the old fbi. the fbi that had a chip on its shoulder and wanted to intimidate people and find out what was going on in your life and the law be damned. mort martin luther king and just fill in the names. so who ran this thing? the people were handpicked by mccabe. the number two guy at the fbi. the supervisory agent, the director for counterintelligence, peter strzok. he's a big player and all things crossfire hurricane. lisa page, you may have heard of her. who is she? she was an fbi lawyer working for mccabe. these are two central figures in this debacle. let me tell you a little bit about who these people are and where they're coming from. thanks to a lot of hard work by people from mr. horowitz, the fbi and others, here's what we know. strzok, the front line supervisor. february 12th, 2016. oh, he's, trump, abysmal. i keep hoping the charade will end and people will just dump him. the problem then is that rubio will likely lose to cruz. i never quite made it. i can understand why they would no

according to the ig's report, the fbi complied with existing department and fbi policies in opening the investigation, and the ig, quote, did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced this decision, end quote, or any specific investigative steps taken by the fbi. that's the finding. and this is important. why? in public statements, beginning last spring, the attorney general expressed his belief that senior government officials may have, quote, put a thumb on the scale, end quote, because of political bias against trump. his comments echoed the president, who has repeatedly alleged that there is a deep state within the government against him. he has used this to dismiss the entire russia investigation as a witch hunt and a hoax. the ig's report conclusively refutes these games. -- these claims. this is not a politically motivated investigation. there is no deep state. simply put, the fbi investigation was motivated by facts, not bias. secondly, the inspector general confirmed that there was an adequate predicate, meaning a legitim

black fbi agents?" yes, black fbi agents. he was surprised. i was not really surprised that he was surprised. you probably are not either. but it just -- it made me sort of chuckle, because looking back -- and i have had to do my research preparing for this -- there was james wormley jones in 1919. i did not know that. he did not want to believe it, the uber driver. james wormley jones. and then i mentioned john glover. i get so caught up covering the fbi of today that i had not really looked back at in the past.the fbi in the so that is one thing. the other thing is, when they asked me to do this, i would not be doing my job if i did not say, but are you going to talk about what the numbers are now? and they could have brushed off that question. i respect the fact they dealt with it. i was told, listen, you can't look to the future until you look back at the mistakes of the past. i appreciate that. that is where we are going to begin this conversation. that is what i want it to be, a conversation. we are going to talk to many of the legends o

the fbi or former fbi director james comey said this week that your report vindicates him. is that a fair assessment of your report? >> you know i think the activities we found here don't indicate anybody who touched this, unless run a cliff here. >> this is what comey said in 2018. >> it would be nice to have sound. do we have sound? >> never mind, i'll read it. director comey, the reporter is asking him, can i ask you a question on fisa abuse? it's a major issue for republicans. do you have the total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant and also in the substantive renewal, this was asked in december of 2018 about a year ago. comey. i have total confidence that the fisa process was followed, that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way, by doj and fbi, i think the nation -- i think the notion that fisa was abused here is nonsense. would it be fair to say that you take issue with that statement? >> certainly our findings were that there were significant problems. >> so when comey speaks about fisa, you shouldn't li

the old fbi. the fbi that had a chip on its shoulder and wanted to intimidate people and find out what was going on in your life and the law be damned. mort martin luther king and just fill in the names. so who ran this thing? the people were handpicked by mccabe. the number two guy at the fbi. the supervisory agent, the director for counterintelligence, peter strzok. he's a big player and all things crossfire hurricane. lisa page, you may have heard of her. who is she? she was an fbi lawyer working for mccabe. these are two central figures in this debacle. let me tell you a little bit about who these people are and where they're coming from. thanks to a lot of hard work by people from mr. horowitz, the fbi and others, here's what we know. strzok, the front line supervisor. february 12th, 2016. oh, he's, trump, abysmal. i keep hoping the charade will end and people will just dump him. the problem then is that rubio will likely lose to cruz. i never quite made it. i can understand why they would no

left to the fbi. there was no requirement officials be consulted or notified prior to the fbi making that decision. consistent with the policy, the fbi advised the department's national security division of the investigation days after it had been initiated. as we detailed in our report, advanced department notice and approval is required in other circumstances or investigative activity could substantially impact civil liberties, allowing in advance of these activities. we conclude advance notice should be required in circumstances such as those present here. shortly after the fbi opened the crossfire hurricane investigation, the fbi monitored meetings and reported several conversations between fbi confidential human sources or chss and individuals affiliated with the trump campaign. including a high level campaign official who was not subject of the investigation. not a subject of the investigation. we found that the chs operations received the necessary approvals under fbi policy, that an assistant

the fbi -- former fbi director james comey said this week that your report vindicates him. is that a fair assessment of your report? >> you know, i think the activities we found here don't vindicate anybody who touched this. >> let's run a clip here. this is what comey said in 2018. it would be nice to have sound. do we have sound? never mind. i'll read it. director comey, the reporter is asking him, can i ask you a question on fisa abuse. it's a major issue for the republicans. do you have the total confidence in the dossier when you used it to secure a surveillance warrant and also in the subsequent renewals? this was asked in december of 2018, about a year ago. comey, i have total confidence that the fisa process was followed, that the entire case was handled in a thoughtful, responsible way by doj and the fbi. i think the nation -- i think the notion that fisa was abused here is nonsense. would it be fair to say that you take issue with that statement? >> certainly our findings were that there were significant problems -- >> when comey speaks about fisa, you shouldn't l

the fbi. there was no requirement that the apartment shall be notified prior to the fbi making that decision. consistent with this policy, the fbi advised the department security division of the investigation, dated after it had been initiated. as i detail in a report, advanced department approval is required in other circumstances for investigative activity could substantially impact certain civil liberties, allowing the department officials inserted potential institutional provincial applications in advance of these activities. we concluded that similar advance notice should be required in circumstances such as those president here. shortly after the fbi open crossfire hurricane investigationaf if i die monitor meetings and recorded several conversations between fbi confidential human sources will chs news, and individual people with trump campaign including high-level campaign official who was not subject of the investigation. towe found that that chs operations receive the necessary approv

>> the fbi dropped steele. >> yes. the fbi drops him. he wasn't trusted anymore and that was because he blew his cover and started talking to the media. >> correct. >> and they should have stopped relying on him at that point, correct? >> under fbi rules, once you're closed, you're closed, you need certain approvals to start reinitiating and reengaging. >> that's right. but the fbi kept using him, correct? >> they kept -- they met with him through bruce ohr. >> yes. and they used him for information after he was cut off. >> they received that information. >> right. 13 different times. >> correct. >> correct. okay. so then we get this dossier. it is used as a big part of setting up this entire process for the fisa application and christopher steele -- people at the fbi know christopher steele was untrustworthy, he was an untrustworthy foreign actor, he was a political hack, he didn't like trump, he was being paid by the clintons, but they still pushed forward with using him and exercised extremely poor judgment, correct? >> certainly once

and, the fbi's mr. baker told the ig and is quoted in the report as saying, the agent and not investigative briefing "was not there to induce anybody to say anything. he was not there to do an undercover of operation or elicit some type of statement or testimony. >> thank you. >> senator cruz. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to start by taking the opportunity for an thank you and the members of your team, the work you have done in the inspector general's office is incredibly important. reading this report, this is a 435 page report that lays out what i would consider to be a stunning indictment of the fbi and the department of justice. of a pattern of abuse of power. and i will say, both the department of justice and the fbi for decades have had a great many honorable principled professionals with the fidelity for the rule of law. and this indictment, and that expects me to be nonpartisan and faithful to the law and it should make them angry as well. the press has focused on your specific conclusion t

fbi nknew that he was involved s well. >> what action did the fbi take? >>id in november they closed hi but -- >> what did the cross fire hurricane team hurricane did they take? >>>> they closed him as a sourc but then the meetings started with ohr. >> so they take the finformatio on board from steele even after they know that he is totally incredible to me this is the untold story ofs the 2016 campaign. and i don't know who at the dnc happened this, but i suppose they ought to take a victory lap, but be remembered. to get fbi to launch pursue surveillance of a rival presidential campaign and then i think that is extraordinary on. it is absolutely extraordinary. so let me asklu you this. are these individuals whose msz misdeeds that you have documented here, case agents, other members on the cross fire hurricane team, are they still to your knowledge working at the fbi? >> to my understanding some are, some ngaren't. >> and why are those who are, what is your understanding? >> i think you'd have to ask director wray. >>to and what about the case agt who d

there has'd been for the fbi. and i remember as a kid, i think movies are sized the portray the fbi and i thought well because of the good guys. and i think what we have seen through the vast number of yea years, number of months is that a few bad actors have really squandered that away and think the american people look at the fbi and think, author doing this to presidentialaw candidate, wht they did to me. just a normal american citizen. are they really there for me. i'm just so sorry that this has led to this. . . . that is not a mistake, it just reeks of ill wishes to do harm. so again, i think the fbi, with always thought of it is such a great institution, and now i'm looking at all of this information, we've all reviewed the report, and i think for god's sake what isns going on here? so thank you for doing this work, i think it's really important we look at what's going on why it happens, and i'd like to focus a little more on the discipline aspect of this. these mistakes were made by some people who really

we had at the fbi in terms of the fbi, what affected the fbi's decisions, i have no reason to thinkthere's something out there that we didn't see. >> okay. this is very similar, but what other big questions are outstanding? >> well, depends -- at the fbi, i'm not sure what other questions are out there other than what i mentioned earlier which is how did all of these failures in the fisa process that's layered with all of these controls happen and why? i know that's a big question for people to know an answer to and i understand why. but, you know, at this stage, i think we didn't get good explanations about and that was something we frankly would like to have gotten good explanations about. >> again, i want to thank you and your team for really an extraordinarily good piece of work here. understanding the limitation of the scope, we will be providing additional questions for the record. we've obviously been looking for this to guide our actions, and one of the reasons i've asked those last two questions is that helps guide our future oversight as well. you are seeped in this. you h

you shouldn't be at the fbi. if you were in the military and you said anything like this about a commander in chief, you would be charged with a crime. remember the mcchrystal debacle where they had a bar room discussion with a reporter from "the rolling stone"? what's takeaway? don't go to a bar with "the rolling stone" reporter. they were talking about how they don't like joe biden. i was the first to say that is out of bounds. you can have all the political opinions you want. if you're an officer in the united states military, you will park those opinions and you will not speak ill of the commander in chief. but that obviously is not a rule at the fbi department of justice. march 16th, 2016, i cannot believe donald trump is likely to be actual serious candidate for president. july 16th, we're getting closer to when this thing opens, and while donald trump is an enormous douche. again a lot of people agreed with that. the first thing out of his mouth was we're going to win so big. the whole thing is like living

you shouldn't be at the fbi. if you were in the military and you said anything like this about a commander in chief, you would be charged with a crime. remember the mccrystal debacle where they had a barroom discussion from a reporter from the rolling stone. what's the takeaway, don't go to a bar with a rolling stone reporter. they started talking about how they didn't like joe biden and i was one of the first people to say that was out of bounds. you can have all the political opinions you want, but if you're an officer in the united states military you will park those opinions and you will not speak ill of the commander in chief. but that obviously is not a rule at the fbi and department of justice. march 16th, 2016, i cannot believe donald trump is likely to be actual serious candidate for president. july 16th, we're getting closer to when this thing opens. and while donald trump is an enormous douche. a lot of people agree with that. trump barely spoke but the first thing out of his mouth was that they're goi

that is exactly what call me's fbi did. fbi did. the business of weaponizing bureaucracies for political purpose is disastrous. i cannot imagine anyone who goes down this road. i don't know anybody i work with who wants to do this. can you go through some of the recommendations that you think are the most important ones that the fbi has to do to make sure this does not happen again? a change inds to be practice and policies that involves consultation and discussion with a department lawyer. whether on opening a case or involving these kinds of constitutional issues or sending in confidential human sources. did corruption cases when i was a prosecutor in new york many years ago. you would want to talk through very carefully before moving forward on a case like this. on all steps. on the fisa side, there has to be a fundamental understanding that decisions about evidence that is undercutting inconsistent consistent with the theory of the case has to go to the lawyer. the lawyer who is handling it for the department. it has to move up

of lying to the fbi. we told the fbi, the department -- and the department that what the fbi told the court about steele's media contacts didn't match with what he told the british court. did -- four questions in regard to that. did the fbi ever ask steele whether he was a source for the september 2016 yahoo! news article that cited western intelligence sources, quote/unquote? if not, why not? >> they did not ask that question despite having the opportunity to do so. and we got a variety of explanations, including that -- as to some of these issues that they didn't want to offend him or jeopardize their relationship with him. >> question two. on october 11th draft of the fisa application stating fbi believes steele was the source for the yahoo! news article, but it was taken out in the october 14th draft. why did the fbi originally say steele was the source and what factual basis did the fbi have to change that and tell the court that steele was not a source? >> this is what was so disturbing about that e

the old fbi. the fbi that had a chip on its shoulder and wanted to intimidate people and find out what was going on in your life and the law be damned. martin luther king and just fill in the names. so, who ran this thing? the people were handpicked by mccabe. the number two guy at the fbi. the supervisory agent, the deputy assistant director for counterintelligence is peter strzok. he's a big player and all things crossfire hurricane. lisa page, you may have heard of her. who is she? she was an fbi lawyer working for mccabe. these are two central figures in these are two central characters in this debacle. let me tell you a little bit about who these people are and where they're coming from. thanks to a lot of hard work by people for mr. horowitz, the fbi and others, here's what we know. strzok, the front line supervisor. february 12th, 2016. oh, he's, trump, abysmal. i keep hoping the charade will end and people will just dump him. the problem then is that rubio will likely lose to cruz. i never

the fbi, mr. baker, holds the ig in the report as saying the agent in that investigation briefing, quote "was not there to induce anybody to say anything, he was not there to do an under cover operation or elicit some type of testimony." >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to start by taking the opportunity to thank you and the men and women who are gathered here. the work that you have done and the inspector general office is incredibly important. this is a 434 page report that lays out what i call a stunning indictment of the fbi and department of justice of any pattern of babusive of power. i would say the department of justice and the fbi have had principle professionals with the fidelity of the rule of law. this indictment, i am an alumnus, it makes me angry. it should make them angry as well. the press have focused on your conclusion that you did not find evidence of political bias. that's a judgment you have, i disagree with that judgment. i think that judgment is in many

thetly after the fbi opened crossfire hurricane investigation, the fbi conducted several consensually monitored meetings, recorded meetings, between fbi confidential human sources, chs's, and individuals associated with the trump campaign, including a high-level official not subject to the investigation. we found the chs operations receive the necessary approval under fbi policy, and an fbi assistant director knew about and approve each operation, even in circumstances where what was only required was first level supervisory agent approval, and that the operations were permitted under department and fbi policy because use was not for the sole purpose of monitoring activities protected by the first amendment or the lawful use of other rights secured by the constitution or the laws of the united states. ord not fin documentary testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the fbi's decision to conduct the chs operations. additionally, we found no evidence the fbi attempted to reporting onhin or the trump campaign or members of the trump campaign recruited as

he presided over the fbi in times worse than when j. edgar hoover was at the fbi.n led the fbi and it's unbelievable. that steele dossier was essential and central to this report. it was fake. we know it was fake. and he says that his people did nothing wrong? first of all, he was the leader. he was the one charged with briefing the president when in fact he was spying on the president. i, that guy needs a lawyer by the way. i can't believe this. he repeatedly misled the fisa court, clients smith -- clinesmith as you said, doctored an email as well as the people refusing to provide the court with exculpatory evidence. evidence that would clear the president. chris: we went over a lot of that with him. on the other hand, and i want to move on to impeachment, on the other hand, comey does point out that the inspector general found there was no political bias in opening, not the fisa warrant, opening the investigation and that it was opened on a legitimate basis and he points out all of the president's talk about obama ordering the tapping of his phones, all the talk

although the fbi already knew that british intelligence and fbi officials discussed litigation with director comey, the fbi never got steel's statement in that litigation until we provided them. the fbi also never considered updating the court on these statements. why d when did the court learn about these contradictory statements about whether steel did or didn't have contact with the media? and did anyone in the fbi seem concerned at all that it was not updating the fisk, the court, it was knowingly providing a court with incorrect and misleading information? >> so the fisa court first learned of it, at least as i understand it, in a letter sent june 2018, a year after the last fisa authorization when the juptd lawyers sent a letter informing them of new information they had learned including from the litigation that mr. steel had acknowledged he was a direct contact for yahoo news in that story. that was the first time the court was told about it. >> would you look at footnote 461 for me? >> yes. >> that footnote states that a former fbi confidential human source contacted an fbi agent in

that is the fbi i know and love. >> laura: the fbi you love? was trolling for damaging information, trolling for sources, trolling for anything to fuel the pony russian theory that were clipped up long before the summer of 2016. democrats should not breathed a sigh of relief. u.s. attorney john durham publicly came out to contest his findings saying, based on the evidence collected to date, last month we advised the inspector general that we do not agree with the other reports conclusions as to the predication and how the fbi case was opened. attorney general bill barr disagreed with the conclusions and the inspector general report makes clear the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of u.s. presidential campaign based on the senate suspicion. that, in my mu and suppression with the steps taken. fbi misled the court and exculpatory effects from their findings and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. the bottom line. the forthcoming durum report which the attorney general has been assisting him

>> the fbi dropped steele. >> yes. the fbi drops him. he wasn't trusted anymore and that was because he blew his cover and started talking to the media. >> correct. >> and they should have stopped relying on him at that point, correct? >> under fbi rules, once you're closed, you're closed, you need certain approvals to start reinitiating and reengaging. >> that's right. but the fbi kept using him, correct? >> they kept -- they met with him through bruce ohr. >> yes. and they used him for information after he was cut off. >> they received that information. >> right. 13 different times. >> correct. >> correct. okay. so then we get this dossier. it is used as a big part of setting up this entire process for the fisa application and christopher steele -- people at the fbi know christopher steele was untrustworthy, he was an untrustworthy foreign actor, he was a political hack, he didn't like trump, he was being paid by the clintons, but they still pushed forward with using him and exercised extremely poor judgment, correct? >> certainly once

where does the fbi go from there? >> the fbi is looking for any potential coconspirators, looking for anyone who may have assisted in the investigation. previous online statements to social media that might've been made. the fbi and state and local authorities are going to pull their life apart. find out what they were up to and their entire life and find out who they associated with. bank records, phone records, search warrants. individuals they've been known to associate with. many, many interviews will be done. they have a lot of work in front of them. >> dana: can i ask another question before we have to take a quick break. the fake gofundme accounts and the u.s. attorney saying his experience and being prosecuted. how prevalent is it? what can people do to make sure that if they are going to give. >> make sure that you do your due diligence. check out the site. you will see online people will talk about whether or not it's real or fake. you can reach out to the state or the feds. this is a problem, it is sad to s

that footnote states that a former fbi confidential human source contacted an fbi agent in an fbi field office in late july, 2016, to report information from "a colleague who runs an investigative firm hired by two entities, the democratic national committee, as well as another individual who is not named, to its floor, donald strunk trumps long-lasting ties to international entities." with that investigation firm fusion gps or did the dnc hire another firm to pedal information to obama's fbi? >> i don't know which it was but i can follow up and get back to you on that. >> but it is a question you can answer. >> i don't know, i would have to double check with our folks on that. >> and if you couldn't would that be a case of privacy? >> i don't know if we've ultimately figured out the answer to that question. it was in a different field office with different people to interview. i don't know how much we gone down that road. >> thank you. i've been asking questions about since september 17 about what kind of defensive briefings the fbi provided to the trump campaign. the fbi told me its b

>> we concluded that while he was cut off officially in the fbi records, the fbi continued to meet with him through the source of the conduit on 13 different occasions. >> why would he continue to meet with him and why would he continue to be tasked to do that? >> he wasn't tasked to do it. as he said, he understood what the fbi was looking for from him but he was able to do that because there were no rules that prohibited him from doing it and he intended and desire to do it. he maintained that. on page 188 of your report, you make this comment that he tasked his primary some source after about 2016 election to find corroboration for the election reporting in the primary some source that he could find a zero. he reported that the fbi and to the washington field office when they met with him and may of 2017. what i am trying to figure out as he is tasking has some source to go find corroboration after the election is even over. this was after a month of the process cut off from the fbi. who was tasking him to continue to chase down more information? >> we don't have evidence as to anybo

our authority was over the fbi. fbi activities. . grassley: we referred christopher steele for potentially lying to the fbi. department fbi the that what the fbi told the court about the media context did not match with what he told the british court. did -- four questions in regard to that -- did the fbi ever ask steele whether he was a source for the 2016 yahoo! news article that cited western intelligence sources? if not, why not? mr. horowitz: they did not have -- asked that question, despite having the opportunity to do so. we got a variety of explanations, including that issuesome of these they did not want to offend him or jeopardize their relationship with him. sen. grassley: question two -- on october 11, the draft of the pfizer applications dating the fbi believes steel was a source for the yahoo! news article, but it was taken out in the october 14 draft. why did the fbi originally say steele was the source and what factual basis did the fbi have to change that and tell the court that he was not a source? mr. horowitz: thi

we've got a long ways to go to restore trust in the fbi and anyone working with the fbi. so again, he appreciated. thank you so much, thank you mr. chair, i yield back. >> harris, welcome back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. gentlemen, thank you for conducting thorough investigation into the origins of department of justice, so your report makes clear the fbi had a legitimate reason to investigate the trump campaign come is that correct? >> there is sufficient predication. >> in addition your office found no evidence they launched a motivated investigation, correct? that is right. another key finding the fbi committed several errors in it applications and their applications to survey all carter page? more than several. >> director christopher wray acknowledged the investigation found fbi misconduct that needs to be addressed and director christopher wray said the fbi except your investigation's findings? >> that is correct. on the other hand, attorney general barr has been highly critical of your findings. during the final stage of your investigation, he even embarked on his

the old fbi, the fbi that had a chip on his shoulder and wanted to intimidate people and find out what was going on in your life and the law be damned. martin luther king and just fill in the names. so, who ran this thing? the people were handpicked by mccabe and the number two guy at the fbi. the supervisory agent, the deputy assistant director for counterintelligence is peter strock and he's a big player and all things crossfire hurricane and lisa page you may have heard of her and who is she. she was an fbi lawyer working for mccabe and these are two central characters in this debacle and let me tell you little bit about who these people are and where they are coming from. thanks to a lot of hard work by people from mr. horwitz, fbi and others here is what we know. peter strzok the front line supervisor, february 12, 2016 oh, he's trump, he's abysmal. i keep hoping this raid will end and people would just dump him. the problem then is that rubio will likely lose to cruise. i never quite made it and i can understand why they would not consider me a serious candidate. the republican p

that's vindication for the fbi.through the fisa portion, it was disgusting. i know having been in the fbi. working the fisas. they are obviously over seen at very high levels and every fbi agent knows that your work has to stand up on its own. you have to follow policy and see not one or two. over 17 different instances of everything from misbehavior to out right abuse. is stunning. this isn't a political deep state that the president -- >> one of the things he said about the 17 cases that what was particularly troubling was that if there were these mistakes, and manipulations in some cases on from the three teams that were hand selected, you would assume the best of the best. and they knew they would be reviewed at the high levels. if these incidents on those by those teams, then what does that mean for other cases that are worked by fbi agents that are not getting scrutiny. you wonder what mistakes are being done? >> as an fbi agent part of the training for under going fisa includes, every word you say might end u

according to your report, although the fbi already knew the british intelligence and fbi officials discussed the litigation with director comey, the fbi never got steele's statement in that litigation until we provided them. the fbi also never considered updating the court on these statements. why did the court learn -- when did the court learn about these contradictory statements about whether steele did or didn't have contact with the media, and did anyone in the fbi seem concerned at all that it was not updating the court, it was knowingly providing a court with incorrect and misleading information? >> so the fisa court first learned of it in a -- at least as i understand it, in a letter sent june 2018, a year after the last fisa authorization. when the justice department lawyers sent a letter informing them of new information that they had learned including from the litigation that mr. steele had acknowledged he was a direct contact for yahoo news in that story. that was the first time the court was told about it. >> would you look at footnote 461 for me? that footnote states a confident

team for a series of very bad anti-trump texts and emails he sent to his fbi friends. you have to wonder what his motivation was and you have to wonder why they were exaggerating christopher steele's qualifications, there was no reason to do that. you have to wonder why they had evidence and withheld it. host: if this report is out, will there ever be an s behindion of the why the mistakes or is this a done deal with the release of this report? guest: it will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow. we may get answers because michael horowitz will go before the senate committee, which is majority republicans led by it will beham, interesting to see what they ask him and what the next steps they take after that. i think everybody is waiting to see what mr. horwitz says before they move forward with whatever they want to do. whatever is going to happen will happen at the senate level because the house is focused on impeachment and controlled by the democrats. they will not call mr. horwitz to testify. host: we heard from the attorney general and john durham, what is

liz: just to be clear, this is the fbi comey and his team, the rest of the fbi do great work protecting were hacked and leaked in 2016, hillary clinton campaign and the dnc went on the move into action to feeding sketchy information to the fbi via fusion gps and christopher steele to get the probe of the trump campaign launched, that probe was launched because of the steele dossier. watch this, stuart evans who ran the d.o.j. intelligence unit told the id he was surprised to learn from the fbi at the 11th hour right before the fbi got the first buys a warrant to spy that the fbi was relying on the research paid for by the democrats. your reaction to that? >> that surprise is like the movie casablanca where they say there is supplies of gambling. the fbi is not supposed to be equally duped and i believe they are not easily duped. so when were investigating comey and others who appear to have committed criminal acts in working with hillary clinton campaign and the dnc to in fact spy on the president, it needs to have high level independence scrutiny, it's getting some now but it will need

and we've got a long ways to go to restore trust in the fbi and anyone working with the fbi. so, again, i appreciate it. thank you so much. thank you, mr. chair, i yield back. >> senator harris. welcome back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general horowitz, thank you for conducting yourfo thorough investigation into the origins of the department of justice's russia investigation. so your report makes clear that the fbi had a legitimate reason to investigate the trump campaign. is that correct? >> sufficient predication. >> and your office found no evidence that the fbi launched a politically-motivated investigation, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and another key findingator that the f fbi committed severa errors in his applications -- in their applications to surveil carter page. >> or maybe moreo than several >> andre as the fbi director ra himself has acknowledged, your investigation found serious fbi misconduct that needs to be addressed and director ray also said that the fbi fully accepts your investigation's findings. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> on the o

fbi director james comey and the fbi's deputy director andy mccabe, who became fbi director after trump fired comey. the head of the cia john brennan. the head of national intelligence james clapper. and those are sort of just the leading lights. the president hasn't just idly gone after people involved in the russia investigation, though. he's been pretty specific and deliberate and pointed about it. he explained a few months ago that several people in the russia investigation should be brought up on treason charges. and of course treason is a capital offense, so he's calling ultimately for their execution. one person on that list was peter strzok, who until not long ago was the top counterintelligence agent at the fbi. peter strzok had a sterling career at the fbi, including key roles in breaking up high-profile russian intelligence operations inside the united states. he was the lead counterintelligence agent in the fbi, and he worked on the 2016 russia investigation. he was fired in 2018 over text messages he had sent which reflected his personal political views about president trum

the fbi relied on the steele dossier for that page application. according to the report, the fbi did not focus on steele's funding source but rather discover the source was fusion gps. these "serious performance failures," said the report, prevented the department from performing its gatekeeper function and denied the decision-makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. attorney general william barr claimed a "from a foreign government" supply the initial information use of the probe in motion. information he questioned. inspector general's report now makes clear the fbi launched an intrusive investigation of a u.s. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions, that in my view were insufficient to justify the steps taken. ." sources tell fox news that foreign government is australia. the report also indicates a former fbi counterintelligence assistant director, bill priestap, considered whether to provide a briefing to a member of the trump campaign to discuss the investigation but it never happened. former fbi director james c

to some degree he was right because this report is a blackeye for the fbi. >> how tbi so? >> it found that the fisa application which is the application to surveilled carter page was riddled with errors, things from they left our key information. in other things they put in the fisa report and they left that out, they did not present that to the judge of the fisa court. there were all kinds of errors erand they found for one of the renewals and fbi lawyer had doctored evidence to make sure that the fisa application to wiretap mr. page got renewed. >> so all in count, according to your story 17 inaccuracies or envisions, was there any explanation by leadership on why the fundamental mistakes are being made? >> no there's no explanation, nor is there anti explanation of inspector general michael horowitz who spent 18 months on this investigation and he says he could find no direct evidence of biased but also could not find an explanation here to account for why these top agents, high-level fbi officials, everybody in the specification from low-level to high level supervisors

what did the fbi find in january of 2017? once they identified the sub source and actually interviewed the sub source, the sub source says the primary sub source told the fbi that he/she had not seen stills report until it became public that month. that he/she made statements indicating that still misstated or exaggerated the primary sub source statements in multiple sections of reporting. primary sub source told the fbi that basically, this was rumor and speculation, hearsay, bartok, and he never believe still would use the information provided in any official document. that should have been a red light for the department of justice and the fbi. ladies and gentlemen in january 2015 and thereafter, the primary sub source was still dossier was telling the fbi in the department of justice that the russian dossier is not reliable. that it was never meant to be used as an official document it is all hearsay, rumor, bartok, and he specifically talks about the episode involving president trump and sexual activity inside russia and

the fbi. wing you?th moderately to severely active crohn's disease, stelara® works differently. studies showed relief and remission, with dosing every 8 weeks. stelara® may lower your ability to fight infections and may increase your risk of infections and cancer. some serious infections require hospitalization. before treatment, get tested for tb. tell your doctor if you have an infection or flu-like symptoms or sores, have had cancer, or develop new skin growths, or if anyone in your house needs or recently had a vaccine. alert your doctor of new or worsening problems, including headaches, seizures, confusion and vision problems. these may be signs of a rare, potentially fatal brain condition. some serious allergic reactions and lung inflammation can occur. talk to your doctor today, and learn how janssen can help you explore cost support options. remission can start with stelara®. so chantix can help you quit slow turkey. along with support, chantix is proven to help you quit. with chantix you can ke