contemporary political climate climate and the media cycle. >> host: our guest if you want to find the website and more about him, thank you for your time this morning. >> it's a pleasure to be with you. >> smart about the release of the memo with judicial watches. this is 45 minutes. joining us now is christopher, good morning. >> the point the last guest was making set about the fisa process and not the larger aspects of the investigation. >> there's a lot of moving things here.

you can say what is been the success rate of this entire affair is an active measure campaign. if the goal is to disrupt and confuse and finger-pointing the russians have been quite successful. it's a larger question we have a bigger question politically because this is a divisive and hot issue there's been a lot of claims that will play itself out. we'll get to the truth of it at some point. the larger question is for the last hundred years whether the soviet union or the russians they have been very aggressive and active measures campaign information warfare we see the outcome. >> what you think of the quality of the memo put out last week?

>> it's factually based. i've looked at what claims have been made. it either happened or didn't. that's partially why judicial watches in court pursuing taking access to the actual fisa warrants themselves. rather than relying on the representations of mr. nunez them saying it's all the, let's get a public let the public review them. the way they are structured there is an underlying affidavit either an fbi agent or doj attorney that lays out the case. as executed by a deputy attorney

general or higher saying look judge, we need access to this because the subject is either an agent of a foreign power or as a terrorist, blow the applicable and let's see what the case was in this case, they relied upon this fusion gps steel member memo or dossier. we know that he has sworn that that is true. but if there's more what is it. when they bring these applications they had an of of obligation to update and inform the court each judge to correct

or perfect the record so what did they submit? let's see what it is. >> host: our guest is with us for about 45 minutes. you can ask what it does. our guests is the director of investigation and research a judicial watch. >> guest: were watchdog group that promote transparency, integrity and accountability and politics of the law. we do it as an educational foundation, to educate the public about the government. we make aggressive use of the foia. with the largest foil litigator in the country.

our goal is government accountability. philosophically we are conservative but we are nonpartisan the sense that we never endorse candidates, parties or legislation. we, at this from a philosophical point of view. >> so when you hear the presidency this memo released it vindicates me your point would be. >> i have yet to hear anyone articulate the criminal predicate for the mueller investigation. what crime was committed. in our system of justice we identify the credit and then we find suspects in the we narrow down and either bring an indictment or we don't. in this case we have identified

suspects and will now investigate until we find the crime. that's upside down. with respect to the hillary clinton e-mail issue i can tell you section 793f is mishandling defense information. they can articulate the crime and show you how they have been violated. i say that because of my past professional life as a special agent of army intelligence. i successfully had people prosecuted. i note that is. when i look at mueller and hear people say collusion, what you're naming this conspiracy. but with the underlying criminal predicate? what has been done unlawfully i

have yet to hear anyone articulate what the crime is. >> how do you release the information and maintain the concern or national security control? >> anything with classified information the two things of greatest concern her sources and methods. that's a people here over and over again. it's what is the means by which the intelligence was collected. whether it's human intelligence, there's various flavors of intelligence. what was the technique and what was the source. in human intelligence we don't want to burn or put people in jeopardy. we don't want to compromise technical collection capabilities. once you carve that out taken away the sources and methods

then it's a narrative of what was information gleaned. . . themselves enjoy abroad discretionary power to release stuff. they may wish to redact a name here or there, but an awful lot of this can be released on a discretionary basis. a topic of methods, talking about the steele dossier, how it was funded and things like that, seems to suggest, even if those things were revealed out in in the process of the court playing these applications that there have to be more to base their judgment. dodg you buy that argument? >> guest: in part. the argument can be made in a will have theit statements that the wa warrant s entirely dependent upon the dossier. there's one point i would agree they make the distinction

between criminal investigations and counterintelligence investigations. if that is a distinction without a difference, counterintelligence investigations n are national security crimes. they are criminal investigations. so, there's times when people throw that out there as taking a well idigginga well it isn't ret is appearing to be. national security crimes are crimes, and so i would disagree with the prior guest on that because there's a lot of people sitting in jail on counterintelligence investigations. >> host: we have calls lined up for you. on the democrats whine coming your on with our guest. you were on with our guest. had you are on. >> caller: my answer to the previous call is the president should come on and adjust i'm going to take the fifth amendment i have a right to take the amendment and he should announce he's going to do so.

that would blow the air out of the whole issue. if clinton haden taken the fift, it would have destroyed the whole thing and they wouldn't have been impeached. >> guest: absolute discretionary authority. president carter made at the kennedy crazy when he got up at a campaign event in miami and started s discussing national intelligence collection platforms from satellites, and that was sort of a president breaking or setting event is the authority was when the president and i kept him and that is the case. >> host: clearance on the republican line. >> caller: good morning, gentlemen. my point on this is the fisa

warrant gave the fbi permission to wiretap which they haven't had permission to do in the other time they had spent on this wiretap gave them interest to the trump campaign to send chain react and pick up conversations of anybody and everybody paige was talking tpage was talkingto and that's r interest was. what different members of the campaign had to say so they were looking for a whole lot more. and i think that it was a real travesty of what happened.

i think the carter page angle of the whole foundation i guess for the warrant is interesting to.

self identified with an advisor that his name had been used from my understanding he held no actual position or title or sort of a business card or desk. that is not my understanding and i think it is eve that is even f interesting.di >> host: what did you think of the document from the paragraph talking about george is the trigger to this holding? >> guest: he said something is again i'm always concerned how the wardens are obtained. and i go back to the former fox

journalists and the justice department's efforts to gain access to his phone records and even his parents phone records confirmed by the attorney general and the claim was the agent of a power and flight risk. i don't think he was either. he was a fox news reporter working on a story at the department of south korea. they are asking questions about things they would rather not discuss, butst that is a separae issue. but isn'but isn't that he's an e agent or flight risk but in order to gain access, the justice department did the very same thing with the associated press also reporting around may, 2013.

they were very clearly lying and making false misleading statements in order to obtain warrants. there is a track record here. this isn't anything new. and that is the disturbing part. we now have evidence over a couple administrations but the justice department and the fbi would lie under oath to get warrants. that is the lesson, that's the warning that the powers are being abused at an outrageous level with little or no accountability. >> host: we haveor a fever i believe referencing the effort to gain the warrant saying our people under the misconception that if they can ever provide the basis of the warrant application initiatives they don't.

they would talk to or recruit or in some way develop information from that would result in the te wawarrant seeking sworn out or advanced. but there is a balancing test and aa credibility question. if you do have information coming from an unsavory source, that is why you need to check and doublecheck all of the sources. sometimes you don't have another source. the only information you have is from somebody that is in some ways imperfect or defective in some way. it doesn't necessarily end the investigation, it just makes you work harder. >> host: if the full scope and the background and everything behind it were revealed, do you think that would have been the

proper or other things the judge may have had access to? >> guest: it was very artfully planted and then cycled and recycled so you have this reporting but then when you go back and say who else is working on this, fusion gps. who were they paid by. then you get into the analysts with a researcher. they have a senior position in the justice department seems to be in this circle this is rocky stuff. and if you look at it, it appears it's a very sophisticated operation.

it doesn't seem legitimate. >> host: they say released a memo which will give context. >> guest: i'm all for it. i want to see the cards on the table. i'm tired of the finger-pointing and the hysteria. i want this whole thing going out into the open. if there is something there, great. they have so manipulated the political system and have shown so much to send and that is the

larger question. i'm looking at it as the efforts of the various political operatives to manipulate the system. >> host: let'sop hear from vernon and allen texas on the independent line, go ahead. >> guest: i would like to say two things. first, in the false narratives all the time in the case of the memo when it was put out it was stated there is nothing to do with anything but the fact that the committee had an oversight responsibility o of the fbi and the department of justice and in what they are doing in their disclosure with the presentation of the facts so that we can

determine whether or not it will rely when they submitted information to the court. now, let's talk about that. asoe far as the narrative goes. the other is false and has to do again thank you you've laid out very well as i've been on the phonee waiting. it all goes back to the fact that it is nothing new, nothing new at all. >> guest: the caller makes a very important point. they have their interest and objectives and they are going to do what they think is in their best first interest.

the russians literally laughed. there's sufficient documentation about the entire event. obviously this isn't a nonpartisan attitude. they arere saying there isn't evidence for collusion. let's wait until the investigations is done. do you think that the russian intrusion was a hoax?

>> guest: they have all sorts of interests trying to affect the outcome, they've been doing it for 100 years there's absolutely nothing new about it. but the remark about the collusion i need someone to tell me, identified to me to cry them, what is the criminal predicate that has occurred no one can articulate it. what occurred and what was unlawful in the criminal act. >> host: then does it rise to conspiracy? >> guest: here's a great example i will give you one. generalin flynn. under title 18 false official

statement. normally when that happens and this is based on my personal experience but also other colleagues of mine who are other federal agents. when that happens in addition to the 1,000 claim there is a claim for 371 which is conspiracy. and then some other criminal whetherl, it is fraud or some other criminal act acts, the ren being is i catch you in a spud and say who else are we working with. then they say we were defrauding a company. they stole money or products. but when you bring a false official statement charge against somebody with no conspiracy count and no underlying crime it's criminal

stuff in the world of prosecutions. they want the indictment and conviction. when you go with a false official statement charge, it's the lowest of the runs. if i am a federal agent interviewing you and i do so for two hours, i will find something that you said that is inconsistent. onone time you said above, anotr time he said from and i will drill down on thatu and say you made misleading statements. and so that is the situation here with general flynn. he made an error and he's responsible for his actions. i'm not trying to forgive or make an excuse for that but for the average american citizen out there, the federal agent

interviewing you for a couple of hours if they want to be the false official statement of claim. i appreciate all of the fine legal points that you're this all revolves around motivation. and when you look back at what happens, not just with regards to the new investigation or the fisa court situation but rather the entirety of what happens when he saw plainlwesaw plainlys somethingin very wrong going ont the justice department, excuse me, thee fbi. mr. comey stood up an and told l of us to crimes that hillary

clinton committed and told us that there would be no indictment. then the following day when she was questioned, he said mrs. clinton committed this crime that violated the statute and he said yes. did sheat commit a crime that violated the statute, yes it's still there wasn't going to be any indictment. we knew at that point something had happened at the fbi. >> host: we will leave it there. the press briefing on the fifth july essentially for the first 13 and a half minutes of the 15 minute briefing he laid out all of the elements of the crime from 793 as handling defense.

then towards the end, he invented out of thin air and new element that was intent on that particular crying i highlighted. there is no requirement for content in the mishandling of information. it's kind of a unique key manufactured a new standard with threshold for satisfying the element of the crime. then went way beyond the scope of the investigator and made thee decision of the attorney general and said we are not going to prosecute.

the investigations and research directors. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: good morning, pedro. i want to go into the idea. what i would like to ask is if iie in aiam a public official an a business and steer a contract towards that business that is clearly against the law.

he puts money in his pocket for that. is that a violation of the clause that we have written into the law and how come nobody is drilling down on this and getting caught up in all this stuff nobody can come to a serious conclusion about the. >> guest: all travel related documents and travel whether it is florida or anywhere else. we are trying to provide accountability to the public on travel costs and frequency and all these related things like that. for example, when the president is obviously there is a big sort of tale that goes with that. and so, there are secret service costs and any number of things. we also have to compel the government to produce those records, but that's fine. we are happy to do it.

all those costs we are trying to account for. i don't think the president travels every weekend for a. called the predicate o of that a free week he goes there. i have a hard timeti getting t their. that is his property and his home and he is allowed to go there. here is a parallel but the former vice president with a home in delaware and there wa it house onop the property used to secure the facility they could say he's making money for this but that is an isn't what the ce talks about.

you have people with properties and the requirement to secure them and they have to have their staff. the president can't not hav do e the agency going with them. the requirements of the office can't be dispensed with simply because he has a large propertyy in florida. >> host: do they feel he has grounds for contempt of the fbi? >> guest: cases in 2013 which they clearly did, don't lie to the court. it's a bad idea.

your organization has an agenda that has to shift the focus from the trump situation. inin part one section one provis the bear designated as an original originator. here's my concern. the president recently declassified information. you don't haveou to go through e judiciary in order to accomplish

that goal. the words themselves are generatingng themselves from the department of justice and then they could squirt. we did ask them to release all of the company memos. we were joined in that they other news agencies, cnn and many others because they said look, let's get to the bottom of it and release it all. the judge who also happens in front of the fisa court interestingly, he declined to release all of the memos. they will continue to pursue them legally and then again, there is a predicate or structure for how they are maintained in the process.

concerning this whole issue, the better. >> host: for the process would you agree and what? could be changed to improve the process? >> guest: there needs to be skepticism of the underlying documentation. they made false or misleading statements under oath that is fernandes. there needs to the prosecution spent.

we can't go through this entire turmoil and then everybody just says she that was tough. i don't care where it goes. we have this whole thing that is a corollary to what we are talking about today. the ambassador to the un needs some masking requests an outrageous abuse to the system. you don't hear a word about unmasking anymore. what happened with that?

he was supposed to come forward and make a public testimony. there are all of these unresolved kind of related corollary scandals tied to this where there is a burst of information. to get the disinterested party. ask the tough awkward questions. how do you know that? why is this in the application, but this isn't.

i think there may be a place for that. i'm really interested if the big andure is all before us now we knew there was collusion in the investigation not doing what they are supposed to, all these other agencies lied before congress saying the staff wasn't under investigation and that was aa lie proven by the document that republicans have just put out. even gone junior stems from fusion gps.

they made her meet with them beforere and after. it was all set up by them and paid for by hillar hillary clins wakhillary clinton so idon't kng time on the underlining documents. h know that it was used and that is all we have to go. >> guest: i agree in general with what he's saying but the documentation is absolutely critical and the reason why it is is because this is a shorthand thing i tell my students. people lie, documents don't. i want to see the underlining foundation that is critical for my point of view. but i think interestingly, he kind of made a passing reference to thiss perspective the russian attorney who met with the president's sign that the tower this doesn't get enough attention but i think it is very interesting and curious phenomenon but fusion gps people

met with her beforehand and then dispatched her into the meeting. and then she was met by gps people and in the intelligence world that is called dispatch actions or recovery debriefing. what sort of information was trying to be developed, very curious. they have the involvement with a mcauliffe. for anybody to shrug and say that it's coincidental and then having an insurance policy into that kind of stuff, this is incendiary material. >> host: but is this something

that you agree with? >> guest: in this case coming is because there is a professional political class that operates outside of the results may be. there's also literally hundreds of obama administration political appointees who are still operating under the government now but thiss is because president trump hasn't appointed enough people, but people don't realize they have their own sort of institutional authority and power and leverage and no matter who comes in orom out of office, they are therere for decades. and that is what every administration faces, whether it is to staff that sort of willingly goes along or just makes mistakes and doesn't entirely cooperate with the new

administration. >> host: let's go to dana on the independence line. >> caller: what are the legal ramifications and is it one intelligence committee after another that will kee we'll keeg at moreok allegations. it works both for politicians and the fbi because they uphold the law anyway.

there is a thoughtful conspiracy on how that plays out as a question of the attorney general now referred to examine the conduct of the persons involved, so that is my interpretation of the outcome. also the case where an individual field officer of the country has been extraordinary views of warrants approved activity such as electronic surveillance and concealed

monitoring. at least my memory is about four years ago and trade disputes. it's very rare that the government doesn't use all the powers invested to it and that is the subject to the review. the last point on the accountability of the politicians see the accountable but also there are those that

are sovereign and we give them this authority and the ability to serve us and when they start using it for their own purposes it is a graveca abuse. >> host: what do you think about this argument? >> guest: it's a little skits gs from it.hi at first they were howling that it was going to be the end of the world and all sorts of national security issues were going to be disclosed and damaging and then when it was released is that all you've got or he o made some sort of remars before they released the memo there was hysteria and hand wringing and that is the end of the world. then the memo comes out and if d everyone says it'ssa no big dea.

it's for political advantage, but the underlining question about did something occur or not has to be answered. >> host: jim on the independence line. >> caller: somethings he said he strikes me as disingenuous as a typical republican taking the more typical republican stands. but it's okay. he was speaking of hillary clinton trying to find something wrong with.

certainly they found out in the proceedings. but i would ask as an earlier call for data, she was secretary of state. did she do anything wrong hacking into dnc and e-mails and having to be at the different hearings and testimony what did she do wrong? >> guest: to start off, i am not a republican or member of any political party. the notion that i'm being disingenuous i find to be offensive. i'm telling you exactly what i think and feel and have documentation to back it up. with respect to mrs. clinton, they conducted their own investigation and identified the

e-mails and she established the information act and is in violation which is the mishandling. there are people sitting in prison for doing me a fraction of what she and her associates could. >> host: judicial watch.org and the website thanks for your time.