bob fiske is our exclusive guest. you for being here. >> glad to be here. >> when you ran that office, then as now, it deals with a lot of big stuff. when they are investigating something that/ma i or may not relate to washington or get extra attention, how does that affect the case? how does it work? >> i think one of the great things about the office historically has been it has been totally apolitical. prosecutorial decisions are made without regard to politics. and the hiring of the assistant u.s. attorneys is done totally on the merits without regard to any political affiliation. so, basically we had a case. we just went out and did our job. >> did it surprise you to see the current u.s. attorney take on lawyers be it the president's lawyer who is controversial. mr. cohen is now incarcerated. or a lawyer, michael avenue n avenue nat ty. >> it doesn't surprise me he would just do his job. a case comes along and it deserves to be investigated, he'll do it. >> i've got to ask you a question that you might think is b

interviewed and they were only interviewed by 2 western journalists as far as we can tell the world robert fisk from the u.k. isn't sure whether in the doom or in the days afterwards they were the only 2 that actually interviewed i would this isn't doctors that the world's media were invited b.b.c.'s least to have a team on the ground to little iran of late for their clearance and never actually got to interview any of the witnesses really arrived late how do you crews are another whole other story isn't there i suppose it is yeah but it is part of the same coverage of the corporate media aided and abetted and there we see the capture and the politicized ation of the of the c.w. the russian foreign ministry in certain level been sold against cashed in in more diplomatic language than i would use is basically to paraphrase a said that it stinks the a p c w stinks from the top but what's really encouraging though is we have people within the organization that are willing to try and get the truth that it's possibly extreme personal experiences that in terms of their own political careers but relie

. >> the first special prosecutor, robert fiske vowed to wrap up his investigation quickly. >> woulduys get down? >> but he was replaced, and his successor ken starr was far more aggressive. >> our job is to gather facts and get at the truth. >> expanding the inquiry way beyond whitewater. >> the investigation kind of leads in all these different directions. >> this is truly a wildly historic night. >> no one could have been happier with starr's aggressive approach than newt gingrich and the republicans. >> there's been a sea change in american politics. >> they had swept into congress in 1994. >> this is an earthquake. >> preaching the new gospel of strict orthodox conservatives. >> newt gingrich reshapes the republican party. our base wants this, we do this. we do not compromise with democrats. >> president clinton became the democrat the republicans despised the most. he was morally corrupt, thety said. >> he experimented with t. >> i experimented with marijuana a few times and didn't inhale. >> the law is the law. the law is sacred. >> meanwhile, ken starr had been digging into t

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 an fbi field office in late july 2016 to report information from, quote, a colleague who runs an investigative firm hired by two entities, the democratic national committee as well as another individual who was not named to explore donald trump's longstanding ties to russian entities. was that investigative firm fusion gps or did the dnc hire another firm to peddle anti-trump informat

we brought on this contractor, fisk, and they were a disaster. oh, we knew what our costs were. they would be easy. we went overbudget. we didn't know what our costs were. i think by not doing this, we could have saved $300 million, could have saved the the city of san francisco and brought in ins in on time. we pride ourselves $3 million on 50 states. why aren't we spending in the san francisco bay area? doesn't that make more sense? what's wrong with us? it's a politically correct decision but your job is to manage a business. you agreed to pay 5.7 million craft hours, you just reported and you agreed to pay the highest price. for sure, we're going to have the highest budget. for sure, we're probably going to have cost overruns and it won't work very well. since this is a done deal, i would like to reference to the memorandum, which is part of what he was talking about and in the third line it says, this agreement provided -- i'm talking about the jpl or whatever it's called -- provided standardized working conditions and wages. i suggest we need to add the word highest as an

it gets harsh when the fisk responds back to this in the letter they sent out in the order yesterday. they said because the conduct of the ogc attorney gave rise to serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to the fisk in any manner in which the ogc attorney was involved, the court ordered the government on december 5, 2019, to among other things provide certain information addressing those concerns. then this. the fbi's handling of the carter page was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor. the frequency of representstations turned out to be unsupported or contra dicted by their possession in which they withheld information debt rimal to their case calls into question information and in other fbi applications is reliable. one of the reasons this is important is because what this group did at the fbi not only took our nation down years of turmoil but they're now calling into question every fisa application and i'm confident every attorney is going to bring this case up and say we can't rely on the fisa now. the crossfire hurricane team not

and did anyone in the fbi seem concerned at all that it was not updating the fisk, the court, it wasly providing a court with incorrect and misleading information? >> so the fisa court first learned of it, at least as i unders

parade followed by 40 people on horseback and there was carriage carrying reverend fiction, the -- fisk, the master of ceremony, followed by 60 more carriages, filled with local people. as this impressive retinue got underway, cannon boomed on the village green and several hundred more people gave barnum three chairs. when the carriage reached belt the ban played home sweet home and three more cheers one up as barnum alighted. thus the day begun in jail ended in well orb straighted and raucous triumph. neither barnum nor anyone else said for short organized the many events of the day or who chose the members of the committee of arrange.s and its president. barnum care any did not give or take credit when he later screen the celebration in detail in his memoirs and without doubt it was in barnum's interest to imply the day unfolded almost spontaneously, propelled by the enthusiasm of his neighbor sponsors this exhaust and himself. he had groen up in the village and had many, many relatives there and nearby. he had gone to church there, hat clerked in it stores, still opened a store there

. >> so 98% approval rating of applications that come before the fisk. why would it be that high? and i'm just saying that the good answer is, in an ex parte proceeding, when you might be suspected 6 something that would open a surveillance warrant against you, the assumption would be if you can't be there to defend yourself, streets because the department and he lawyers are so screw juppe on you sxrup uhe husband, if there is any information that might exxon rate you, they would say the bar is high and we'll air on the side of privacy unless we believe there is a good reason to pursue this investigation. so mike lee has warned me for 4 1/2 years the potential for an bhus in th abuse is terrible and i constantly defended the department. let move on from bruce ohr and move to the renewals. the renewals, first one we can have ars debate about. the second, third and fourth fisa proceeding against carter page are based on an assumption the court has that, hey, we got a bunch of information the first time we heard this case and if we thought it was legitimate to open a case into this g

caucus, have attended great hbcu's, such as american baptist church, fisk university, florida a&m, howard university, jackson state university, moorhouse college, north carolina a&t, north carolina central, prairie view a&m university, south carolina state, texas southern university, tupelo college, tuskegee university, virginia state university virginia union university, wiley college among others. in the 115th congress, the c.b.c. launched a tour of hbcu ice called c.b.c. on the yard. the goal of the tour was to listen to, involve, and mobilize students to effect change in their communities and to get their thoughts on the direction of the country and the issues that impact their lives. the c.b.c. hosted events at moorhouse college, xavier university, bowie state university and howard. according to thurgood marshall foundation, hbcu's account for % of the current bachelors degrees granted to african-americans, moreover, among african-americans, 13% of c.e.o.'s, 40% of engineer, 40% of health care professional, 50% f teachers, 50% of nonhbcu professor, 50% of lawyers and 80% of judges an

there's the fisk itself, so now i'm exiting from my role here, and the -- [inaudible] which other people will talk much more about. but give me two more minutes if that's about the right time. the challenge of oversight, internal oversight offices is simultaneously -- the office -- internal oversight offices are desired by the agencies they work for because they want the blessing of those offices. they want the external credibility that such blessings get them. if they can create enough authority or enough of a reputation that the blessing actually carries some reputational benefit, right in that's the thing that they want from them. they might also want the expertise, but they don't always want the expertise. what they mostly want is the blessing. but then the question is, well, what comes with that. so what comes with that has to be some kind of actually bringing into the agency the norm that the office is designed to further. so if it's a civil liberties office, there has to be some civil liberties credibility that comes with that. and so what those offices have to do if they're going

the approval rating of applications that come before the fisk are off the charts. a couple years ago when i saw them, it was 97.9%, is that a fair -- >> the last number i saw was 98%. >> 98% approval rating of applications that come before the fisk. why would it be that high? i'm asking you to answer that. i'm saying that the good answer is, in an ex parte, but in an ex parte proceeding before the court, when you the american citizen who might be being sur veiled or suspected of something that would open a surveillance warrant against you, the assumption would be if you can't be there to defend yourself, it's because the department's lawyers are so superscrupulous if there was any information that might exonerate you or counter act the view that had them pursue the case, they would say the bar is so high here, he'll air on the side of privacy. and so mike lee has warned me for 4 1/2 years the potential for abuse in this space is terrible and i constantly defended the integrity and the professionalism of the bureau and of the department that you couldn't have someth

the approval rating of applications that come before the fisk are off the charts. a couple years ago when i saw them, it was 97.9%, is that a fair -- >> the last number i saw was 98%. >> 98% approval rating of applications that come before the fisk. why would it be that high? i'm asking you to answer that. i'm saying that the good answer is, in an ex parte, but in an ex parte proceeding before the court, when you the american citizen who might be being sur veiled or suspected of something that would open a surveillance warrant against you, the assumption would be if you can't be there to defend yourself, it's because the department's lawyers are so superscrupulous if there was any information that might exonerate you or counter act the view that had them pursue the case, they would say the bar is so high here, he'll air on the side of privacy. and so mike lee has warned me for 4 1/2 years the potential for abuse in this space is terrible and i constantly defended the integrity and the professionalism of the bureau and of the department that you couldn't have someth

it gets a little more harsh when the fisk responds back to this sent out r they yesterday, they said because the conduct of the ogc attorney gave serious concerns about the accuracy and completeness of the information provided to the matter, in which the ogc attorney was involved, court ordered the government on 2019, to, among other things, provide certain information addressing those concerns. this. the f.b.i.'s handling of the carter page applications as report was the oig antithetical to the candor described above. he frequency with which representations made by the f.b.i. personnel turned out to or contradicted by information in their possession and with which they information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information other f.b.i. applications is reliable. one of the reasons this hearing important is ly because what this group did, at only took our nation down years of turmoil, but they are now calling into fisa application, and i'm confident every attorney s going to bring this case up to say, we can't rely on the fisa process now and it will fisa court

remember they got rid of the original prosecutor robert fisk who was a republican but not a zealous righttting clinton the way that starr was. so i think that the senate trial was ultimately beneficial to clinton and in fact there were some important moments during that trial when clinton's defenders, his defense team got up and made important powerful speeches. >> did they put on witnesses? >> no, they didn't. it was not done that way. they accepted depositions and other kinds of evidence, but there was not a trial in the sense of a criminal trial. >> right. so essentially what the clinton white house did was they put on just their defense but they didn't put on any witnesses in his defense. >> they did not. and the reason was that that was an agreement that had been reached by trent lott who mitch mcconnell is making look like a great statesman now who began a negotiation with tom daschle who was the minority at the time. and immediately after the articles of impeachment voted in the house and said we have to figure out a way do this that preserves the integrity of the senate, that serv

they've made a number of suggestions in the fisk including expanding the types of cases they can participate in. improving access to materials and being able to trigger appeals. if implemented, what would the impact of those changes be? >> so i'm not familiar with the recommendations. is it recent? >> i believe so. >> i have not seen that. you mentioned one was appeals? >> essentially broadening their capacity to engage. >> i think the system now is working well. that provide value, benefit to the court. it's up to the court to decide which i think is appropriate. so the court can decide would it benefit me to hear a different position is this a routine matter where it's not necessary so i think leaving that with a court is a good idea. on appeals, we thought about this in 2015 when we worked with members of the committee could the amicus file and appeal. there were constitutional issues with doing that. they're not party to the case so they wouldn't have standing under article 3 to pursue an appeal themselves. so e we came up with a certification mechanism where by the court could certify a