which you were sort of team leader on, and that was the issue about manafort's contact with konstantin kilimnikin your report, he was described, and in court he was described as somebody who was tied to russian intelligence. senate intelligence committee later came out and said bluntly, he's a russian intelligence officer. i want to ask you about those different -- those different ways of describing kilimnik and whether that was sort of a pulled punch or whether you think the intelligence committee actually came up with something other than what you guys had. but also what you take -- what you think the people -- the american people should take away in terms of the seriousness of this incident in which manafort was providing kilimnik with all of this internal polling data, strategic data about the campaign, while manafort was serving as trump's campaign chair. >> so i'm not sure whether the senate intel committee came up with new evidence. there was a lot of debate about the team, that is, my team wanted to have a classified appendix to the report that put in information that would supplement o

manafort, was regularly communicating with a guy who was a russian intelligence officer, this guy konstantin kilimnik, and giving him internal campaign documents. did manafort know that kilimnik was a russian intelligence officer when he was giving him all this internal stuff from the trump organization, all of this strategically sensitive stuff? >> whether he knew or not, he is a savvy enough man, having traveled the world. and in the circles he frequented, he darn well knew somehow that that information could make its way to the russian intelligence services. and that's a really interesting point. you know, at the time my understanding of kilimnik was very much in alignment with how the mueller report describes him. ssci went first. they called him an intelligence officer, and that's a much more certain description. i don't know what caused that change and what additional intelligence might have come to light. but i would note that report was signed off by every single republican on the committee. it's a bipartisan report. so my sense is if there were any doubt about kilimnik's affiliation, that wo

seasons ago when we all got to know and love crazy characters like paul manafort, felix sater, konstantin kilimnikopoulos, and sam clovis you remember, hogan's zeros? well, they're back in the news now that senate intelligence committee has released the final volume of its russia report with the shocking finding that trump campaign manager paul manafort shared internal campaign polling data with a russian intelligence officer who may well have been involved in the hacking. this is as definitive as it gets collusion happened and the worst part is, no one cares because it's old news. it's like finding out now that the characters on "lost" really did die in the plane crash "huh, so the island was purgatory? okay." also, i just want to say to the senate and robert mueller, and everyone -- everyone else involved in the russia investigation, way to slow walk it, fellas. couldn't have released definitive proof of a criminal conspiracy to cheat in the 2016 election before trump botched a deadly pandemic that left the nation in ruins i can't wait until august 2022 when the senate announces that yes, trump

partisan basis to reject my effort to include subpoenas of paul manafort and a russian agent konstantin kilimnik. why wouldn't we subpoena them? but yet, on a partisan roll call, this committee decided not to. not interested. don't want to get into probing it. we have lots of questions today of director comey as to whether he read every document, when he read it if he did, what impact it had on him, but when it came to these two key witnesses whose names appear over and over and over again in the russian interference of the 2016 election, this committee on a partisan roll call rejected my effort to extend subpoenas to these two individuals. is there some information we don't want to know from those two people? i think there's a lot of questions that have gone unanswered. i also want to make it clear this notion about the steele dossier, let me ask you this, director comey. was the steele dossier the reason the fbi began look nothing to interference in the 2016 election? >> no. >> are you aware, director comey, not one, not one of the indictments or criminal counts resulting from the mueller inve