you and said everything is changed when it hasn't. the statement in there is false and we know it's false because two weeks ago today, we interviewed a former head of the washington field office and here is what he said in his transcript. when the trump classified document investigation began that case was handled differently than i would have expected it to be and any other case was handled. we learned a lot of stuff from crossfire hurricane that headquarters should not work the investigation, supposed to be the field offices. my concern is the department of justice was not following these principles. that's the thing that scares me the most. nothing has changed. i'm finished with this. 60% of americans now believe there is a double standard at the justice department. you know why they believe that? because there is. that has got to change. i don't think more training, more rules is going to do it. i think we have to fundamentally change the fisa process and we have to use the appropriations

process to limit how american tax dollars are spent at the department of justice. i yield back. >> general lady from texas is recognized. >> good morning. you have value the independence of a special counsel. >> i do. >> you asked garland to allow you to continue the investigation saying we want to thank you and your office for permitting our inquiry to proceed with will without interfere answer as you assured the members of the judiciary committee would be the case during the confirmation hearings to become attorney general of the united states. you value your special counsel status. it a being a rat that garland let you proceed on your case as you wish. >> that's true. >> it was important you have to as special counsel your investigation was supposed to be

independent because special counsels and attorneys are supposed to be independent, right? >> special counsel is. >> yes. they are supposed to be independent, is that correct? >> special counsel is independent of the attorney general's office. >> why is that the case in your view? >> so there can be confidence on people looking at the investigation done and decisions made. >> thank you, special counsel and special attorneys are supposed to be for the american public to prevent the conflict of interest than by appointing a special counsel and attorney general is supposed to be finding an unbiased party to do the investigating at a very level dealing with russia collusion and undermining the very fabric of the united states of america. and they are supposed to leave that person alone as you commended attorney general garland for doing.

so unlike attorney general garland, attorney general barr was very involved in your investigation, wasn't he? >> he was not involved when i became a special counsel. prior to that i worked under the supervision of the attorney general. >> he was very involved. let me bring you to this point. established early on he was interested in your investigation. on june 8, 2018, he sent then deputy attorney general rod rosenstein a memo arguing the mueller investigation should not be able to force the president to -- sending the memo barr wrote that he feels very deeply about some of the issues taking shape in the mueller matter. how often did you meet with attorney general barr in 2019? >> before i was special counsel, maybe -- with him himself, maybe every two weeks, three weeks, something of that sort.

sometimes more frequently. >> after i was appointed special counsel i'm sure i saw him but didn't meet with him. >> a lot. >> not a lot. >> how often do you speak or text with the attorney general during the investigation >> when i was special counsel or prior to that? >> special counsel, sir. >> i don't know how many times i texted with him. >> according to now public record barr scheduled 18 meetings and you and he text messaged with each other frequently, didn't you, text messages? >> i was appointed as personal counsel in october. so before that there were any number of text messages. after that i don't know. >> here are exampless. august 31, 2019, he said strongly suggest you a lot of interesting things. february 6, 2020, you texted him sir just emerging from a scif. are you open to a call earlier

this morning. february 14, 2020, said call me when you get a chance. march 19, 2020, can i tell you later. you responded certainly. march 27, 2020, you sent him the best phone number all during the time of being special counsel. an interesting one on september 24, 2019, the day the speaker pell oilsy announced an impeachment inquiry to president trump barr said call me asap and you texted back do you have a minute for a quick call. what was the purpose of this call? were you discussing the impeachment inquiry? >> i never had any conversation with barr about the impeachment inquiry. >> this is an awful lot of direct interactions with the attorney general for supposedly independent counsel prosecutor. during these messages that sound to you like appropriate interactions, they sound like appropriate interactions between an attorney general and

prosecutor investigating the administration. >> before i was appointed special counsel i worked for the attorney general of the united states. that was my supervisor. >> you subsequently become special counsel. not only did you interact with him frequently and engaged with one of his deputies. what was your relationship with the deputy? >> assistant united states attorney in the eastern district of new york. he works with one of my sons, friends. he at the the time was working at the office of the attorney general. >> rather than having any independent investigation there walls a lot of interaction between the attorney general and special prosecutor which shows the attorney general was actively directing your work. >> general lady yields back. this is amazing, mr. durham. you have had eight text messages with the attorney general of the united states in 11 months. that's amazing. i can't believe. >> parliamentary inquiry.

whose time is that? >> i yielded back. >> mr. chairman that is inappropriate. >> pointing out something. >> that is not appropriate. >> we'll go to mr. klein for five minutes from virginia. >> thank you, mr. durham, your report is not just sobering, as you stated. it is outrageous and deeply troubling. can you confirm the main points it found. f.b.i. did not have an adequate basis which to launch crossfire hurricane, correct? >> that's creek. >> they failed to examine evidence. >> correct. >> they continued text message investigation without cooperation or interview key witnesses in crossfire hurricane, correct? >> correct. >> individuals within the f.b.i. abused their authority under the foreign intelligence surveillance act, correct? >> correct. >> the f.b.i. immediately opened

crossfire hurricane as a full counter intelligence investigation. what other options could the f.b.i. have taken rather than immediately opening such an investigation? >> attorney general edward leavey essentially created the guidelines in this area. three divisions of assessments, preliminary and full. different names at the time. evolved over time and become more particular. in this instance, the information that they had received from papadopoulos about a suggestion of a suggestion and not anything about emails, but just the suggestion of a suggestion, was sufficient and would have been -- would have required the f.b.i. to look at what is this about? you open it as an assessment and analytically try to collect intelligence that either supports or refutes or explains that information. that's the whole purpose of it. you assess it and move to a preliminary investigation. if evidence bears it out you go to a full investigation where

you have all the tools available, including the most intrusive, physical surveillance and electronic surveillance of u.s. citizens. here they immediately went to open it as a full investigation without having talked to the australians or gathered other evidence. >> investigators relied on misstatements by the human source. ignored statements from papadopoulos and submitted the application to sur veil page. is it true an f.b.i. employee fabricated this evidence? can you expand on that fabrication and the reliance to support that? >> in connection with one of the extensions, the final extension or renewal of the fisa page. one of the agents wanted to be certain there was information that -- was there information whether or not carter page had been a source of information to the c.i.a. and pressed kevin clinesmith in

the general counsel's office on that point. clinesmith got ahold of people at another government intelligence agency on the issue hand that person said that yes, an f.b.i. parlance carter page was the source. and put that in writing. when clinesmith talked to the agent who was saying we want to be sure on this, was he or is he not a source, clinesmith said he said he is not. did we get that in writing. clinesmith said yes and they said i want to see it and clinesmith altered the other government agency document to reflect it to say that page walls not a source when he was. >> what did investigators mean will they said they hoped it would self-corroborate. >> that is troublesome. if we can get electric throne i

can surveillance of page we'll find out whether we do have probable cause or not. >> really they supposed to corroborate information before or after it's included in a fisa application? >> you have to have that before you much intrude in the liberties of american citizens. >> the f.b.i. is required to follow its woods procedures which the f.b.i. adopted to insure the accuracy of information in fisa applications. >> that's correct. >> did they every criticize the handling of it? >> yes. ultimately there was an memorandum having the information that was disclosed in the investigation done by inspector general horowitz, a very thorough job and well written report. had they known that at least the second and third renewal

applications would not have established probable cause. i think the borough -- the department of justice acknowledged that as well. if the fisk had all the information included in this report, i think it's highly doubtful there would have ever been an application submitted. if it was submitted that the order would be granted. >> mr. durham, you were appointed by whom? who premed you and appointed you? >> as the special counsel? >> as u.s. attorney, president trump at the time. two democratic senators from connecticut supporting the nomination. >> mr. trump appointed you. do you believe mr. trump has good judgment on people, their abilities and character? >> i won't characterize mr. trump or my thoughts about him. >> mr. barr appointed you special counsel, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> mr. trump called mr. barr a

coward, rhino and gutless pig. which is correct and which isn't? >> none of those are correct in my experience. >> mr. trump isn't that good of an expert on character and judging people. in your opinion he isn't. he is not a gutless pig, trump says he is. >> that's outside the scope of my report. >> also outside of the scope of your report was apparently the meeting at trump tower between the russians and the trump boys where they talked about allegedly adoptions but we know it was really about sanctions. how was that outside of your report? >> i didn't follow that. >> trump tore, russian attorney came to donald trump junior, wonderful, we love it, we love

it. russian decisions to interact with the trump campaign and influence the actions of the campaign allegedly for adoption law but really for sanctions relief. the f.b.i. came up with that, did they not? >> a meeting took place at trump tower june 9th. derogatory information clinton provided. they met and as i believe in a report, the report laid that out that the discussion then at trump towers was about adoption, not about anything relating to mrs. clinton. >> it is totally about sanctions, trying to get rid of a law. adoptions is a ruse. should you not have looked into that and seen what the russians were wanting in return for that? the biggest thing putin wanted

to trump to relieve his people of sanctions. >> i think that director mueller investigated that and one of your house committees explored that. that was outside the scope of what we were looking at. >> it was outside the scope of your authority to look at p manafort meeting to exchange polling data. >> i'm not following you. >> you remember manafort the crook that managed the campaign for nothing but got money from different russian people over the years that you pardoned and mr. barr pardoned? manafort. >> i know who he is. >> he met with someone and discussed polling data. >> i know that the man met with a lot of people. >> he met will manafort and discussed polling data. >> i am aware of that.

>> why didn't you look into it and see if the f.b.i. was correct that there was a connection between russia and the trump campaign to elect trump. >> my assignment was to look at the intelligence agencies not to look at a separate investigation done by the house, senate or director mueller. >> you don't think if the intelligence communities, f.b.i. and others came up with this information and did good work that that should be part of your balanced report? >> i'm not following your question, i apologize. >> i'm trying to fall ole your report. mr. donald trump junior would have called it a nothing burger. you got no convictions, you got nothing. it was all set up to hurt the mueller report, which was correct and redacted. to hurt the bidens and to help trump. you were a part of it.

you have a good reputation. you had a good reputation and why two democrats supported you. the longer you hold on to mr. barr and this report that mr. barr gave you as special counsel your reputation will be damaged as everyone's are who gets involved with trump. you will end up at the bottom of a pyre. >> can we -- witness can respond. >> my concern about my reputation is with the people who i respect and my family and my lord. and i'm perfectly comfortable with my reputation with them, sir. >> well said, god bless you. [applause] the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. fitzgerald. >> mr. durham, thank you for

being here today. on october 3, 2016, the f.b.i. met with christopher steele who confessed to relying heavily on a russian national living in washington, d.c. as a sub source. that sub source was later identified as danchenko. steele not only used danchenko to create the dossier but steele was unable to corroborate any of the substantial gagss made in the dossier, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> even after the f.b.i. offered steele a million dollars if somehow he could actually follow through and underscore some of those specific items, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so the f.b.i. interviewed danchenko and steele sub source for three days from january 24th through january 26th of 17. he could not provide any

evidence corroborating allegations contained in the dossier, is that creek? >> that's a fact. >> the f.b.i. paid danchenko as a confidential human source, correct? >> that's correct. >> and did the f.b.i. propose making future payments totaling more than $3 hundred thousand? >> that's correct. >> he becomes a source and enlists dolan as was brought up earlier, a democrat operative and advisor to clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. >> that's correct. >> did danchenko ever disclose his relationship with charles dolan to the f.b.i. that you are aware of? >> he did not during the interviews conducted in january. subsequently he was asked in an interview with his handler did

he know charles dolan. you listen to the recording. he hesitates for an awkward period of time and said yes, he acknowledged knowing mr. dolan. >> do you think he had anything to do he was worried with disclosing a democrat operative as a sub source might jeopardize the whole payroll deal the f.b.i. set up with him? >> we lay these facts out as we do other facts in the report and leave it to others to draw reasonable conclusions or inferences from those facts. >> of the hundreds of individuals who the f.b.i. interviewed through the course of crossfire hurricane and mueller's investigation, this came up earlier, was charles dolan ever interviewed by the f.b.i.? >> he was not. >> do you have any insight as to why the f.b.i. would not interview him or overlook such a high-profile person in this

whole investigation? >> that's something of a mystery going back to october 3rd. according to the assistant at aceh for the bureau. when he first -- going back to july 5th. when he first met with steele, steele had indicated to him at the time that h.c. was aware of that steele was doing. when the bureau interviewed steele on october 3rd about matters relating to crossfire hurricane, steele in fact had provided the bureau with dolan's name as somebody who might have information relating to trump. he was never interviewed. so yeah, i don't know why they never interviewed trump -- i'm sorry, why they didn't interview mr. dolan, but they didn't. the explanation that was given to the intelligence analyst who

is referred to in the report essentially was that would be outside the scope of their mission. outside their role. >> very good. you note in your report on page 168 that one of the analysts of the mueller team was told, quote, to cease all research and analysis related to dolan, unquote. this was the same analyst who according to your footnote prepared a timeline in the event she were later interviewed about her role on the mueller special counsel investigation. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> danchenko had also relied on other sub sources, namely olga and sir gay. were they have able tolliver file that? >> we interviewed milina as well

and claims to fear for her safety. he denied ever talking to danchenko or providing any information akin to what was in the steele reporting. in fact, he is a supporter of president trump which made it seem highly unlikely he would be providing dear owing tearily information to somebody who never met or spoke to. with respect to the woman, she was somebody who provided some information to danchenko and provided some information to dolan. >> gentlemen yields back. chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia >> before releasing the report to the public barr released a statement mischaracterizing its findings and conclusions and shortly there after attorney general barr announced that he

was investigating the f.b.i. for investigating putin's interference in the 2016 presidential election and then in april or may of 2019, attorney general barr appointed you to lead that investigation. isn't that correct? >> he did appoint me to lead the investigation, yes, sir. >> in october of 2020, attorney general barr appointed you as an independent special counsel so you could continue investigating the origins of the russia, russia, russia investigation once trump was out of office, correct? >> i have was appointed special counsel in october, yes. >> by that time your investigation had already cost the american taxpayers over $6 1/2 million, isn't that correct? >> at that point probably not, no. >> well, at this point how much

has it cost? >> i understand the figure having looked at it is around 6 1/2 million. >> after 3 1/2 years of investigation and 6 1/2 million dollars ever taxpayer money spent, your investigation led to the indictment of only three individuals, correct? >> that's correct. >> contrary to the fervent prayers of some on this panel, former f.b.i. director jim comey and former c.i.a. director john brennan were not among those three who were indicted, isn't that correct? >> that's correct. >> to the extreme disappointment on some on this panel your investigation failed to produce indictments against hillary clinton, correct? >> that's correct. >> didn't indict barack obama? >> that's correct. >> or joe biden? >> that's correct. >> couldn't indict hunter biden? >> we didn't investigate mr.

hunter biden. >> of your three prosecutions one ended up a guilty plea to -- unrelated to the origins of f.b.i. investigation and that individual received a probateed sentence with no jail time, correct? >> parts of that are correct. >> the other two men you prosecuted went to trial on the charges, they were accused of lying to the f.b.i. and both were slam dunk acquitted. isn't that correct? >> they were acquitted. >> none of the individuals you prosecuted were ever charged with being part of a hoax or a fraud or a witch hunt or a politically motivated deep state conspiracy against donald trump, isn't that correct? >> i would not say that's accurate. >> you mean you did charge somebody with being a part of a hoax? >> we charged mr. sussman with having knowingly provided false information to the f.b.i. regarding alpha bank. >> he was acquitted, right?

>> that wasn't your question. >> mr. sussman was acquitted after you charged him, correct? >> grand jury found -- >> he was found innocent by a jury of 12. >> that's not true. the grand jury -- >> a trial jury. >> you won't disagree on that are you, mr. durham? >> i will try to answer your question as asked. >> let me ask you this. in your report you related or alluded to allegations of misconduct against mr. sussman and mr. danchenko as if those allegations had been proven true at trial, when in fact both those individuals had been acquitted and your allegations disproven. do you believe that it is ethical to state something as a fact in an official government report when the court system

found that you could not prove those allegations? >> i think if you read the report you would see we talked about the results of the trial and we included all of the evidence that we had available. unfortunately not all was admitted at trial. >> you closed your investigation after you failed to find the f.b.i. investigation into putin's interference in the 2016 election was politically motivated and was a deep state conspiracy against ex-president trump. you were unable to prove that was true. >> that is not what i was investigating. >> you did not find it was true, correct? you found it to be false as a matter of fact. isn't that correct? >> if you have a chance to read the report. >> time is expired. could the gentleman answer the question? >> the witness can respond.

>> if you read the report we lay the facts out in the report as to these matters. i'm not here to talk about mr. trump or deep state. nobody raided -- people can draw their own conclusions based on those facts. >> you have been at it an hour and a half here. let us note if and when you need a break. chair recognizes the gentleman from california. >> mr. durham. each of us on the panel has differences. so i'm going to start off by asking is it true that you have the attorney general's

exceptional award for your service? >> that's true. >> you have the attorney general's distinguished service award? >> that's true. >> who award evidence you that? >> attorney general reno. >> 2012. >> in 2012, i'm trying to remember -- i don't frankly recall. >> just for the record it's eric holder. >> twas. and you had to deal with some of the most despicable people and do the things that we do sometimes when wrong has been done. so i want to thank you for that. it seems like for your entire career you have been a go-to for difficult situations, not necessarily the standard i'm trying to rise quickly award but in fact you are a career investigator and i would imagine pretty closely that you have your 82% overall.

but i want to talk about something that i'm not qualified to talk about but can ask you. are there what you would call unindicted co-conspirators in this? in other words, are there people at all levels who did things wrong who were not charged with crimes because of the limitation of the ability to bring charges against them for what they did, even if it was wrong? >> we brought charges where we thought in good faith that we could prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. evidence beyond that, of course. >> so in your experience as a career prosecutor, when people break the rules and it changes the outcome of something like launching an investigation without a predicate, like the president, the vice president, the attorney general and a host of others, f.b.i. director knowing that this had been started with a false predicate, knowing that hillary clinton's campaign with her approval in

fact had authorized this not op research but weaponizing of a false claim, when they did that, they in fact changed the outcome, whether criminal or not, of many things including certainly some things in voter's minds, isn't that correct? >> generally speaking there are lots of bad things that people do that aren't crimes. we can only charge those that are crimes. >> i appreciate that. when people are making the point that somehow you didn't put enough people in jail, you gave us 300 pages that give us a responsibility, as i said i'm not going to try to pretend i'm a lawyer but i am somebody that understands organization, oversight and transparency. in your report you do note the changes made and so on. but unless we make changes in transparency to outside individuals who can be counted

on to be ombudsman to the process isn't it true if the president, vice president, attorney general and a host of other top people at the f.b.i. and department of justice choose in the future to push, to make outcomes occur that would not occur according to their own printed rules, that no rule per se will change that? >> i think that's true. as we say in the report ultimately what it comes down to is the integrity of the people doing the job. adhering to their oath or not? are they following the law or not following the law? >> in my 20 plus years on this side of the dais what i found is that people, when the light of day is shed on them, follow the rules much better than they aren't. for all of us up here i want to thank you for your service. hopefully in the future as we begin looking at reforms that

can be counted on and believed by the american people, at reforms that create better transparency, at reforms that don't allow fisa judges to be misled by people with an agenda, that you will be able to at least give us some of the guidance from your decades of knowing how it is done right at the department of justice and mr. chairman, i want to thank you for your indulgence. i will not take excess time. i believe this witness 300 pages speaks very well for itself and i yield back. >> the gentleman was california is recognized. >> just so people remember what this is all about let me ask you the mueller investigation revealed that russia interfered in the 2016 election in sweeping and systemic fashion, correct? >> that's correct. >> russia did so through a social media campaign that favored donald trump and disparaged hillary clinton, correct? >> that's what the report says, yes. >> mueller found that a russian intelligence service hacked

computers associated with clinton campaign and released the stolen documents publicly. >> the report speaks for itself as well. >> mueller also report evidence that though he could not establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt he said, quote, a statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts. that also appears in the report, doesn't it? >> there is language to that effect. >> you cited that in your own report as a way of distinguishing between proof beyond a reasonable doubt. >> correct. >> both mueller and congressional investigations found paul manafort was secretly meeting with an operative linked to russian intelligence. correct? >> that's my understanding, yes. >> man fort, while chairman of the trump campaign, gave that russian intelligence operative the campaign's internal polling

data, correct? >> that's what i have read in the news, yes. >> that manafort provided this information to russian intelligence while they were engaged in the social media campaign and release of stolen documents to help the trump campaign, correct? >> you may be getting beyond the depth of my knowledge. >> let me say simply while manafort, the campaign chairman for donald trump was giving this russian intelligence officer internal campaign polling data, russian intelligence was helping the trump campaign, weren't they? zblool fe >> i don't know that. >> you don't know those basic facts of the investigation. >> i know the general facts, yes. do i know that particular fact myself no. i have read in the media. >> are you aware that mueller and investigations are were told trump junior was offered high

level and sensitive information that would be incriminating of hillary clinton and was part of quote russia and its government support of mr. trump? are you aware of that? >> people get phone calls all the time from individuals who claim to have information like that. >> the son of a presidential candidate gets calls all the time from a foreign government offering dirt on their opponent, is that what you are saying? >> i don't think it is unique in your experience. >> so you have other instances of the russian government offering dirt on a presidential candidate to the presidential candidates son, is that what you are saying? >> would you repeat the question? >> you said that it's not uncommon to get offers of heave from a hostile foreign government in a presidential campaign directed at the president's son. you really stand by that? >> i'm saying people make phone calls make claims all the time that you may have experienced. >> are you trying to diminish the significance of what happened here and the secret meeting the president son set up

in trump tower to receive that incriminating information? are you trying to diminish it? >> the more complete story is they met and it was a ruse and they didn't talk about mrs. clinton. >> you think it is insignificant he had a secret meeting of a russian delegation for the purpose of getting dirt on hillary clinton and the only disappointment expressed was the dirt they goss water nitty better. >> i don't think it was a well-advised thing to do. >> well that's the understatement of the year. you have think it is perfectly appropriate or maybe ill-advised for presidential campaign to secretly meet with a russian delegation to get dirt on their opponent and say it is inadvisable. >> i hope i wouldn't do it. but it was not illegal. it was stupid, foolish. >> it is illegal to conspire to

get incriminating opposition research from a hostile government that is of financial value to a campaign. wouldn't that violate campaign laws? >> i don't know all those facts to be true. >> your report, mr. durham, doesn't dispute anything mueller found, did it? >> our object or aim was not to dispute director mueller. i have the highest regard for him. he is a patriot. >> the only disfinishing -- he refused to bring charges where he couldn't bring charges and you did. >> the gentleman from colorado is recognized. >> mr. durham, i want as a fellow aloam of d.o.j. thank you for your service, number one. number two, welcome you to congress. >> it is a real pleasure to be here. >> i want to ask you some

questions about fisa and some of your most recent experiences as the special counsel and what your specific advice would be, i guess. i am concerned with the conclusions in your report. in your opening statement you talk about lack of investigative discipline, failure to take logical investigative steps and bias. it appears to me the lack of investigative discipline and failure to take logical investigative steps are a result of bias, fair? >> i have think that's fair. when you look at what is involved here. this is a presidential campaign. not a run of the mill investigation. this is so highly sensitive it could effect the outcome of a presidential election and the future of the nation. you would expect that the discipline that would have been followed would have been higher than ever.

that didn't happen here. there was analytical rigor, the discipline was absent here in large measure. >> fair to say there was a rush to judgment senility fair to say there was a rush to judgment? in other words, the judgment of proceeding with the investigation before following proper procedure? >> that's been alluded to here. the information that they had received from the australian diplomat, not australian intelligence but something said at a bar within three days of that information having been received at f.b.i. headquarters, the deputy director of the f.b.i. according to mr. strzok, told him to immediately open that and it was opened as a full investigation on a weekend, with mr. strzok writing the opening memo but approveing as well.

>> the same mr. strzok that we saw the text from? >> the same person, yes. >> how long did director comey serve in the f.b.i. before he became director? i'm saying f.b.i. >> to my knowledge he was not in the f.b.i. prior to becoming director. >> he promoted the people than andy mccabe, peter strzok, others to the position in headquarters. >> he would have had a role in the advancement of people in the f.b.i. >> my concern is that the bias that has been demonstrated there, whether it has been eradicated or dealt with, could exist in any of these agencies and these agencies have access to very sensitive information. information that we in congress

allow for counter terrorism, counter intelligence activities, and it really goes around the constitution because it does not deal with u.s. citizens. i'm talking about the fisa rules now. have you heard of back door searches? >> i've heard the term, yes, sir. >> it refers to the ability of an agency to look at a u.s. citizen's communications because the communication was with a foreign individual and was recorded because the foreign individual was being looked at, fair? >> that's fair. >> if there was a bias in the agency like the f.b.i. that we saw previously and they wanted to go after a u.s. citizen. they could use that technique to go after that citizen. my question to you is how do we prevent that and we in congress take a look at fisa, try to maintain the national security interests but at the same time protect u.s. citizens from a

rogue agency, a biased agency or agent, i shouldn't condemn everyone. but individuals in the agency. how do we protect american citizens from what could occur? another quick example. going out and buying information from private data sellers to obtain information that you couldn't obtain with a search warrant because you don't have probable cause. those techniques are available under fisa. what should we do? >> that's clearly beyond my background and experience. thieves are very complicated questions particularly when we know adversaries are doing the same thing. what do we do under those circumstances? i think you have a tough job to figure out how to balance the liberties of the american people while at the same time protecting the country and the nation and the people of the united states? i don't feel qualified really to

provide you with any helpful information along those lines. i know that it is a serious issue and a serious concern. >> thank you and i yield back. >> bill: before going to the gentleman from california, the lady from texas. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent toll reflect meetings with the u.s. attorney john durham in response to american oversight's request for d.o.j. communications between the offices of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general and durham or his first assistant. ask unanimous consent to place this in the record of this hearing. >> objection >> mr. chairman you and your colleagues have cited to transcribed interviews using statements taken out of context. i want to enter the entire transcript into the record so the american public can see

exactly what he said. >> we'll work on that. we'll work on that. we'll talk with the chairman. >> mr. chairman you object to a -- >> i object, mr. chairman. so if i understand correctly, mr. chairman, you are happy to cite selected portion of the transcript and the context but not happy to see. >> is there further action? there is an objection. >> you don't want the american to see this mr. issa? >> roll call vote please. >> no vote on that. >> i want to clarify for the gentleman we want to put the transcript out. we have a little work to do on certain things that have to be redacted for obvious reasons but we definitely want to put out the transcript and we'll work with the minority to make sure it happens. it was an amazing interview, and we want that out to the public.

>> that you grant the request subject to redactions. >> so ordered. gentleman from california. >> you have accepted might have submission. >> i did that right away. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> gentleman from california is recognized. >> mr. durham, many of my maga colleagues want you to be someone who you are not and to say something thal you that you clearly won't. i want to thank you for your many years of service to your country as a federal prosecutor. i want to talk more about the independence of a special counsel and just clarify you did send multiple texts to the attorney general after you were appointed as special counsel. did you ever text message with attorney general garland once he took over as attorney general? >> attorney general garland had me communicate through the

principle deputy attorney general. >> did you ever travel overseas with attorney general garland? >> no. i didn't travel overseas with him. >> president biden, through the attorney general, could have had you removed, fired, is that right? >> i'm sure he could have. >> and you stayed on. >> i completed my term as special counsel. >> was there anyone you wanted to indict that you were proper hob it'ded from indicting by attorney general garland? >> no. >> you could have indicted hillary clinton but you never asked, is that right? >> if i had the evidence, yeah, i could have, sure. >> if you wanted to indict president biden, you could have asked, right? >> that was not part of our mission. we weren't really looking at that. >> if you could have indicted director comey you could have

asked, is that right? and you didn't? >> the attorney general garland had never asked me not to indict somebody. >> i want to make clear to my colleagues you had all the power in the world to indict anyone you had evidence to indict and not blocked from doing it, correct? >> that's correct. >> i want to compare you to the last major special counsel investigation we had. you agreed special counsel mueller charged dozens of individuals and you indicted three, is that correct? >> indicted two and a third pleaded guilty. >> right. and special counsel mueller had dozens of convictions, some at trial but no defendant was outright acquitted, is that right, in the mueller investigation across the board every charge. >> i don't believe there were dozens of convictions. there were more than a dozen people were indicted. >> you were wise earlier to not wale in on donald trump's character. you are under oath, after all.

but did anything in your report prove false that russians met with trump's family during the campaign at trump tower after an offer of dirt on hillary clinton? anything prove that meeting didn't happen? >> i don't have any evidence it did not happen. >> that in the 2016 campaign donald trump tried and concealed from the public a real estate deal he was seeking in moscow? >> i don't know anything about that. there is nothing in the report about it. not something we investigated. >> anything prove false that donald trump publicly asked russia to hack hillary's emails and hours later they did? >> my -- if you are referring to -- >> did donald trump not say at a press conference russia if you are listening you should get hillary's emails. did you prove he didn't say that? >> we didn't investigate that. >> did you prove false in the 16 campaign that trump's campaign manager gave polling data to a spy for a russian intelligence

service? >> we didn't investigate that. >> anything in your report say donald trump acted the way americans would want a presidential candidate to act with regard to russia? >> i'm sorry, could you repeat that? >> are you signing off on the way donald trump acted with russia in 2016? >> our report doesn't address that. >> you agree russia interfered in the 20616 election. >> substantial evidence to show that. >> my maga colleagues want you to be something you want and want you to join the law firm of insurrection llc which is chaired by a guy who never passed the bar exam and wise not to do that. you see my colleagues today making themselves footnotes and foot soldiers in the history books that will chronicle donald trump's corruption and i yield my remaining time to mr. schiff. >> returning to your decision to speak out during the pendency of

your investigation, did you have staff on your team advise you against making statements during the investigation? >> they didn't advise me either way, no. >> every raise ethical concerns about you speaking out in an interim report or after the inspector general investigator. any of them raise ethical concerns with you doing so? >> not that i recall. not that i'm aware of. >> did they raise a concern about speaking opt in the investigation? >> did any of your staff raise concerns about your speaking out during the pendency of your investigation in contrast to d.o.j. policy? >> not that i recall. >> thank you. >> general lady from florida is recognized. >> good morning. >> can i complete that answer more. i don't want to lay my blame. i made the decision to make a statement.

they were not involved in it. >> general lady from florida. >> nor a friend of mine, a very good lawyer, honest person. that's why we brought her on. >> why did she resign? answer the question if you would like. >> who is in charge here? it is not mr. schiff, i don't think. >> it is the lady's time from florida. >> good morning, mr. durham. i want to begin by telling you how much i appreciate your work, that of your team and presence here today and you may begin by answering the prior question if you wish. >> with respect to her i have the greatest respect for her, a friend of mine and well educated and an honest person. we had some disagreement on issues and i don't have any comment beyond that. i won't discuss the internal management and decision making. i will tell you this that every agent and every lawyer who worked on this project had a

full voice in the decisions that were going forward. i made the final decisions. >> thank you, mr. durham. i would like to focus on the department of justice's procedures as to fisa applications when that process is conducted appropriately. to begin with, vice f -- it must include an after daveist from a federal law enforcement officer and demonstrate cause to believe the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power, is that right? >> if it relates to a u.s. citizen. if it's a none u.s. person knowing element is not required. >> it is intended that affidavit should rely upon reasonable trustworthy information, is it not? >> that's correct. >> and in some cases and including the case of carter page, those affidavits, that information can include the use of information obtained from a

confidential human source, correct? >> that's correct. >> when that information is included would you agree it is important that material related to the reliability or trustworthiness of that confidential human source is disclosed within the affidavit? >> yes. >> i believe you testified earlier today that in this case information in the carter page application related to the reliability and credibility of the confidential human source was not included in these applications, is that right? >> i believe that's correct. >> would you tell us in your experience, in your many years working with the department, why is it important that type of information -- >> we have hours to go on this but we've been watching for the past one hour and 55 minutes. i find his opening comments to be quite interesting saying his findings are sobering and the fixes are not susceptible to

some overnight fix and suggested not enough people questioned the standards or the consequences of the decisions they were making. >> dana: he said accountability is required. as a witness he has not spoken a lot in the past he is steady and credible. but under some heat. jonathan turley is here. your thoughts as we close out this hour. >> well, durham has dealt with mob steers and murders. nothing prepared him for this moment. he looks about as comfortable as a monk in a strip club. he have has this look of disbelief on his face as he says i reported the facts. you can reach your own conclusions. one of the most -- cohen said you had a good reputation and you are not going to get it back until you take back these things you said in your report. and durham just had had enough and he said i look to my reputation from my family and

from my god. and that is okay with me. i'm satisfied with my reputation as it stands. it was an amazing moment. reminds some of us of the joe welsh moment in the mccarthy hearings where durham was finally pushing back and saying enough. i was asked to give you facts about what occurred and some of these facts are really breathtaking. that the f.b.i. never interviewed any of these sources before they launched this investigation. durham did. how within three days of learning about the statement in this pub they launched an investigation with strzok who was later fired for bias. they launched on a weekend three days later. that's how fast on the trigger they were. durham says look, there was bias here and there was -- what he is clearly laying out is there was

an abundance of bias. >> based on that answer, it goes to public trust in our institutions. that has been broken for so many. i think that's pretty evident now from when you listen to republican lawmakers here. on this meeting that john brennan head of the c.i.a. had at the white house with barack obama and joe biden briefing him on hillary clinton's strategy, all right? so how many years down the road are we, eight? and jim jordan says what strikes me is that nothing has changed at the f.b.i. so if he is right and the question is about public trust, how much does the f.b.i. fix it? we might have that question at the end of the day. >> there was one moment, bill, that really struck me as powerful is he said that when he finally showed the evidence to one of the key f.b.i. agents of

what had been withheld by headquarters, he said the agent became emotional and had to leave the room. he said that f.b.i. agents came up to him and apologized for playing their roles in this investigation saying they didn't know. and this is all just incredibly overwhelming evidence of this bias. but what was astonishing is the democrats have designated adam schiff as apparently the main antagonist for durham and it is bizarre to call durham being inaplop yacht in discussing matters related to the investigation. it is truly other worldly. >> dana: especially since there is a vote in the house today by censuring him for perpetuating and on the same day his colleagues are protecting him today and giving him the

platform that he likes. he is running for senate and helps him raise small dollars from democrats. >> it is an amazing moment in history when you have what's going on on the floor and schiff attacking in committee. >> bill: thank you for hanging out with us and see what more we get. >> dana:s here is fay "the faulkner focus." >> harris: reports of something banging from deep in the north atlantic ocean giving a sliver of hope at this hour. running out of time and oxygen, a multi-pronged mission to find and rescue the missing tourist vessel. the sub titan vanished in waters the 12,500 feet deep. five people including tourists aboard went down to get a special look at the remnants of the titanic ocean liner that