Speaker 1: Well, everything we said, everything we were reported, everything we
Speaker 1: told you was dead on center, accurate. And the mob
Speaker 1: and the media has missed what is the biggest abuse
Speaker 1: of power corruption scandal in the history of the country.
Speaker 1: It is that this report putting aside whatever differences, and
Speaker 1: for the Attorney General and for John Durham to come
Speaker 1: out like they have and I'll get to these statements
Speaker 1: in a second, and it is all there in black
Speaker 1: and white. It's all there. Put the conclusion differences aside
Speaker 1: for a second. Here, there is no more doubt the
Speaker 1: FBI launched an intrusive investigation in a presidential campaign on
Speaker 1: what is described as the thinnest of suspicions. The Attorney
Speaker 1: General said and in my view, were insufficient to justify
Speaker 1: the steps taken. It is also clear from its inception
Speaker 1: that the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory.
Speaker 1: By the way they actually took out exculpatory information, they
Speaker 1: purposely misled repeatedly the FISA court. It goes on that, nevertheless,
Speaker 1: the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration
Speaker 1: of the campaign and deep into President Trump's administration in
Speaker 1: the rush to obtain and maintain FIZA surveillance of the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign associates. The FBI officials misled the FISA court,
Speaker 1: omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or
Speaker 1: ignored information, negating the reliability of their principal source. The
Speaker 1: Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.
Speaker 1: That's just the tip of the iceberg. Now that's from
Speaker 1: Bill Barr. Now, remember, and this is very critical and
Speaker 1: where we are at this particular moment, because and I've
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time explaining this, Horowitz has already
Speaker 1: made numerous referrals from all the people that we're now
Speaker 1: going to be talking about today and the upper echelon
Speaker 1: of the FBI long before in his earlier reports. Nobody's
Speaker 1: lifted a finger because an inspector General does not have
Speaker 1: the power to convene a grand jury make charges. And
Speaker 1: what I suspect is going on here is now the
Speaker 1: final step of all this is going to be Durham's report.
Speaker 1: Because Durham said, I have the utmost respect for the
Speaker 1: mission of the Inspector General. The comprehensive work that went
Speaker 1: into the report prepared by mister Harowitz and his staff. However,
Speaker 1: our investigation is not limited to developing information from within
Speaker 1: component parts of the Justice Department. This is what do
Speaker 1: you think they've been in Italy, Great Britain so often?
Speaker 1: What do you think's going on over there? We're going
Speaker 1: to know soon enough. Our investors included developing information from
Speaker 1: other persons entities, both in the US and outside of
Speaker 1: the US. Clapper Brennan, are you paying attention based on
Speaker 1: the evidence collected to date and while our investigation is ongoing.
Speaker 1: Last month, we advise the Inspector General we don't agree
Speaker 1: with some of their conclusions as to the predication of
Speaker 1: how the FBI's case was opened. In other words, we've
Speaker 1: got evidence to the contrary. Let's let's be blunt here.
Speaker 1: That's what he's saying, and it's also a preview, if
Speaker 1: you will, of coming attractions. He's pretty much saying, stay tuned.
Speaker 1: We have a lot more now. Remember, Inspector General referred
Speaker 1: come already prior to this release today, over leaking memos
Speaker 1: and lack of candor and harrow, it's found the FBI's
Speaker 1: handling of the Clinton emails. Remember, senior bureau officials show
Speaker 1: to quote willingness to take official action to prevent Trump
Speaker 1: from becoming president. He's already said all of that. He's
Speaker 1: referred Lisa Page, Peter Struck, Kevin Kleinsmith, and others including
Speaker 1: Jim Comey Andrew McCabe for further investigation. Kleinsmith is the
Speaker 1: same anti Trump lawyer we're expecting to hear a lot
Speaker 1: more about in days to come. And back in May,
Speaker 1: the IG referred to an unnamed FBI deputy Assistant director
Speaker 1: for referred this person for prosecution for leaking sealed court records.
Speaker 1: And in April the DJ watch dog, the Inspector General
Speaker 1: sent a criminal referral for the disgraced x FBI official
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe or unauthorized leaks and quote lacking candor. But
Speaker 1: now now it's what Durham and barrs saying. Now it's
Speaker 1: time for accountability, because that's all you're gonna get out
Speaker 1: of the Inspector General. He can't convene a grand jury,
Speaker 1: he can't. So now it's in the Attorney General's hand
Speaker 1: and Durham's hand. In their words today should send shivers
Speaker 1: and shocks down the spines of these people have involved
Speaker 1: in this abuse of power corruption scandal. The biggest in
Speaker 1: history here because this is what it is and what
Speaker 1: you know. You look at the numerous factual errors and omissions.
Speaker 1: They failed to vet the information, numerous serious performance failures
Speaker 1: by those handling the FISA application. The applications were oh
Speaker 1: relied on the discredited work of Christopher Steele, as the
Speaker 1: Clinton bought and paid for dirty Steele dossier, whose own
Speaker 1: author said, yeah, no, I have no idea of any
Speaker 1: of its true. In other words, it was an unverifiable
Speaker 1: document from the get go. How could you conclude anything
Speaker 1: other than yeah, they did it by design. As far
Speaker 1: as the numerous factual errors and omissions, I mean yeah,
Speaker 1: as we discussed below, we identified numerous serious factual errors
Speaker 1: and omissions. The omissions were exculpatory information which I'll get
Speaker 1: into us this day unfolds. There were serious performance failures.
Speaker 1: We conclude the failures described in this report represents serious
Speaker 1: performance failures by the super advisory and non supervisory agents
Speaker 1: with responsibility over PISA applications. Seventeen significant errors or omissions
Speaker 1: in the FIA applications. Seventeen at least that they've identified.
Speaker 1: IG did not receive satisfactory explanations for any of their
Speaker 1: conduct in the errors in the applications procedures. We also
Speaker 1: did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or the
Speaker 1: problems that we identified. In most instances, the agents and
Speaker 1: supervisors told us that they did not know or recall
Speaker 1: why the information was not shared with the FISA court,
Speaker 1: that the failure to do so may have been an
Speaker 1: oversight they didn't recognize at the time the relevance of
Speaker 1: the information. FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement
Speaker 1: that they ensure that all information in a PHIZA application
Speaker 1: is accurate, and it goes to cross via Hurricane team
Speaker 1: that McCabe, Comey others. They wanted to rely on Steal's
Speaker 1: dosier despite knowing the concerns that Steele was being funded
Speaker 1: by the Clinton and the DNC, and McCabe pushed for
Speaker 1: Steele's debunk reporting to be in the intelligence assessment on
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election, despite pushback from the CIA. There
Speaker 1: were concerns about struck in page by passing the chain
Speaker 1: of command to advise McCabe. The IG report concludes Bruce
Speaker 1: or committed consequential errors in judgment. The FBI. Also it
Speaker 1: goes on from there received information raising significant questions about
Speaker 1: Steele's findings that did not press steal for information. Steel's
Speaker 1: information played the central and essential role in the decision
Speaker 1: to seek deifies the order. The FBI did not have
Speaker 1: information oberating any of the Steel dossier and the allegations
Speaker 1: that are being made here do you see where this
Speaker 1: is all going? So you know what is in here?
Speaker 1: We're learning in I mean, how many pages total is this?
Speaker 1: I didn't even get to the last page, almost five
Speaker 1: hundred pages. I mean, it's unbelievable. The failure to vet Steel.
Speaker 1: Now here's why would that matter? All right? They fell
Speaker 1: far short in abiding by FISA policy. No corroborating evidence
Speaker 1: as it relates to page allegations. They purposely changed, you know,
Speaker 1: page everything he had told us on this program, according
Speaker 1: to this is all true. He worked for the government,
Speaker 1: he worked for another agency, and then when they were
Speaker 1: handed that information, they altered the information to get into
Speaker 1: everything backdoor. Remember second hand information. Once you get to
Speaker 1: Christopher Carter page, now you're in all things Trump campaign world,
Speaker 1: Trump transition world. There were quote mountains of flags regarding
Speaker 1: Steele's work. The FBI fell far short and abiding by
Speaker 1: FISA policy. Our review found FBI personnel fell far short.
Speaker 1: Factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete,
Speaker 1: unsupported by appropriate documentation. None of these inaccuracies and omissions
Speaker 1: were brought to the attention of the Office of Inspector
Speaker 1: General before the last f application. This went on for
Speaker 1: almost a year. They were Operation Crossfire Hurricane was unable
Speaker 1: to corroborate any of the specific allegations regarding Carter Page
Speaker 1: contained in Steel's DOCI. They couldn't corroborate any of it.
Speaker 1: The FBI's failures created misleading, a misleading FISA application. Seventeen
Speaker 1: specific errors and omissions we have identified in these FISA applications.
Speaker 1: There are so many. Any basic and fundamental errors were
Speaker 1: made by three separate, handpicked teams on one of the
Speaker 1: most sensitive FBI investigations. This is all in the report
Speaker 1: and then it goes on from there. They didn't give
Speaker 1: equal attention, by the way, to the relevant facts. On
Speaker 1: the other side, They purposely took all the exculpatory information
Speaker 1: so that no, we don't want to see that. I
Speaker 1: mean the five's applicant was made clear information supporting probable
Speaker 1: cause it was non existent in this case, they found
Speaker 1: the quantity of omissions and inaccuracies breathtaking and by the way,
Speaker 1: the agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments, you
Speaker 1: think serious performance failures. Then it gets into, you know,
Speaker 1: the very very specific issues involving the dossier, which we've
Speaker 1: got to now pay very close attention to, because if
Speaker 1: we don't get to the basics and this, we're screwed.
Speaker 1: Because you know, Stell, by the way, in his own sense,
Speaker 1: in his own way, was up to was eyeballs in
Speaker 1: this and was doing it for money. And he when
Speaker 1: he finally pushed, came to shove, which they could have
Speaker 1: done from the very beginning they would have found h Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Now one of the I think most damning things in this,
Speaker 1: which validates every single thing that we told you, Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele was paid by the FBI. Steele denies ever agreeing
Speaker 1: to become to work for the FBI, which is an
Speaker 1: interesting sidebar. But what I found most telling is what
Speaker 1: you find out is without any dossier, there was no
Speaker 1: FISA application. Remember we kept saying the bulk of information
Speaker 1: comes from the unverifiable Steel dossier. It says it exactly
Speaker 1: like that. In this report. They had absolutely zero confirmation
Speaker 1: or even an ability to confirm everything James in that
Speaker 1: earlier version, I appreciate it. They didn't even have the
Speaker 1: ability to verify it because they never took the time
Speaker 1: to verify it, and they went as to so far
Speaker 1: is to actually change the evidence that was presented in
Speaker 1: this case, every bit of it. They want it. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: So without the Steel dossier quote, they would not have
Speaker 1: even pursued the FIES warn't because they weren't getting it.
Speaker 1: When I asked about the motivations behind the Steel dossier,
Speaker 1: agent involved didn't respond. The FIS application form was almost
Speaker 1: entirely based on the unverifiable Steel Dossier and this whole
Speaker 1: circular reporting. Remember one step, two step, once you get
Speaker 1: into everything Carter Paige, Now you're into everything Trump worlds
Speaker 1: because he worked as a campaign associate and the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: That gave them a backdoor to the Trump campaign, the
Speaker 1: Trump transition team, and the Trump presidency. The FISA application
Speaker 1: was almost entirely based on the Steel dossier. Oh, who's
Speaker 1: been telling you that? Nobody in the fake news media.
Speaker 1: Without the dossier, they wouldn't have pursued a FIES war
Speaker 1: because they wouldn't have gotten one who's been telling you
Speaker 1: that about the motivations buys application, called Steel a reliable
Speaker 1: source and lied that his info had been used in
Speaker 1: criminal proceedings. They actually lied about that. Struck himself signed
Speaker 1: off on an expedited FISA application. They mislern the agent
Speaker 1: misled the attorney saying that Carter Page never met with us.
Speaker 1: Then you have the actual changing of this thing to
Speaker 1: thee where it would have been exculpatory to Carter Page,
Speaker 1: and then they did it to screw him so that
Speaker 1: they could still get to Trump. Page to McCabe, we
Speaker 1: can overcome looking biased in the FISA application. We could
Speaker 1: overcome it. They're bragging about it. And then Page to McCabe, Oh,
Speaker 1: she's so innocent. I thought. We have a robust explanation
Speaker 1: for any possible bias charges here, and it goes on
Speaker 1: from there. It is a lot to absorb. It's nearly
Speaker 1: five hundred pages. I've only had it in my hands
Speaker 1: for a little over two hours, and my entire team
Speaker 1: here was still going through it. But it is everything
Speaker 1: we said is true. Everything, every single thing. The mob
Speaker 1: was wrong every step of the way. Now imagine if
Speaker 1: this was done to Hillary or Barack Obama or any
Speaker 1: Democratic candidate ever, I think the mob would care. So
Speaker 1: what were we telling you versus the mob in the meeting?
Speaker 1: We were telling you that the bulk of information was
Speaker 1: the killery Clinton, unverifiable, bought and paid four Steel dossier.
Speaker 1: Now we know the Fiser request Quote one six twenty
Speaker 1: seven page drew almost entirely from Steele's reporting and describing
Speaker 1: the factual basis to establish probable cause. The bulk of
Speaker 1: information was the dirty dossier, the unverifiable dirty dossier. Now
Speaker 1: we also know when asked for the motivations behind the
Speaker 1: Steel dossier, they didn't know. Without Steel they could not
Speaker 1: have gotten a FISER warrant. That unit chief told the
Speaker 1: OYG that the receipt of Steele's quote reporting changed their
Speaker 1: mind on whether they could establish probable cause. In other words,
Speaker 1: without the dirty Clinton bought and paid for unverifiable dirty
Speaker 1: Russian dossier, there is no Fiser report. On top of
Speaker 1: all the lying and exculpatory information with held will continue
Speaker 1: all right, twenty five now till the top of the hour,
Speaker 1: eight hundred and ninety four one. Sean, if you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of this extravaganzas so much to
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to stand back. I can look at
Speaker 1: the big picture. There's so much damning information in this thing.
Speaker 1: And what I've now concluded is, if you remember the
Speaker 1: the Mueller Report, the way the Democrats saw it was
Speaker 1: going to lead to the roadmap to impeachment, Dak got
Speaker 1: blown out of the water. By the way. Another thing
Speaker 1: that we find out in this Horowitz report on you know,
Speaker 1: it's so it's so outrageous because all of this is
Speaker 1: such an abuse, disgusting abuse of power. It really is.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you listen to the words A, Durham
Speaker 1: and Bar, it's devastating. And Durham has the wider scope.
Speaker 1: Durham has the power. Durham is now officially a criminal investigation.
Speaker 1: He can convene grand juries and he's making clear he
Speaker 1: will be doing that. And you know when with Barr
Speaker 1: and his statements, it is it is beyond damning. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: I want to go back now that I'm explaining to
Speaker 1: you everything that we told you is true, and you
Speaker 1: go to page one twenty five, and you can go
Speaker 1: to one twenty four and one twenty six and one
Speaker 1: twenty seven of this report. What are we looking for here,
Speaker 1: all right? Steele? Christopher Steele? Or is it motivations? Remember
Speaker 1: we found out when he when he was pressed under
Speaker 1: oath in an interrogatory in Great Britain. I have known
Speaker 1: you if any of it's true. Single sourced information from
Speaker 1: a crazy person that he describes as a crazy person
Speaker 1: without without the Steel dossier, they knew they couldn't get
Speaker 1: the FISA application McCabe. So McCabe did say it, he's
Speaker 1: saying now he didn't say, of course, he probably said
Speaker 1: it my view, but they're saying in the report that
Speaker 1: with that it pushed it over the line in terms
Speaker 1: of yeah, that was what that was? What did it
Speaker 1: for us? And don't forget they also used a circular reporting.
Speaker 1: They leaked it out to Isakough and what's another hack's
Speaker 1: name conspiracy theorist, Oh, David Corn and Isakov by the way,
Speaker 1: willing dupes, Oh, thank you for the information. Let me
Speaker 1: reported it as true and using that conspiracy theorists that
Speaker 1: they are. But anyway, without the dirty dossier, the Clinton
Speaker 1: pays for that we now know as verifiable. That's how
Speaker 1: they get in a backdoor. Now, of course you get
Speaker 1: once you get to Carter Page. Well, now you get
Speaker 1: into the Trump campaign, and then after the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: you get into the Trump transition, then the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: And what's remarkable in all of this is Komey lies
Speaker 1: through his teeth repeatedly, because he signed off on the
Speaker 1: application in October of twenty sixteen. He put his signature
Speaker 1: on that first FISA application with the unverifiable bulk of information.
Speaker 1: I'll read from page one twenty six and seven. The
Speaker 1: FISER request form drew almost entirely from Steels reporting and
Speaker 1: describing the factual ass to establish probable cause to believe
Speaker 1: that Page was an agent of a foreign power. The
Speaker 1: only additional information cited an ADFISER request from the only
Speaker 1: the rest of it was a statement that Paige was
Speaker 1: a senior foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign and
Speaker 1: had extensive ties to various state owned or affiliated entities
Speaker 1: of the Russian Federation. The only other thing besides the
Speaker 1: dossier used to secure the warrant Papadopoulos's statement, which by
Speaker 1: the way, even that's altered and an open source which
Speaker 1: is articles discussing. But all that was was leaks to
Speaker 1: Isakof and korn As I understand it to make it
Speaker 1: seem like it was independent corroboration that was done on
Speaker 1: purpose too. So without the dirty unverifiable Clinton bought and
Speaker 1: paid for Russian dossa, you don't get the back door.
Speaker 1: So remember the standard, because if you look at a
Speaker 1: FISA application, it has the word verified at the top
Speaker 1: of it. Oh, it's unverifiable. But it was the it
Speaker 1: was based almost entirely. But for those three things. The
Speaker 1: statement that page was a senior foreign policy blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah, Papadopoulos's statement, and these two articles written by
Speaker 1: two conspiracy theorist hacks that they leaked to and did
Speaker 1: no verification on their own obviously because they're just hacks.
Speaker 1: That hey, Trump, that was it. So it was the
Speaker 1: dirty dossier Laughton paid for unverifiable and then but the standard,
Speaker 1: well Rod Rosenstein told us of mail last year what
Speaker 1: the standard was. Pay close attention the way we operating
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice. If we're going to accuse somebody
Speaker 1: of wrongdoing, we have to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses.
Speaker 1: We need to prepare to prove our case in court,
Speaker 1: and we have to fix our signature to the charging document.
Speaker 1: That's something that not everybody appreciates. Let's go back to
Speaker 1: the beginning. You need to have real evidence. Play that
Speaker 1: again the way we operate in the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: If we're going to accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have
Speaker 1: to have admissible evidence and credible witnesses. We need to
Speaker 1: prepare to prove our case in court, and we have
Speaker 1: to fix our signet out there. Credible evidence, admissible evidence, admissible. Okay,
Speaker 1: none of this is verified. The whole thing was a sham.
Speaker 1: If that's not abusive power, I don't know what is.
Speaker 1: And we're gonna we're creal law enforcement officials listen to
Speaker 1: this charging document. That's something that not everybody appreciates. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of talk about FISA applications, and many people
Speaker 1: that I see talking about it seem not to recognize
Speaker 1: what a FIES application. FIES application is actually a warrant,
Speaker 1: just like a search warrant. In order to get a
Speaker 1: FISA search warrant, you need an affidavit signed by a
Speaker 1: career federal law enforcement officer who swears that the information
Speaker 1: in the affidavit is true and correct to the best
Speaker 1: of his knowledge and belief. And that's the way we
Speaker 1: operate and if it's wrong. Sometimes it is. If you
Speaker 1: find out there's anything incorrect in there, that person is
Speaker 1: going to face consequences. There was that no time, ever,
Speaker 1: any ability to verify the bulk of that application. It's unverifiable. Bull.
Speaker 1: That's why I think we're hearing from Horowitz and Durham.
Speaker 1: They're like, Okay, I don't know why you're getting this.
Speaker 1: You're trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. Fine,
Speaker 1: but you know, with all due respect, they failed to
Speaker 1: meet the basic obligation to ensure applications were scrupulously accurate.
Speaker 1: It was never that. There was no possibility any of
Speaker 1: it was accurate. It's unverifiable, and they used it four
Speaker 1: times a full year of spying. Then they launched an
Speaker 1: investigation into a presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions,
Speaker 1: as Bill Barr says, and he says, in my view,
Speaker 1: insufficient to justify these steps taken. And then you go
Speaker 1: to Durham, and Durrham's the one that's doing the criminal investigation,
Speaker 1: and he was about as clear as he could be.
Speaker 1: You sure, I respect Harwitz. Our investigation, though, is not
Speaker 1: limited to developing information from within component parts of the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. Oh, other people that have information, we can
Speaker 1: go talk to them. Our investigation has included developing information
Speaker 1: from other persons and entities, both in the US and
Speaker 1: outside the US, based on the evidence collected a date,
Speaker 1: and while our investigation is ongoing, we do not agree
Speaker 1: with some of the report's conclusions as to prediction of
Speaker 1: how the FBI case was opened. Remember Harrowitz found that
Speaker 1: dossier provided probable costs to spy on Carter Page. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but they had to alter information about Carter Page to
Speaker 1: get there, which I'll get to omitted information the FBI
Speaker 1: obtained from another US government agency detailing its prior relationship
Speaker 1: with Page, including Page had been approved as an operational
Speaker 1: contact for the other agency three letter agency from two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight to thirteen. The Page had provided information
Speaker 1: to other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian
Speaker 1: intelligence officials and officers, one of which overlap with facts
Speaker 1: asserted in the visa application. Now we also have a
Speaker 1: included in this whole thing, a source characterization statement about
Speaker 1: Steel's prior reporting had been quote corroborated and used in
Speaker 1: criminal proceedings. That is a lie. That's not true. And
Speaker 1: I've talked to high ranking people all day that know
Speaker 1: within the Justice Department, overstating the significance of Steel's asked
Speaker 1: reporting and was not approved by Steele's handling agent as
Speaker 1: required by WOODS procedures. Three. They omitted information relevant to
Speaker 1: the reliability of person A key Steel's subsource and this
Speaker 1: is the one source. He only had one source. Steel
Speaker 1: himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that one
Speaker 1: person who was at a big ego and was a
Speaker 1: boaster gave him the information may engage in some embellishment.
Speaker 1: Steele even told them that one source by somebody that
Speaker 1: lies basically and if you look at the report nine
Speaker 1: you know, and some if you look at who the
Speaker 1: attribute attribution here with provided information in the report and
Speaker 1: some information and other reports relied on the application. Steal
Speaker 1: himself told members of the the whole team, it's only
Speaker 1: one guy. He's basically telling them, I have no idea.
Speaker 1: If it's true, then that would be premeditated aud and
Speaker 1: that the FBI assessed Steal did not directly provide to
Speaker 1: the press the information for that Yahoo. Michael Iszikov article
Speaker 1: based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI
Speaker 1: he only shared his election related research with FBI and
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS as client. The premise was incorrect and contradicted
Speaker 1: by documentation in the Woods file. Steel had told the
Speaker 1: FBI he also gave information to the State Department. They
Speaker 1: omitted Papadopoulos's statements monitored to an FBI gets informant, denying
Speaker 1: that anyone associated with the Trump campaign ever corroborated with
Speaker 1: Russia or outside groups like Wiki Leaks, Oopsie Daisy that
Speaker 1: would be important. They omitted pages statements that he had
Speaker 1: literally never met or said one word to Manaport, and
Speaker 1: Manaport had not represented to any of pages, emails and
Speaker 1: by the way, number seven pages consentually monitored statements, etc.
Speaker 1: They omitted other statements paid maids that we're inconsistent with
Speaker 1: that theory, including denying Evan met with certain individuals if true.
Speaker 1: Those statements contradicted the claims in the report that Paige
Speaker 1: had met secretly with them about future cooperation. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you one thing that's going to emerge at some
Speaker 1: point here that you pay close attention that I'm right
Speaker 1: on on this. They never once gave the Trump team
Speaker 1: a defensive briefing and said, hey, just to give your
Speaker 1: heads up. We're looking into this possibility. But my sources
Speaker 1: confirming for me today the US government, through Brennan and
Speaker 1: Obama himself, informed the Russians of a possible compromise with
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. That is breathtaking. Brennan called the Russians
Speaker 1: in August and September or twenty sixteen. Did they ever
Speaker 1: think they should call the Trump campaign? Obama called the
Speaker 1: Russians in September. Um, how is that possible? He got
Speaker 1: Page in Papadopoulos, you know, literally Page didn't lie to us.
Speaker 1: What did you see that? Remember some people saying don't
Speaker 1: trust Page. This report exonerates him. But they had to
Speaker 1: use manophor Page, Papadopolis and Flynn's Oh, they just used them.
Speaker 1: All these guys were used and abused for the purpose
Speaker 1: of getting a Trump just like call me. Also lied
Speaker 1: when he said, oh, yeah, it's salacious but not verified,
Speaker 1: because three months earlier he was he was saying it
Speaker 1: was verified when he signed off on the FISA application,
Speaker 1: then signed off on two others after he lied to Trump.
Speaker 1: He's caught in a million lies here. And if I'm
Speaker 1: Durham and I'm Bill Barr, Yeah, I'm I'm looking at
Speaker 1: this saying, yeah, this is not true. What else do
Speaker 1: we have in all this? We have? So they're concerned
Speaker 1: about the d O JF eye policies didn't require senior
Speaker 1: officials to be notified the confidential source on Page and
Speaker 1: Papadopolis before and after they joined the Trump team. They altered,
Speaker 1: literally altered the exact wordings. They failed to ever vet
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele or the one egotist that he told them
Speaker 1: not to trust. There's a mountain of red flags they
Speaker 1: point out in terms of serious problems with Steal's descriptions,
Speaker 1: but they did it anyway. They never corroborated the allegations
Speaker 1: against Page. Just the opposite. The FBI didn't have information
Speaker 1: corroborating the allegations the end's page, and as a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, they had exculpatory information that they purposely withheld
Speaker 1: from the FISA Court. They never told the FISA court
Speaker 1: that Hillary paid for the dirty Russian dossier. That would
Speaker 1: be important if I was a FISA Court judge. Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele and the FBI, Yeah, they didn't have the relationship
Speaker 1: that the FBI official were saying that they had. You know,
Speaker 1: one weird thing that came out of this is apparently
Speaker 1: Steele says he personally knows a member of the Trump family.
Speaker 1: The some suspect it was a Vonka. I have no idea.
Speaker 1: I am not a native. You can getting into that,
Speaker 1: So you get into this, okay. The FISA application is
Speaker 1: we now know, unverifiable with a single source lunatic that
Speaker 1: they even told everybody was a single source lunatic as
Speaker 1: an egomaniac that makes things up. They FISA request form
Speaker 1: referred to Steele as a reliable source, but yet Steel
Speaker 1: was not considered a reliable source. He was even fired
Speaker 1: by the FBI for lying and leaking Struck's telling the
Speaker 1: Office of Inspector General that he approved the request to
Speaker 1: expedite the FISA a sense of urgency. That's not how
Speaker 1: it works, though, is it? According to Rod Rosensteam, which
Speaker 1: we just played by the way we have we have Comey.
Speaker 1: Let's play comey here, because Comey confessed in this to
Speaker 1: the Inspector General that the steal Darcier shouldn't have been
Speaker 1: used in the application. But that's not what he said
Speaker 1: back when listen. Jim Mayer wrote a very comprehensive piece
Speaker 1: in the New Yorker about Christopher Steele's dacier and about
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, is he considered reliable according to your sources
Speaker 1: as an intelligence agent. Yes, as it was ascribed to
Speaker 1: me when it came in. It was raw intelligence, so
Speaker 1: a series of reports from a credible person with a
Speaker 1: reliable track record and a known, experienced and source network
Speaker 1: in Russia. And so it was something to be taken seriously.
Speaker 1: Didn't mean that it was all true, but it was
Speaker 1: to be taken seriously, and its core assertion was corroborated
Speaker 1: by other intelligence, its core being the Russians exact paining
Speaker 1: to interfere in the American election, just like he lied
Speaker 1: to Trump, so Ealaysia's and unverified everything about this that
Speaker 1: we told you is true. That you have literally an
Speaker 1: unverifiable Clinton bought and paid for Russian dossier, the bulk
Speaker 1: of information used for the pies applications, and it to
Speaker 1: abuse power and get at a candidate, a transition team,
Speaker 1: and a president. I can't wait to durham and bargain
Speaker 1: a hold of this. A lot of people had done here,
Speaker 1: trust me, this is bad. Well, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: go into the details of the conversations. I had with Sue.
Speaker 1: But at the end of the day, we put forth
Speaker 1: a package that, to my understanding, people in my building
Speaker 1: and the department were satisfied with so to the extent
Speaker 1: that there were any concerns about how we represented what
Speaker 1: we knew about the informant and his potential, how he
Speaker 1: came involved in acquiring this information, and what his background
Speaker 1: might might say about his involvement in that collection. I
Speaker 1: think everyone was satisfied that we had represented that accurately
Speaker 1: and adequately in the package. The court was obviously satisfied
Speaker 1: they signed it. But three or four times I thought
Speaker 1: there there was one. Right, there were three renewals, including
Speaker 1: by Rod the last one, and three renewals, one of
Speaker 1: which I signed. It took place after the director had
Speaker 1: been fired. Uh, Miss, it's almost a joke listening to
Speaker 1: McCabe in retrospect. Why did he actually say that, because
Speaker 1: the report today, what's what was ut March was the
Speaker 1: report today shows, Yeah, the dirty dossier they wouldn't have gotten,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have gotten defies a warrant without the dirty dossier.
Speaker 1: And yeah, the application was almost entirely based on an
Speaker 1: unverifiable document, almost entirely, and that yeah, Christopher Steele. Without
Speaker 1: the dossier, they wouldn't have even pursued it. Now we
Speaker 1: know that the Clinton bought and paid for unverifiable Russian
Speaker 1: dirty dossier? Was it just by on carter page? Deny
Speaker 1: him his institutional rights? By the way, now we know
Speaker 1: also Manaphort and Papadopoulos, and wow, they went after General Flynn.
Speaker 1: That's how we treat thirty three year veterans in this country.
Speaker 1: This is an excoriating beatdown of how corrupt this whole
Speaker 1: thing was and what an abuse of power, and it's
Speaker 1: you know, and forget about whatever. Harowitz doesn't have the
Speaker 1: ability he's referred people left and right and all over
Speaker 1: the place. Nothing happens when Durham comes out as he
Speaker 1: does today and says the things he's been saying today.
Speaker 1: Now we're like, okay, this is our investigation, He goes on,
Speaker 1: has included developing information from other persons and entities both
Speaker 1: in the US and outside the US, Italy, Great Britain, Australia,
Speaker 1: and based on the evidence collected to date, and our
Speaker 1: investigation is ongoing. He invites the Inspector Generman. We don't
Speaker 1: agree with some of the report conclusions, interpretation, yeah, we've
Speaker 1: got we've got a lot more than you do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because we're because we're not limited in our purview. You know,
Speaker 1: you also say the Steel dossier provided you know, probable cause. No,
Speaker 1: that every every indication was it was unverifiable. Even the
Speaker 1: interview that he gave. We all know in the interrogatory
Speaker 1: what he said. But now we know in the interview
Speaker 1: he said, yeah, one source, and the guy was an
Speaker 1: egomaniac who was known to make up crap. So that's
Speaker 1: that's where we are here. And the Inspector General finding
Speaker 1: himself seventeen significant errors. We've identified least seventeen significant errors
Speaker 1: or missions in the FISA applications and additional errors and
Speaker 1: wood procedures. It goes on to say, in great detail,
Speaker 1: under the so called too Hop rule, investigations investigators could
Speaker 1: collect the communication of every person that Page interacted with.
Speaker 1: Why is that important? Because the reason they had to
Speaker 1: alter the documents that actually showed that Carter Page was
Speaker 1: a patriot. Carter Page worked with a three letter agency.
Speaker 1: The three letter agency warned them all that, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: he's good, and then they changed it to make it
Speaker 1: sound just the opposite. Why Because once you got to
Speaker 1: Carter page. Then you got into the Trump campaign, transition team,
Speaker 1: and presidency. That's why. That's how bad this is for them.
Speaker 1: And to have the Attorney General of the United States
Speaker 1: now weighing in as strongly as he has weighed and saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is bad, and Durham saying it is bad, Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan rightly pointing out we thought they spied on two Americans.
Speaker 1: Now we know it was four. We know within one
Speaker 1: week of the investigations opening, the FBI was surveiling the
Speaker 1: campaign and four specific individuals. Do you realize how thin
Speaker 1: it is. It is so thin that it's based on
Speaker 1: one thing we're learning today, just one, and that is
Speaker 1: George Popinopolis is what he said at a party. That's thin.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General rejecting all of this in a lengthy statement,
Speaker 1: you know, saying this is how intrusive this all is,
Speaker 1: and him going really really deep into this never should
Speaker 1: have happened under the thinnest of suspicions, he goes in
Speaker 1: launched on the thinnest of suspicions. The Inspector General's report
Speaker 1: now makes clear the FBI launched the investigation the US
Speaker 1: presidential campaign on the sinnest, the thinnest of suspicions, in
Speaker 1: my view, insufficient to justify. And they knew that they knew,
Speaker 1: and the overwhelming bulk of evidence was what it was,
Speaker 1: the dirty Clinton bought and paid for dossier, just as
Speaker 1: we have reported and told you. And what was the
Speaker 1: what was the point of this. They couldn't have gotten
Speaker 1: to warrant with out the dirty dossier. That's unverifiable. That
Speaker 1: go to page one twenty six. The fiser request for
Speaker 1: him drew almost entirely from the dirty dossiers, and then
Speaker 1: three little other things. That's it. It was the bulk
Speaker 1: of information was this. The grassly Graham new Nest memos
Speaker 1: were correct. Dorham blasting this rightly, so bar blasting this
Speaker 1: also and saying that you know, the report insufficient basis
Speaker 1: to do any of this. And it's clear from its
Speaker 1: inception the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless,
Speaker 1: the investigation and surveillance were was pushed forward for the
Speaker 1: duration of the campaign into deep into the president's administration.
Speaker 1: Now we know if you go back, and we'll get
Speaker 1: to this later. The statements of Bar from that speech
Speaker 1: that he gave. Oh now, it's beginning to take on
Speaker 1: great your meaning than ever before. We'll play that. We
Speaker 1: know numerous errors, serious performance failures, relied on the discredited,
Speaker 1: unverifiable work of the Steel dossier. Comey, even Comi's confessing
Speaker 1: at his interview. Yeah, yeah, No, this wasn't ripe enough
Speaker 1: the Steel dossier or mature enough to be complete. Now, well,
Speaker 1: why did you sign it three times? That's a problem
Speaker 1: for him. Yeah. Finally Director Ray says something. Oh, he
Speaker 1: promises reforms. He's saying that now because he knows it's
Speaker 1: trouble in terms of this. I'm gonna tell you right now,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a push to get rid of Fays anyway.
Speaker 1: Two people that have been right with us all along.
Speaker 1: Investigative reporter John Solomon vindicated today. Greg Jarrett vindicated today,
Speaker 1: and this is only the beginning of the vindication. Thank
Speaker 1: you both for your great work. We were right the
Speaker 1: whole time. We were all right the whole time. The
Speaker 1: mob in the media did nothing. Anyway, John Solomon, your take,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna keep you guys for the hour, so
Speaker 1: we have plenty of time. It is just stunning the
Speaker 1: level of misinformation and erroneous information and disprove an information
Speaker 1: that the FBI allowed to persist with the FI succord.
Speaker 1: They fleeced the FI support, the FBI, using its most
Speaker 1: awesome spy powers, fleece the FI Succord, and so doing,
Speaker 1: they fleece the American public, and they violated the civilebrities
Speaker 1: of the four men who were targeted by this investigation.
Speaker 1: It is just when you look at these seventeen failures,
Speaker 1: these seventeen misinformations, these seventeen omissions, they are so glaring
Speaker 1: as to almost appear intentional. And I think that at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the idea that this was
Speaker 1: just simply a case of incompetent cops really really pales
Speaker 1: when you start to read the facts, that the knowing
Speaker 1: and willful decisions not to provide information up the chain,
Speaker 1: the changing of a document that head carter Page's relationship
Speaker 1: with the US intelligence agents to say that he didn't
Speaker 1: have it, when in fact that it said just the opposite.
Speaker 1: That's right, I mean, And the core thing, the only
Speaker 1: thing that would justify a fist against carter Page was
Speaker 1: that he had met with these two guys in Russia,
Speaker 1: the two egres, I call him the FBI knew that
Speaker 1: wasn't true. It allowed that to persist for a year
Speaker 1: and allowed the court to keep extending these warrants. And
Speaker 1: in January twenty seventeen, the FBI interviewed Christopher Steel subs
Speaker 1: or something I told you many months ago that subsource
Speaker 1: disowned the information attributed to him in the dossier. We
Speaker 1: could have saved two years of the Mueller investigation if
Speaker 1: the FBI had just come clean about that. It is
Speaker 1: tragic to civielebrities, is tragic to the American desire for
Speaker 1: truth that these FBI agents and officials allowed this farcet
Speaker 1: to go on for two years. Greg Jarrett, your takeaway
Speaker 1: from this, I guess your two books have been vindicated
Speaker 1: as well, because everything you reported is true. Yes, you know.
Speaker 1: In my books, I go through all of the misrepresentations
Speaker 1: that were made by the FBI and the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice to spy on the Trump campaign. Never told that
Speaker 1: Clinton's campaign had paid for the phony dossier, not told
Speaker 1: that Steele had leaked and lied. Instead, they vouched that
Speaker 1: he was credible, you know, not told that the FBI's
Speaker 1: evidence was unverified, and it clearly was worse than that.
Speaker 1: Though unverifiable and by the way, from page one twenty
Speaker 1: six the Fiser request form, which says at the top
Speaker 1: verified drew almost entirely from the dirty Clinton bought and
Speaker 1: paid for Russian Steele dossier. Oh sure, and and they
Speaker 1: were not told of exculpatory evidence. That's really where Baron
Speaker 1: Durham come in. You know what's revealing about the report
Speaker 1: today is Bill Barr's damning assessment of it. Miscontas, misfeasons,
Speaker 1: clear abuse of FAISA process. What's baffling is how the
Speaker 1: IG seems to have blindly accepted the stories. Sorry my apologies, okay,
Speaker 1: should have turned it off. They even said it was
Speaker 1: he accepted all these stories by people like Comey and
Speaker 1: McCabe and Baker, not to mention Chris Steele himself, you know.
Speaker 1: But Orwitz offers the following vacuous excuse, it's not my role,
Speaker 1: the second guest discretionary judgment. You know all Americas that
Speaker 1: was so weakly trouble well it is, I mean, but
Speaker 1: I'll tell you it's so egregious. I mean, when you
Speaker 1: see that the the Durham and bar came out as
Speaker 1: strongly as they did, it's sort of like this is
Speaker 1: the appetizer. John. Now, we've got a lot of the
Speaker 1: facts outlined here, everything corroborated that we believe to be true.
Speaker 1: But you know, an inspector general, he's already referred call
Speaker 1: me Page Rock McCabe for he's already referred to us.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't really matter what his assumption is here.
Speaker 1: But what I think Durham is saying, oh god, we've
Speaker 1: got it all. We've got this buttoned up so tight.
Speaker 1: You have no idea because you can't do what we've
Speaker 1: been doing. On top of what you did, keep in mind,
Speaker 1: he also today revealed that he caught an FBI agent intentionally,
Speaker 1: willfully doctoring a document to keep the fist of scam going.
Speaker 1: That is one of the most serious criminal violations I've
Speaker 1: ever seen come out of an IG report. So he
Speaker 1: has provided some new evidence of criminality. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, Klin Smith, right, Yeah, the lawyer
Speaker 1: who who doctors played what he did because he actually
Speaker 1: this was on carter Page in particular, Yeah, and not
Speaker 1: a relationship with the CIA that wasn't being divulged. And
Speaker 1: if the if the FISI court knew that carter Page
Speaker 1: was trusted by the CIA, they might have had some
Speaker 1: serious reservations about spying on them or you know what,
Speaker 1: I forgot to say. And also they never told anybody
Speaker 1: that Hillary paid for it. That's right. And here's another one.
Speaker 1: When the assessment it came out in December, the rushed
Speaker 1: Obama assessment that Russia, you know, tried to infiltrate our camp,
Speaker 1: our election and tried to influence our election. The CIA
Speaker 1: specifically told the FBI, don't use the Steele dossier. What
Speaker 1: did McCabe and Comey do? They used it as part
Speaker 1: of the assessment, which means that assessment is flawed. It
Speaker 1: really if if devices are flawed, the intelligence assessment that
Speaker 1: relied on the dossier it now needs to be revisited
Speaker 1: for the failures that Steele brought to this table. But
Speaker 1: the fact that the CIA was objecting to steal dossier
Speaker 1: tells you something big about just how bad and how
Speaker 1: little a secret the FBI's misconduct was in the r community.
Speaker 1: John Solomon, Greg Jarrett vindicated both as well as this program.
Speaker 1: Everything we told you was true. And now we have
Speaker 1: the attorney general and prosecutor adoram, Wow, this is going
Speaker 1: to blow up into something massive. I can tell you
Speaker 1: right now. There's no way they would say these things
Speaker 1: if that was not true. And as we continue Sean
Speaker 1: Hannay Show, John Solomon, investigator reporter Greg Jarrett, legal analysts
Speaker 1: for Fox, also two best sellers. As a result of
Speaker 1: all of this, everything we've told you is dead on accurate. John,
Speaker 1: you actually go through the list of seventeen things. One
Speaker 1: of the top takeaways you get Greg, before we'll go
Speaker 1: through the seventeen that the Inspector General identified serious omissions
Speaker 1: and accuracies, failures, etc. What stands out the most to you, Greg,
Speaker 1: that the FBI knew that Carter Page was not a spy.
Speaker 1: You'll recall in the first fi so were in application,
Speaker 1: they absolutely declare that Carter Pages a spie. They knew
Speaker 1: he wasn't because they knew he had assisted the US
Speaker 1: government in previous cases against Russian spies. And you know
Speaker 1: they also knew that Carter Pages sent a letter to
Speaker 1: James Comey saying, Hey, I'm getting badgered by reporters You're on.
Speaker 1: Happy to sit down and talk to you about my
Speaker 1: recent trip to Russia. And instead of doing that, Comey
Speaker 1: decided to go to a FISU court lie to them
Speaker 1: and spy on Carter Page and ruining his life. You know,
Speaker 1: it's amazing because Carter Page. We figured him out over time.
Speaker 1: He was very reluctant to give me the information that
Speaker 1: you're saying here. He did not want to. I said,
Speaker 1: I had to figure out. So basically you worked, you
Speaker 1: work for our government. Well, let's just say I yeah,
Speaker 1: I kind of did. And I was like pulling teeth
Speaker 1: and I was warned, don't trust Carter Page. I'm like, really,
Speaker 1: because I was asking them all the hard questions. Greg, No,
Speaker 1: I mean I dug up the court documents and put
Speaker 1: it in my book about how he had assisted in
Speaker 1: the prosecution of Russians who were trolling you know, Americans
Speaker 1: for espionage purposes. Stay right there. When we come back,
Speaker 1: we'll go through the seventeen massive failures. Jim Jordan, Mark Meadows, more,
Speaker 1: Greg and John and What a Hannity Tonight at Night.
Speaker 1: Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they
Speaker 1: called the resistance, and they rallied around an explicit strategy
Speaker 1: of using every tool and maneuver to sabotage the functioning
Speaker 1: of the executive branch and his administration. Now, resistance is
Speaker 1: the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by
Speaker 1: an occupying military power. This is a very dangerous and
Speaker 1: indeed incendiary notion to import into the politics of a
Speaker 1: democratic republic. The fact of the matter is that in
Speaker 1: waging a scorched earth, no holds barred war of resistance
Speaker 1: against this administration, it is the left that is engaged
Speaker 1: in the systematic shredding of norms and undermining the rule
Speaker 1: of law. Remember that from the speech given recently by
Speaker 1: the Attorney General Bill Barr today, Bar saying the FBI
Speaker 1: had insufficient basis to justify the steps they had taken
Speaker 1: into the investigation of the Trump campaign in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: and he said it's also clear from its inception the
Speaker 1: evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the
Speaker 1: investigation the surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of
Speaker 1: the campaign and deep into into President Trump's administration. He
Speaker 1: also said FBI officials misled the fis A court, omitted
Speaker 1: critically exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored
Speaker 1: information to gaining the reliability of their principal source in
Speaker 1: a rush to maintain surveillance warrants on members of the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, followed up by the criminal investigation. At this point,
Speaker 1: the US Attorney Durham John Durham, and we, by the way,
Speaker 1: who unlike Harrowitz, has the ability to convene grand juries
Speaker 1: and go forward with yes charging individuals based on the
Speaker 1: evidence collected to date. While our investigation is ongoing, we
Speaker 1: advise the Inspector General that we don't agree with some
Speaker 1: of his reports conclusions as to prediction predictions on how
Speaker 1: the FBI case was open. He said, the utmost respect,
Speaker 1: our investigation is not limited to like what's he's saying
Speaker 1: is Harwitz's limitations to developing information from with incomponent parts
Speaker 1: of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information
Speaker 1: from other persons and entities, both in the US and
Speaker 1: outside the US. Now this is very key because these
Speaker 1: these are fiercely strong comments made by the Attorney General
Speaker 1: and by the US Attorney Durham, But in this way
Speaker 1: they were said about me. I'd have a lot to
Speaker 1: be worried about today, and what they are, what they
Speaker 1: are telegraphing here is very plain for anyone to see,
Speaker 1: because what do we learned today? We learned everything we
Speaker 1: told you is true, Yep, that the Boughton paid for
Speaker 1: unverifiable Clinton Russian dossier that that was defies The application
Speaker 1: was almost entirely based on it. A matter of fact
Speaker 1: that actually that only was three other things. The only
Speaker 1: additional information is on page one twenty six and seven,
Speaker 1: a statement that Paige was a senior foreign policy advisor
Speaker 1: for the Trump campaign and extensive ties to various state
Speaker 1: owned or affiliated entities of the Russian Federation. Yeah, he
Speaker 1: was working for the CIA. And then yeah, when the
Speaker 1: CIA said no, this guy's credible for our side, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they changed it. They literally altered the document on purpose. Wow. Two.
Speaker 1: The only other thing besides the dirty Clinton Boughton paid
Speaker 1: for Russian dossier by Steel that is unverifiable because he
Speaker 1: even he told them, yeah, now this guy's nutz. He's
Speaker 1: an egomaniac and known to make things up. And that
Speaker 1: was my only source. Wow. And the only other two
Speaker 1: things were Papadopolos's statement, which, by the way, also they
Speaker 1: took out the exculpatory information there in three open sources articles. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but that was leaked on purpose from the Steel dirty dossier.
Speaker 1: The rest of it was all the Boughton paid for
Speaker 1: unverifiable because it's not true. Now proven ninety percent of
Speaker 1: it not true because they can't prove one hundred percent
Speaker 1: yet and that was used for the whole time. And
Speaker 1: this is the this stinks too high heaven. In fact,
Speaker 1: if this had ever gone on, if it was Obama
Speaker 1: or Hillary, Wow, and then you got this, this witch
Speaker 1: hunt continuing all day to day. No fact witnesses. Again,
Speaker 1: here's say witnesses, obnue witnesses. Let's stay focused on this
Speaker 1: with John Solomon, investigative reporter, vindicated in a massive way
Speaker 1: today is his reporting as well as Greg Jarrett's reporting.
Speaker 1: Let's go through the list both of you, of the
Speaker 1: seventeen failures that were identified in this report. Now it's
Speaker 1: his own words. John will start with you on number one.
Speaker 1: Omitted information. Yeah, they omitted the fact that carter Page
Speaker 1: was considered a friendly to the US government working with
Speaker 1: the intelligence community and a Russia capacity unrelated to the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign, and to facilitate or to sustain that lie,
Speaker 1: they ultimately falsified documents to try to keep that omission
Speaker 1: from the court. Just remarkable. If the court knew that
Speaker 1: carter Page was considered a friendly useful to the United
Speaker 1: States government, might they have proceeded with US. I bet not.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, they until the court Hillary
Speaker 1: paid for it. I think that might have made a difference.
Speaker 1: They didn't tell the court it was unverified. That would
Speaker 1: have made a difference. They acted like this is gospel truth,
Speaker 1: Greg Jared. Number two is the source characterization statement asserting
Speaker 1: steals prior to reporting had been corroborated and used in
Speaker 1: criminal proceedings. That wasn't true, was it? No, it wasn't
Speaker 1: true at all. And they knew that Steele was dodgy
Speaker 1: and that his information was not just dubious but likely
Speaker 1: phony because they've been warned by people at the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, Bruce or they'd been warned by Kathleen Cavallac
Speaker 1: at the State Department, don't trust this guy. You got
Speaker 1: to vet his information. They didn't vet it. They didn't
Speaker 1: corroborate it. It was unverified. And as you know, when
Speaker 1: you submit an FBI warrant to surveil to affy support
Speaker 1: the regulation specifically state and I'll vote only document, documented
Speaker 1: and verified information may be used in support of a
Speaker 1: FISA application. End of quote. They didn't do it. Let's
Speaker 1: go to the omitted information. John Solomon. Again, we're laying
Speaker 1: out seventeen unbelievable failures, spectacular failures and omissions and inaccuracies.
Speaker 1: But the omitted information relevant to person one what we
Speaker 1: believe to be Carter Page. I think, oh no, I'm sorry, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: The steel, the one source of steel they omitted that
Speaker 1: this guy and Steele had even told them. That's right,
Speaker 1: that this guy lies and yeah, he doesn't tell the truth.
Speaker 1: Here's here's the amazing thing about the single subsource that
Speaker 1: made up most of Steel's report. The subsource tells the
Speaker 1: FBI in January seventeen, I didn't say a lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff that's attributed to me, and Steele tells the
Speaker 1: FBI this guy's abloviator. And yet based on those two
Speaker 1: really bad references, they go ahead and use Dosser and
Speaker 1: its information. Anyways, it is the most clear evidence of intention.
Speaker 1: Knowing that those two things were that bigger problem and
Speaker 1: still proceeding with the application tells you these guys were
Speaker 1: in it for something other than the normal process of
Speaker 1: the FBI follows. It's really really egregious. And another key finding,
Speaker 1: Greg Jared is the circular reporting and that the FBI
Speaker 1: had assessed Steal did not directly provide the information to Yahoo.
Speaker 1: I assume as a coffin corn based on the premise
Speaker 1: that Steele had told the FBI only shared it with
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS and the FBI and his client. But they
Speaker 1: cite the Isikoff Yahoo News article as being a secondary
Speaker 1: corroborating source, when in fact it came from the original source,
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele. And the FBI pretends to the Fisichord that
Speaker 1: Steele didn't provide that information when they knew he did.
Speaker 1: You know, another lie to the FISA courting And that
Speaker 1: is clearly intentional. This isn't sloppy, reckless errors and omissions. Now,
Speaker 1: these are deliberate lies and deceptions and concealing of information
Speaker 1: to the court. And when they talked John important that
Speaker 1: Greg has it so right, Sean. But here's one thing.
Speaker 1: In the bottom of that Note four, it says that
Speaker 1: when the FBI told the court that Steele had only
Speaker 1: talked to the FBI Infusion GPS about about the dossier,
Speaker 1: the FBI already knew he had talked to the State
Speaker 1: Department that famous Kathleen Cavlac. That amounts to a false
Speaker 1: statement before federal court. So true. And look in the
Speaker 1: case about Papadopoulos and Page, and these were their consentsually
Speaker 1: monitored statements to the FBI, one in September, one in August,
Speaker 1: and Page's case, they literally omit these very exculpatory pieces
Speaker 1: of information. Yeah, no doubt, five six and seven significant
Speaker 1: omissions statements made of innocence to unwitting to undercover informance
Speaker 1: in the FBI repeatedly withhold them from the DOCI. That's
Speaker 1: what makes this go beyond just incompetence. Those are conscious
Speaker 1: decisions not to put evidence of innocence into to inform
Speaker 1: the court into the vice application. I think it's among
Speaker 1: the most serious stuff that was found by the IG. Agree,
Speaker 1: because if the federal law has been consistent for decades,
Speaker 1: if you have exculpatory of information, you must run to
Speaker 1: the nearest judge and tell him that they didn't do it,
Speaker 1: and they knew it very early in the process. What
Speaker 1: about let's go back to the subsource for just a second,
Speaker 1: which they admitted. You know, they're saying that the FBI
Speaker 1: found credible the subsource that even Steele said to them
Speaker 1: was a liar in an egomaniac that he'd made statements
Speaker 1: in January twenty seventeen that raised questions about the reliability
Speaker 1: of allegations that were in the applications, and including, for example,
Speaker 1: that they had no discussion with individuals concerning wiki leagues,
Speaker 1: where there was nothing bad about the communication between the
Speaker 1: Kremlin and the Trump team. Yeah, I would think that's important,
Speaker 1: John Solomon, Oh, yeah. In fact, it constitutes what is
Speaker 1: known as derogatory information under the FBI's confidential human source information.
Speaker 1: When you interview an informant subsource and that subsource doesn't
Speaker 1: stand by what the informant is saying he reported, that's
Speaker 1: known as derogatory information. And they had so much derogatory
Speaker 1: information on Steal, not just what he not the fact
Speaker 1: that his subsource disowned him, but also the fact that
Speaker 1: he had been talking to Steal a State department. The
Speaker 1: State department flag that he was giving them bad information.
Speaker 1: Remember that famous story that he claimed that the Miami
Speaker 1: consulate was coordinating the hacking activities. There was no Miami
Speaker 1: consulate for the Russian government. There is enormous evidence the
Speaker 1: FBI had derogatory information about Steel, and yet they certified
Speaker 1: in four consecutive vice applications were unaware of any derogatory
Speaker 1: information about this source. That is a lot. All right,
Speaker 1: let me ask you boldness because I want to let
Speaker 1: me jump forward. Because Number one, I would say there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people in deep trouble here, not
Speaker 1: the least as the liar and leaker Jim Comey. Based
Speaker 1: on the statements of both Barr and Durham today, Greg Jarrett,
Speaker 1: where do you see this now? Headed Well, I think
Speaker 1: Durham has obtained either leads or solid information of corruption
Speaker 1: and lawlessness and will pursue it against those individuals. We
Speaker 1: just don't know who they are. I find it interesting.
Speaker 1: I have candidates. Would it likely be Coomey, Clapper, Brennan
Speaker 1: and company. Those would be the logical candidates. But we
Speaker 1: can't say for sure because we just don't know what
Speaker 1: Durham has. But he seems very confident that he has it.
Speaker 1: Where do you see it going, John Listen? I think
Speaker 1: the very next step is what does the Justice Department
Speaker 1: do to the FI support. Does it go to the
Speaker 1: FI succort and light of these revelations and say we
Speaker 1: need to withdraw these vice applications, we need to come
Speaker 1: clean with you court. That would be a momentous first
Speaker 1: step in trying to create accountability and clean up this process.
Speaker 1: Then there's a grand jury and Durham has the ability
Speaker 1: to go bring people before it and get things that
Speaker 1: the IG couldn't get. Then there's the hearing with Senator
Speaker 1: Grassley excuse me, Senator Graham. Are part of a step.
Speaker 1: This is a long sprint, and accountability is going to
Speaker 1: occur over multiple steps, over multiple months. But the first
Speaker 1: thing to watch for, does the Justice Department do something
Speaker 1: with the FI succort over the next few days. Well,
Speaker 1: I think they have to. I mean, we just played
Speaker 1: Rob Rosenstein earlier. I mean he says that if you
Speaker 1: find out you got something wrong, you to go back
Speaker 1: and fix it. And by the way, that's another issue
Speaker 1: that really wasn't addressed, that they had an obligation when
Speaker 1: they knew this information. They presented to the court the
Speaker 1: dirty dossier, the bulk of the applications four times, withholding
Speaker 1: exculpatory information that the court withholding information about Hillary's involvement
Speaker 1: only one source. I mean, they've known this all forever
Speaker 1: and they never went back to fix it. All right,
Speaker 1: wrapping up as we conclude vindication, John Solomon, Greg Jarrett,
Speaker 1: all Right, So I think it's Look, it's a long report,
Speaker 1: it's a lot to digest. We're going to really try
Speaker 1: and sum it up on Hannity tonight. Both of you
Speaker 1: will be joining us. If this doesn't if we don't
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of this, Greg Jarrett, and we
Speaker 1: don't hold these people accountable for this abuse of power,
Speaker 1: we're in trouble. I think, real quick, it'll continue to happen.
Speaker 1: We learn from this report how easy it is for
Speaker 1: the FBI to open an investigation of anybody and convince
Speaker 1: a judge to permit court sanctions. Alience and deception was
Speaker 1: the key. It's all true, John, Yeah, I think Greg
Speaker 1: said it perfectly. I think there are two other revelations
Speaker 1: in his report that are going to sink in in
Speaker 1: a few days. One of them is about Bruce Or
Speaker 1: it's the report concludes that he showed an exorbitantly bad
Speaker 1: judgment in allowing becoming a conduit and a witness and
Speaker 1: allowing Christopher Steele to keep communicating to the FBI after
Speaker 1: he'd been fired. I think there's more to that thread
Speaker 1: that we ought to be paying attention to. And then
Speaker 1: here's the one that no one picked up on yet
Speaker 1: that I think is so important. The FBI sent an agent,
Speaker 1: I got a role a lot more tonight, Meadows and
Speaker 1: Jordan next, stay right here for our final news round
Speaker 1: up and information overload. So what is your view of
Speaker 1: the way that the FBI interacted with Steele and how
Speaker 1: we should understand what his role was here? Lots of
Speaker 1: a big questions. So, look, the investigation was not predicated
Speaker 1: on the basis of the information the Christopher Steel gave
Speaker 1: to us in the form of the dossier. That is
Speaker 1: just not was not my understanding at the time and
Speaker 1: has never been my understanding. So just to say that
Speaker 1: flat out Steel at the time, my understanding was that
Speaker 1: he was thought to be a reliable source that had
Speaker 1: had a prior relationship with the FBI and brought this
Speaker 1: information to us. Look with I don't know how to
Speaker 1: say this other we're not stupid, right the FBI, We're
Speaker 1: not stupid. You take the information and you try to
Speaker 1: vet it, and that my recollection is we spent a
Speaker 1: lot we the Bureau, the folks in the Counterintelligence Division,
Speaker 1: spent a lot of time trying to vet that information
Speaker 1: line by line. Uh. Yeah, they didn't do that because
Speaker 1: it was unverifiable. I mean, this is the This is
Speaker 1: the most amazing thing because we now know everything we've
Speaker 1: been telling you is true. That was Baker saying that
Speaker 1: whenever he said it, line by a line, we went.
Speaker 1: But no, when the FBI finally got around to vetting
Speaker 1: it long after the fact, we know that none of
Speaker 1: it was verifiable. And now we also know that Steele
Speaker 1: told them it was unverifiable. Pretty unbelievable. What we know that. Okay,
Speaker 1: So the bulk of information, as the new Ness report
Speaker 1: told us, and as the Grassly Graham memo told us, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that would have been the Steel dossier, the unverified Clinton
Speaker 1: bought and paid for dirty Russian dossier. They wouldn't have
Speaker 1: gotten the Fizer tip the balance, it said. What were
Speaker 1: they saying? Yeah, oh yeah, yeah, that was what tipped
Speaker 1: the balance in all of this? What kind of pushed
Speaker 1: it over the line in terms of the FBI being
Speaker 1: ready to use this? And I'll tell you another thing
Speaker 1: that nobody's really paying attention to here is I want
Speaker 1: to know the calls by Brennan to Russia in August
Speaker 1: and September or twenty sixteen given them a heads up,
Speaker 1: according to a a report, and the Obama call to Russia
Speaker 1: giving them a heads up, but no defense defensive briefing
Speaker 1: with the drum campaign. Why wouldn't they ask the American
Speaker 1: citizen first and say, because I'm sure Trump would have said,
Speaker 1: oh wow, we got to get to the bottom of that.
Speaker 1: They never gave him that chance. And you know, then
Speaker 1: we know that we have page and Papadopolis. Yeah, alterations
Speaker 1: left and right. Unbelievable anyway, somebody who's been critical in
Speaker 1: getting all of this information out. Frankly, I don't know
Speaker 1: where we'd be, as I say many many times, without
Speaker 1: the Freedom Caucus. And I guess you were the original
Speaker 1: president of the Freedom Caucus. Is that true? Well? Uh, Sean, Actually,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan was the original chairman. He and I founded it.
Speaker 1: I was the second chairman, and then we went on
Speaker 1: to actually pass the baton to Andy Biggs. No, all right,
Speaker 1: let's get your take the bulk of information. There are
Speaker 1: only three minor other items used in the FISA application.
Speaker 1: The rest of it was what we now know to
Speaker 1: be an unverifiable Russian dossier that Hillary paid for that
Speaker 1: even when they checked in with Christopher Stile, that Christopher
Speaker 1: Steele knew was phony too. He said, yeah, my one
Speaker 1: source was nuts an egomaniac and didn't often tell the
Speaker 1: truth right. And and and here's a bigger problem. It's
Speaker 1: not that it was just unverifiable, it's just it was
Speaker 1: verifiably wrong and a lie. I mean, when when we
Speaker 1: look at this, Sean, everything that you've been saying and
Speaker 1: reporting on for many many months year, you know, over
Speaker 1: a year. Now we know now based on the IGS report,
Speaker 1: that that indeed you were accurate. The FBI, James Baker,
Speaker 1: you just played that little tape. Maybe he wasn't stupid,
Speaker 1: but he certainly was looking the other way. And I've found, uh,
Speaker 1: eating through this report. As you know, I've gone through
Speaker 1: a couple of hours briefing. We've been going through this report,
Speaker 1: combing it through with a fine tooth comb. One of
Speaker 1: the biggest things that is not being widely reported yet
Speaker 1: is when the FBI came in to do a defensive
Speaker 1: briefing with candidate Donald Trump and candidate Hillary Clinton. They
Speaker 1: did two defensive briefings. They were supposed to be exactly alike,
Speaker 1: except the FBI proved put in an informant in the
Speaker 1: defensive briefing while they were supposed to be helping candidate
Speaker 1: Donald Trump they were actually surveying him, and that goes
Speaker 1: along with twelve other times that they actually secretly recorded
Speaker 1: Trump campaign officials. I just find it appalling. The American
Speaker 1: people should be up in arms. I know you and
Speaker 1: I are, well, we will right all along, you will
Speaker 1: right all along. Jim Jordan was right all along, John Solomon,
Speaker 1: Greg Jared, you know, Victoria, Joe go go on the list.
Speaker 1: You know, Jim actually pointed out today, Oh, we only
Speaker 1: thought that they spied on two Americans. Now we know
Speaker 1: it was four. Yeah, it was four, multiple times. And
Speaker 1: one of one of the people that they spied on
Speaker 1: was not even a subject or a target of the investigation.
Speaker 1: So what that means for your your listeners is is
Speaker 1: that they actually spied on a Trump campaign associate that
Speaker 1: was not even under suspicion for this investigation. And I
Speaker 1: guess I have to ask for what reason? Hmm, Well,
Speaker 1: let's go to what the prosecutor, John Durham has said.
Speaker 1: Let's go This is fascinating to me because you have
Speaker 1: the Attorney General bar saying that this, you know, this
Speaker 1: investigation launched on the thinnest of suspicions. We now know
Speaker 1: all it was was one comment at a party or
Speaker 1: a bar by George Popanopolis, that was it. That bar
Speaker 1: also said that the report, you know, the FBI had
Speaker 1: insufficient basis to justify the steps they took in investigating
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign in twenty sixteen, and that concluding that
Speaker 1: the report the Bureau had authorized purpose. But it's also
Speaker 1: clear from its inception the evidence produced by the investigation
Speaker 1: was consistently exculpatory, and nonetheless, the investigation and surveillance was
Speaker 1: pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep
Speaker 1: into Trump's administration. Now we also know that it's an
Speaker 1: unverifiable document. But yet if you go to page one
Speaker 1: twenty six and one twenty seven, what do we see.
Speaker 1: We say that the bulk of information, I'll read it,
Speaker 1: the Fiser request form drew almost entirely from Steals reporting
Speaker 1: in describing the factual basis to establish probable cause to
Speaker 1: believe that Page was an agent of a foreign power,
Speaker 1: and on top of that, to get there, to get
Speaker 1: to Carter Page, then they actually had to change the
Speaker 1: fact that he is working with the CIA and good
Speaker 1: standing apparently, well yes, And so now what we do
Speaker 1: know is that one of the documents that has changed
Speaker 1: they actually go in to review that and they get
Speaker 1: a confirmation back that says, yeah, Page has been helping
Speaker 1: out the US government, and the FBI changes that document
Speaker 1: and then does not allow defies a court to know
Speaker 1: any of that. So, you know, here's here's the troubling part, Sean.
Speaker 1: As we start to dig into this, the deep you dig,
Speaker 1: the more difficult it is to comprehend how anyone could
Speaker 1: let this happen. How could James Comy allow this to happen?
Speaker 1: How could Andrew McCabe allow this to happen on their watch?
Speaker 1: And all you can say is they were either extremely
Speaker 1: poor supervisors yet they were getting briefed every week on
Speaker 1: this investigation, or they were complicit and allowing it to continue. Durham,
Speaker 1: you're you're right, has mentioned a couple of things. He
Speaker 1: is going beyond where the Inspector General is going. Where
Speaker 1: he's looking at the origins of that doesn't include other
Speaker 1: Intel agencies. Were they involved? Uh? What was the predicate
Speaker 1: for opening all of this up? And and I can
Speaker 1: I can tell you that some of our worst fears
Speaker 1: have come really to fruition as we look at this report,
Speaker 1: the deeper we dive into it, the more uh scathing
Speaker 1: the review is. I think Director Ray has said there's
Speaker 1: going to be forty different things that he is going
Speaker 1: to put into place to try to make sure this
Speaker 1: doesn't happen again. Forty four zero. Uh. You know, why
Speaker 1: is he so quiet? You know, I think he got
Speaker 1: in and originally he was being told by some in
Speaker 1: that small inner circle, oh, we didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1: Then all of a sudden, as this report started to
Speaker 1: pick up steam, and as his review, along with Attorney
Speaker 1: General Bars started to take on hold, I think they
Speaker 1: realized that not only did they have a problem, but
Speaker 1: they had a systemic problem that had to be addressed.
Speaker 1: But for a long time I was questioning where whether
Speaker 1: Director Ray was going to address it or cover it up.
Speaker 1: Hopefully today as the start of actually addressing it. Do
Speaker 1: you believe at the end of the day that this
Speaker 1: was just because they hated Donald Trump and this was
Speaker 1: the insurance policy? Well, I think this was the insurance
Speaker 1: policy that they referred to as part of it to
Speaker 1: try to make sure that this investigation. But here's what
Speaker 1: you're also going to find, and here's what you and
Speaker 1: I and a number of us need to make sure
Speaker 1: the American people are reminded of before President Trump was
Speaker 1: actually inaugurated in January of twenty seventeen, the f I
Speaker 1: knew they had no case. They didn't tell President elect
Speaker 1: Trump they had no case. They continued to investigate from
Speaker 1: January through May. Then they get a special prosecutor. They
Speaker 1: spend thirty million dollars, all of this based on the
Speaker 1: fact that they knew they had no case, and they
Speaker 1: continued to, you know, just place a hoax on the
Speaker 1: American people. And I find that not only a waste
Speaker 1: of taxpayer of money, but it is really a breach
Speaker 1: of trust between the FBI and the American people. The
Speaker 1: idea that one source that was questionable. Look, Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: didn't stand by his own dossier. You know, they lied.
Speaker 1: They literally had to alter a thing with Carter page right.
Speaker 1: And I've got to be honest, I've never seen such
Speaker 1: a corrupt abuse of power. And to think that none
Speaker 1: of this should have happened. What do you make of
Speaker 1: Durham saying are in investigation is not limited to developing
Speaker 1: information from within the component parts of the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: meaning we have the ability to go way beyond your
Speaker 1: little area. Our investigation has included developing information from other
Speaker 1: persons and entities, both in the US and outside the US.
Speaker 1: I take that to mean Great Britain, Italy, Australia. And
Speaker 1: then we get into the intel issues. Well, as I
Speaker 1: mentioned before, once again, Sean, you're over the target. You're
Speaker 1: exactly over the target, because that's what John Durham is
Speaker 1: looking at. We now know that this investigation was done
Speaker 1: just wholly within the FBI and didn't even go beyond
Speaker 1: some of the key witnesses. For example, the IGS report
Speaker 1: did not interview Lynn Simpson with Fusion GPS, and yet
Speaker 1: he would be a central key in the dossier and
Speaker 1: all the coordinating efforts, and yet they did not interview
Speaker 1: that because he declined to be interviewed. And if he
Speaker 1: declined to be interviewed, how does Coomy get to lie?
Speaker 1: Think of the spectacular lies identified here. Now, remember he
Speaker 1: signed the first dossier, the first FISA warrant application. Then
Speaker 1: he goes to the White House, I'm sorry, goes to
Speaker 1: Trump Tower in January before the president sworn end says
Speaker 1: it's salatious but unverified. But yet at the top of
Speaker 1: the dossier it says verified. So that makes him a
Speaker 1: big liar because then he signed two more FISA applications
Speaker 1: with the bulk of information being the unverifiable steal dossier
Speaker 1: that Hillary bad for Russian dossier. Right, And that's where
Speaker 1: the problem is going to come in is James Komy
Speaker 1: either was an apt in his job or he was
Speaker 1: part of this whole FISA abuse, as you mentioned, a
Speaker 1: fraud on the f abuse court. Indeed it happened. Here's
Speaker 1: the interesting thing is the FBI was tasked with getting
Speaker 1: with getting the information. They were supposed to give the
Speaker 1: information were to the National Security Council, who would drive
Speaker 1: draft up the by the application. Well, the National Security Council,
Speaker 1: they weren't even getting the information from the investigators. They were,
Speaker 1: you know, putting it in a closet or in a
Speaker 1: desk drawer instead of actually conveying it to the court.
Speaker 1: And this is what Andrew McCabe and James Comey were
Speaker 1: getting briefed every week on and somehow it slipped through
Speaker 1: not once, not twice, but three different times. It's just
Speaker 1: beyond comprehension. All right, Mark Meadows, we'd be lost without you.
Speaker 1: Great job. We appreciate all that you did here. You
Speaker 1: made a lot of this possible today blood sweat tiers. You,
Speaker 1: Devin Ratcliffe, Jordan Gates was great today. Everybody. Honestly, all
Speaker 1: the Freedom Caucus guys have been phenomenal. Well, thank you, Sean.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you leading the charge and keeping the American
Speaker 1: people informed. We couldn't have done it without you. Do
Speaker 1: you see that the super patriot Jim Comey, the liar Comy,
Speaker 1: is now well? He said, I offered to be on
Speaker 1: Fox and Friends, and Fox and Friends canceled me. Now, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the people at Fox and Friends they just checked, is
Speaker 1: that we didn't have him booked on anything. What do
Speaker 1: you think should I invite him on this radio show
Speaker 1: again for three hours? He hasn't taken us up on
Speaker 1: our offer, and I'll give him an hour on TV?
Speaker 1: Do you think he'll come? I mean this, and he's
Speaker 1: an ingomaniac, so anything's possible. You think? Does he not know?
Speaker 1: At this point? This is amazing to me because he
Speaker 1: went in January twenty seventeen, goes to the Trump Tower,
Speaker 1: says in the meeting to the president then president elect,
Speaker 1: the dossier silacious but unverified. Okay, but at the top
Speaker 1: of fies the application that he's signed in October and
Speaker 1: the two of the three subsequent renewals it says verified.
Speaker 1: Now we have the report that says the bulk of
Speaker 1: information was the dirty bought and paid for Clinton Russian dossier.
Speaker 1: So he's using an unbeified and that was the bulk
Speaker 1: of information. How does he get out of that one?
Speaker 1: He just lies, right, He's very good at lying. He's
Speaker 1: perfected that because nobody ever questions. And when no one
Speaker 1: questions you, no higher loyalty becomes a best seller. That's
Speaker 1: a good point. All right, Well, invite him. What the hell?
Speaker 1: Quick break right back, a lot more explaining Big Day,
Speaker 1: Big night to night on Hannity. You don't want to
Speaker 1: miss this ninetiest on the Fox News Channel. All right,
Speaker 1: twenty five till the top of the hour. Well, what
Speaker 1: did we tell you? We said, premeditated fraud on a
Speaker 1: FISA court and an operation Crossfire Hurricane. But you know
Speaker 1: what's so amazing about that is this is not even
Speaker 1: really in the spectrum of where Harwitz does most of
Speaker 1: his work. Here all of it has proven now and
Speaker 1: as I look at the extraordinary statements that were released
Speaker 1: today by the Attorney General and by John Dorham, I
Speaker 1: mean it's almost unprecedented now for a lot of reasons,
Speaker 1: of which I went into a the first hour today.
Speaker 1: I won't go back into it now. Bar saying of
Speaker 1: this ig report, how the FBI launched an intrusive investigation
Speaker 1: of President Trump's campaign on the thinnest of suspicions and
Speaker 1: what did we say, premeditated fraud ondifies a court for
Speaker 1: the purpose of backdooring, which is all confirmed in this report,
Speaker 1: spying or all things into Trump world, Trump campaign, then
Speaker 1: transition and then Trump presidency and all predicated. The whole
Speaker 1: thing gets launched over what Papadopolis says at a bar,
Speaker 1: that's it. That's how thin it was. But again we
Speaker 1: have Hillary Clinton and a dirty DOTSI nobody ever paid
Speaker 1: attention to that. And when Barr is saying the thinnest
Speaker 1: of suspicions, it was launched, saying that this report, in
Speaker 1: his opinion, the FBI had insufficient basis to justify the
Speaker 1: steps taken in the investigation of the Trump campaign, putting
Speaker 1: him at odds with Urwitz in some ways aspects more
Speaker 1: especially about Operation Crossfire Hurricane that you know, it's clear
Speaker 1: from its inception the evidence produced by the investigation was
Speaker 1: consistently exculpatory. Think about that. That is huge. Yet the
Speaker 1: investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of
Speaker 1: the campaign and deep into President Trump's administration. Now, when
Speaker 1: you have an Attorney General saying this on top of
Speaker 1: his previously made comments and then John Duran's comments, he
Speaker 1: got to pay close attention to this because this is
Speaker 1: now what we'll learn. What we've learned here is everything
Speaker 1: we've reported as true. We've been right the whole time.
Speaker 1: But it's not one thing we can see here that
Speaker 1: we got wrong, and that the you know, the FBI
Speaker 1: officials misled the FIZO court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from
Speaker 1: their filings, suppressed or ignored information, negating the reliability of
Speaker 1: their princeable source in a rush to maintain surveillance warrants
Speaker 1: on members of the Trump campaign, and while most of
Speaker 1: them as conduct identified by the Inspector General was committed
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen and seventeen, by this now by the
Speaker 1: now former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in
Speaker 1: the Inspector General's report reflects a clear abuse of the
Speaker 1: FISA process. And this then gets to the comments of
Speaker 1: John Durham. I have the utmost respect for the office
Speaker 1: of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into
Speaker 1: the report prepared by mister Horowitz and his staff. However,
Speaker 1: I remember Inspector General has no ability because he's already
Speaker 1: made referrals for Komey, m McKay, ben Struck and paid.
Speaker 1: That's all's happened in his previous reports. I have the
Speaker 1: utmost respect for him. Now the real criminal investigation that
Speaker 1: is in the realm of Durham. Our investigation is not
Speaker 1: limited to developing information from within component parts of the
Speaker 1: Justice Department. He's basically what he's saying here is well, no,
Speaker 1: we got a lot more coming and our investigation has
Speaker 1: included developing information from other persons and entities. By the way,
Speaker 1: this is where we're now going to get into Italy
Speaker 1: and Great Britain, Australia and outsourcing of spying and all
Speaker 1: of that, on top of really really hammering home on
Speaker 1: how corrupt and what an abuse of power all of
Speaker 1: this was and how political it's been. And Durham goes
Speaker 1: on based on the evidence collected to date, and while
Speaker 1: our investigation is ongoing. Last month we advise the Inspector General.
Speaker 1: We do not agree with some of the report's conclusions
Speaker 1: as to prediction and how the FBI case was open.
Speaker 1: It was open on one issue, the Papadopolis call. Let
Speaker 1: me go to the page four to fourteen. We're deeply
Speaker 1: concerned with so many basic and fundamental errors were made
Speaker 1: by three separate, handpicked investigative teams on one of the
Speaker 1: most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been brief
Speaker 1: to the highest levels within the FBI, even though the
Speaker 1: information sought, your use of FISA authority related so closely
Speaker 1: to an ongoing presidential campaign, even though those involved with
Speaker 1: the investigation knew that their actions were likely to be
Speaker 1: subjected to close scrutiny. We believe that this circumstance reflects
Speaker 1: a failure not just by those who prepared applications, but
Speaker 1: also by the managers and supervisors in the crossfire Hurricane
Speaker 1: chain of command, including FBI senior officials who are briefed
Speaker 1: as the investigation progressed. Great job, Jim Comey. We do
Speaker 1: not expect managers and supervisors to know every fact about
Speaker 1: an investigation, or senior leaders to know all the details
Speaker 1: of cases of which they are briefed. However, especially in
Speaker 1: the FBI's most sensitive and high priority matters, and especially
Speaker 1: when seeking court permission to use an intrusive tool such
Speaker 1: as a FISA order, it is incumbent upon the entire
Speaker 1: chain of command, including senior officials, to take the necessary
Speaker 1: steps to ensure that they're sufficiently familiar with the facts
Speaker 1: and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in
Speaker 1: order to provide effective oversight consistent with their level of
Speaker 1: supervisory responsibilities. Such oversight requires greater familiarity with the facts
Speaker 1: than we saw in this review, where time and again
Speaker 1: during the interviews FBI managers, supervisors senior officials displayed a
Speaker 1: lack of understanding or awareness of important information concerning many
Speaker 1: of the problems we have identified in the preparation of
Speaker 1: FISA applications to surveil Carter page cross by. Our Hurricane
Speaker 1: team failed to comply with FBI policies and in so
Speaker 1: doing fell short of what is rightfully expected from the
Speaker 1: premier law enforcement agency and trusted with such an intrusive
Speaker 1: surveillance tool. In light of the significant concerns identified with
Speaker 1: the Carter Page buys applications, we now know that they
Speaker 1: actually changed, that they literally altered so that they could
Speaker 1: use this process anyway, and other described in the report.
Speaker 1: The OIG today initiated an audit that will further examine
Speaker 1: the FBI's compliance with WOODS procedures and buys applications that
Speaker 1: target US persons in both counterintelligence and counter terrorism investigations.
Speaker 1: Then they go on to make recommendations into all of this.
Speaker 1: But when you think Barr saying that the FBI launched
Speaker 1: this thing on the thinnest of suspicions insufficient to justify
Speaker 1: any of the steps taken, is my numbing. They omitted
Speaker 1: the FBI had obtained from another US agency details of
Speaker 1: Carter Page's prior work as an operational contact for that
Speaker 1: other agency. He worked for our side, as he'd been
Speaker 1: telling us. He didn't light to us on the show,
Speaker 1: and he provided information to other agencies concerning his prior contacts,
Speaker 1: one of which over lapped the facts asserted in Faiza
Speaker 1: in including a source characterization statement which by the way,
Speaker 1: overstated the significance of Steel's past reporting not approved by
Speaker 1: Steele's handling agent omitted information relevant to the reliability of
Speaker 1: person a key Steel's subsource. By the way, we now
Speaker 1: know again it was never verifiable. Steele himself told members
Speaker 1: of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person one was a
Speaker 1: boaster and an egoist. I have no idea if any
Speaker 1: of it's true, asserted. The FBI had assess that Steele
Speaker 1: did not directly provide to the press information based on
Speaker 1: the Yahoo news. This is the hacks we talk about,
Speaker 1: Michael Lizakov and David corn. Oh yeah, they're exposed here
Speaker 1: big time. They took they took propaganda, ran with it,
Speaker 1: lies and ran with it. Welcome to your fake news
Speaker 1: media and shared. Uh. Steele had told the FBI he
Speaker 1: only shared with his election related research with the FBI,
Speaker 1: Fusion GPS, his client. The premise was incorrect contradicted by
Speaker 1: documentation in the Woods file. Steele had told the FBI
Speaker 1: he also gave information of the State Department. They admitted
Speaker 1: Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements exculpatory, let's put it that way.
Speaker 1: As it related to outside groups. They admitted pages consensually
Speaker 1: monitored statements. Literally never met or said one word to
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort. Wow, amazing you can say that and then
Speaker 1: it gets changed around, isn't it omitted? Other statements paid
Speaker 1: Page made that we're in consistence with their theory denying
Speaker 1: haven't met certain individuals. See whether this is going here?
Speaker 1: All of it. They didn't provide anything that was correct. This,
Speaker 1: you know, go back to the beginning. What matters here?
Speaker 1: What matters here is well, how did we have the
Speaker 1: biggest abuse of power corruption scandal ever? Not only is
Speaker 1: he talking about severely flawed FISA applications, failures to properly
Speaker 1: vet steel and seek information about Clinton funding? What else?
Speaker 1: What else do we find out? They sought to spy
Speaker 1: on Carter Page because an agent thought his past relationship
Speaker 1: with Russia could be a clandestine relationship. Oh but take
Speaker 1: out that he actually worked for another agency with three letters.
Speaker 1: When asked for the motivations behind the Steel dossier, the
Speaker 1: agent involved doesn't respond. And everything that we've been saying,
Speaker 1: no dossier, no FISA application weren't approved. That is clear.
Speaker 1: Without the Steel dossier, they would not have gotten the
Speaker 1: FISA application approved period. The FISA application. Remember, the bulk
Speaker 1: of information from the FIES application was almost entirely based
Speaker 1: on the Steel dossier. We learned that today. You know,
Speaker 1: how much more do we have to know here? But
Speaker 1: This is you know, nothing but corruption at the highest level.
Speaker 1: This was about getting Trump, This was about destroying This
Speaker 1: was their whole insurance policy. You know, you look at
Speaker 1: every aspect of this. You know you have the what
Speaker 1: you know, what was Steel hired to do? Well, now
Speaker 1: we know, Steel under oath said I have no idea
Speaker 1: if any of it's true. Y FBI could articulate why
Speaker 1: it deemed Steel's reporting to be credible because they were advised,
Speaker 1: based on information from Steel, that Steel was specifically hired
Speaker 1: by an individual to provide the information on the candidate.
Speaker 1: They failed to They failed to tell the court that
Speaker 1: Hillary paid for this. How do you how do you
Speaker 1: not tell the court? What is the number one conclusion
Speaker 1: in all of this? How do you get that you
Speaker 1: don't vet steal and seek information about, you know, being
Speaker 1: funded by by the Clinton camp. Well, that that might
Speaker 1: be you know, the dirty dossier, by the way, played
Speaker 1: an essential role in the decision to seek Faiza. And
Speaker 1: by the way, they never bothered to ever corroborate any
Speaker 1: of it, and they used it anyway because it was
Speaker 1: the only part that they can use. Um. This is devastating,
Speaker 1: But I'll tell you what's even more devastating is that
Speaker 1: now the now you have the prosecutor involved in the
Speaker 1: real criminal investigation, because Harwood's never had that power to
Speaker 1: convene a grand jury or to press charges on anybody.
Speaker 1: But they found the quantity of omissions and inaccurate season
Speaker 1: all the obvious errors that were made deeply concerning you
Speaker 1: think may have improperly substituted their own judgment instead of
Speaker 1: what facts are. Yeah, that would be because they hated
Speaker 1: Trump so so bad, so many basic fundamental errors were
Speaker 1: made on four fives applications by three separate, handpicked teams
Speaker 1: on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was
Speaker 1: brief to the highest levels within the FBI and FBI
Speaker 1: officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised
Speaker 1: significant questions according regarding the FBI's chain of command, management, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's unbelievable you look at this. We believe
Speaker 1: the more should have been done to examine Steele's contacts.
Speaker 1: It's all there. They never bothered, they never cared because
Speaker 1: they had their predetermined conclusion in all of this. You know,
Speaker 1: a mountain of red flags that they ignored regarding Steel,
Speaker 1: their failure and creating you the misleading application. They were
Speaker 1: all warned ahead of time seventeen specific errors and omissions
Speaker 1: in these applications, seventeen of them. They didn't give equal
Speaker 1: attention or treatment or the relevant facts or probable cause
Speaker 1: at any point. It was all a foregone conclusion. Steel
Speaker 1: was paid by the FBI for years. FBI admitted much
Speaker 1: of Steel's work was never corroborated or verified. But how
Speaker 1: does it then become the bulk of information and defies
Speaker 1: the application as confirmed in this report today? How does
Speaker 1: that happen unless you have an agenda? I will say
Speaker 1: this again. The mob and the media was wrong. They
Speaker 1: lie constantly. This should have been their story, the biggest
Speaker 1: abuse of power corruption scandal in history. And the good
Speaker 1: news today is both bar and Dorham are like adamant
Speaker 1: that this is getting worse by the hour for them
Speaker 1: and all these deep state operatives. All right, Hannaday tonight
Speaker 1: nine turned Fox News Channel, Devin Newness, he was right,
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan was right, Ted Cruz was right. They'll all
Speaker 1: join us. Lindsay Graham was right, Harder Page, Wow, he
Speaker 1: actually served the country, he told us on this program.
Speaker 1: The truth. Also Greg Jarrett, John Solomon Dan Bongino Tonight
Speaker 1: and much much more. The news, the mob and the
Speaker 1: media is not gonna cover. They're gonna stick with their
Speaker 1: phony impeachment narrative. Yeah, with their non fact opinion and
Speaker 1: hearsay witnesses. That's going nowhere. Hannity Tonight, full coverage Durham,
Speaker 1: Barr Horowitz, We've got you covered. Nine Eastern on Box