It gets to john mccain, john mccain puts it in his safe, gives it to me and i read it. In the first thing i thought was, oh, my god. This could be russian disinformation or they could have this on trump. If you read this information in the first thing you would think it is they got something on donald trump. Its stunning, its end at salacious and its a bunch of. Senator lindsey graham, chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee talking about the steele dossier, the focus of this Inspector Generals report and this hearing in washington. Your risk withere with chris wa. I think there is a lot of damaging information about the fisa warrants on the way was carried out, and it isnt just come up with this name of a
relatively low level fbi what lawyer, i just want to read you one statement in the Opening Statement. If we are deeply concerned of that basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate handpicked Investigative Teams on one of the most sensitive fbi investigations and thats the point. That wasnt just a one off. He made mistakes when putting in the original application but they had to review the application several times. That goes to the argument that i heard Andy Mccarthy making. Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a political bias there . No. But it sure does stink when you have three different teams and they are all pushing the same way and its all for investigating and Surveilling Carter page. On the other hand i think that in our zeal to talk about the fisa warrant, and its a serious deal, and i can understand the outrage about what was done and
the victimization of carter page, that doesnt mean the entire russia investigation was fraudulent. One of the points that pat lahey, the second ranking democrat on the committee made as he asked horowitz, how many times as carter page mentioned in the miller report . The answer, because horowitz didnt know, seven pages. So one of the points i think democrats will make is that can be true on the one hand that there was terrible misconduct or even potentially crimes in the pfizer application and the way in which carter page was treated by the federal government, but it doesnt mean that the entire russia investigation was there for illegitimacy. Obviously the Attorney General, and john durham have different thoughts about this. The Attorney General is very explicitly saying the whole thing has been turned on its head by two and a half years of what they called garbage. That certainly what he says although not as colorful or at great length, and you heard john durham, the u. S. Attorney who is conducting this investigation raising the same concern. Again i go back to when he was directly asked, did he say anything, i stood by my conclusions and he hasnt changed his position. Just to look at the political side of this, just sort of watching how all of this worked, you think about the things that President Trump said, and he was very outspoken last night at the rally as well. That sort of goes along the lines of, just because youre paranoid doesnt mean that everyone is not out to get you. We look at how this was handled and the fact that we said earlier, he was never consulted about the concerns of what was
going on in his campaign. You can sort of see, that sort of the process as it gets unveiled. Why he felt like the Intelligence Agencies or at least some of them were out to get them. He was looking at it through a political lens. And hes saying a lot of these people were threatened by me. The government agency, i just want you to know how much we appreciate your work and your teams work. Likewise, i think its important even though we are critical of the leadership of the fbi during the last administration, their
colleagues in the Intelligence Committee need to know that we are there. For them and support them in the faithful discharge of their responsibility. We i have the privilege of serving on the Judicial Committee and i would like to think there is no more ardent supporter. I believe that general hayden, when he wrote his book about the experience of the cia had it right, it was called playing to the edge. Playing to the edge of the authorities. Not over the line but up to the edge in interest of national security. But i think that also makes it important for us to root out illegality, deception and the exercise of the authorities that are given to our intelligence
committee. So let me ask you a little bit about that. Because i cant think of anything more damaging to the Intelligence Committee, the fbi and the doj then what you have uncovered in this 400 page report, and what weve seen here. It really is very troubling. Can i ask you, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as you have pointed out considers the application of a foreign Intelligence Surveillance warrant by the fbi working with the national disk Security Division and department of justice. Do you believe that the court knew what you know now, that it would have everet ever issued ta warrant in the first place . We are careful not to predict what judges would do . I know that they would not sign a warrant if they were told not
all relevant information was included. Or, if they were lied to. Certainly if they were lied to. Do you know if the court is considering this matter . I know the court, if they have the report and they have a followon letter from the department about this matter. While i hope they will not let this pass because this misbehavior, this illegality and deception, it becomes a routine. I agree with senator senator grt it will be the end of the authorities that congress has granted under the foreign Intelligence Surveillance act which i think would be damaging to our national security. The foreign Intelligence Surveillance act includes the word surveillance, obviously. You cant surveillance and American Citizen for intelligence purposes except under very specialized and exacting circumstances. Would you agree with that . Thats correct. Because the rights are laid out in the bill of rights and there is a higher standard with regard to getting a warrant, lets say to wiretap or investigate an American Citizen then there would be a foreign agent. Is that correct . There are particularly sensitive circumstances around surveilling a u. S. Person. So that the there by which the Court Authorizes the surveillance of mr. Page was based on some proof for some indication or some suspicion he was an agent of a foreign power, correct . Correct. We had probable cause to believe he was an agent of a foreign power. But as you pointed out there
was disbelief in that process, correct . So whats the difference between surveillance and spying . Surveillance is whats in the law. The foreign Intelligence Surveillance act. You dont like my vernacular . I will stick to what we do as igs. Although its legally authorized, it is an act of Covert Intelligence gathering against if you are a foreign power or agent of a foreign power. Let me ask you about the Defensive Briefing. You have explained in response to senator grahams questions
come up the difference between a Counterintelligence Investigation and a Criminal Investigation. I believe at some point during the last few years i remember loretta lynch, the former Attorney General say, if that was the retaining Counterintelligence Investigations, would you agree with that . I dont have enough experience to tell you one way or the other. Ive heard that they said but i dont know specifically. But you dont have a reason to disagree. No reason to disagree. So the decision by the head of the Counterintelligence Division of the fbi not to provide an extensive Counterintelligence Briefing or Defensive Briefing to canada trumpet or his campaign would be unusual. If its usual and not doing it, i agree it would be unusual. What was even more unusual is the fact that the director of National Intelligence went to provide what turned out to be a
perfunctory briefing to the Term Campaign, lasted about 13 minutes, i think you indicated in your report. They had implanted into that group and agent, and fbi agent that was part of the Investigative Team for a cross fire hurricane, is that correct . Thats correct. There was one fbi agent there and they chose agent from the Counterintelligence Investigation. To arm them with information, so that they could prevent the russians and infiltrating their campaign, the briefing such as it was had a dual purpose. They actually prepared themselves going through mock briefings. Headed by peter strzok, lisa page, and possibly this
was not just an incidental sort of thing, obviously there were plans made for the agent to go in and as part of this Defensive Briefing and perhaps get general flynn to inadvertently offer information that might be helpful to the fbi in their investigation. And as explained to us it was dualpurpose. One thing that was said in response to the briefing, purposes immediately but also as the agents told us, for purposes of a future interview of mr. Flynn. So mr. Flynn was clearly the target. He was certainly of the three people there and from the Trump Campaign the only one of the three about home was the subject of an fbi investigation at the time. And he wasnt told that he was under investigation or that the agent was there, hoping to bait him into providing increments or information, and the agent can provide him any declaration or admonishment of his miranda rights, correct . He certainly wasnt told there was a dual purpose. While he pointed out, this will never happen again. Is that correct . Thats correct. So let me ask you. Are you familiar with the fact that Director Comey had a meeting with President Trump in January Of 2017 to talk to him about the steele dossier . I am and we actually referenced out in a report about his preparation and handling of the memos that came out of that meeting. Why should we believe that Director Comeys socalled Defensive Briefing, if you want to call it that, of the president in january 2017 was
anything more than an attempt to try to beat the president into providing Incremented Tory information which would be useful to the fbi and its Counterintelligence Investigation, or potentially some future Criminal Investigation . As mentioned earlier, one of the concerns with doing that here is it leaves open the possibility that people might ask, did it happen elsewhere . It strikes me as fraught with danger, just like it was for general flynn and the director to go in to the white house, the oval office and the white house not to tell the president that anything he said could be used against him in a potential investigation including criminal charges. The final thing i would say is, if this could happen to the president ial candidate, what kind of protection t to do the
average American Citizens have where the government wont array the vast power against them and essentially ruin their lives . To me that the profound concern as a result of your investigation. Thank you mr. Chairman. Picking up on that editorial comment, ive been joining Senator Lahey and senator lee for years talking about the fisa court. You now have an ample record here, and in 2002 the fisa court identified more than 75 cases in which it was misled by the fbi. Internal fbi in 2006 reveals dozens of inaccuracies and the list goes on and on. So lets have a fulsome conversation after this about the future of the pfizer cord and representations that are made to it. Let me try if we can, to go through a few points. The chairman gave an uncharacteristic, flowery,
heated opening that went on for some 40 minutes and produced a lengthy record of emails from lisa page and peter strzok which repeatedly demonstrated statements of hostilities toward candidate donald trump. He went on to say that these were the people in charge. When i read your summary of your findings we didnt find either of them to be in charge, did you . In this investigation we did not. When it comes to expletives, you also found some agents at the fbi who had exactly opposite political viewpoints, who were very positive toward Candidate Trump and very open in the use of expletives. Those individuals to be clear were in a different field office. I hope we can all concede the full point that i dont believe
anyone in this delicate capacity with life changing Decision Making single day should be so politically biased as to call into question their values and their character. Thats correct. I made that point last year when this came up. Individuals in the Justice Department are allowed to have political views and they are allowed to be voters and allowed to be engaged citizens, they should be. They cant tie the personal use to their investigative acts. And im sure thats one of the things you shared with director ray. Correct. The chairman made a point early on talking about the fact that the Term Campaign was not notified of this Ongoing Investigation until much later date after you have been initiated. I would say be careful what you wish for because there are those of us who look at the james comey october 28 public declaration about the Hillary Clinton investigation as being deadly in terms of the
outcome of this election. So the notion of the fbi publicizing investigations and making them known to many people can cut both ways. Its good to know im sure but you run the risk that as more people come to know it it becomes public knowledge, is that an issue . Who brought up last years report about the concern about what Director Comey did in that regard and you obviously want to control information and make sure that only the people who actually need to know it. The point im trying to get to is the chairmans opening suggested a bias at least in this instance of the fbi and others against donald trump that he believes was manifest in many of the things that followed. I could argue for my side of the table that we could find bias that includes Commie Statement right before the public election that really had in many of our points of view, a determinative outcome. Lets go back to rudolph giuliani. Because heres something. During the 2016 campaign, Rudy Giuliani was on the Trump Campaign surrogate brag about having access to the investigation for clintons emails. He teased in october 16 that a surprise was coming. And when Director Comey sent a letter reopening the investigation, Rudy Giuliani said, and i quote, i expected this. Did i hear about it . Youre darn right i heard about it. So how can we be dealing with that and some resolution as to whether or not he was also bluffing . As i remember, one of his rationales for his public announcement was, i couldnt do it for the new york office because it leaks like a sieve. Was there no investigation or has there been no investigation into this . As i mentioned last year when we released our report on the clinton investigation, we were looking at and we are looking at
still that question and the challenge of that investigation, proving who spoke to whom, and when, based on records at the fbi. And understanding that there is rarely going to be substantive information that we will get. For example from toll records or others, but we will find out contexts. Weve issued two reports so far about findings that we had about leaks and misconduct, and we have investigations that are ongoing. Mr. Giuliani no professes to be President Trumps lawyer. Are there any concerns about continuing to obtains sources not authorized to provide it . I want to talk about what weve learned and im not investigating matters related to the ongoing ukraine issues that i think youre referencing. Let me ask if i can on this question, and the problems within this case particularly as they relate to the treatment of individuals who are engaged in it. And im thinking particularly of ongoing questions about whether or not one particular individual is treated fairly here. Is it your conclusion that he was not mr. Page was not a russian agent or did not have important contacts that were not in the best interest of the United States with russian leadership . Im not in position to assess that. What i can assess is the effort
that fbi put forth to the fisa court, a significant number o