according to your report although the f.b.i. already knew the british intelligence and f.b.i. officials discussed the litigation with director comey, the f.b.i. never got steele's statement in that litigation until we provided them, the f.b.i. also never considered updating the court on these statements. why did the court learn -- when did the court learn about these contradictory statements about whether steele did or didn't have contact with the media? and did anyone in the f.b.i. seem concerned at all that it was not updating the fisa court it was knowingly providing a court with incorrect and >> so, the fisa court first learned of it, at least as i understand it, in a letter set

in june 2018, a year after the last fisa authorization, when the justice department lawyers sent a letter informing them of new information that they had learned including from litigation that mr. steele had acknowledged was a direct contact for yahoo! news in that story. that was a first time the court was told about it. >> look at footnote 461 for me. that footnote states that a former fbi confidential human source contacted an fbi agent in an fbi field office in late july, 2016, to report information from "a colleague who runs an investigative firm hired by two entities, the democratic national committee, as well as another individual who is not named, to its floor, donald strunk trumps long-lasting ties to

international entities." with that investigation firm fusion gps or did the dnc hire another firm to pedal information to obama's fbi? >> i don't know which it was but i can follow up and get back to you on that. >> but it is a question you can answer. >> i don't know, i would have to double check with our folks on that. >> and if you couldn't would that be a case of privacy? >> i don't know if we've ultimately figured out the answer to that question. it was in a different field office with different people to interview. i don't know how much we gone down that road. >> thank you. i've been asking questions about since september 17 about what kind of defensive briefings the fbi provided to the trump campaign. the fbi told me its briefings to both campaigns were similar and that it wasn't aware of action that it took as a result. chairman johnson and i wrote

again to the fbi two months ago. he noted that text messages between peter strzok and lisa page indicated that the fbi may have used defensive briefings not to warn the trump campaign but to investigate it. for questions along this line. question number one, would you agree that with respect to the defensive briefings, the trauma campaign briefings, and if i could -- >> if i recall it was not an fbi briefing, they went to an office of the national it was a defensive briefing -- was not a defensive briefing it was an intelligence briefing. the agent wrote it up to the file and put the information. these things are identical, but

the net result was one was for investigative purposes and the other was purely for intelligence briefing. they documented statements, and interactions of, is it normal? for the counterintelligence prefers to document statements and interactions of individuals that they are briefing for investigating purposes? >> it is documented in one and not the other. there is no policy on it but based on the reaction of the current leadership and a director raise a response where he underlined of the word "this will not happen" going forward, i think it's pretty clear what his state of mind is on that. it should not have occurred.

>> question number three, did the fbi make any kind of use of the information garnered in the defense briefing, for example, to inform its leader interview with michael flynn? >> so i don't know definitively whether that did occur but that's the stated purpose for the agent being present. >> lastly, campaigns placed trust in the fbi to provide an environment of cooperation and honest assessments about the risk of foreign threats. how can the fbi repair that trust after abusing the briefing process? >> that's where we make the recommendation. this kind of strategic briefings as the chairman mentioned, for members of congress, for private citizens, companies when they get attacked, on their computer systems.

according to your report, bruce ohr told the fbi that steals reporting had gone to the clinton campaign, the key investigators knew the dossier was prepared in part to the dnc. it was known by that fbi. how many people in the fbi and doj knew that the steele dossier was political opposition research funded by the democra

democrats. >> so on the fbi side, there were a number of people who kn knew. it's challenging getting back to the chairman's question, to know what was precisely done at the highest levels of the fbi and when. because of the lack of any direct record of entire briefings but certainly with as much information as we lay out here, at the justice department, much of that information was not known. one of the concerns that we know and information about what mr. or did, mr. orr was passing along the information from mr. steele to the fbi. that information was not given by the fbi to the justice department. so the colleagues were proving and reviewing these fisas did not know that the colleague had passed along information to the

fbi. >> we will go with senator leigh and then break for lunch and come back at 1:00. >> thank you. mr. howard's it's good to see you again, and i've read an awful lot of ig reports in my years here. the component disagrees whether they had a friday night report, a general practice is to provide you with a written response to publish wrong with your report, is that correct? >> that's correct. and we always include that as and appendix to our reports. >> they file three dozen repor reports.

how many reports under name are the justice department arguing, in fact they committed more misconduct in their investigation uncovered? >> i don't recall that happening before. >> i can tell you right now, none. that's why i found it very unusual that attorney general bar didn't send you anything to go in the report, they just went to the television camera to talk about it. they will tell you about the text messages involved in the 2018 report, involving fbi lawyers, personal animus toward president trump. you also, didn't you in your investigation, find proof from text messages from agents who worked on the russian investigation, including one

that was an excellent written exchange where the agents were enthusiastically talking about trumps election, and their desired to investigate the clinton foundation, he found that, too? >> that's true. i assume the fbi investigators have strong views on politics. the question is, does it impact of their work? >> exactly right. whether they have cortical discussions or are working on a sensitive campaign in a sensitive matter or not. in our view, we took that and laid it out. we were not holding -- simply

because they express support or lack of support for kennedy. it was precisely as you indicated. >> thank you. now there was one indication where i think bias did impact the russian work. the fbi appropriately kept quiet about the russia investigation during the 2016 election. rudy giuliani and others appeared to receive highly sensitive leaks from the fbi office, leaks that likely did contributed to director comey's public announcement that he was reopening, and then asked then director comey about these leaks and he said he was investigati investigating. now we know the number of these

links to mr. giuliani, which she then ran to the cameras and actually bragged about talking about. what can you tell us about the new york offices leaks to rudolph giuliani and others? >> as we noted publicly, we were very concerned about that. we put in the appendix chart showing all the different contacts, and subsequent to that in that report and it continues to this day, we are investigating those contacts. we've issued a couple of public summary so far about people we found that violated fbi policy and we have other investigations ongoing that when we concluded, we will also post summaries out. it's what's proving to be very hard is to improve the actual substance of the communications between the agents and the reporter, or the individuals. as you might guess. but we can prove the contacts

and under fbi policy you need authorization if you are going to disclose information and have certain contacts. >> thank you. your central finding is the trump campaign was not influenced by political bias, is that correct? >> the opening of the investigation we found was not connected to the any of the biased text that we identified. >> now from the room, maybe i've heard them, but the president direction they've been combing for fringe theories. i'm not clear what legitimate law enforcement purposes serves. how do we know that politics is not driving the ba bar durham

investigation? >> i'm not sure how anybody knows what you don't know, or unless you do an investigation, you review it, and as you look through as we did for example here, a million records in an exhaustive effort. >> but you would agree that justice department investigations have to be free of improper political motivati motivation? >> absolutely, a thousand%. you had to be straight down the yellow line in the middle-of-the-road on anything you touched. >> does that concern you that the attorney general is running around europe to find any kind of theories that may cast doubt on the russian investigation? >> i think you would have to ask the attorney general about those meetings, i don't know what those meetings were about and obviously i haven't done any

investigation. >> i'm concerned because they did not follow the procedure normally if they had a question or disagreement with the inspector general's report. so you could include" include any disagreement if you went to the press with it. i think about when glenn fine investigated the politically motivated firing of nine u.s. attorneys during the bush administration, he said that leaders advocated the responsibility to ensure that prosecutorial decisions would be based on the law and the evidence. and in this case, for the first time, prices were not set by -- sent to you by the attorney general but even to the press.

>> there is a situation >> we will adjourn and recess until 1:00. >> so there you have the first two hours of the hearing, a couple of headlines of lindsey graham, about 20 minutes in length. horowitz was a lawyer or doctor date, to change it to the following words and not a sour source. a few things about motivation, no clear answer from horowitz. why not brief trump, was the fbi spying on trump? horowitz would not use the words

by, he called it illegal surveillance. with regard to dianne feinstein, feinstein made the statement that there was no evidence that the government put a spy inside the trump campaign. that was her statement around 11:44 a.m. senator lee he, the device in question impact their work? tough to get an answer on that as well. i want to go around the horn right now, bill hemmer and sandra smith here in new york. let's start with ken starr in dallas, texas. you've been watching and listening, what's your headline now? >> the headline is that chairman graham is extremely upset about the 17 irregularities and he condemned those a regulatory irregularities specifically with the pfizer process. so we have a couple of narratives going on. with the democrats emphasizing that the inspector general did not find political bias in terms of starting the investigation,

then i thought that mr. horowitz who was very careful, very cautious and very professional was a very, very clear with respect to the start of the investigation. but then we move of course to what the hearing really is all about and the inspector general's report is all about, which is the abuse of pfizer. the fisa court needs to be looking at this. and if we are going to continue to support the fisa court, those 11 judges who do a very, very good job, then they need to show i think to the congress of the united states which does have the power to do oversight over the fisa court, then the article three branch is as deeply concerned about the fisa abuse as now the article one branch that the senate is.

so you have these completive, competing narratives that continue to be fleshed out in the afternoon. it's a terrible and shocking abuse of the pfizer process and not infecting the department of justice. that's one of the important takeaways i believe. the department of justice did not have all the information it needed to have in order to go forward in an honorable way, a professional way, honest way with the fisa court. >> sandra: andy mccarthy also with us on his legal analysis. if you've been sitting in studio watch all of this unfold this morning, michael horowitz describing what he called failure by the entire chain of command involved in the fbi investigation, saying that they made it "so many basic and fundamental errors, one of the most sensitive fbi investigations ever."

here's a moment where michael horowitz dug into deeper detail there on what he identified a significant inaccuracy and then goes on to quantify them. watch together. >> seven in the first application and a total of 17 by the final renewal application. department low to lawyers in the court should have been given complete and accurate information so they could have meaningfully evaluated probable cause before authorizing the surveillance of a u.s. person associated with the presidential campaign. >> sandra: now andy, your thoughts? >> watching this for a very long time in a federal prosecutor's office, i have to confess i am stunned by the impression conveyed that this could have been five people having conversations and nobody else

knows about anything. they were going to court under oath, and telling the court they had probable cause to believe that the trump campaign could be in a cyber espionage conspiracy with a hostile foreign power, the kremlin. the thought that there are only five people in on that, in the justice department lawyers, the idea that people are not asking questions and making sure that before they put allegations in a complaint or an affidavit, that is going to make that kind of allegation, is just absurd to me. it would have never have happened. i happened to have worked for some time, and -- >> so you are

not buying this, andy? >> i'm having the outer body experience the whole day, especially the conversation about whether bias motivated this or not. i kind of feel like, whenever there is a jihadist terrorist attack where the evidence is neon blinking, and we sit around saying, when he may never know what the motive was. >> and that -- >> but bill, here's what he says. he says bias didn't appear to affect the opening of the investigation, which he is able to say because the standards for opening the investigation are so low that's where it becomes more difficult to assess. as i listen to them say that, i

must say, if you were trying cases to justice department lawyers instead of common sense juries, no one would ever be convicted. what we continue to say again and again, we do not get testimony or documented 11. that's a lawyer way of saying, there is no document. and they say yes, i was bias. if you prove bias in the courtroom, they do it on the basis of common sense inference from what people say and what they do. we don't rely on someone to say, unbiased. >> bill: to bret baier in washington, what do you think we have done? >> just a note this is the same argument that congressman eric swalwell, and someone came

in with a raincoat that's wet and boots that are wet and an umbrella that stripping, can you come to the conclusion that it's raining outside? and and it's the same kind of thing. andy is exactly right on the bias question, on the launching across of our hurricane, and horowitz says we didn't find document documented or -- explanations to why these things were happening along the way. and dianne feinstein goes down the road of what you did you hear from the attorney general bar, and john durham, the u.s. attorney, did they say they had problems? that's the opening of the

investigation which may have political bias. did they tell you anything that changed your mind and that's where the democrats are kind of pump coming on it. >> it was in the very first few minutes of chris wallace, that michael horowitz, lindsey graham complained to michael horowitz that the trump campaign never received extensive -- and this ultimately ended in horowitz saying no, the campaign was not notified. >> was there ever a defensive briefing given by the fbi or department of justice to donald trump about the concerns? >> there was not. what would you call a counterintelligence investigation that never had a

protected element? >> i'm not sure, i'm sorry. >> they did not. >> the conversation a couple of times already, since they took a brief recess here. chris i thought i would ask you about that moment. >> i have a couple of other things to say. and, that's because a defensive briefing is to protect people from infiltration from another source. they were not sure whether, and paul manafort as part of that conspiracy. that's a protective hearing, because they weren't sure whether these people were victims of a russian interference or coconspirators on or russian interference.

michael horowitz delivered very damaging evidence, and perhaps crimes being conducted in the fisa warrants. he talks about the cia contacts, one of the lawyers talk to the cia. paige was having all these contacts with the russians and they went to the cia to ask about it and the cia said, in fact he is acting as a source for us, and when they did the fisa warrant they set according to the cia he was not a source for them. they are completely blowing a hole in the argument the fbi was making that there was something worry some about his contacts with the fbi. also remember, steele wasn't in russia, he was talking to people.

and it turned out that they went to one of the people on the source that completely contradicted what steele had reported. they are clearly -- if there clearly were some very serious, as i say misconduct or perhaps crimes. and, that has really gone unchallenged so far. that was something that brett referenced when dianne feinstein asked horowitz, we've heard complaints from bill barr. also even in a very unusual statement from john durham, the u.s. attorney who is conducting an investigation. did you talk to them?

yes, horowitz did. did you give them any information to question your conclusion that this was politically biased, not politically biased, and they said no. the only thing that durham raised was whether they should be a preliminary fbi investigation or a full fbi investigation, counterintelligence investigation at the start. and one last point which is that lalay he got into the question that was issued monday by the inspector general. and how many times does the attorney general, all of those are too tough on the fbi and are going back with it wasn't such terrible misconduct. and how many times has it happened with whether the fbi or

attorney general said it, it's more misconduct than you are saying, this is the only one. in every other case the attorney general gives them something that they put on at the end of the report. it they went to a couple media events and poster of the report and poster the fbi. so there are two points here. fisa and the misconduct there or. you have mike lee coming up, and ted cruz coming up so maybe some of the questions that we are searching for will come up the there. one last thing before we bring martha martha in here. the steele dossier was paid for by democrats and he said a number of people knew. how high it went was not exactly clear. to martha he now and your observations so far as of 12:30?

>> a couple of things, just the basic questions as to why the inspector general did not make a finding on political bias with regard to the phis applications themselves. i think that's a question that needs to be asked because as has been pointed out, he has said, it's very clear, and he didn't find political bias in terms of opening the initiation of cross fire hurricanes. that's with regard to the ongoing applications. i think that was in his purview so that was part of what his investigation was, and it would be helpful in terms of going further. bill free sap who was the deputy

assistance, counterintelligence deputy, talks about why they didn't brief president trump, and he is not pointing to the principal. they did not give a defensive briefing to then candidate nominee trump. he said ultimately they decided not to conduct offensive briefings and expend his reasoning. while the counterintelligence division does regularly provide briefings to governmental officials are possible soon to be officials, in my experience we do this, that the person to whom we could brief would be the relevant foreign adversary. and there does not appear to be

evidence to support why they would not have gone to him and given him that briefing. >> >> senator lindsey graham asked the inspector general if carter page was treated fairly by the doj and fbi and here's the exchange. >> if you've never met carter page one thing you will not accuse him of it is being james bond. this george papadopoulos picked by slam clovis to be part of trump's national security theme, this national security team was literally picked up off the street. if you had a photo with donald trump, he spent more time with donald trump then papadopoulos and paige. >> there was that moment as well but the moment when he did ask the inspector general if he was treated fairly, michael horowitz said, i don't think they treated them fairly. i don't think the response is failing anyone forward to put it

that information. >> do you feel that i don't think the department of justice fairly treated the sizes and he was on the receiving end of it. >> you would not want to be on the receiving end of this, would you? >> i would not want agents or anybody, and i would be very comfortable with you investigating anyone. >> >> my identity has been reduced to a series of false accusations, fbi spying ruined my good name. and there was then that moment. >> will he was deftly not james bond, more like austin powers but maybe not at that level.

certainly not as glamorous. the point here i think is, you have people focusing on the pfizer documents in the way the presentation was made to the court. no one questioning the credibility, and i think it's in the application and how the application -- you have law-enforcement kind of terror tailoring in order to get the response the way he wanted. i'm a former police reporter, and you know that in terms of sources that everyone was so focused on fbi, want some people say are clerical errors but it's clearly fbi playing at the edges, if not going over the line. the big message here is, we don't see any indication that they were doing so at the order

of the obama administration, we hear some suggestion on that. that was part of some deep state effort, intended and aimed to unsettle either the trump campaign or the term presidency. we don't see any direct contradiction to the bottom line. the main take away that there was no political bias and the origins. one other point to make, we haven't heard anyone talk about the fact that the fbi knew and russia was interfering in the 2016 campaign. that's why when the question comes, why didn't you inform trump. it's clear that the fbi feared that campaign operatives -- >>

if you are candid trump, you have that information. unless i've got somebody on my team, that's an obvious and apparent question. >> but your assumption is, what if it is the candidate? >> welcome to to another level then. >> >> bill: listen, a lot of this has gone back to the abuse of power and it's pretty clear from all this they get warrants to spy on every day americans and that there is a very civil case.

they experience prosecutors in their own right but you also have kamala harris who is just off the campaign trail and she will want to make a point today. in regard to the fisa court and the whole pfizer process, and that's how critically important it is and, it has to be reviewed and reformed if it is going to continue to have his support. pfizer has not come to this moment without a lot of controversy in the last 20 years or even further than that. incompetence is unacceptable. so you would have to go through filing. you have to do all these checks and you find out that these guys were cutting all of the corners,

and that to me, senator graham will get them to not have a fisa court or have a national law enforcement or security unacceptable. >> two things, the fisa court went into existence in the 1970 so it's been there for a decade. my point is, if it is approved, it's partly because the process is so exacting. you were supposed to have hit all of those benchmarks, and that's why when you get to the court, the court then says, if you followed all these things, the court apparently was lied

to. incompetence is unacceptable. if it gets to malfeasance that they knew what they were doing, and mr. will, mr. horowitz -- we are not all dumb. like, we know what could have been happening. but i also think on the defensive briefing that could also be true. when the report first comes out, they said the fisa warrant was warranted based on other information. then john durham who is doing the larger report says i disagree but i will have more to say later. that's a missing piece of all this. >> are we fair to question the decision of the court? >> i've never been a fan of pfizer, i got to look at it up close and personal, and i think everything that's happened here demonstrates -- and i want to be clear about this. i'm not saying that the executive branch doesn't need

oversight, far from it. i think we need searching oversight and that oversight ought to be done by congress and not the courts. that's the executive function which is protection of the united states. you are putting the court impossible position, leaving politics aside, and we think al qaeda is going to be -- it's about to go up manhattan. do you want to be the judge to tell them that you can't have their warrant when they are the guys closest to the information and they are the ones -- the people that we like to come up and in the executive branch at least the elected officials and people that work with them to protect the country? >> it will be granted. all of you stand by here, the hearing will resume we believe right around 1:00. in the meantime, here is one of lindsey graham's moments from just a bit earlier. >> so your team, you are able to

uncover and discover abuse of power i never believed it would actually exist in 2019. how bad is it? it was as if j. edgar hoover came back to life. over one hundred national parks protected. over two million meals provided. through the subaru share the love event, subaru will have proudly donated over one hundred seventy million dollars to national and hometown charities over twelve years. (shelter attendant) thank you. (grandfather) thank you. (senior) thank you. (make-a-wish child) thank you.

quitting smoking is freaking hard.st, like quitting every monday hard. quitting feels so big. so, try making it smaller. and you'll be surprised at how easily starting small... ...can lead to something big. start stopping with nicorette creais back at red lobster.ast with new creations to choose from; like rich, butter-poached maine lobster and crispy crab-stuffed shrimp rangoon. how will you pick just 4 of 10? it won't be easy. better hurry in. great riches will find you when liberty mutual customizes your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wow. thanks, zoltar. how can i ever repay you? maybe you could free zoltar?

thanks, lady. taxi! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ >> continuing coverage of the senate judiciary committee on the inspector general's report now. my thought, in the hearing you had senator graham asking horowitz the inspector general, saying does this report vindicate jim comey, the former fbi director, as he's climbing this week? and horowitz says the activities we found here don't vindicate anyone who touch this. essentially, it's willful ignorance and exceptional competence, or intended misconduct here. and it's interesting to see how

jim comey factors into this. when did you learn the dnc and hillary clinton campaign funded hillary clinton's work? >> still don't know that for a fact. i never knew exactly which democrats had funded. i knew it was funded first by republicans -- >> but they did not fund the christopher steele memo or dossier. >> my understanding was the activity was begun and it was first funded by republicans and then picked up -- the important thing is picked up by democrats opposed to donald trump. >> did you tell president obama who it was funded by? did you want to know i who it ws funded by? >> i wanted to know what i knew. >> you called hi the dossier

unverified and salacious. so why did you -- >> that wasn't my recollection. my recollection is it was part of a broader mosaic of facts that were laid before the pfizer judge to obtain a fisa warrant. >> the ig report, and ken says that the steele dossier was crucial and central to the pfizer report. >> absolutely. it was the core of the submission and reminded of the old saying frequently wrong but never in doubt. mr. comey has a very bad recollection or he is deliberately ignoring that which now the whole world knows which we have long suspected which is the steele dossier was at the heart and soul of the intrusion and the civil liberties of carter page. by the way, i'm so glad that

chairman graham encouraged carter page to hire a lawyer, and to sue the fbi and the justice department. it is an american from everyone who graduated from the naval academy, and providing our government with valuable information and this is the thanks that he gets. once again i think it shows, jim comey's lack of judgment. and we don't know the extent of this, but what we do know is this was his shot. these were people operating, and that tone including the moral turn starts at the top and seeps down. so this i think is just a terrible blight again on the service of jim comey.

one final thing i wanted to get in about the fisa court, we need to remember how the fisa court came to be, and it was part of the reaction of the congress bipartisan only and we've now had the many years, and i actually as the attorney general have approved pfizer applications it's a very difficult process. how do you do it, and you ask questions and you i guess except representations. my data, of the key fbi agent and the senior lawyer at the justice department. it's a very tough process.

i wouldn't go quite so far, and we do need to take a careful look at this entire apparatus because the judges, the 11 judges of this a very important court are operating at a terrible handicap. plus the handicap, there's no lawyer or voice on the inside. that's a way judges decide cas cases. >> i mentioned at the top of the show about devin nunes' memo about the pfizer abuses that he put out as chairman of the house intelligence committee. shortly thereafter, adam schiff put out a report that had the exact opposite thing. we now know that the ig report defends the devin nunes memo completely and almost every aspect. the washington journal opinion pages saying the house impeachment manager adam schiff has a lot answer for and how he misrepresented what happened with the fbi. >> is actually knowing a lot

about this for a long time because we now not only have this report and previously we had not only the report but senators grassley and graham filed a very important, i thought, memo in connection with this. i think it was shortly after the nunes report came out and it was the first one that actually quoted from the pfizer documents and is since then we actually got the actual documents. but the point i think they make is that they can't look at how they presented the probable cause showing on page and square that with what you heard your interview with former director coming. it's just that the two things can't be squared. if i could just react to one other thing, which again i'm not a fan of.

here's where i think the breakdown is. i think it's a deeper point and that's this. when i was a federal prosecutor doing criminal cases, i was permitted to go to federal judges to get the search warrant and i went in what would be a secret proceeding in a sense that as the judge points out, no one from the other side as they are. but operating assumption in the equation is that essentially there's a prosecution not only known but given to defense lawyers for the people who are accused who have a powerful incentive to investigate the case, and discover it, if i have said something that was misleading to the court. so we obviously hope that we get honorable people but, what keeps

people honest in the criminal justice system is the fact that everyone knows his or her work is going to be checked. that doesn't just exist in the fisa court, but people should be -- every time you get a little sunshine or look under the rock, it turns out that they are playing fast and root, loose the rules. >> quick question for ken starr and then we go back to the bre break. it is central and essential, and as we did in brad's interview, it didn't really matter. wasn't really part of this. then we have learned, they start to bolster it up and stick band-aids on it, and send it back to the fisa court. >> completely not just inappropriate but wrongheaded. i would go ahead and now borrow from bill barr who says that

this was malfeasance and misfeasance. that's maybe a little distinction there. and that's what we see in article one of the proposed articles of impeachment. an abuse of power. and, be honest and show basic into integrity. you've committed a terrible moral offense against the liberties of the american peop people. >> thank you very much. we will take a quick break there before we head back to the action on capitol hill, right after this.

most people think of verizon as a reliable phone company. but to businesses, we're a reliable partner. we keep companies ready for what's next. (man) we weave security into their business. (second man) virtualize their operations. (woman) and build ai customer experiences. (second woman) we also keep them ready for the next big opportunity. like 5g. almost all of the fortune 500 partner with us. (woman) when it comes to digital transformation... verizon keeps business ready. doprevagen is the number oneild mempharmacist-recommendeding?

memory support brand. you can find it in the vitamin aisle in stores everywhere. prevagen. healthier brain. better life. billions of problems. dry mouth? parched mouth? cotton mouth? there's a therabreath for you. therabreath oral rinse and lozenges. help relieve dry mouth using natural enzymes to soothe and moisturize. so you can... breathe easy, there's therabreath at walmart.

>> 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. it's stunning, its end at salacious and it's a bunch of. >> senator lindsey graham, chairman of the senate judiciary committee talking about the steele dossier, the focus of this inspector general's 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 isn't just come u