we've been waiting for this john carlin, to you first. so on the one hand the report says that james comey was insubordinate, he exercised serious error in judgment, but then it goes on to say there was no evidence of bias in what he did. what are weo make of this in >> i think report is quite clear that after over a yearlong investigation, 500 pages, what the inspector general found was that the justice department, f.b.i., and career prosecutors madeheir decisions for the right reasons. it said quite clearly n evidence that the prosecutors were affected by any bias or anp other impr consideration. that's the most important takenaway when it comes to vital institutions like the justice department. >> woodruff: is that how you see it, thomas dupre that that's the most important thing, even tugh there's a fining of insubordination? >> it's a sad day for f.b. in the sense that a former senior official has been found to have engaged in misconduct. there is also evidence of bias in the lower ranks.bu the inspector general was careful and cauti

.>> oodruff: john carlin, if a set of circumstances were to present themselves to the f.b.i. again, what would be done differently? >> thas a great question. it's good the hear the current director address it today, which is to tom's point, you shouldn't go outside what had been long standing normsen one thing they suggest is making those norms rules some number one, as everyone has watched "law and order" knows, it's the investigators who investigate the case, and therosecutors who try them in court. you should not have the investigative agency announcing the results as to whether or not there should be a prosecutio you shouldn't mention a specific recommendation abo c this. be vereful about mentioning any uncharged conduct. because basically the rule is if you can't charge them as a prosecutor, your job is done, and at that point you keep your mouth shut, because it's not our job to issue opinions about what we think about behavior, either we can move it in a court of law or we cat. >> woodruff: i heard a part of christopher wray's news conference, which happen than an hour

thanks very much let's dig deeper with our panel of experts, phillip swagle from 2006 to 2009 john carlinrmer doj security attorney. what do you think of this seeming adjustment at least based on where we thought this might be going earlier in the week >> i mean, i was pleased with secretary mnuchin's announcement, i think it's good news, the process is well understood and works well and importantly it balances between economic and national security concerns we need foreign investment we need capital flows in the u.s. and this assures markets that those will continue. >> john, your thoughts >> the cfius process is not about trade and it is about national security. so it means that they are going to look closely at those investments that might result in the transfer of technology and critical sectors to china or might allow china too increase theft of intellectual property or trade secrets the other part that my clients have been concerned about in the big or want to see what's going to happen next has to do with u.s. companies though. and that is under the commerce department, coming -- i