agree with senator leahy that we need to make that kind of change to enable you to make the kind of investigation we are asking you. And again i would be happy to come up and talk with you further. Thank you. I will keep doing this and i apologize. Has anyone been a convicted of the crime of working with the russian government associated with the Trump Campaign that you know what . Not that i know what. Well, they havent. So whatever convictions have been the thing, have got nothing to do with colluding with the russians. That is what got us here. And about what happened here. If the government is surveilling an american citizen, pursuant to
a fisa warrant and the government comes into information given to the government that questions the foundation of the warrant, is there an obligation to tell the court . Absolutely. They did not do that here, correct . Correct. In fact they lied about this exculpatory page . They gave misleading, inaccurate information. At one point can a surveillance that started lawfully become illegal . It can become unauthorized, inappropriate, illegal depending on the facts. Would you apply those terms to what happen in this case . Im going to let others who have the ability to address some of these issues decide what the precise level of intent was. Here is what im going to say. And it may have started lawfully. It got off of the rails quick. It became a criminal conspiracy to defraud the fisa court, to put mr. Page through health and
to continue to surveilled President Trump after he got elected. And i hope somebody pays a price for that. You have certainly done your part, mr. Horowitz. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you very much Inspector General for being here today and presenting this information. And i know a couple of others have focused on this, and i would like to dive back in. But first, there is a lot of respect out there or there has been for the fbi. And i remember as a kid, you know, watching movies or show that portrayed the fbi. Wow, those are the good guys. And i think what we have seen through the past number of years a number of months, it is that a few bad actors have really squandered that away. And i think the American People look at the fbi and they think, wow, if they are doing this to a president ial candidate, what would they do to me . It is a normal american citizen. Are they really they are . And so im sorry that this has led to this, again a few bad actors. I heard somebody earlier saying, oh, the mistakes made at the fbi. The mistakes. Its not like, oops i accidentally filed a fisa application, that accidentally happened. That is not a mistake. That just reeks of ill wishes to do harm. So again, i just think the fbi, we have always thought of it as a great institution. Now, im looking at all this information. We have all reviewed the report and for gods sakes, what is going on here . You know, so thank you for doing this work. I think it is just really important that we take a look at what is going on, why it happened, and i would like to
focus a little bit more on the Discipline Aspect of it. Because the mistakes were made by people who really wanted to do battle form to an individual. Illegally. So peter strzok was fired from the fbi, is that correct . That is correct. Okay. So he still has a Merit System Protection Board that is not yet adjudicated, is that right . That is what i understand. Is that final or not . I will give you my opinion. Thank you. There was one individual for prosecution. Based on the review. That was not for us but for
another agency. And so, the fisa court, the accuracy, can you explain why there were no more criminal referrals . What we ultimately decided was the conduct here warranted sending the entire report to the fbi and the department for review. For review from the line age and all the way to the top of people who were still at the fbi. And as we said, we didnt see documentary or Testimonial Evidence as intent, but we also didnt hear good explanations which left us with an open question what the motive was and
what the sacred mind was and the Adjudicative Process of the fbi. The up dont make the department will assess that. So we dont know with anyone else that has been fired or reassigned . I dont know as i sit here. That would have to come from the fbi or the department. So with that, how many, how many case agents involved with fisa applications in your report are still active case agents today . As i sit here come i cannot tell you the precise number. There are several that still are. That are active agents . That are still active agents but whether they are still in certain roles or not i dont know. Okay, because you dont know specifically if they are working as case agents, do you believe, i