was also being considered. i thought i should step in at that point. secondly he said i want to preserve the reputation of the department of justice. is there anyone on or off this committee who believes that general barr's actions yesterday preserved the integrity of the department of justice? baseless claims are being made about voter fraud. do you know what the litigants' record is in court since the election? protesting the outcome of the election? 0 for 10. they have no evidence whatsoever of election fraud. if they did they would certainly bring it forward. i want to close by thanking former president george w. bush of texas for stepping up and doing the honorable thing and acknowledging to now president-elect joe biden that he did win. that he will be the next president, and he, president bush, is

>> he did win, that he will be the next president and he, president bush, is a proud republican, thought that was time for him to step up for the good of the republic. i yield. >> thanks, senator dick durbin. i would like to respond about the committee, what we're doing and why. >> we are going to investigate how the carter page warrant application was submitted numerous times to the fisa court with inaccurate information. i think it is important to have every person who signed it say if i knew then what i know now, i wouldn't have signed it, it is pretty stunning. the committee, september 29th, received information per director ratcliffe, the cia

informs f.b.i. hillary clinton, as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server. if you look at the classified inform agatio information, there is more there. i guess what we're saying, you accept without any doubt the f.b.i. should have looked at all things trump based on papadopoulos, it would have been dereliction of duty not to do so. when the c.i.a. informed f.b.i. that hillary clinton may have signed off on a plan to link trump to russia political reasons, nobody did anything. there was an investigation opened. mr. mccabe didn't know about it. the f.b.i. director says it didn't ring a bell. the person it went to is peter

strzok, who is bias toward president trump. if you believed it would be dereliction of duty not to look at trump, regarding a bar conversation in london that led to everything we've dealt with for 2-1/2 years, we were wondering just out loud here, how could you ignore the c.i.a. information provided to the f.b.i. that democratic candidate signed off on a plan which may explain some garbage. you're okay with that? we're not. you're perfectly fine with the fact democratic candidate for president of the united states in 2016, the c.i.a., had information she signed off on the plan to link the republican candidate to russia for political purposes and nobody did anything, you are fine with that? we are not. that is a big deal to me. this won't be the last election we'll

ever have and you can't live in a country this way. you can't live in a country where they take a c.i.a. lead and put it in the garbage can and nobody do anything. that is not fair to this country. that is got to stop. you can't have two standards, will you help me make sure mueller doesn't get fired? yes. mueller got to do his job. here is what we're upset about, nobody took allegations from the c.i.a. seriously about hillary clinton effort to sign off on a plan. it may not be true, but somebody should have looked at it. nobody cared over that. most people on this side of the aisle believe when it came to clinton and trump, the f.b.i. and all the people involved cross-fire hurricane shut out anything that would change the narrative trump was involved with the russians nor every stop sign about carter page, kept ignoring inform agtion because

they wanted an outcome. they didn't lift a finger for our own c.i.a. >> mr. chairman, may i respond? >> yes, please. >> mr. chairman, what you said is so alarming that we should have had a thorough nonpartisan investigation of the cross fire hurricane. turns out we did. inspector general michael horowitz found f.b.i. cross fire hurricane had actual predcasion and not influenced by bias. wray agreed, that is not what william barr wanted to hear so tried to reopen that independent ig investigation in every partisan way possible and this is the fourth try in this committee. enough. >> with all due respect, senator durbin, does it not bother you c.i.a. tells of a plan hillary

clinton may have signed off on and nobody looked at? >> may i jump in? >> please. >> actually, it doesn't. >> okay. >> i'll tell you why it doesn't. the f.b.i. is an agency of limited and specific jurisdiction. it has ability to pursue predicated criminal investigations and i think we've all agreed a political campaign choosing to tie politically the opponent to a foreign country, is not criminal act. trump campaign tried to do that with joe biden in this campaign. it's not a criminal act. if you look at this as an investigation, the obvious difference is that the information that the f.b.i. was receiving about carter page and the trump campaign is there were contacts, contacts between russian intelligent operatives and trump campaign operatives.

when you have contacts going on, that does light up a flag on counter intelligence front. i don't see how anybody could disagree that is the case. when you have a campaign making internal campaign policy to try to say either biden is too close to china, you can't trust him. or trump is too close to russia, you can't trust him. i don't think the f.b.i. has a lot of business interfering in that type of public campaign political debate. i'll bet if the f.b.i. would look into trump campaign and what he said about biden and trying biden to trump, you would be beside yourself with irritation and anger that the f.b.i. had taken that step and yet here you're storying the f.b.i. for staying away from that step with respect to an

internal political strategy of the hillary campaign. i don't see how that gets you either to criminality or the type of contacts with a foreign power that raise counter intelligence concern. you keep asking this question, here is my answer. >> my reply to your answer and we'll get to senator lee n. this case, there was no criminal investigation open. it was counter intelligence based on a conversation by the australian ambassador kingdom with papadopoulos in a bar and papadopoulos said i am not working with the russians, that would be treason. that opened crossfire hurricane in the mueller investigation. one thing you are overlooking here, the steele dossier, prepared by christopher steele on the payroll of the democratic

party. he was working through fusion gps being paid by the democratic party, he created a document that was garbage. the state department calls the f.b.i. and says this guy wants trump not to win in the worst way. bruce orr and other people warned f.b.i. that the christopher steele document is suspect at best. the c.i.a. informs f.b.i. it is internet rumor. this is a situation where, if the clinton campaign, created this impression trump was working with russians through christopher steele, who is on the payroll, yeah, maybe that makes it all make sense. maybe that explains this dossier was prepared by a political person, by a person on the payroll that was used to get a warrant against an american citizen. this is first time i know of that our position research winds up being used by the f.b.i. to

get a warrant against an american citizen, member of the other campaign. i am sad the c.i.a. information about hillary clinton signing off on plan to link trump to russia wasn't looked at, it may have explained christopher steele and the dossier. seniority lee? >> thank you, mr. chairman. according to handwritten notes from the meeting mr. mccabe attended, the fbi strategy with general michael flynn was to "get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired," and also, "if we can get him to admit to breaking the logan act, give to the department of justice and have them decide." in this case, in an informal

intervi without counsel present? >> i will not speak for the notes -- >> just asking if it is difficult. >> i can tell you it is common to discuss before an interview the many different ways that interview might turn out and one of those ways is that the subject or the witness you are interviewing might be deliberately deceptive. it is common to think through how you would handle that. >> okay, in his 302 interview, peter strzok stated "before the interview, mccabe issue the f.b.i. general counsel and others decided agents would not warn flynn it was a crime to lie during an f.b.i. interview, they wanted flynn to be relaxed and they were worried it might affect the rapport."

is it normal to not inform interviewees of their rights in investigational interviews? >> there is no requirement to tell an interviewee it is a crime to lie to the f.b.i. it is very common for agents and supervisors to discuss how they are going to handle the different elements of interview before they do it. >> you don't do that all the time, one of the reason,you rely on informal interviews and get a lot of information out of them. if you warn them in advance and making them feel like targets, that's a problem. it can become a problem and invariably does, when people are lured to informal interview with one set of expectations created for them and you repeatedly dash them. the meeting with general flynn, you threatened to elevate the

issue of flynn's call to the department of justice if he appeared at the interview with counsel. statements made by general flynn during this same interview, where you advised him to appear also, were used as the basis for his prosecution. is it standard practice for the f.b.i. to threaten high-level administration officials if they refuse to appear without counsel or at least without somebody from the white house counsel's office? >> well, the premise of your question is absolutely false, i did not threaten general flynn with anything, general flynn and i during a short conversation, asked general flynn if he wanted a representative or his own attorney to attend the interview. i told him if that was the case,

i would need the agents to bring an attorney from the department of justice and general flynn replied he didn't want to bring an attorney to the interview, which is his right and we proceeded in that way. >> okay, i'm looking at your notes regarding your conversation with general flynn, "i explained to general flynn my desire to have two agents interview him quickly, quietly and discreetly as possible. he offered to meet with agents today. we had a discussion and conducted the interview at his office at 1430 this actual. i explained the quickest way to get this done have a conversation between him and the agents only and stated if general flynn wished to include anyone else in the meeting like white house counsel, i would need to involve the department of justice. he stated this would not be necessary and agreed to proceed without any additional participants. that to me carries a certain

suggestion. based based -- 302, director james comey admitted he would have informed the obama white house chief of staff, mcdonough, if this was occurring under analogous situations, why this disparate treatment? why have one standard you inform chief of staff in one instance, but not in another administration? >> well, sir, i can't speak for why jim comey, what he thought at the time, i'm not aware of that. >> okay. mr. mccabe, crossfire hurricane investigation in front of this committee, we haven't been able to get a single straight answer to critical questions, including who in the leadership with the

department of justice knew about serious flaws contained in the fisa warrant before submitted on october 21, 2016? also, who knew by the time the first renewal was submitted on january 12, 2017 or how about the second renewal, april 27th and most importantly for today's purposes, who knew when you signed the third renewal on june 28, 2017? nobody seems to be telling us anything, back in august, deputy attorney general sally yates told the committee she had no idea where critical factual errors of the application, no idea those were there. a few weeks ago, director comey told us he didn't know about the errors and now you have told this committee what is your

answer to these questions, tell me what you were aware of as of those dates? >> well, i've been pretty clear that i was not aware of the ig's report or any other errors present in the package that i signed in june of 2017. >> mr. chairman, could i get ana additional two minutes, i think i can wrap up in that time. thank you. you stated in written testimony, fisa remains one of the most important tools in our country's efforts to protect national security. f.b.i. is custodian of that tool. i fully support f.b.i.'s use of fieb fieb making high standards of the court and the american people, they demand and reserve and deserve. that is all well and good, i like the statement. i would note, i've heard this line before, more times than i

can possibly count while sitting on this committee. your comments are nearly identical to those i heard from f.b.i. official after f.b.i. official from basically every f.b.i. official who has testified in front of this committee on this issue. trust us, we're the good guys and we need secret surveillance authorities to keep you safe. furthermore, you don't need to worry, these are not what you are looking for because we are good guys and require high level of approval. turns out, mr. mccabe, none of the people involved in high-level approval, same people who told me over and over again over the last decade, they were reviewing them and that is why it was okay. none of them can answer this question, that is why we're here again. how are we supposed to tell the american people to have confidence in this secret fisa surveillance process if, mind you, this is hard to believe, no

one in fbi leadership, no one in leadership of doj or fbi wants to admit they were aware of serious flaws in a high-profile investigation, what assurances could you possibly give us the fisa application targeting everyday americans, just u.s. citizens, not foreign suspected terrorists and not even high-profile government officials in the united states, are subjected to stricter scrutiny? the fact is the fisa process must be -- we can't ask americans to continue to give the federal government this enormous amount of discretion by this and have the people accountable for it say they have no idea how these things happened. i can assure you, your abuse of the fisa process has cost you trust of the american people. that in and of itself is tragic, what is more tragic, they have cost a great agency, one i work

with as federal prosecutor and had great respect and where there is still countless hard-working, honest men and women who earned the f.b.i.'s good name everyday. their reputation has been sullied and the bureau ability to do its job has been impaired by these missteps, that is why this structure must change and i won't rest until it does. >> mr. mccabe, would you like to respond? >> sure. so i certainly can't respond to things other people have said to senator lee over the last 10 years. i do agree with you that this process, the ig's oversight, the report they delivered has uncovered that there are problems with the way potentially the way the f.b.i. is handling fisa responsibilities. i think, i'm fairly confident in

saying this experience has exposed to me, at least, that we have been over confident in the process we've been using for years, we've been overconfident in prep and oversight subjecting each fisa package to. we need to thoroughly look at how do we change that process and ensure that the errors and omissions in the packages that we now know about, don't happen again. i agree in that respect, senator. >> it won't chafrnl, we have to change it. unfair discretion to human beings and they have proven they can't be trusted with it, thank you. >> senator white. >> thank you. >> i'm joaneturner, we have been listening to testimony of andy mccabe talking to the senate judiciary committee about his role in the 2016 to 2017

investigation called crossfire hurricane, when the fbi opened active investigation into alleged ties between president trump and russian officials. in this testimony so far, mccabe has been asked about a host of government officials, including hillary clinton, former boss james comey, asked about carter page. the heart of the matter in front of the committee today is alleged abuse of foreign intelligence surveillance court, that is known as fisa court. i want to bring in the panel, kennedy, and leslie marshall and trey gowdy. i will throw this out to you, trey, first. you spent inord nat amount of time on this, you know the fisa court was designed in order to protect americans from foreign terrorists. what lindsey graham, the chairman of the committee, and other republicans on senate side

alleging obama administration did was to flip that on its head and get surveillance warrant for president trump's former aide carter page. what is your take from what we've been listening to? >> trey: the f.b.i. botched two highest profile investigations they have had over the last four years, including crossfire hurricane. it is fine for andy mccabe to say, if i had known then what i know now. the question is, andy, why didn't you. the world's premiere agency, you didn't know it was done by the dnc, and christopher steele had been dismissed by your agency to follow f.b.i. rules. when did you begin to try to vet the information in that dossier? i can tell you, it was in january of 2017, that is when they started. if you're not looking for something, i guarantee you, you will not find it.

my question to andy mccabe, what would you have done if you had known then what you know now, my question is, why didn't you know? >> i want to play that sound byte for the viewers. lindsey graham asked andy mccabe, if you knew then what you know now, would you have pursued this fisa warrant application against carter page. here is what he said. >> if you knew then what you know now, would you have signed warrant application in june of 2017 against carter page? >> no, sir. >> he said that he would not have sought that fisa warrant application. trey, back to you, because the other revelation we had when it comes to the f.b.i. and potential fisa abuse and we'll move on to other elements of this story. is that he was really over the

course of 2016 and 2017, he said he stayed in lock step pretty much with the fbi director comey. what he knew, he shared with comey, what comey knew, he shared with mccabe, which was key, because at various points along the way, players in this scenario have tried to sort of say, you know, not everybody was on the same page, not everybody had the same information. comey made this case in his book, if i had known the details of this fisa warrant and application behind it, i wouldn't have pursued it, i would have stopped it. it turns out mccabe, top deputy and ally is saying he did. trey, what do you think? >> trey: my question for jim comey, we deposed him twice in the house, i was not struck by what he had forgotten, i was struck by what he never knew. you were the head of the fbi.

you were personally involved in the press conference with hillary clinton and releasing that letter in october of 2016, you made those decisions by yourself and you mean to tell me that you didn't know the dnc funded the dossier. you didn't know it was unverified? you didn't know chris steele was being paid by the f.b.i. and had been dismissed for violating rules? why are you the head of the f.b.i., we can get the greeter at walmart to not know that. how is director not integrally involved in the biggest investigation in this tenure. do i believe jim comey was asleep at the wheel? partly i do, because i deposed him, what i don't know is why. what was more important to you than your agency investigating a presidential candidate? which case in your office was more important? >> so i want perspective from the other side here, leslie marshall, we heard from senator

dick durbin, the ranking member. he said basically in his opening questioning, all of this, everything you are seeing today, entire hearing is a red flag, distraction from the real issue, trump admin tragz running of the justice department. he said it is corrupt and there are shen anigans and that is what you should be seeing today. what do you say? >> leslie: with all respect to the republicans, we are in the midst of a pandemic. we have surging numbers. this is the fourth time that we're having such a hearing. what will the outcome be? i think that dick durbin will decide that. asleep at the wheel. but is it criminal? if it is criminal, let's go down that road. the american people are concerned with 7.9% unemployment

rate, they are concerned about loved ones getting sick. they want democrats and republicans talking about that. and in addition to the children, whose parents have been lost, if you will. i agree with dick durbin, this will continue on. this will continue on, there will be investigation about hunter biden and burisma and ballot couning e election. this is why people have voted for president-elect joe biden, they are tired of 00 division and want unity. >> kennedy, i want your reaction to this clip. at one point andy mccabe said we didn't open this investigation for political reasons. we were not skewed one way or

the other. take a listen. i'll get your reaction on the other side. >> we did not open this because we liked one candidate or didn't like the other one. we did not open the case because we intended to stage a coupe or overthrow the government. or because we thought it might be interesting or wanted to drag the fbi into a political contest. we opened the case to find out how the russians might be undermining our election. >> as we just learned a few moments ago, the fisa warrant application underlying this entire investigation was deeply flawed. kennedy, do you buy it? >> kennedy: no, i don't buy it at all tochlt trey gowdy's points, if you had these systemic flaws, massive amounts of important information are escaping you, there is something wrong with your system. if flaws would exonerate someone

in the investigation, there is something wrong with the system, but the corrupt actors within it, whoa are able to get warrants signed with bad information and people look the other way and lee is right. this is a slam dunk for mike lee in that we need actual reform. you have people claiming to be boy scouts, standing in front of this agency, fortified itself to be a corruption machine and it is so easy to violate the basic constitutional rights of innocent americans, thus it needs to be changed. if this is a ghost ship steering itself, you need to send it back to the dock and fix it. that is the senate and the house's responsibility to stop talking about it and do it. >> so fisa court foreign

intelligence surveillance reform, as you mention, kennedy, was on the trump administration agenda moving forward with the biden campaign. we'll have to find out if this is still on the agenda or not. jed, what do you think about the foreign intelligence surveillance court getting wiretap investigation on an american citizen, on carter page, when the purpose of this court in the first place is to protect american is ts from terrorists? >> it is deeply concerning, what the justification was and every american citizen should be concerned about that. point to leslie's point for a moment, leslie talked about pandemic and child separation. you can simultaneously care about the pandemic and care about what is going on in the country and say, i am expected to trust institutions like the fbi and seeing a lot of reasons not to. when you look to what senator

lee asked, about who knew about the flaws, in the application and renewals and everyone in the fbi said, i don't know, i would have acted differently, if i knew. not an appropriate answer. answers need to be better than that. that coupled with lindsey graham's comments about the fbi for some things and not others creates problem for americans when they are asked to respect these institutions and to see them as nonpartisan and see them as institutions that fight for decency and transparency, a lot of what has been exposed does not reflect that. i have confidence in the ability of american citizens to simultaneously do both. you are accurate, should be able to expect this would protect american citizens. it is an enormous problem. >> that is right. trust institutions is sorely lacking these days: we'll take you back

to the explosive hearing after the break. stick with us. ake that. woohoo! 30 grams of protein and 1 gram of sugar. ensure max protein. with nutrients to support immune health. but when i started seeing things, i didn't know what was happening... so i kept it in. he started believing things that weren't true. i knew something was wrong... but i didn't say a word. during the course of their disease around 50% of people with parkinson's

may experience hallucinations or delusions. but now, doctors are prescribing nuplazid. the only fda approved medicine... proven to significantly reduce hallucinations and delusions related to parkinson's. don't take nuplazid if you are allergic to its ingredients. nuplazid can increase the risk of death in elderly people with dementia-related psychosis and is not for treating symptoms unrelated to parkinson's disease. nuplazid can cause changes in heart rhythm and should not be taken if you have certain abnormal heart rhythms or take other drugs that are known to cause changes in heart rhythm. tell your doctor about any changes in medicines you're taking. the most common side effects are swelling of the arms and legs and confusion. we spoke up and it made all the difference. ask your parkinson's specialist about nuplazid. some things are good to know. like where to find the cheapest gas in town and which supermarket gives you the most bang for your buck. something else that's good to know? if you have medicare and medicaid, you may be able to get more healthcare benefits through a humana medicare advantage plan.

call the number on your screen now and speak to a licensed humana sales agent to see if you qualify. learn about plans that could give you more healthcare benefits than you have today. depending on the plan you choose, you could have your doctor, hospital and prescription drug coverage in one convenient plan from humana, a company with nearly 60 years of experience in the healthcare industry. you'll have lots of doctors and specialists to choose from. and, if you have medicare and medicaid, a humana plan may give you other important benefits. depending on where you live, they could include dental, vision and hearing coverage. you may also get rides to plan-approved locations; home delivered meals after an in-patient hospital stay; a monthly allowance for purchasing healthy food and beverages, plus an allowance for health and wellness items. everything from over-the-counter medications and vitamins, to first-aid items and personal

care products. best of all, if you have medicare and medicaid, you may qualify for multiple opportunities throughout the year to enroll. so if you want more from medicare, call the number on your screen now to speak with a licensed humana sales agent. learn about humana plans that could give you more healthcare benefits; including coverage for prescription drugs, dental care, eye exams and glasses, hearing aids and more. a licensed humana sales agent will walk you through your options, answer any questions you have and, if you're eligible, help you enroll over the phone. call today and we'll also send this free guide. humana, a more human way to healthcare.

>> this is fox news alert. we've been listening live as former deputy director of the fbi mccabe has his day with the senate judiciary committee. fox news sources have told us this hearing has been months in the making, something the judiciary chairman lindsey graham himself has personally pursued. it was delayed because of covid. the investigation launched by the investigation back in 2016 and 2017, into the trump campaign's contact and connections with russian government officials and eventually lead to impeachment charges brought against president trump.

this issue still very much alive. what are one of the things operation crossfire hurricane revealed to the public? just a couple years earlier, the f.b.i. had open, ongoing investigation into the clinton administration, this why hillary clinton was running for president, she at the time was top democratic contender. what do you know about that? >> trey: i don't know a lot about the fbi investigation into the clinton administration. what most americans do, expect the fbi, gillian to treat everyone fairly. contract, we heard michael flynn was encouraged not to have a lawyer present, it would slow things down. contract that with the fact hillary clinton had a law firm with her when fbi deposed her.

donald trump, they treated him like a suspect. my final point on treating people equally, americans don't like interference in elections. we don't want russia to do it directly or indirectly f. we're going to spend time investigating alleged collusion, is four hearings too much to figure out whether russian misinformation was laundered through british agent and -- >> gillian: talking about the steele dossier, trey? >> trey: if we're outraged by outside interference, be outraged by all of it. >> gillian: yeah. one thing mccabe said a few minutes ago when he was pressed was he was told at the time that general michael flynn was questioned alone at length by two f.b.i. agents. he said flynn did not request to

have an attorney present and actually said he would prefer not to. does that change your thinking about any of this? >> trey: it does not, because obligation to be fair does not reside with the person being interviewed, it resides with that blindfolded woman holding a set of scales and jim comey said they wouldn't have tried to get away with it. why use the phrase "get away with it," we wouldn't have tried to get away with it with the obama administration, we thought we could get away with it with the trump administration. lady justice treats both sides fairly. >> gillian: dianne feistein said, launching an investigation into presidential candidate while running for office is kind of a big deal, that is extraordinary occurrence, isn't it and mccabe sort of said yes, it is and went on to equivocate

and say, but there was a lot of intelligence that led us to believe the trump campaign had inappropriate contact with the russian government and mentioned the steele dossier trey just mentioned, what is your take on this, having sitting investigation launch an investigation into their political opponents? >> kennedy: that they can't plead ignorance here and christopher steele was working with the f.b.i. if there was any agency that knew more about christopher steele than the fbi, it would have been british intelligence, but these are the people that were working with him. you should absolutely know what was at his disposal and it wouldn't be too difficult to vet sources that were used for that dossier, which was political opposition research. what i've been saying all along and what a lot of people should be saying, we can't be going to eastern europe, to russia and ukraine for political opposition

in presidential politics. it is on its face, wrong. christopher steele, looks like never should have been working with the fbi in the first place, he was untrustworthy actor. more reason for the fbi and especially the director, if you are talking about potential president of the united states, then you better have all of the basic inform agsz completely vetted and verified before you go forward and start ruining people's lives. >> gillian: i want to dip back into the hearing, lindsey graham is talking about the steele dossier, what kennedy was speaking about. >> i think the team, there is no question, that the crossfire team should have had much more thorough conversation with the department of justice attorneys who were responsible for preparing that package. they should have had full visibility on the facts and make informed decision whether or not they should have been included in the package. >> your testimony is no one told

you about these interviews, the substance of them, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> senator klobuchar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome back, mr. mccabe, good to see you. this hearing was set up before this election, i know that. but since we got the notice on this hearing, we now know that we have a new president, president-elect biden and a new vice president that he will see in washington and that is vice president-elect harris. i want to make clear to anyone watching this right now out in the virtual land, this is all about what happened before the 2016 election, is that correct, mr. mccabe? and around that time period? >> that is correct. >> okay. and in the 2016 election, donald trump won and hillary clinton lost, is that

correct? >> that is my understanding. >> okay. that is the correct answer. now we move forward to this election in 2020. we have a situation where our very democracy has spoken to the greatest number of people that voted ever in a presidential election. are you aware of that, mr. mccabe? >> yes, ma'am. >> and do you think there were some -- made on how he handled foreign interference in the election? >> i think it seems like, of course i'm not privy to all the information about what folks know and what steps they took, it does seem to me that the efforts to bring greater security to our elections at the state level were time and effort well spent. >> i think there is a lot more that needs to be done, senator

graham and i have the honest ads act, would be helpful for ads that are political ads taken out, to make sure, i think you are aware of that bill. i think more can be done. i think it is important to know the subject that we're talking about predates the 2016 election. i want to talk about what is happening right now with the justice department and our election. in light of what vice president biden said to the nation, he asked grim era of dehumanization be behind us, i'm sure that might have resonated with you, mr. mccabe, and that we understanding that some people didn't agree with him and voted for donald trump, but he reached out to people who voted for donald trump and said, look, i've been disappointed before and lost elections, i'm asking you to give me a chance and i

will give you a chance. that is the approach i take here, it is hard to lose elections, but we need to move on as a country. pandemic and everything before us, really intelerite of the justice system, i was actually very disheartened yesterday when attorney general barr told -- sent out memo to u.s. attorneys throughout the country asking them to examine voting irregularities, even before the states have certified their results. i had actually gotten a letter back on the 23rd, when he started questioning mail-in ballots early on and asked them to look at this because the federal prosecution of elections, justice department policies "over criminal investigation measures should not be taken "until the election in question has been concluded,

results certified and election contests concluded."so what happened yesterday is they decided to up end that policy and start getting on this train that there was something wrong with this election when in fact republican secretary of state in georgia stood by their election and said there is not systematic fraud. the republicans in arizona, the governor there, this is a state joe biden has won with a few more votes to be counted. look at what happened in pennsylvania. my concern is they are up ending this long-standing policy when the resulting in career prosecutor mpilder -- yesterday because he saw this clearly, this is reason for his resignation as political interference in the work of the justice department. so you spent decades in public

service, mr. mccabe. i want to ask you, what does it mean to see a career justice department employee resign like that? >> i think it is incredibly concerning, that is undoubtedly, senator, you know from your own experience, people in the department of justice are typically committed to long and nobel service, not just a job, it is a calling, what you choose to do with your life. when people start resigning in protest over decisions that leadership makes, i think we should take a very close look at that. in terms of election fraud generally, any time you change a well known, established policy regarding the political process in the middle of the political process, i think it raises some

very legitimate concerns about what the motivation for that change was and i think in the least case shines very dim light on the department and its impartiality. >> and with a new president coming in, what steps do you think we should be taking to restore total confidence in the department and improve moral in the department? >> you know, i think from my own experience, i look back at my own experience and decisions we made in the fbi and many things that have happened since and i think a return to the time honored principles in the department and in the bureau of being very careful about how what we do and how we do it around the political process, i think that is something that most people in the department and the bureau would really

embrace. >> all right. thank you, mr. mccabe, thank you very much. >> senat senator cruz. >> thank you, welcome. i will start by discussing the flynn investigation, investigating general flynn, memo dated january 4, 2017, to close the investigation into flynn as lacking any basis to continue. the f.b.i. had investigated and failed to find any derogatory information about general flynn and determined he was no longer a viable candidate for investigation. but then according to peter strzok, the seventh floor, the top brass of the fbi intervened to keep the investigation opened. were you the one who made the decision to keep the investigation open? >> i don't remember making that

decision, but i certainly supported keeping the case open. i don't remember being the person that made the phone call, but i think it was the right move to continue investigating once we had uncovered what we have found. >> there was no derogatory information and they recommended closing it, you made the decision or agreed with the decision to keep the investigation open on what basis? >> well, i don't know that -- i don't recall that the investigators discerned there was no basis to continue. my recollection from the conversations we were having about the flynn case. >> the memo is a memo to close the investigation because it could not find any "derogatory information about flynn and he was no longer viable candidate for investigation," that is not ambiguous, is it? >> that is not the same as what you said before.

i of course don't have that memo in front of me, our feeling at that time, we had found very little, if any, incriminating evidence about general flynn until of course we found potentially very incriminating evidence about him. >> are you referring to the logan act theory? >> no, sir, i'm referring to the fact we uncovered that general flynn was having the sort of direct contact with the government of russia that we were looking for in all of the first four cases of crossfire hurricane. >> did you support using the logan act as basis to go after general flynn? >> the logan act was not used as a basis to go after general flynn. we opened the case -- >> you are aware of the white house meeting where the notes show vice president biden directly suggested using the

logan act to go after general flynn. >> i'm not aware of that. >> you are not aware of that? those are notes from your colleagues. >> i don't mean to interrupt -- >> senator, i can say what the reasons that i agree with opening the case, that was because we thought general flynn might be having inappropriate contact with russia, that is why we opened the case. >> inappropriate? the only basis, this is decorated three-star general, the only basis that was put forward for what i think was a bogus political persecution and prosecution was an alleged violation of the logan act, which has never been used to prosecute anybody in the history of the department of justice, true? >> no, i don't believe that is true. i think -- >> name one person that has ever been prosecuted under the logan act. >> i was referring to why we opened the case against general

flynn, i'm not aware of prosecutions of the logan act. >> if i may for those listening, we're talking about a conversation between general flynn and the russia ambassador after the election, while he's the national security advisor in waiting is that correct, senator cruz? >> we are, incoming national security advisor, mr. mccabe, ben rose former deputy national security advisor to president obama said foreign leaders are having conversations with joe biden "talking about going to pursue january 20," mr. mccabe do you believe he is violating the logan act? >> i'm not aware of ben rhodes statements or -- >> take by faith that quote is accurate and it is verbatim, is that violation of the logan act under any plausible theory? >> i am not prepared to take

your statement on faith and i'm not prepared to conduct legal analysis -- >> you are a lawyer, have you ever answered a hypothetical in court? if it is correct, something the department frequently did did wrong in this investigation, if that is what ben rhodes, said, does it violate the logan act, yes or no? >> i'm not going to opine on hypothetical question about the -- >> he is talking with foreign leaders and it doesn't violate the logan act because it is unconstitutional. you auth rised using it to go after general flynn as part of politic political, i can give you the answer, hell no. the reason you won't say it, that was flimsy political purpose to go after decorated war hero because you disagreed politically with president trump.

>> sir, none of that is correct. >> which part? pick any aspect. >> we didn't investigate general flynn because we were concerned that he might violate the logan act, we were -- >> it is your -- really? >> there were no discussions of the logan act. >> there were no discussions of the logan act of the fbi or d.o.j., that is your testimony under penalty alt p perjury? >> i will not be able to accurately answer your question. >> go ahead, what is your testimony, you just said, no discussion of the logan act, does that remain your testimony? >> no, senator, that is where you cut off my testimony. >> please continue. >> i would like to finish my answer. >> please continue. >> thank you. thank you.

when we initiated the case against general flynn, it was not initiated for or as a result of any discussion -- >> mr. mccabe, you are being nonresponsive to the question, the logan act was a late pretext that was adopted after you investigated him and couldn't find anything and the career investigators recommended closing it. my time is expiring, the chairman took a little time, i will take a little bit of it back. did james comb authorize you to disclose information to the press? >> i didn't need james comey's authorization. >> i didn't ask if you need it, did he authorize you to disclose it? is >> i authorized the disclosure. >> you are not answering the question, did james comey authorize it or know about it?

did he know about it? >> to my recollection, yes, he knew about it. >> did he authorize you, did he give you the green light explicitly or implicitsly. >> i'm not asking -- >> april 18, 2018, mr. mccabe insisted he told his boss he authorized disclosure of the clinton investigation. mr. comey denied this and mr. mccabe told investigators mr. comey knew he had authorized disclosure and agreed it was a good idea. is that accurate, is that your testimony to this committee? >> that is my recollection. >> so you're aware that your testimony is 180 degrees opposite mr. comey's sworn testimony to this committee, he insisted he's never authorized anybody to leak to the press? >> i am not going to say what

director comey did or didn't say to you, however, your characterization of a leak is not accurate. >> the fbi has records that will establish whether you're telling the truth or mr. comey is telling the truth. do you believe the fbi should make that public so you can be vindicated or mr. comey can be vindicated? >> i'm not sure what records you're referring to, senator. >> any and all e-mails, correspondence showing mr. comey knew of your leaks and authorized them. >> i would like to see those records, as well. >> as would i, thank you. >> senator, i want the american people to understand that was it wrong for general flynn to talk to the russian ambassador since he was going to be new incoming national security advisor? >> is that a question to me? >> yes, sir.

>> our concerns about general flynn's contact with ambassador was that the general might be maintaining some sort of hidden or deniable contact and that me might have been person in the campaign who coordinated efforts with the russian government. the fact that general flynn lied about contact with the russians made it concerning to us. then lied to his boss, the vice president about the contacts was greatly concerning to us. >> what general flynn told fbi agent, you have the transcript, you know what i said, fbi came back and said they didn't think he lied. the problem we have here, this is after the election is over that the national security advisor has every right to be talking to foreign governments, foreign ambassadors, going on as i speak.