plus frank figliuzzi is here he worked for john durham. vestigator, how do we find out where this draft report is of the durham investigation that when she refused to write, i have been asked to write a report, i refused to do it but she testified yesterday, there's a draft report was written. what does it say and should we be able to see it? >> i think absolutely we should. this is what weaponization of the department of justice looks like not the clown car that jim jordan is driving. it is things like this fist, i want to thank her for her braver ri in this testimony, but two, for doing the right thing and having the moral integrity to resign back in 2020. because had she not done that, there's a real chance that whatever the draft report was would have been published and quite likely could have impacted the 2020 election. but as to seeing it, she joins now, if you think back, the four prosecutor who is quit the roger stone prosecution, one prosecutor who quit the mike flynn prosecution. many of whom i worked with so you have to ask this

>> john durham in his report. >> who? >> john durham. >> durham? >> yes, sir, i did read the report. all those events are -- had to do with a cross-fire hurricane investigation. >> that was part of it, yes, sir. >> were you concerned when he said it was sobering what the fbi was doing. >> i think mr. durham -- and i just want to make sure that he understands. mr. durham thanked me for not interfering with his investigation. i promised he would be able to go forward without interference. just as i promised mr. weiss. mr. durham's -- and i did not interfere with his report. his report reported a lack of rigor and another -- a number of other problems with respect to the investigation. i think both the inspector general made a similar comment and director wray has made the same. >> thank you, attorney general. i don't have a lot of time. i want to yield a little bit to the chairman. is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election? >> i'm sorry? >> is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election? >> it's my fault, i can't hear, to request a -- >> i

house judiciary hearing on former justice department special counsel john durham probe of the origins of the fbi's russia investigation taking a short break here. live coverage when they return here on c-span 3. he comes, order to recognize the gentleman from kentucky flabbiness. >> i yield 30 seconds to the general lady from indiana. >> quick follow-up from c.j.'s -- according to your report created conspiracy allegations and direct conflict with his reported and -- the fbi among other things, and you are able to establish his intent. would you be able to provide to the committee, a quarter of your sea h as -- on april six, 2021. four page one 92. then you have interviews in the possession? yes or no? >> thank you for -- -- your like the, providers that come back me provided to the committee, mr. durham? >> the piece of evidence that belongs to the fbi. and probably that is a better direction with the fbi. >> okay. >> reclaiming my time, mr. durham, this seems to have all started with one person that i don't see's name in your report. i see in mueller's report 80 times, who did mr. p

and then we learned that john durham took two cases to trial and lost both of them. then we were promised hunter biden would go down for fraud, money laundering, all this hellacious stuff. then we learned that the trump appointed attorney where half the investigation was conducted under the trump administration, and i did hunter biden for failure to pay taxes that he ultimately ended up paying. the weaponization committee, i don't know if you remember them. we haven't had a hearing in over a month from them. again, they have failed to prove anything other than that it is an obstruction of justice effort on behalf of donald trump. so jordan's committee is starting to look like the cleveland browns. goose egg after goose egg. we will sit here and we will go through it. i know one of the issues is around the mar-a-lago search. what i want to know is he used to love bill barr. chairman jordan was thirsty for bill barr. we saw it and we heard it throughout so many congressional hearings. thank god for bill barr he said on september 12, 2019. june 24th, 2020, bill barr is

that's why anyone even knows who john durham is. that's live republicans are still carrying on mr. durham's work by launching frivolous investigations and with them embarrassing themselves, by propping up obvious lies. it has always been about gaslighting the country. so instead of holding these farcical hearings about farcical investigations, i urge my colleagues, my republican colleagues to get serious and start legislating on behalf of their constituents. instead of helping the twice impeached, twice indicted donald trump further evade accountability. thank, you and i yield back. >> the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mister chairman. mr. durham, i thank you for being here today. and i thank you for your tireless work on this, as you call, it is very sobering report. the american people were forced to endure years of the trump russia probe, and for what? i'll tell you why. it's because my democrat colleagues across the aisle, the clintons, the dishonest mainstream media, and the rest of the deep state have been terrified of donald tru

attorney, john durham. these records were in response to american oversight request for doj communication, between offices of the attorney general. and durham, or his first assistant. i ask unanimous consent, places in the wreckage of this hearing. >> -- gentleman from california. >> mr. sherman, junior colleagues have continued its leaside to steve now you know transcribed interviews, using selected statements taken out of context. i used to unanimous consent, putting into the record, the american public and seaford self exactly what was said. >> >> we will work on that. we will work on that. we have to, we'll talk, we want to make that fully available. >> mister chairman, your objecting -- >> mister chairman, i object. >> okay. >> if i understand correctly mister chairman, you're happy to cite selective portion of the transcript out of context, but not happy to -- >> mr. chairman, is there further action, there's been an objection? >> you don't want the american public to see this? >> roll call vote please

in 2009 there was an ongoing review by department of justice special prosecutor john durham. on august 24th, attorney general holder expanded that review. this t occurred six months after our study had begun. durham's original investigation of the cia's destruction of interrogation videotapes was broadened to include possible criminal action of cia employees in the course of cia detention and interrogation activities. at the time, the committee's vice chairman, kit bond, withdrew the minority's participation in the study citing the attorney general's expanded investigation as the reason. the department of justice refused to coordinate its investigation with the9 intelligence committee's review. as aas result, possible interviewees could not -- could be subject to additional liability if they were interviewed. and the cia, citing the attorney general's g investigation, would not instruct its employees to participate in interviews. notwithstanding in this, i am really confident of the fact i chul accuracy -- factual act accuracy and comprehensive nature of this report for three

>> john durham, what was offender the fbi confidential source program run poorly spending 40 or moreyear on paid confidential sources some at capital january 6 that is a great question maria i don't know if we can answer that right now because, again, christopher wray wouldn't acknowledge they were there last time he testified, so there has got to be accountability from fbi there has to be explanation of why they paid so many people sounds like it was more than a handful of may have been as much as a dozen people that were paid confidential human sources at january 6, you know at the capital when rites broke out. >> outrages, i would like to know what jay 6 committee has to say about that that attacking trump and his supporters people sitting in jail right now, and then we've got paid informants that were put there? on purpose? >> i assume this is going to come up in the merrick garland testimony, jump in here. >> yeah, absolutely i think there is a lot of questions for garland beyond hunter biden investigation, this being one of them i do want to circle back to impeachment a little

after we come out of the events of, for example, john durham, for example, testified to our committees about how investigations preceded through our investigative agencies without proper predication. it's not that you have to prove the case, it's not -- you understand to this point there's not been a single subpoena to a hunter biden bank account. or a joe biden bank account. or any other biden family member's bank account. because until an impeachment inquiry commences, that's not a jurisdictional possibility. well, it would be stretching jurisdiction to do that. but there's ample predication at this point in time based on that very unusual set of circumstances which is for no apparent payment for expertise or services rendered, biden family members writ large received over $20 million. mr. perry: that we know of. mr. bishop: it is very simple for someone to insist there's an absence of evidence but you can look in the face of that and contend that, anyone has a right to their opinion. what they can't do is change the facts. >> and i invite you to go to the website clyde.house.gov/bid

in may of this year, john durham released his report. that report not only backed up inspector general horowitz's findings but political and bias lied to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and illegally spy on the trump campaign for an entire year. in the recent investigation of special counsel durham, he found that some fisa applications arose from sources close with the kremlin who are known to be targets of target investigations related to fraud and espionage. they ran on the first investigations despite unreliable sourcing. they reports show the abuses of the fisa program. at the end of this year, section 702 will expire. section 702 does not require a warrant or justification to a judge or magistrate before the government agent about an individual who is a u.s. citizen. reports in recent years exposed the government and the f.b.i.'s abuse of this program. it is worked into a domestic spy tool that has been used millions of times the past three years to target americans. in 2021, the f.b.i. questioner yield the target more t

what john durham said.e, impeachment two, then naming a special counsel, and then it was -- david: oops. >> then it was, now they're talking the 14th amendment. then we learned last week they were actually contemplating in important ga, fani willis was actually contemplating bringing an indictment against three united states senators, one of them was the top republican on the senate judiciary committee. this is how crazy it's goen. you compare all that pattern with what david weiss has been up to the last four 1/2 years, where americans are saying wow, there are two standards here. david: congressman, we have to run but i have to ask the question, when will the inquiry begin? >> i think, i think the facts and the evidence are pointing us to that in a pretty think rap mid way. we'll have to see. the speaker is clear, we'll be driven by the constitution, the facts and the evidence. they are beginning to pile up. i think that is where we should probably move. that is a question for the whole conference. we jus

. >> who appointed john durham? >> mr. durham was also appointed by president trump. and mr. barr appointed him as special counsel. >> these guys are so upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the corruption that donald trump wants them to do. either they are just following the law or they are not as corrupt and not willing to go as far as they think that donald trump deserves. that's what they are asking to happen here. also, doesn't it seem they want it both ways when it comes to the special counsel? a lot of questions suggested that special counsel should be independent but when they didn't like the direction of the special counsel you were asked why you didn't interfere more or involve yourself more or investigate more? do you get the sense that they are kind of stuck here? >> when i make an appointment of somebody to special counsel or prosecutor, the appointment is with respect without the outcomes of the case will be. >> your office has made a number of changes to foreign nationals. those reforms aren't put into law. 702 is one of the bes

. >> who appointed john durham? >> i believe also appointed by president trump. and mr. barr appointed him to special counsel. >> these guys are so upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the corruption that donald trump wants him to do. so either they are just following the law or they are not as corrupt and they are not willing to go as far as they think donald trump deserves. that's what they are asking to happen here. doesn't it seem they want the it both ways? a lot of questions suggested that the special counsel should be independent, but when they didn't like the direction of the special counsel, you were asked why you didn't interfere more or investigate more. did you get that sense that you're stuck here? >> when they amake the appointment, the prosecutor, the appointment is without respect in what the outcomes of the case will be. >> your office has made a number of reforms to 702, targeting foreign nationals. but those are forms have not been put into law. 702 is also one of best weapons we have to go after fentanyl. can you tell

>> john durham. >> i did read the report. all of those events had to do with the cross fire hurricane investigations. >> that was part of it, yes, sir. >> yes. >> were you concerned when he said it was sobering what the fbi was doing? >> i think mr. durham, i just want to make sure everybody understands, mr. durham thanked me for not interfering with his investigation. i promised he would be able to go forward without interference, just as i promised mr. weiss. mr. durham -- and i did not interfere with his report. his report reported a lack of analytical rigor, and a number of other problems with respect to the investigation. i think both the inspector general made a similar comment and director wray has made the same. >> thank you, i don't have a whole lot of time. i want to yield a little bit to the chairman. is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election? >> i'm sorry? >> is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election? >> i'm sorry, it's my fault, i can't hear, to request a what. >> is it a crime to question an elec

>> john durham. >> i did read the report. all those events had to do with a crossfire hurricane investigation, is that -- a part of it, yes, sir. >> were you concerned when he said it was sobering what the fbi was doing? >> mr. durham thanked me for not interfering with his investigation, i had promised he would be able to go forward without interference, just as i promised mr. weiss. mr. durham's, and i did not interfere with his report. his report reported a lack of rigor and a number of other problems with respect to the investigation, i think both the inspector general made a similar comment and director wray has made the same. >> thank you, i don't have a whole lot of time, is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election? >> i'm sorry? >> is it a crime in the u.s. to question an election. is that a crime? >> i'm sorry, i -- it's my fault, i can't hear, to request a what? >> is it a crime to question an election in the united states of america. it is a crime -- is it a crime for the u.s. citizens to say we want to ask a

. >> who initially appointed john durham? >> mr. durham was, i believe, also appointed by president trump. mr. barr appointed him as special counsel. >> they are so upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the corruption that donald trump wants them to do. either they are just following the law or they are not as corrupt as not willing to go as far as they think that donald trump deserves. that's what they are asking to happen here. doesn't it seem they want it both ways when it comes to the special counsel? a lot of questions suggested the special counsel should be independent but when they didn't like the direction of the special counsel, you were asked why you didn't involve yourself more or investigate more. do you get the sense that you are stuck here? >> when i make an appointment somebody to be a prosecuor or special counsel, the appointment is without respect to what the outcomes of the case will be. >> your office has made a number of reforms to 702, targeting foreign nationals. but those refor

. >> appointed john durham? >> mr. durham was appointed by president trump. and he got appointed special counsel. >> these guys are upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors are not doing enough of the corruption that trump wants them to do. they are either following along or they are not as corrupt as biden, that's what they are asking to have been here. also, doesn't it seem they wanted both ways when it comes to the special counsel? a lot of questions suggested that the special counsel should be independent but when they did not like the directions, you are asked why you did not interfere more or involve yourself more. did you get the sense that you are stuck here? >> when i make an appointment, for the prosecutor, the appointment is without respect of the outcome of the case. >> your office is made a number of reforms 2702, targeting foreign nationals. but those forms have not been put into laws. 702 is one of the best weapons we have to go after fentanyl. would you support putting those reforms into law so we do not have to live administration to a

since we last spoke april 27th, john durham delivered his report detailing intelligence activities and investigations from the 2016 presidential campaign. when we presented at the committee, he was able to answer me. did the fbi have an adequate process to launch? >> my understanding is that mr. durham found it did not have a proper basis to elevate it to a full investigation but that he thought it was an assessment. connected the fbi failed to examine all available expenditure ratings? >> to examine it? certainly i think that there were failures, significant failures in respect to that information. >> did the fbi interview all key witnesses? >> i think mr. durham found that they did not. >> did the fbi abuse its authority on the intelligence surveillance act? >> certainly there were violations that were unacceptable, in my view, and cannot be allowed to happen again. >> as noted in the report, investigators hoped the returns on the application would "corroborate." the outlines permit uncorroborated allegations? >> i've never heard of that concept. >> is crossfire hurricane the only ti

the committee heard testimony from the special counsel john durham have you reviewed his findings or dispute any of those? >> i have reviewed them. a big multi-100 page finder. to my right on my desk. i can't say aware of anything that i specifically dispute. not only did we fully cooperate in the investigation. i'm proud of the fact that the reforms that were put in place in response to the investigation for the changes that were made with the attorney general if those reforms had been in place at the time that none of this would have happened. >> the bias was brought up time and time again before the committee. you feel those had been addressed by jason jones, putting together a letter which includes this information do you feel it's adequate? >> i am ambitious by nature. as an organization we are looking for more things that we could do. >> on the issue of bias because i think it's so important one of the things that i did as the fbi director and i did this a few years ago. in order this was in reaction in many ways for the hillary clinton investigation, i put in place training fo

since we last spoke on april 27th, special counsel john durham delivered his report detailing intelligence activities investigations arriving out of the 2016 presidential campaign. when mr. durham president here at the committee i asked of these questions, and he was able to answer me, and i would ask you the same. but the fbi had an adequate basis on which to launch crossfire hurricane? >> my understanding is that mr. durham found that it did not have a proper basis to elevate it to a full investigation, but that he thought it was a assessment or a preliminary inquiry was appropriate. >> the fbi failed to and -- investigate all exculpatory evidence? >> did you say to examine it? certainly i think there were failures significant failures with respect to exculpatory information. >> the fbi interview aki witnesses and this? >> i think mr. durham i think found that they did not. the >> did the fbi abuses authority under the foreign intelligence surveillance act? >> certainly there are violations are totally unacceptable, in my view, cannot be allowed to happen again. >> as noted in the report

just last month, as you know, special former, former special counsel john durham sat in that seat and testified that the justice department and the fbi should never have launched the bogus trump russian investigation. his lengthy report reluctantly concluded that the fbi quote, failed to uphold its mission of strict fidelity to the law. just last week, nbc had a poll, only 35% now view the fbi positively. 35% had a negative view. in 2015, 52% had a positive view of the fbi. there is a serious decline of peoples faith, it's on your watch sir. and then, july 4th, we had this explosive, explosive, hundred and 55-page opinion from a federal court in my home state of louisiana. it directly says that the fbi has been directly involved in what the court says is a arguably, the most massive attack in american free speech. -- among others to immediately cease colluding with, and coercing social media companies to suppress american speech. of course, conservative speech in particular. director wray, i find stunning, you've made no mention of this court opinion either in your opening statement t

on june 21st, the committee heard testimony from special counsel john durham.have you reviewed his findings and dispute any of those? >> i have reviewed them. it's a big multi hundred-page binder of it sitting to my right on my desk. i refer to it frequently. i can't say that i'm aware of anything specific that i would dispute in. it certainly, as you may know, not only did we fully cooperate with him in the investigation, as he noted in his report, but actually i assign much of the agents and personnel to work on it with him and help him. and i'm very proud of the fact that the reforms that we've put in place in response to the inspector general's investigation, and also into the hurricane as well as mueller changes we've made working closely with attorney general barr, if those reforms had been in place back at the time that all of this stuff that the special counsel durham found, i don't think any of this would've happened. >> so the confirmation bias, which was brought up time and time again when durham was here, before the committee, you feel those have be

david's point about the facts that the john durham probe was defeated in dramatic and embarrassing fashiont firm very much built hunter biden's criminal defense. they represented him all the way up through that hearing in july and played a key role in essentially running the same playbook in arguing that a politically motivated prosecution is going to be a loser in front of a jury. >> put everybody up again. i want to thank betsy woodruff swan and dave aronberg for being on. yeah. nobody on this screen or on any of our shows before or after this indictment went down here on "morning joe," i don't think i heard one person screeching about the weaponization of the justice department and claiming it was a witch hunt and undermining our institutions. i'm trying to think. i don't see anyone here that has done that, not once. take note, republicans bowing to donald trump and losing every step of the way when they do that, when legitimate charges have arisen against the former president, some of them that he completely admits to even when he doesn't know he's admitting them to megan kelley. dave

. >> who initially appointed john durham? >> mr. durham was, i believe, also appointed by president trump. and mr. barr appointed him special counsel. >> and again, these guys are so upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors aren't doing enough of the corruption that donald trump wants them to do. they are just following the law or they're not as corrupt and not willing to go as far as they think that donald trump deserves. >> it is an interesting jumping off point, mike, to ask you if the republicans attacking the hunter biden case just willfully ignore the fact that if trump appointed u.s. attorneys are in charge of that case and seems like garland hadn't touched it until he elevated the u.s. trump attorney if they think their theory is that he's in on the thick and what is the theory about the fact that it is a trump appointed republican who investigated hunter biden? >> they don't like that the hunter biden investigation didn't turn out to be what donald trump wanted it to be. and said it was going to be. they were banking

just last month, as you know, former special counsel john durham said right in that seat and testified that the justice department and the fbi should never have launched the bogus trump russia investigation. his lengthy report concluded that the fbi, quote, failed to uphold its mission of strict d fidelity to the law. just last week, only 37% of registered voters now view the fbi positively. 35% have a negative view. in 2018 by comparison, 52% of the country had a positive view of the fbi. there is a serious decline in people's faith . and it is on your watch. on july 4th, this explosive 155- page opinion from a federal court in my home state of louisiana that explains in detail the fbi has been directly involved in what the court says is, quote, arguably the most massive attack against free speech in united states history. the court ordered the white house, doj, and fbi to immediately cease colluding with and coercing social media companies to suppress american speech. of course, conservative speech in particular. director wray, i find it stunning you made no mention in this opinion i

even john durham said the fbi investigation was legitimate. proceed at a different level. these are the basics. trump said there wasn't an attack and that helped. he republicans and trump have done a great job distracting, deflecting, saying it was the deep state and things are not true. if you do not believe me -- i doubt you will -- if you want to know what happened, it is very simple. if you care, it is going to take time and work. the intelligence community put out a report. people say, that is the deep state. ok. you trust senator marco rubio. you trust him. he is a trump supporter, a republican, he ran for president as a republican. trust him, john? i assume you do. you do not think he is part of the deep state. in august 2020 when he was chairing the senate intelligence committee, he put out a report, signed off by the republicans and the democrats on the committee. senate intelligence committee report, volume five, was all about the trump-russia scandal. it is 700 pages. it takes time to become informed. it says exactly what i just sai

even john durham said the fbi investigation was legitimate.roceed at a different level. these are the basics. trump said there wasn't an attack and that helped. he republicans and trump have done a great job distracting, deflecting, saying it was the deep state and things are not true. if you do not believe me -- i doubt you will -- if you want to know what happened, it is very simple. if you care, it is going to take time and work. the intelligence community put out a report. people say, that is the deep state. ok. you trust senator marco rubio. you trust him. he is a trump supporter, a republican, he ran for president as a republican. trust him, john? i assume you do. you do not think he is part of the deep state. in august 2020 when he was chairing the senate intelligence committee, he put out a report, signed off by the republicans and the democrats on the committee. senate intelligence committee report, volume five, was all about the trump-russia scandal. it is 700 pages. it takes time to become informed. it says exactly what i just said,

. >> remarks now from former justice department special counsel john durham. he appeared before the house judiciary committee to testify in the investigation he led of potential misconduct in

. >> appointed john durham? >> mr. durham was appointed by president trump. and he got appointed special counsel. >> these guys are upset that donald trump's appointed prosecutors are not doing enough of the corruption that trump wants them to do. they are either following along or they are not as corrupt as biden, that's what they are asking to have been here. also, doesn't it seem they wanted both ways when it comes to the special counsel? a lot of questions suggested that the special counsel should be independent but when they did not like the directions, you are asked why you did not interfere more or involve yourself more. did you get the sense that you are stuck here? >> when i make an appointment, for the prosecutor, the appointment is without respect of the outcome of the case. >> your office is made a number of reforms 2702, targeting foreign nationals. but those forms have not been put into laws. 702 is one of the best weapons we have to go after fentanyl. would you support putting those reforms into law so we do not have to live administration to a