tv Americas Newsroom With Bill Hemmer and Sandra Smith FOX News June 19, 2018 6:00am-9:00am PDT
>> good news, talked to the boss. we get to do this again tomorrow. >> i still need a second source on that. >> the boss says you aren't allowed brian. run to the radio. i'll be on. >> bye. >> bill: and there is breaking news. michael horowitz set to face another round of questions today on the clinton email investigation matter. family separation at the border reaches a boiling point. where do we go from here. ? how are you doing? >> sandra: good morning to you, bill. i'm sandra smith. horowitz set to appear before a joint hearing of the house judiciary and oversight committees in what we likely be a tense marathon session. the hearing comes one day after he surprised a surprising development. fired f.b.i. director james
comey is now under investigation for leaking. >> bill: the trump administration refusing to bow to the mounting pressure over the separation of illegal immigrant families. >> president trump: the united states will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. if the democrats would sit down instead of obstructing, we could have something done very quickly. >> we're enforcing the laws as they exist on the books. as long as illegal entry remains a criminal offense, dhs will not look the other way. >> we're doing the right thing and taking care of these children. they aren't being abused. >> give us an example? >> comprehensive immigration. it does not include ripping children out of the arms of the parents. give them a bath and take them away in a car.
catherine herridge is live outside the hearing room. andrew mccarthy with analysis. we begin in san diego with william la jeunesse. what are republicans saying away from the white house? >> most agree with the president on the facts. the immigration system is broken, these immigrants broke the law and, of course, the catch and release doesn't work. he is getting no rhetorical support from republicans definitely not democrats even immigration hawks on his solution which is to stop the surge in part by separating and detaining children apart from their parents. here is former speaker nancy pelosi an several others? >> stop this inhumane policy. rescind your actions. take responsibility for it instead of blaming it onto people. >> the reality is that we're using cruelty here, not as a
way to prevent people from coming, but just to be cruel. >> by the american people, right, and some of the most outrageous anti-immigration policies. but he was not elected to commit child abuse. >> today the president is headed to capitol hill to discuss two immigration bills, bill. and he is expected to -- they are expected to potentially amend language to alou holding children and adults together until their immigration cases are heard by a judge. >> bill: there is a lot of information, some of it disinformation, a lot of numbers. what does the data show and suggest who is at fault if there is a conclusion now? >> well, fault is a tough one to pin. the numbers will be going up. the administration is saying they're blaming democrats for failing to reform asylum law and close certain loopholes and
point to the data to back them up. 50,000 arrested in each of the last three months. up from 15,000 back in march. 329% increase in unaccompanied minors apprehended. 435% increase among families apprehended. 12,000 children now in u.s. custody. it could be 30,000 we're told by september at the current rate. 1700% increase in asylum claims over the last decade. 314% increase in fraudulent asylum claims in the last five months. in the last decade the administration says half a million central americans have immigrated to the u.s. illegally and most remain free. the president has increased interior and work site inforcement and a zero tolerance policy but they're complaining they aren't getting any support on capitol hill. >> it is the beginning of the
unraveling of democracy when the body who makes the laws rather than changing them asks the body who enforces the laws not to enforce the laws. >> so both the president could fix this by just signing something and directing dhs. congress could fix it with a bill closing that loophole. we'll find out if any actions back up their words today. >> bill: thank you, william. he is leading the coverage on the border in san diego. thank you. >> sandra: as we mentioned, one hour out from another round of hearings on capitol hill. inspector general michael horowitz sitting down again. this time in front of two very heated house committees who want answers. this after taking massive heat yesterday from the senate. >> director wray has quite a mess to clean up. >> although the report did not find any evidence of political bias, the report did identify
errors of judgment. disregard for policy. >> your statement last week seemed to suggest we shouldn't worry about the events detailed in the inspector general report. i think that's exactly backwards. if we can look at only one or two investigations and find this much bias and unprofessionalism, i can only imagine what else is out there. >> sandra: catherine herridge is live on capitol hill for us this morning. what is the house expecting to get from the inspector general in the hearing this morning? >> thank you, sandra. we're inside the hearing room hbc210. what we're expecting is six to seven hours of testimony. i'll step aside. you can see they're expecting 74 lawmakers each lawmaker gets five minutes a round. we're looking at as i said six or seven hours even without breaks. we expect republicans to really focus on two lines of questioning. first why did the f.b.i. suggest prosecution for hillary clinton and her team because
the inspector general's report lays out very clearly that some of the emails did have classified markings and that some of the emails were compromised by foreign nations? number two, they want to know why some of the f.b.i. employees still have jobs. >> i want to know why people are still working for the department of justice and the f.b.i. who clearly showed wrongdoing. there has to begin to be some consequence to circumventing the law to do things you aernt supposed to do. >> a handful of republicans are asking the f.b.i. to identify the handful of employees who are subject to review right now and may face disciplinary action, sandra. >> sandra: what are democrats going to focus on here? >> if the senate hearing yesterday is any yardstick what we expect the democrats to focus on after a year and a half of investigation the inspector general couldn't find any evidence that showed really a direct line between political
bias on behalf of f.b.i. employees and specific investigative decisions. here is senator dianne feinstein. >> after an 18-month investigation that included review of more than 1.2 million documents and interviews with more than 100 witnesses, the inspector general found no evidence of political bias in the f.b.i.'s investigation of secretary clinton or in the decision not to pursue criminal charges. >> this testimony today is certainly not the end of the matter. we were able to confirm late yesterday that the f.b.i. agent peter strzok, who is at the heart of these anti-trump text messages, has now through his lawyer told the house judiciary committee he is willing to appear voluntarily -- he will not require a subpoena in this case. >> sandra: we'll be following it all morning. catherine herridge, thank you. >> bill: for more on this and
drew mccarthy former u.s. attorney and fox news contributor. take the last point she made. how can two people read the same document and reach different conclusions. >> with due respect to feinstein she is playing a word game. the same word game that f.b.i. director wray said at his press conference after the report came out. and what they're basically -- what happened is the inspector general found pervasive evidence of bias. it is not no evidence of bias. it's lots of evidence of bias. he said he is unable to clue that any specific decision that was made was driven directly by bias. it doesn't mean that people act in the consistent with bias the rest of us need to close our eyes and say no bias. >> bill: as we pointed out.
trey gowdy and bob goodlatte have have been at the center of the investigation. what do you expect to hear from them today? >> reporting from last week, i believe, we're going to get some information about mrs. clinton's email system or her service system actually having been breached by foreign actors, which would be important because that's one of the considerations under the statute in which she was investigated. one of the things i hope they pursue is it seems to me there has been a kind of forest versus the trees approach to the investigation. that is, in assessing whether she had criminal intent, which everybody says is the most important issue, the thing that they've left out, the thing they've omitted from their consideration is the most important issue, which is the fact that she set up -- mrs. clinton did -- a system for the wholesale conduct of government
business over a server system that was non-secure and outside the government. >> bill: you would argue there was intent there, correct? >> right. >> bill: do you see a day where hillary clinton is prosecuted for this going back two years. >> no. they'll say it's too stale. >> bill: where do you see the james comey investigation going? >> congress referred it for potential prosecution or at least looking at it to be investigated. they've gotten a referral. it has to be investigated. whether it will lead to charges, i -- >> bill: let's see what questions come up today regarding comey. final question. peter strzok seems to be the common thread running through all this. he ran the russia investigation for a year and you heard catherine say he will testify. how significant could that be. >> it could be very significant if a witness with that kind of
knowledge. the one figure that seems to run through this whole thing. for someone like that to get up and testify and not take the s*ifsh amendment could be interesting. in the congress of a congressional hearing as opposed to a courtroom, it could be unsatisfying. he could get his story out and then when they ask him the hard questions he could say well, there are investigative reasons and classified reasons. >> bill: it could work both ways. >> he wouldn't getaway with that in a courtroom but they could in a congressional hearing. >> sandra: breaking news on the push to get a deal done with north korea. new video kaomg into the newsroom of kim jong-un meeting with the chinese president xi at this hour. as the pentagon finalizes a big decision on the korean peninsula. >> bill: the acting ice
director is tom homan and is our guest live next. >> as far as the separation of families are concerned, you have to put the blame on the parents. they are choosing to enter between the ports of entry. they know they will be separated. they want to blame the government when we were forced to do that. let's put the blame where it lies. ♪motorcycle revving ♪ motorcycle revving ♪motorcycle revving ♪ motorcycle revving ♪ no matter who rides point, ♪ there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. ♪♪ and just like tyrone taylor, they know what it takes to help keep you protected. are you in good hands? just another day on the farm. or is it? this farmer's morning starts in outer space. where satellites feed infrared images of his land
>> there are a lot of ideas now in this country that are dark ideas. building walls, dividing the country, marginalizing trans members who are troops and not supporting daca kids. these are all things that come from the darkness that are ripping children from their mother's arms. that's outrageous. >> bill: that's a leading democratic senator, tough words for the trump administration. the president is defending reactions after the battle for immigration gets hotter by the
game. acting ice director thomas homan. she had more to say in a long interview, a podcast she was saying. what do you say about dark times, evil decision? >> she ought to spend more time trying to fix the problem rather thanville filing the brave men and women of ice. they are enforcing the law. if she wants to do her job, sit down and fix the system and close the raop -- loopholes. that's how she can help. >> bill: you know what they would argue on the left and some on the right would say the president can fix this with one decision. why not? >> here is what we're not talking about. let's talk about what was occurring before the zero tolerance policy? these families are coming up making claims of asylum and we were able to detain these families until they had the hearings. they lost those hearings, the
numbers went down. we had a court decision saying we can hold them less than 20 days. the system doesn't work that fast. they're coached what to say. get released. never show up in court. when they do, they get a final order of removal. 80% of the people claiming asylum lose cases for the frivolous claims but they're out in society and get lost. we can't find them. it's defacto open borders and that's what the politicians want. >> bill: there is a lot going on here. come back to the question. orrin hatch said if the white house wants to fix it they can do that. do you not agree with that? are you suggesting they can't? >> i think the president is doing exactly what he has to do. promised to secure this border. whether you're republican or democrat you want to secure the border. congress needs to fix this. we've been up there numerous times. they know the loopholes. i think they want this issue. they want this issue out there rather than doing their job and fixing this issue.
we don't want to separate families, either. the law is the law. parents know that if you enter between the ports of entry, which is a crime, you'll be separated. they know they are coming and know what is going to happen. go to the port of entry where you won't be separated. >> bill: the president goes to the hill with republican leaders. what comes of that do you think? >> i'm hoping they can sit down as a group of lawmakers and do their job and fix the broken immigration system. close the loopholes to secure our border. it is our right. we have a right to decide who comes in and out of this country. people can come to this country and claim asylum but do it through the system and not sneak across the border when drugs and weapons are being smuggled. we need to fix it. congress needs to do their job. >> bill: do you see ted cruz's idea? a proposal floating. more immigration judges, maybe more beds, etc. that would help process the system faster. you only separate families in the event that there is
aggravated criminal activity or potential harm. what do you think of his idea, sir? >> i haven't seen his bill. we have to talk about that. we've seen over 300% increase of people claiming to be parents of children and they aren't. these children are being used as pawns and being rented to claim as family units so they don't get detained. we need to protect the children being used by criminal organizations as bait. there is a 300% increase on people claiming family units that aren't family units. >> sandra: still ahead the house judiciary committee asking for answers over the many anti-trump text messages exchanged between peter strzok and f.b.i. lawyer lisa page. peter strzok has been issued a subpoena so when will we see him? congressman andy biggs, a member of what committee is
here and we'll ask him and other questions. an elementary school principal retiring after inviting an anti-police extremist to career day. details on that story straight ahead. >> he told them all police were bad and all the police wanted to kill people. i was very disappointed that someone would come into this school and preach hate. about the police. ♪ ♪ i can do more to lower my a1c. because my body can still make its own insulin. and i take trulicity once a week to activate my body to release it, like it's supposed to. trulicity is not insulin. it comes in a once-weekly, truly easy-to-use pen. and it works 24/7. trulicity is an injection to improve blood sugar in adults with type 2 diabetes when used with diet and exercise. don't use it as the first medicine to treat diabetes,
or if you have type 1 diabetes or diabetic ketoacidosis. don't take trulicity if you or your family have medullary thyroid cancer, you're allergic to trulicity, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2. stop trulicity and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of a serious allergic reaction, a lump or swelling in your neck, or severe stomach pain. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. taking trulicity with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases your low blood sugar risk. common side effects include nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and decreased appetite. these can lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. to help lower my a1c i choose trulicity to activate my within. ask your doctor about once-weekly trulicity. but how do i know if i'm i'm getting a good deal? i tell truecar my zip and which car i want and truecar shows the range of prices people in my area actually paid for the same car so i know if i'm getting a great price. this is how car buying was always meant to be.
>> sandra: the house judiciary committee is issuing a subpoena for that anti-trump agent peter strzok in order to compel his testimony. all of this comes as we get ready for another hearing with justice department's i.g. michael horowitz that will be happening less than one hour from now. arizona congressman andy biggs
is a member of the house judiciary committee. you will be asking questions at that hearing this morning. i want to ask about that. first i want to get a little information on peter strzok. i think there is confusion here. yesterday he said he is offering to testify and answer questions before congress voluntarily and goodlatte, the chairman of the committee, is planning to subpoena him. why subpoena him if he is volunteering his testimony? >> because if you volunteer your testimony you can always back out. we want to make sure he gets there and we have an opportunity to go forward. also if he is coming in voluntarily there is an opportunity to be even more manipulative than otherwise. we want to get him in there and before the committee. we want him to answer the questions about his bias, his roles in this affair, this investigation, and even on the
mueller team and how he ended up in the human resources department after violating f.b.i. rules. >> sandra: do we know that's where he was? that was asked about at the hearing yesterday and the f.b.i. director christopher wray said he couldn't comment on what his current role is at the f.b.i. do you know that to be the case he is in h.r. >> absolutely. director wray answered that question for me in the judiciary hearing when director wray was at the judiciary committee before in the house. >> sandra: a lot of people boggled by the fact that he is employed and still working at the f.b.i. will we see him publicly? will it be a public hearing? >> it should be. especially if it's subpoenaed. he should be in a public hearing and the whole world should be able to see it. i think that's important. >> sandra: under oath? >> under oath. >> sandra: what specifically would you want to ask of him? what would be the most important thing to hear from peter strzok after the american people have heard for so long and read those text messages
and quite frankly know of the blatant anti-trump bias he exchanged with that other lawyer lisa page with whom he had a romantic relationship. >> we'll continue the press on bias. the notion you can have this personal an mouse against donald trump and protest you are a fair arbiter of what is going on and also his role in the investigation. now they're claiming he didn't have decision-mareking authority. yet he is the liaison between the analysts and the powers that be and advising everybody on both sides of that. particularly this idea that the statute says gross negligence and somehow we're going to change it to intent and thus we'll say hillary clinton had no intent. it is basically the stupid defense. so i want to find out what his role was in sending the parties that way who were investigating and came away saying she is all clean. >> sandra: do you have theories
on why he seemed to be so willing to testify and said he would volunteer to do so? >> i can only think that it's what happens is to the remorseless sometimes they want to say look, i feel i did nothing wrong. they can't see the quantity and the quality of their conduct so they want to tell the whole world they're innocent. >> sandra: the hearing today before the i.g. horowitz, what are you expectations here as he sits back down in the hot seat ahead of the house committee? >> he is going to be asked a lot about some of the things about bias. how can he say that it was antiseptic and there was no real decision making bias here? we go through it and find out all kinds of people whose names are masked which i'll ask him about unmasking these people again saying nothing is going to happen here. there won't be a conviction. whatever they find there won't be a conviction. james comey saying we won't prosecute well before all of
the investigation is completed. he is going to have to explain to us that because he picked -- my opinion he chose different items and isolated them and said there is no bias here. but when you take it all together it looks like it is really biased. we'll focus on bias, unmasking of names, intention versus gross negligence. the whole thing again. >> sandra: busy morning. we look forward to this hearing later on. you and seven other republicans want those names unmasked, those other anti-trump agents working at the f.b.i. congressman, thank you for your time this morning and we'll see you in a bit. >> thanks. >> bill: breaking overnight chairman kim is in china with a visit with the chinese president. the u.s. military won't hold exercises with south korea. where are we today after the singapore summit? and moments away from a critical hearing. horowitz led the entire investigation and the man with the answers and we're here to
analyze, jason chaffetz and judge napolitano and adrian elrod are all on deck next. so i'm not happy unless my hands are dirty. between running a business and four kids, we're busy. auto insurance, homeowner's insurance, life insurance policies. knowing that usaa will always have my back... that's just one less thing you have to worry about. i couldn't imagine going anywhere else. they're like a friend of the family. we are the cochran family, and we'll be usaa members for life. save by bundling usaa home and auto insurance. get a quote today.
with tripadvisor, finding your perfect hotel at the lowest price... is as easy as dates, deals, done! simply enter your destination and dates... and see all the hotels for your stay! tripadvisor searches over 200 booking sites... to show you the lowest prices... so you can get the best deal on the right hotel for you. dates, deals, done! tripadvisor. visit tripadvisor.com
>> bill: 9:32. the markets are open down 300 at the open. a little more than 1 percentage point for the dow. now below 24,700. all this has to do with the tariff threatened by the white house against china. that story is moving yet again today. we'll see how investors react on that. another story. also breaking from overnight chairman kim goes to beijing again. the pentagon finalizing a decision announcing the u.s. will not have military exercises with south korea. saying quote the united states military has suspended planning for this august defensive war game. we're coordinating additional actions. no decisions on subsequent war games have been made. president trump promising to
suspend war games in south korea. after that meeting with north korean leader kim jong-un. meanwhile back in beijing kim is in china with the chinese president xi to talk about the next steps in denuclearization. we'll is see the fallout more today. >> sandra: less than 30 minutes away from a second hearing on that bombshell report on the clinton email investigation. inspector general horowitz back on capitol hill testifying again before the house judiciary and oversight committees, a joint hearing spirited questioning yesterday by the senate judiciary committee where orrin hatch went after f.b.i. director wray who also testified. listen. >> this report is focused on a specific set of events in 2016 and a small number of f.b.i. employees. >> let's remember who that small number of employees was, the director of the f.b.i., the
deputy director of the f.b.i., these were not junior field agents. >> i don't intend in any way to downplay the significance of the report. >> there should be no doubt these errors cast a cloud over the f.b.i.'s handling of the clinton email investigation. and the investigation's credibility. >> sandra: let's bring in a-team jason chaffetz, judge andrew napolitano, senior judicial analyst and adrienne elrod, former director of communications for hillary clinton. the a-team this morning. to you first, judge. you are expectations for this hearing this morning. horowitz will be present unlike yesterday where it was christopher wray as well. that will be different. questioning coming from the joint house committees. your expectations. >> difference and respect to my colleague congressman chaffetz
i don't put a lot of stock in these hearings. each side, republicans and democrats, want to extract their narrative. so yesterday the republicans extracted a narrative that yes, there was bias there, yes, there were f.b.i. agents who had profoundly anti-trump decisions. how could that bias not have animated their judgment when they are deciding whether or not to present evidence to a grand jury with hillary clinton? >> the democrats said the president's claim that the inspector general report exonerated him is baseless. both of those narratives are political narratives. both of the people testifying yesterday know how to answer questions without telling more than they want to tell. did we learn anything new from yesterday that we didn't already know from the inspector general's report? i don't think so. >> sandra: let's put that
question to jason chaffetz. >> i used to be the chairman of the oversight committee. you do this because you want to look under the hood and find out what happened. republicans believe this wasn't a serious investigation of hillary clinton's email server. want to want the jaw from the inspector general. the f.b.i. won't allow congress to interview witnesses. the inspector general gets to do that. and how we learned about the strzok/page texts and we learned a lot. what you will see in the house is a more aggressive hearing. you will have members mad and fired up on the both sides of the aisle. if you're supportive of hillary clinton you have a reason to be mad at comey. you'll get deeper into the weeds. why didn't they see these communications? you had the inspector general make a criminal referral to the f.b.i. classified information and non-classified hearings. why didn't the f.b.i. seize
that material? they didn't do that. let's hear from the inspector general why they didn't do that? >> sandra: the american people see when you have these open public hearings and yesterday it was senator kennedy reading off text for text for text exchanged between peter strzok and lisa page and we're wondering how could there not have been bias involved in these investigations if they were truly having these thoughts amongst each other? adrienne? >> i think that's one of the questions that the inspector general is going to be asked today and probably be expected to answer because you look at these. these text messages and again i'm trying to take this from the standpoint i still believe that hillary clinton would have won the election if james comey hadn't reopened the investigation before the election. it is hard to sit here and say there was not political bias between these two people. >> sandra: you will have a few people at the table disagreeing if you do that.
>> the inspector general didn't say there was no bias. he just concluded the bias did not affect the ultimate outcome. >> sandra: at least there was no evidence it played a part. >> i don't know how he makes the judgment but that's the judgment he made. >> a lot of members of the committee asking how is that not political bias and how did james comey not show bias? they're calling it an unfair investigation but there are questions how it is not politically biased. >> 600 pages of bias every step of the way. i think you'll find it is difficult for a prosecutor to prove why somebody didn't do something. the inspector general has an investigation into russia and fisa abuse. the senior-most echelon at the f.b.i. with this sort of feelings what did they do about it?
you'll see there was potential unmasking and those types of things that happened with the fisa abuse. that will be the next one. >> sandra: the chairman of the committee that you said put the hat back on for a second and what would your question be today? >> i want to understand what sort of cooperation the f.b.i. had with the inspector general. mike lee started to draw that out. they didn't cooperate with the inspector general. >> sandra: you heard andy biggs a few minutes ago. wasn't the names of the other f.b.i. agents. >> that will only take 30 seconds. the inspector general will say that's a decision you'll have to ask the f.b.i. they kept those names quiet. >> sandra: judge, the next topic before we move on immigration. another big meeting with the president today. this debate continues to heat up. where does it go next? >> i don't know you'll get 60 votes in the senate to agree on everything. the situation is emotionally raw because of the status of
these children at the border. i have condemned the incarceration of children. the statute doesn't permit this. the government has decided to do it nevertheless. that's putting tremendous heat. >> sandra: the administration said it is enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. >> i think the administration is wrong. federal statute prohibits separating children from their parents for more than 72 hours. the administration has an obligation to get judges down there to find out are these kids the offspring of the adults or are they pawns the adults are using claiming to be offspring. the government has a manifest obligation to answer that question quickly. >> sandra: we'll see how that changes today. thanks to all three of you, the a-team. thank you. >> bill: sandra, thank you. president trump now turning up the heat on beijing. a new threat of $200 billion in additional tariffs, fees, trade wars fear.
senator dean heller is standing by with his stake on that. >> for too long america has allowed to free trade framework to become distorted to the advantage of countries its than the united states. remember that our diplomacy puts american workers and businesses first. experience lexus safety system+ standard in the 2018 lexus es and es hybrid. lease the 2018 es 350 for $339 a month for 36 months. experience amazing at your lexus dealer.
even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. >> president trump: this is an incredible time for our country. our economy, many of you know that very well, is doing better than it ever has done. our employment numbers are the best that they've been, perhaps ever, but certainly in recorded history. reports just came out best in 44 years. >> bill: economy is something the president has been selling for some time. it is humming along now. now the threat from overnight with beijing possibly another $200 billion in tariffs. markets don't like that. big drop in the open, down 330
for now. dean heller with me from the hill. how are you doing, senator? good morning to you today. how high is this going to go? $200 billion? are you okay with that? >> the $200 billion in what? >> the threat of the tariffs overnight. >> you have to understand where this president is coming from. he says we have an $800 billion trade deficit now. what do you have to lose? i'm going to give him a wide berth now. he is sending a message to china and the rest of the world this can't continue. >> bill: when you think about the folks in nevada, think about a trade war. i don't know if you would go there just yet. but you just said it. you think you can get a better deal. how and what does it look like? >> the reason is guy is president. he was the only one talking to nice campaign on immigration policy and tariffs. this is why reagan democrats voted for this guy. is because he said hey, you are losing jobs and two if you have
a job your pay isn't increasing. this is the direction that this president said he was going to go and he is keeping his promises. he is sending messages around the world saying no more, no more piggy bank for the rest of the world. >> bill: does this go on for weeks or months? >> this? i just hope they get the message. look at the message we sent to north korea and they came to the table. look at the message he is sending the china and i believe they'll come to the table within weeks not months hopefully. what the president has done for this economy. it has been incredible. i got a report back from the governor's office last week. we're creating 40,000 jobs per month in the state of nevada. no state has benefited more from the jobs act and the tax cuts than the state of nevada. we're moving in the right direction. >> bill: how is that? how will the folks -- i know you are running on this, republicans as a party are five months from now you'll sell the
tax reform plan. how has it helped nevada? >> first of all, when i speak to large groups in the state of nevada i tell everybody look at your pay stub. look at your pay stub today compared to last year. and the promise is that there will be more. for the average family middle class family in the state of nerve it's 2500 more a year and the end of this year beginning the next year your tax rates will be lowered. they will benefit. people keep more money in wallets. helping them spend and send their kids to college and put food on the table. you name it. that's what this tax and jobs act is doing. >> bill: democrats put out something this hour, democratic congressional campaign committee saying they had their best month of may ever. 11 million raised. what do you think? >> they're calling all these tax cuts crumbs. my opponent is calling it crumbs and that's fine because
nevada people know different. doesn't matter if you raise $11 million in a month if you don't have good candidates. right now the senatorial committee doesn't have good candidates in nevada. >> bill: you are running towards this tax reform bill? >> absolutely. no state -- let me repeat that no state has benefited more from the jobs act and tax cut than the state of nevada. >> bill: a hot race. dean heller from november -- nevada today. >> sandra: an elementary school principals quits. why would a principal invite an anti-police extremist to career day? details straight ahead. >> bill: would it shock you to learn that millennials are the worst tippers? who came up with that, huh? what's up with that 15, 20%, huh? wish we got money back on gym memberships.
get money back hilarious. with claim-free rewards. switching to allstate is worth it. your digestive system has billions of bacteria but life can throw them off balance. re-align yourself with align probiotic. and try new align gummies with prebiotics and probiotics to help support digestive health.
>> bill: millennials can lay claim to a new title. they're considered the worst tippers. 2/3 millennials tip below 20%. it's not just restaurants. the study finding it across the board in services that suggest tipping. well. >> sandra: maybe that's because none of them had a job in the service industry or something like that. you have to really do that to know. >> bill: maybe they're just cheap. are you a good tipper or no? >> sandra: i guess it depends on who you ask. sometimes i think i'm a good tipper. but i keep hearing you say 15%, 20%. >> bill: here is the query. do you tip on tax or do you take the tax out? >> sandra: i don't look at it this way. >> bill: i tip on tax.
>> sandra: i do. do you tip on alcohol? >> absolutely. >> sandra: think about that for a second. we have this story this morning. an elementary school principal in chicago retiring after she outraged parents by inviting an anti-police extremist to talk to students on career day. she personally invited the activist to speak to 6 to 8 grade students at wildwood elementary school. he has used threatening statements about police in the past on social media. matt finn joins us live from chicago where we're hearing a lot of parents outraged at this happening. >> this anti-police extremist calls himself a radical and parents say they had no idea he was invited to speak to students on career day in
chicago. highlighting some of his extreme social media. in february when a chicago police commander was shot and killed he posted online f him and his family. he uses the terms cpd k. he refers to officers as pigs and posted about killing all the rich people. the chicago principal says she brought in ethos to speak to students about his poetry and civic work. here is what one mother said happened. >> he told them all the police were bad and all the police wanted to kill people. i was very disappointed that someone would come into this school and preach hate about the police. or even if he was talking about anyone else it would have upset me. >> in an apology letter the principal wrote i was present when his narrative took a negative turn and i immediately
intervened. i would never intentionally expose them or endorse this type of negativity. the principal was doing an excellent job but made a grave mistake. she brought in the extremist because she has recently been pressured by some parents to introduce anti-police philosophy to students. >> sandra: what a story. >> bill: we're moments away from the moment justice department i.g. michael horowitz testifying on the hill. trey gowdy, bob goodlatte. there are 38 members of the house who are at a minimum set to ask questions here. we'll bring you live coverage once it begins. check that. 74 members of the house set to ask questions moments away.
mitzi: psoriatic arthritis tries to get in my way? watch me. ( ♪ ) mike: i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ( ♪ ) joni: think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it. they're moving forward with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen.
serious allergic reactions may occur. mitzi: with less joint pain, watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin, ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. ask your rheumatologist and we got to know the friends of our friends.r the friends. and we found others just like us. and just like that we felt a little less alone. but then something happened. we had to deal with spam, fake news, and data misuse. that's going to change. from now on, facebook will do more to keep you safe and protect your privacy. because when this place does what it was built for, then we all get a little closer. 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom... is a stroke. 80 percent of all strokes and heart disease? preventable. and 149 dollars is all it takes to get screened and help take control of your health. we're life line screening... and if you're over 50...
call this number, to schedule an appointment... for five painless screenings that go beyond regular check-ups. we use ultrasound technology to literally look inside your arteries... for plaque which builds up as you age- and increases your risk for stroke and cardiovascular disease. and by getting them through this package, you're saving over 50%. so call today and consider these numbers: for just $149 you'll receive five screenings that could reveal what your body isn't telling you. i'm gonna tell you that was the best $150 i ever spent in my life. life line screening. the power of prevention. call now tow to learn more.
>> sandra: fireworks over the clinton email investigation could be entering day two as we await today's testimony before a joint house hearing. good morning and welcome to the second hour of "america's newsroom." i'm sandra smith. and there he is. back in the chair. >> bill: nice to see you. i'm bill hemmer. opening statements about to get underway any moments. justice department watchdog back on capitol hill following yesterday's testimony before a senate committee on the hill. >> sandra: another round of heated exchanges are expected today. we're back with our a-team. former congressman jason chaffetz. judge andrew napolitano and democratic strategist adrienne
elrod. it seems there are high expectations we'll get some sort of answers to the many questions that we have still out there when it comes to talking to the i.g. >> they will go deeper and play off what the senate did. senator mike lee, for instance, got the inspector general to admit that he could not get the f.b.i. to hand over the text messages. why is it that the f.b.i. couldn't extract the text messages from their own phones? he had to go to the department of defense to get that done. even then they still don't have the full universe of text messages and emails. >> bill: why does that happen? >> they'll ask the inspector general. these type of deeper questions. there will be grandstanding and blow hards trying to make that your youtube moment. for those that have done their homework, john radcliffe, trey gowdy, lamarr smith. the better questioners as they dive deeper. >> bill: our producer on the
hill says there are a staggering 74 members from both committees, house judiciary and oversight committee set to ask questions today. wow. i hope michael horowitz had a big breakfast this morning. the judge. i think to many people they don't understand what sort of power the i.g. has. he has hundreds of lawyers within the department of justice that he can use to investigate matters such as this. upwards of 500. that's significant. >> he also has f.b.i. agents that work for him. consider the inspector general as like internal affairs in a police department. his job is not to investigate crime or to investigate the public. his job is to investigate the department of justice which includes the f.b.i. to see if it deviated from acceptable d.o.j. or f.b.i. standards. yesterday he found or yesterday he discussed substantial deviation from f.b.i. standards but continued to maintain those deviations did not affect the ultimate outcome. that the ultimate outcome, a
decision not to prosecute mrs. clinton, was warranted by the nature of the evidence that the f.b.i. found. while f.b.i. agents had strong political opinions, even biases against donald trump and in favor of mrs. clinton in his view the inspector general's view, because that bias did not affect the ultimate outcome, there was no violation of d.o.j. regulations. he did reveal a continuing investigation as to whether former f.b.i. director james comey violated d.o.j. regulations by distributing copy of his memoranda he wrote to himself about his meeting with the president to other persons. >> sandra: as you can see this is a live look inside the hearing room. the inspector general michael horowitz in the front of your screen there has just walked into the room and taking his seat now. we also have both chairmen of both committees a joint committee hearing. chairman bob goodlatte and trey gowdy are in the room.
here is trey gowdy. we'll get opening statements, five minutes each and trey gowdy. >> bill: look at that picture there behind michael horowitz. that's a stadium of lawmakers in front of him. it was row after after row. this will go for some time. >> sandra: christopher wray is not in the room. he was in the room yesterday. today the witness is the i.g. michael horowitz. but as you mentioned, 74 members of both committees combined. >> bill: as you look at this, you have to look to trey gowdy and you have to look to bob goodlatte. because they have been knee deep in this investigation for a year and a half. jason upwards of two years. i think their line of questioning is something you should have a keen interest in today to figure out where these house members are going now. >> well, they -- this is their
golden opportunity to go and look under the hood. remember, this is the first investigation. there is still another investigation into fisa abuse, the russia -- was there wrongdoing in russia? they will try to ask questions on those topics and inspector general will say i can't answer questions on that topic yet. >> sandra: really interesting that the democrat from new york was just speaking a moment ago and found a moment to bring up immigration and remind everybody what is happening in washington today. not only is this joint committee hearing happening on capitol hill, there are no votes in the house, that won't draw any of the members in the room away during the hearing and president trump is due to arrive at the capitol at 5:30 this evening. protestors in the room distracting. >> bill: to the judge then, andrew mccarthy is with us this past hour, he was talking about the hillary clinton investigation and the information that came out
yesterday and the investigation now of james comey. he suggests that hillary clinton will not be prosecuted. suggesting it is water under the bridge, okay. so if that's the case, you've got bob mueller going back 13 years on paul manafort. how do you draw a distinction between one or the other? >> i don't know how you do that. i've been arguing for a long time in comey's judgments were so wrong and we believe they were wrong. why doesn't the justice present evidence to a grand jury an mrs. clinton. it's a policy decision, not a legal decision. a determination by the president of the united states is not wise for my justice department to prosecute the person i ran against even though she should have been prosecuted before i was running against her. >> bill: does that fall under the whole prosecutorial discretion? >> i'm not suggesting this is the right thing to do. in fact i've been critical of
jeff sessions for criticizing jim comey on one hand and not doing anything about it on the other. if they presented the evidence that we know of, the public evidence against mrs. clinton to a grand jury and properly instructed the grand jury on the law, which is that gross negligence is the standard, not intent, she will be indicted. >> sandra: oversight committee chairman trey gowdy. let's listen in. >> those expectations should be consistently exacting because the power we give prosecutors and law enforcement is an awesome power. the power to prosecute, the power to charge, the power to indict is the power to impact reputations, the power to deprive people i have their liberty, it is the power in some instances to even try to take the very life of a citizen and we give police and prosecutors tremendous powers. and with those powers comes a corresponding expectation of fairness and just dealing. this inspector general's report
should conjure, anger, disappointment and sadness in everyone who reads it. this report lays bear the bias, and prejudging of facts by junior f.b.i. agents and senior attorneys. and attempts to minimize and mitigate this bias are so an thet call to what we want and deserve in our law enforcement officers and dangerous to the broader community. i've seen media efforts and efforts from some, not all, but some of my democratic colleagues to shift the burden of bias onto those impacted by that bias. that it is somehow the responsibility of those affected by bias to show how that bias negatively impacted them. what a dangerous shifting of the burden. it is not the public's job to prove the bias shown by the f.b.i. did not influence decision making. it is the f.b.i.'s job to prove to the public that this manifest bias was not outcome
determinative. bias and fairness cannot co-exist and why no lawyer seated up here today would ever allow a biased juror to sit on his or her jury or no citizen would allow a biased police officer or judge to work on any matter of any significance. there is a presumption that bias is bad and that is a presumption we should accept in nearly every single facet of life. as we read this report, we're reminded of jim comey's decision to hold a july 5th press conference and appropriate the charging decision away from the prosecutors. we see jim comey drafting an exoneration memo before important witnesses like the target were even interviewed. this inspector general has been accused of softening or watering down his report when the reality is it was jim comey who softened and watered down his press release announcing no charges against secretary clinton.
we see jim comey and jim comey alone deciding which d.o.j. policies to follow and ignore. jim comey and jim comey alone deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to support each and every element of an offense. we see jim comey alone deciding whether to send a letter to congress in the throes of a looming election. his justification he didn't have confidence in loretta lynch. her asking him to refer to this case as a matter rather than an investigation, or her meeting with bill clinton while hillary clinton was under investigation, or the matter he has alluded to, but claims he cannot discuss publicly, clearly jim comey had lost confidence in the d.o.j. to handle the case in a way worthy of public trust. but that leads us to the one thing we did not see jim comey do, which was take any steps to spur the appointment of special
counsel in the hillary clinton investigation. when he lost confidence in the trump justice department, he memorialized private conversations and leaked them and admitted he did so to spur the appoint. of special counsel because he didn't trust the career prosecutors at the department of justice. when he lost confidence in the obama justice department he didn't make special memos or share them with his law professor friends. he didn't leak the information. he didn't lift a finger to get special prosecutor. instead he appointed himself, f.b.i. director, attorney general, special counsel, lead investigator and the general arbiter of what is good and right in the world according to him. one of the last times i spoke with director comey was in a committee hearing. we had a pointed exchange on what i thought was the f.b.i. making decision based in part on politics. and he in his typically sanctimonyous way told me he disagreed and said the men and women of the f.b.i. don't give
a hoot about politics. unfortunately -- i use that word, he was dead wrong. there were agents and attorneys at the f.b.i. who gave a lot more than a hoot about politics. there is andy mccabe, the former deputy director, an agency which investigates others for making false statements, himself accused of making false statements and showing a lack of candor. i think i recall perhaps someone can correct me. i think i recall some of my democrats falling over themselves to offer a job to him after he was let go and for a lack of candor. those same colleagues weren't hiring and they didn't have any openings when others in a related investigation called russia were charged with the same offense. there were f.b.i. agents and attorneys who decided to pre-judge the outcome of the hillary clinton case before the investigation ended. i want you to let that sink in
for a second. they prejudged the outcome of the hillary clinton investigation before the investigation ended and these exact same f.b.i. agents and attorneys pre-judged the outcome of the russia investigation before it even began. if pre-judging the outcome of an investigation before it begins and ends is not evidence of outcome determinative bias for the life of me i don't know what would be. that is textbook bias. it is quite literally the definition of bias. allowing something other than the facts to determine your decision. these agents were calling her president before she was even interviewed. they were calling for the end of the trump campaign before the investigation even began. they were calling for impeachment simply because he happened to be elected. that is bias. and with all due respect it's the f.b.i.'s job, not mine, to
prove that bias can ever be harmless because i don't agree. i think bias is always harmful. so we'll spend a day on a small number and significant leadership group of d.o.j. and f.b.i. officials who had leadership and supervisory roles in the clinton and russia investigations and failed to meet the basic expectations of fundamental fairness. there are tens of thousands of f.b.i. agents and d.o.j. employees who do meet our exacting expectations and we will not be calling their names today unfortunately. because we don't do i.g. investigations on agents and prosecutors who do their jobs with character and professionalism. to those agents and prosecutors who do the right thing, the right way, and for the right reasons, we'll get through this. it will be tough and it will be difficult but we'll emerge on the other side with a stronger f.b.i. and a stronger department of justice because we have to. we cannot have a justice system
that bases decisions on anything other than facts. to our fellow citizens watching at home be unrelenting in your expectations of our justice system. never lower those expectations. respect for the rule of law is the thread that holds the tapestry of this country together and it depends upon you having confidence in those you empower to enforce the law. and importantly do not ever except the notion that those victimized or impacted or negatively treated because of bias have any burden of proving harm. bias is intrinsically harmful. making up your mind based on anything other than the facts. we use a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales to symbolize what we want in a justice system. and there is nothing worse to justice than lowering that blindfold and making up your
mind based on who is standing in front of you. that is not who we are. that is not what we should ever become. there is a saying in the courtroom may justice be done though the heavens fall. you won't hear that saying in politics. you are more likely to hear let's win at all costs the heavens be damned. we can survive with politicians we don't trust. we can't survive with a justice system we don't trust. with that i would recognize the gentleman from maryland. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman. when we look back to the presidential campaign in 2016, there is one extremely troubling image we all remember very well. that is the image of donald trump and other republicans chanting lock her up, lock her up, lock her up.
we're talking about hillary clinton using personal emails and they demanded over and over again that she be jailed. but the justice department had already investigated. they had interviewed witnesses, they viewed documents, analyzed the law, examined past charging decisions. at the conclusion of its investigation, the department disagreed with the republicans. they did not charge hillary clinton with any crime at all. and the entire d.o.j. and f.b.i. team on the investigation agreed with that conclusion. of course, the republicans refuse to accept that conclusion. they wanted hillary clinton to be guilty.
so they attacked the investigation. they said there must have been collusion with hillary clinton. they called emergency hearings over and over and over again. they insisted on reviewing documents and reinterviewing witnesses. and they demanded that the inspector general conduct his own independent investigation of the f.b.i. last week the inspector general issued his report. but it finds the same thing. it says, and i quote, we found no evidence that the conclusions by the department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. the report goes on, and i quote, rather we determined that they were based on the
prosecutors' assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice, end of quote. so the republicans were wrong again. they're hollering about lock her up with baseless and unsubstantiated and now we have another report saying so. but again and again, the republicans refuse to accept this conclusion. they still want hillary clinton to be guilty. even today. now they are going after the investigation of the investigation. they are going after the inspector general's report issued last week.
they want to re-review documents the inspector general already reviewed and reinterview witnesses the inspector general already interviewed. some republicans even want to investigate whether anyone tampered with the inspector general's report or watered it down. they simply refused to accept the inspector general's findings. the republicans point to some individual expressions of bias and these are facts the inspector general already revealed. instead, the republicans are now tripling down threatening to impeach rod rosenstein and christopher wray for somehow obstructing their efforts to get to the bottom of all of this. they had a big meeting on friday, by the way.
friday night with speakers paul ryan, no democrats were invited, of course. but this weekend chairman gowdy described some of it during a press conference -- press appearance. apparently after reading the inspector general's conclusions, house republicans all decided that -- and i quote -- the house of representatives is going to use its full arsenal of constitutional weapons to gain compliance, end of quote, with their never-ending demands regarding hillary clinton. at this point i think it's crystal clear that the only answer republicans will accept is that hillary clinton must be guilty. they will keep going on and going until they get that answer.
even if the facts will never support it. and even if multiple independent reviews come to exactly the opposite conclusion. republicans in congress are only willing to use their full arsenal of constitutional weapons to attack hillary clinton or protect donald trump. neither the oversight committee nor the judiciary committee has issued a single subpoena to investigate president donald trump or any other topic related to his administration. including the key moral and ethical issue of the day, which is the president's new policy to separate children from their families. and so i ask the question and it is a simple question.
are we really going to sit here 70 members of the congress of the united states of america in 2018 and have a hearing that just repeats the hearings the senate had yesterday on hillary clinton's email? we sent letter after letter, letter after letter, asking these committees to investigate the trump administration's policy which is now resulting in child internment camps, that's what i said. child internment camps. but we have gotten no response. look, even if you believe people entered our country illegally, even if you believe they have no valid asylum claims in their own country, even if you believe immigration
should be halted entirely, we all should be able to agree that in the united states of america, we will not intentionally separate children from their parents. we will not do that. we are better than that! we are so much better. we should be able to agree that we will not keep kids in child internment camps indefinitely and hidden away from public view. what country is that? this is the united states of america! we now have reports of parents being deported but the trump administration is keeping their children here. 2018 in america, we do not need
legislation. this is a policy. understand this, this was a policy invented, implemented and executed by president donald trump. so in conclusion, mr. chairman, we need you -- those children need you. i'm talking directly to my republican colleagues. we need you to stand up to president trump. we need you to join us in telling him that we reject this mean policy. we need you to tell him to abandon this policy. we need you to remind him that this is the united states of america and it is a great country. and we need you to stand up for
those children. and with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> chairman from virginia is recognized. >> we are here to shed light on decisions that have tarnished the reputation of our chief law enforcement associations and undermine american's confidence in their justice system. we'll look into two of the most sentive investigations. it began with hillary clinton's handling of classified emails. there are more theories about the f.b.i. and d.o.j. handling of the investigation. it confirms that mrs. clinton received special treatment from the obama justice department and f.b.i. during their investigation. the american people often get tired of political infighting in washington, d.c. so i want to ask a simple
question. why should americans care about what we're talking about here today? i propose this answer. because our constitution guarantees equality under the law. americans expect that those with power and influence will not receive special treatment but as the i.g. report describes, d.o.j. and f.b.i. did not treat mrs. clinton like any other criminal suspect and did not follow standard investigative procedures in exonerating here. the i.g. found many issues with this particular investigation as well as serious institutional issues. and while only telling half the story, we're still awaiting conclusions with respect to the allegations of surveillance abuse inside the f.b.i. the i.g. identified various corrective actions including recommending five additional f.b.i. employees for further review and possible disciplinary consideration. in a nutshell the i.g. report
details unusual actions taken by law enforcement officials who were sworn to uphold the constitution impartially and fairly. they failed in that duty. again, why should americans care? the department of justice and the f.b.i. are not mentioned in the u.s. constitution. who is mentioned in the constitution? the president and congress. yet a handful of individuals in these law enforcement associations placed the constitutional institution of the presidency under attack during a heated election and mocked congress's legitimate constitutionally mandated oversight. equality under the law is a core american value. our laws are to be administered and enforced with impartiality. the i.g. report confirms this was not the case in the clinton investigation. to quote from the report concerning certain individuals assigned to the investigation, we found that the conduct of
these five f.b.i. employees brought discredit to themselves, sewed doubt about the f.b.i.'s handling of the investigation and impacted the reputation of the f.b.i. moreover. the damage caused by their actions extends far beyond the scope of the mid year investigation and goes to the heart of the f.b.i.'s reputation for neutral fact finding and political independence, end quote. i'm only repeating what the i.g. found. improprieties by the f.b.i. and d.o.j. caused such far reaching damaginging to the heart of what is expected from agencies whose responsibility was to remain fair administrators of justice. this hearing and the i.g.'s report underscores the importance of the ongoing joint investigation by the house judiciary committee and the house oversight committee into decisions made by the d.o.j. and f.b.i. in 2016. to date the committees have
interviewed several key witnesses and reviewed tens of thousands of documents while we appreciate the i.g. and his staff for a very detailed investigation, it is critical for the public to also hear what was not included in the report due to the i.g.'s refusal to question, quote, whether a particular decision by the f.b.i. and d.o.j. was the most effective choice, end quote. here is what has been observed by these committees. questionable interpretation by d.o.j. and f.b.i. of the law surrounding mishandling of classified information. foreign actors obtained access to some of mrs. clinton's emails including at least one email classified secret. director comey appeared to have pre-determined the exoneration of mrs. clinton at least two months before the investigation concluded. the department of justice determined any charge of gross negligence was off the table reading an intent standard into
the law that does not exist. grotesque statements against then candidate donald trump were made by top f.b.i. officials and they went so far as to say we'll stop trump from becoming president. indiscretions involving mr. strzok and miss page were not handled appropriately at the time the f.b.i. management learned of them resulting in their continued assignment as key players on the clinton and mueller investigation. mr. mccabe appears not to be forthright with congress during an interview concerning his knowledge of meetings and actions taken by mr. mccabe and his team. the f.b.i.'s top counter intelligence official was unaware of possible evidence indicating mrs. clinton's private email server had been penetrated by a foreign adversary and unaware of relevant legal process obtained during the investigation.
documents show significant criticism of mr. comey expressed by multiple current and former f.b.i. agents. the f.b.i. intentionally obscured the fact president obama had communicated with mrs. clinton's private email address byed iting mr. comey's final press statement replacing the president with the euphemism senior government official. finally top f.b.i. officials, including mr. mccabe through their wives had close ties to democrat and clinton affiliated entities and should have been recused from the clinton investigation. we need to insure all are treated equally under the law. fallout from the clinton investigation gives the impression those with money and influence are given lighter treatment than the so-called common person. short-term damage to the f.b.i.
and d.o.j.'s reputations is apparent. however, the i.g. and congress's investigations will help to understand why certain deficiencies occurred during one of the most high-profile investigations in this nation's history. this hearing is a crucial step toward repairing law enforcement's reputation as an impartial fact finder and seeker of truth. i look forward to the inspector general's testimony today. >> the gentleman from new york is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you inspector general horowitz for being here today. the days since you released your report, mr. inspector general, i have been struck by the total disconnect between the republican party line and your actual findings. the report does not find, as president trump continues to cam plain, that the f.b.i. plotted against his election. the report also does not totally exonerate the president on the russia matter no matter
how you read it. it does not give any reason to conclude as the president's attorney argues that, quote, mueller should be suspended an honest people should be brought in, unquote. or that the attorney general should violate his recusal and end the special counsel's investigation all together. nor does it suggest as chairman goodlatte and chairman gowdy insist, that hillary clinton received special treatment from the f.b.i. the key findings in the report are quite simple. the inspector general, quote, found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. rather, we determined that they were based on the prosecutors' assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice, close quote. that sums up everything we're talking about. the report criticizes the f.b.i. and its former leadership but virtually every
action criticized ultimately harmed the candidacy of secretary clinton and inured to the benefit of the candidacy of donald trump. the report doesn't say anything about the ongoing work of the special counsel. president trump, rudy giuliani and some of my republicans colleagues are desperate to make that leap. who wouldn't be with 23 indictment and the president's campaign manager in jail. their argument is based on -- i'm not shy about my criticism of james comey. when he testified before the judiciary committee last year, i told him that he was wrong to have applied a double standard to the presidential campaigns. speaking publicly and at length about the clinton investigation, refusing even to acknowledge the existence of the investigation into the trump campaign. i also told mr. comey that he
was wrong to have criticized secretary clinton after announcing he wouldn't charge her with a crime. not because of the content of the criticism but because issuing that statement was simply not his job as the report finds. it is also wrong as well as against the department of justice guidelines for the investigative agency to criticize the subject of its investigation for uncharged conduct. it was totally unnecessary and wrong. inspector general's report describes both of these failings in detail. the report's analysis of mr. comey's july 5 statement reads in our criminal justice system the prosecutor functions and investigative are kept -- the report concludes mr. comey's statement assumed an authority that didn't belong to the office of the director of the f.b.i. i'm grateful for this important
analysis. unfortunately, your key finding that the decision not to charge secretary clinton was based on an assistment of the facts, law and past department practice and not on bias or improper consideration is now subject to the treatment that president trump and some of my republican colleagues will give it. i mean there was total bias the president argued on the white house lawn just last week. what are we to make of this disconnect between what the report says and what the president and his allies say it says? why is it that no matter how many times we litigate this question, house republicans can think of nothing better to do than endlessly investigate hillary clinton for this same conduct? why is it that after half a dozen investigations found no wrongdoing at benghazi the majority spent million else of dollars on their committee. when that body found no wrongdoing why is it that the majority moved on to conspiracy
theories about the clinton foundation and uranium one. why is it that after the justice department and f.b.i. decided not to charge secretary clinton with a crime, rather than accepting the conclusion the judiciary and oversight majority launched an investigation into the department of justice and f.b.i.? why is it that after you released this report, mr. horowitz, some of my colleagues seriously suggested that we open an investigation into your investigation of the investigation? why is it that here and now in june of 2018 we're still talking about hillary clinton's emails at all? i suspect it has something to do with the way republicans have squandered their opportunity to govern and abdicating that responsibility. they have done little or nothing to secure our next election from foreign attack. or to push back against the attorney general's unprecedented refusal to defend in court the key protections of
the affordable care act or to address an immigration crisis with anything other than a cruel and reactionary policy proposal that will never become law. and with persecuting children at the border. they don't even make credible arguments about hillary clinton's emails. i suspect that if the majority were actually motivated by the sensitivity of classified information in the clinton case they would have also said something by now about the highly sensitive israeli operation revealed to russian officials by president trump or about the way the president handles classified documents an mar-a-lago or about the confidential human sources i dent fee was exposed recently while our colleagues tried to force the deputy attorney general to reveal his identity or the inappropriate if not unlawful dangling of pardons by the president and his attorney of those accused of participating in a conspiracy about the united states.
too many of my republican colleagues seem struck at a trump campaign rally shouting lock her up hoping the public won't notice how little they've accomplished with their time in the majority. i look forward to your testimony today, mr. inspector general. i hope our conversation can be the beginning of the end with the preoccupation with senator clinton. we have so many more important things to do. >> we're pleased to introduce our witness today, the honorable michael horowitz. inspector general for the department of justice. welcome to you, mr. horowitz. pursuant to committee rules all witnesses are sworn in before they testify. i would ask you to do what you just did, stand up and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear and affirm the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. you are recognized for your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman gowdy
and goodlatte and thank you, ranking members cummings and nadler and members of the committee. thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding the report we released last week. our 500-page plus report provides a thorough, come pro henceive and objective recitation of the facts related to the department's and f.b.i.'s handling of the clinton email investigation. it was the product of 17 months of investigative work by a team that reviewed 1.2 million documents and interviewed more than 100 witnesses, many on multiple occasions. the review team followed the evidence wherever it led. and through their efforts we identified the inappropriate texts and instant messages discussed in the report. additionally the o.i.g.'s forensic examinations recovered thousands of text messages that otherwise would have been lost
or been undisclosed. as detailed in our report, we found that the inappropriate political messages that we uncovered cast a cloud over the mid year investigation so doubt about the credibility of the f.b.i.'s handling of it, and impact the reputation of the f.b.i. we found the implication that senior f.b.i. employees would be willing to take official action to impact a presidential candidate's electoral prospects to be deeply troubling and against the core values of the f.b.i. and justice department. with regard to the decision to close the investigation without prosecution, we found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were the result of improper considerations including political bias, rather were exercises of those prosecutors prosecutorial discretion, an exercise based on their assessment of the facts, the
law, and past department practice. our review also included a fact-based detailed assessment of certain specific investigative and prosecutorial decision that were the subject of controversy. it was necessary to select particular investigative decisions because it would not have been possible to recreate and analyze every decision made in a year-long investigation. in examining these decisions, we considered -- the question we considered was not whether a particular decision was the most effective choice, but rather whether the documentary and testimonial evidence indicated the decision was based on improper considerations, including political bias. this approach is consistent with the oig's handling of such questions in past reviews when assessing discretionary judgment calls and recognizes and respects the institutional oversight role of the oig.
our report provides a comprehensive assessment of these decisions and the mid-year investigation and details the factual evidence so that the public, congress and other stakeholders can conduct their own assessment of them. within this framework as to the specific investigative and prosecuted decisions we reviewed, we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected those specific investigative decisions, in part because the decisions were made by the larger mid-year team or by the prosecutors. this determination by the o.i.g. does not mean that we necessarily endorse those decisions or concluded they were the most effective among the options considered, or that our findings should or can be extrapolated to cover other decisions made during the course of the investigation by the f.b.i. employees who sent
those inappropriate text messages. conversely, we found the f.b.i.'s explanations for its failures to take immediate action after discovering the wiener laptop in september 2016 to be unpersuasive and we did not have confidence that the decision of deputy assistant director strzok to prioritize the russia investigation over following up on the wiener laptop was free from bias in light of his text messages. we also found that in key moments, then f.b.i. director comey clearly departed from f.b.i. and department norms and his decisions negatively impacted the decision of the f.b.i. and department as fair administrators of justice. director comey concealed from the attorney general and the deputy attorney general his intention to make a unilateral
announcement in july 2016 about the reasons for his recommendation not to prosecute former secretary clinton. his july 5 statement included inappropriate commentary about uncharged conduct, announced his views on what a reasonable prosecutor would do, and served to confuse rather than clarify public understanding of his recommendation or what the prosecutors had assessed in terms of the evidence. in late october, he again acted without adequately consulting department leadership and contrary to important department norms when he sent a letter to congress announcing renewed investigative activities days before the election. there were many lessons to be learned from the department's and f.b.i.'s handling of the clinton email investigation but among the most important is the need to respect the institution's hierarchy and structure and to follow
established policies, procedures, and norms, even in the highest profile and most challenging investigations. no rule, policy, or practice is perfect, of course. but at the same time, neither is any individual's ability to make judgments under pressure or in what may seem like unique circumstances. when leaders and officials adhere to bedrock principles and values the public has greater confidence in the fairness and rightness of their decisions and those institutions' leaders better protect the interest of federal law enforcement and the dedicated professionals who serve us all. by contrast, the public's trust is negatively impacted when law enforcement officials make statements reflecting bias, when leaders abandon institutional norms and the organizational hierarchy in favor of their own ad hoc judgments and when the leadership of the department of
justice and the f.b.i. are unable to speak directly with one another for the good of the institutions. our report makes nine recommendations most of which can be tied together through a common theme. that the f.b.i. and the justice department remain true to their foundational principles and values in all of their work. that concludes my prepared statement. i would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have. >> thank you. there is a text exchanged between page and strzok from august 8 of 2016. lisa page wrote trump's not ever going to become president, right? and an exclamation point in case anybody reading it may have missed the point ofer emphasis. strzok reported no, no he is not. we'll stop it. do i have that text exchange right? >> you do. >> lisa page was an f.b.i.
lawyer who worked on the clinton email investigation? >> that's correct. >> did she also work on the russia investigation? >> she did. >> how about the mueller special counsel team? >> she did for a period of time. >> 3 for 3 on her working on the two most important bureau investigations in 2016 and beyond. now, is this is same lisa page that andy mccabe used to leak information to a news outlet? >> she was the special counsel. as we indicate in our earlier report and the individual through whom he provided that information. >> wasn't there also a text about an insurance policy in case trump won in a meeting in andy's office? she was part of that text stream, too, wasn't she? >> correct. that was august 15. >> this august 8 text was not the only time f.b.i. lawyer lisa page was able to use the text feature on her phone but the same lisa page who
admonished the agent sbirg view hillary clinton not to go into the interview voted for bear and the same won who said trump was loath some, awful. clinton just has to win and trump should go f himself. most of those comments were before the clinton investigation was over and we're somehow supposed to believe that she did not pre-judge the outcome of that investigation before it was over, she already had hillary clinton winning. i don't know how you can win if you wind up getting indicted and/or plead guilty or be convicted of a felony. so i think we understand the first half of that text pretty well. she didn't want trump to win and she wanted clinton to win. now for the response. senior f.b.i. agent peter strzok wrote no, no, he is not,
we'll stop it. i think this is the same peter strzok who worked on the clinton email investigation, do i have that right? >> that's correct. >> same peter strzok who not only worked on the russia investigation when it began but was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the russia probe. do i have the right peter strzok? >> that's my understanding. >> is it the same peter strzok put on the mueller special counsel team? >> yes. >> bill: same peter strzok. this is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone, either. this is the same peter strzok who said trump is an idiot, hillary should win 100 million to 0. mr. inspector general, that one is interesting to me because he is supposed to be investigating her for violations of the -- for violations of the espionage
act and can't think of a single american who wouldn't vote for her for president. can you see our skepticism? the senior f.b.i. agent not only had her running. he had her winning 100 million to 0. what if they had found evidence sufficient to indict her? what if they had indicted her? is this -- he wasn't part of the interview of secretary clinton, was he? >> he was present for the interview. >> huh. so four months before that interview where he was present, he has got her running and winning 100 million to 0. the same peter strzok who wrote the nonsense of trump, trump is a disaster, i have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be. he wrote f trump. trump is an fing idiot.
he wrote this is an fing terrifying. in addition to seeming to like the f word, i think we have the same f.b.i. agent lisa page and the same f.b.i. agent peter strzok working on the clinton email investigation, the russia probe, and on mueller's team. so we have the right texts and we have the right people and make sure we have the chronology right. july 5 comey announces no charges for secretary clinton. july 28, 2016, the f.b.i. initiates is counter intelligence investigation into russia and the trump campaign. strzok is not only on that russia investigatory team, he is actually leading it. so that's three weeks after clinton is exonerated by comey, strzok is leading an investigation into russia and possible connections with the
trump campaign. that's only the 28th of july. now on the 31st of july, three days after the russia investigation began, strzok wrote damn this feels momentous. the other one did, too. but this was to insure we didn't f things up. this one matters because it matters. and if you happen to not know how important it is, he went ahead and put matters in all caps, in case you happen to not focus on the importance of why this matters. now, her investigation was just to make sure they didn't f things up. this one we're three days into it, three days into an investigation but this one really matters. i wonder what he meant by saying the purpose of the clinton investigation was to make sure they didn't f things up, but the russia investigation no, that one was different.
that one really mattered. you know, it almost sounds, inspector general, like they were going through motions with the clinton investigation. but boy, they were excited about the russia one. then we get to august 6. this is less than 10 days after the russia investigation begins and page says you are meant to protect the country from that menace. and then we get to august 8th, 2016. less than two weeks after the russia investigation even began, the lied f.b.i. agent says he will stop trump from becoming president. this is two weeks into an investigation. and he has already pre-judged the outcome and we're somehow supposed to believe that that bias was not outcome determinative. i can't think of anything more outcome determinative than my bias against this person i'm investigating with only two weeks worth of investigating. i have already concluded he should not be the president of
the united states. and then we get to august 15th. just over two weeks into the russia investigation, strzok says i want to believe the path you threw out that there is no way he gets elected but i'm afraid we can't take that risk. it's like an insurance policy. mr. inspector general, that is two weeks into an investigation and he is talking about taking out an insurance policy because he can't fathom the target of his investigation possibly becoming the president. so i want to go back to the no, no he is not going to be president, we'll stop it. what do you think the it is in that phrase we'll stop it? >> i think it's clear from the context it's we are going to stop him from becoming president. >> that's what i thought, too. i wonder who the we is in the
we'll stop it. who do you think the we? >> i think it's probably subject to multiple interpretations. them or the broader group beyond that. >> it's hard to fathom of definition of we that doesn't include him. we know he is part of we. you could assume the person he is talking with the f.b.i. attorney who also happens to be working on the russia investigation, she may be part of the we. but i wonder, inspector general, did you find any other f.b.i. agents or f.b.i. attorneys who manifest any bias against president trump? >> we did. >> how many? >> we have found three additional f.b.i. agents as we detail in the report. >> and were any of them working on the russia investigation? >> let me -- two agents and one attorney. >> two other agents, one other attorney. were they working on either the russia investigation or the mueller probe? >> i believe two of the three
were but i would have to just double-check on that. >> okay. now, bob mueller was named special counsel on may 17th, 2017. one day later, mr. horowitz, one day later, peter strzok is back on his phone texting some more. for me in this case i personally have a sense of unfinished business. i unleashed it with the clinton email investigation. now i need to fix it and finish it. fix what? >> well, there is outlined in the report what mr. strzok's explanation for it. >> i know what he said. i'm asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the southern district of new york and the department of justice. did you ever cross examination
on that examination or direct the examination? >> probably cross-examine. >> that's what i thought. how about finish it when he said i unleashed it, now i need to fix it and finish it. what do you think he meant by finish it? >> i think in the context of the emails that occurred in august and the prior august that you outlined, i think a reasonable explanation and inference of that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action. >> this is 24 hours into him being put on the mueller probe. there is no way he possibly could have pre-judged the outcome of the investigation -- maybe he did. maybe that's the outcome determinative bias that my democrat friends have such a hard time finding. inspector general horowitz if
one of your investigators talked about lisa page and peter strzok the way they talked about donald trump would you have left them on the i.g. investigation? >> no. >> >> did you ever an agent with this level of bias? >> i thought this was completely against the core values of the department and extremely serious. >> i heard you but you can say it where mr. nadler can hear you, too. >> my view of this was that this was extremely serious, completely against the core values, my personal view having been a prosecutor and worked with f.b.i. agents, i can't imagine f.b.i. agents suggesting even that they might use their powers to investigate frankly any candidate for any office. >> i can't, either. let me ask you this in conclusion. i think you've -- you laid out in your opening that peter
strzok's obsession with donald trump and the russia investigation may have led him to take his eyes off of the wiener laptop and notably ironic way calls jim comey to be a little later in sending those letters to congress. so that is one example of outcome determinative bias. but i have to ask you. you used to be in a courtroom and you were on the side of the united states and you worked for the department of justice. if someone is pre-judging the outcome of an investigation before it ends, and someone is pre-judging the outcome of an investigation before it even begins, what is more textbook bias than pre-judging this investigation before it's over and this one before it begins? i am struggling to find a better example of outcome determinative bias than that. so what am i missing?
>> well, i think certainly with regard to the russia investigation you mentioned, as you know, we are looking at that in an ongoing way. with regard to the clinton email investigation, i think as we lay out here and go through it, we looked at text messages, emails, documents to try and assess whether the specific decisions we were asked to look at and then the ultimate prosecutorial decision were impacted by strzok, page and the others' views. what we ended up finding particularly as to the prosecutor's decision was that was a decision they made exercising their discretion on their view of the policy, the law and the facts as it was found. we've laid that out. and in our view we didn't find or see evidence that the prosecutors were impacted by that bias. but as i mention in my opening
statement the idea was to put out the facts for the public, members of congress to see and so that folks who want to take a look at those issues can assess them themselves. >> my time sup. i hope one of my other colleagues will explore it. i heard it was predicated on their belief there wasn't sufficient evidence of intent on her behalf. i don't know where in the hell you would find better evidence of intense than interviewing the person who was actually doing the intending. when you make up your mind that you are not going to charge someone and you make up your mind you need to not go in loaded for bear and then you read the 302 and there is not a single damn question on intent it is really hard for those of us who used to do this for a living to not conclude they made up their mind on intent before they even bothered to talk to the single best repository of intent evidence which would be her.
with that i would -- >> may i make an inquiry? in order to prepare our questions, could i have your guidance on how much time each member is to be allowed? >> five minutes. mr. cummings can have the amount of time he thinks is necessary. the other members will have five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. first of all i want to thank you mr. horowitz for your work and i want to thank all of the i.g.s. we have always been both sides of the aisle impressed with your efforts and to your staff. i thank you. mr. horowitz, i want to focus on whether secretary clinton received, as some of my colleagues put it, special treatment from the f.b.i. and d.o.j. on the decision not to
prosecute secretary clinton, your report found, and i quote, we found no evidence that the conclusions by the prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations, rather we determined that they were based on the prosecutors' assessment of the facts, the law, and past department practice. we want justice department officials to make their decisions based on the facts, the law, and the past department practices. is that accurate? >> that's correct. >> your report also concluded the f.b.i. team interpreted and applied the law to secretary clinton in a way that was, and i quote, consistent with the department's historical approach in prior cases under
different leadership, including in the 2008 decision not to prosecute former attorney general alberto gonzalez for mishandling classified documents. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> but director comey did apply a double standard to secretary clinton in a way that helped donald trump and severely hurt secretary clinton. director comey followed the department policy and kept secret from the american people, the f.b.i.'s investigations of the trump campaign and russia, but repeatedly ignored department policy and released information about secretary clinton. regarding director comey's july 5th, 2016 public statement
about his recommendation not to charge secretary clinton, your review found, and i quote, comey's unilateral announcement was inconsistent with department policy and violated long-standing department practice and protocol by among other things, criticizing clinton's uncharged conduct. can you explain why the department has a policy against criticizing the uncharged conduct of an individual? >> certainly. the department -- one of the things that was interesting in the report is we found that it's a norm that's accepted but there actually isn't a policy that explicitly states that. that is one of our recommendations. i would, as we talk about this issue, the reason you don't speak about uncharged conduct, there are many, but it is
fairness to the individual. if an individual isn't going to be charged with criminal conduct or wrongdoing, you don't speak about it. you speak in court. that's what we've been trained from day one as prosecutors and anybody that has worked for the justice department. doing that publicly not only tarnishes an individual, but raises questions of the fairness of justice and applications of various principles as you indicated. indeed, as we point out here, while there isn't an explicit policy at the department about not speaking on uncharged conduct in a case where you don't charge any criminal activity, there actually is language that prohibits department prosecutors from speaking about uncharged conduct of co-conspirators. and so in other words, where there is, in fact, a charge of criminal wrongdoing and a conspiracy and some individuals in the conspiracy are charged
and some individuals aren't charged. that can happen because there is stronger evidence against some than others. department policy says you can't speak about the uncharged individuals even though you believe they committed a crime. and yet there is no corresponding policy on where there are no charges, which is why they make those recommendations in this report. >> you also found that director comey's october 28, 2016 letter to congress about secretary clinton, and i quote, originated with comey's elevation of maximal transparency as a value overriding for this case only the principles of stay silent and take no action that the f.b.i. has consistently applied to other cases. mr. horowitz, one of those investigations where director comey decided to follow
department policy and practice and keep silent was the russia investigation into allegations of collusion with the trump campaign. is that accurate? >> it is and i'll add he also had that policy with regard to the clinton foundation. >> and so -- and so say that again. explain that what you just said. >> there were two investigations he declined as we lay out here to speak about. one was the russia investigation, and one was the then ongoing clinton foundation investigation. that was the basis for the report about deputy director mccabe's misconduct that we released a few months ago. >> so do you believe that secretary clinton received some favorable action? >> i'm not going to judge whether it was favorable to whom or what. i will just say that it was not consistent with department policy, practice and it shouldn't have been done.
>> now, president trump and his republican allies are trying to use your report to discredit special counsel mueller's investigation. let me read a few headlines from the press about your report. i'm sure you've seen them. trump allies seize on d.o.j. report as they seek to undercut mueller's probe. giuliani calls for d.o.j. to end mueller probe. trump claims vindication. report on f.b.i. that wasn't about him. and quote republicans want to shut mueller down over report that isn't even about him, end of quote. president trump stated last friday and i quote, if you read the i.g. report, i've been totally exonerated, end of quote. mr. horowitz, my copy of your report must be missing a page,
a few pages. did your investigation examine whether president trump's campaign colluded with russia to impact the election or whether the president obstructed an f.b.i. investigation? >> our report was focused on the clinton email investigation. the only place where it touches the russia matter is with regard to the text messages and then the october decision about the wiener laptop. >> the president also said the mueller investigation has been totally discredited, end of quote. i don't see that in your report anywhere. maybe i missed it. does your report reach any conclusions about the validity or credibility of mueller's investigation. >> as we noted in the report, it relates to the clinton email investigation and the russia matter was not part of this review other than with the exception i mentioned earlier.
>> now, rudy giuliani, president trump's personal attorney, said, and i quote, tomorrow mueller should suspend his investigation, end of quote. does your report recommend that the special counsel suspend his investigation? >> we don't address issues with regard to the special counsel. >> mr. giuliani also said, and i quote, the i.g. report basically tells you that both prongs of the mueller investigation are either corrupt or answered, end of quote. did your investigation determine the special counsel's investigation is corrupt? >> as i said, our report was concerning the clinton email investigation. >> did your investigation answer the questions being considered in special counsel mueller's probe? >> same answer. >> the conclusion in your
report states, i quote, through the collective efforts of generations of f.b.i. employees, the f.b.i. has developed and earned a reputation as one of the world's premier law enforcement agencies. the f.b.i. has gained this reputation in significant part because of its professionalism, impartiality, non-political enforcement of the law and adherence to detailed policies, practices, and norms. did you find that the f.b.i. as an institution is corrupt, politically biased or untrustworthy. >> we didn't address the question beyond noting that in fact this kind of conduct undermines that credibility, impacts people's perceptions of the f.b.i. in a way that should
never have happened. and is very concerning for all the reasons i think everybody cares about, the fair administration of justice. >> i listened very carefully to chairman gowdy's questions, which were excellent. and the cloud that you talked about with regard to miss page and strzok and the others that you mentioned. how do you get -- the method that you used to figure out that there was -- that their opinions did not have a negative impact, you know, or inappropriate impact on this investigation? >> so what we did was -- >> that's a crucial question. in fairness to all, i think it's important that that be
addressed. go ahead. >> absolutely. i think it is very important because as we've talked about, the language, the messages, the appearance, the implication that any law enforcement officer would be willing to use their authority to impact any election and any individual, whatever side that person is running on or running from is so against the core values of justice and the f.b.i. and so the question we looked at was were the comments of the five individuals we identified here in looking at their various messages, how did those impact the specific decisions we looked at, and then the prosecutor's decision ultimately. the prosecutor is the one, despite what director comey said publicly, were responsible for making the ultimate
decision on whether to charge or not charge. what we did was, we questioned witnesses closely and looked for the documentary evidence we could and looked at the specific decisions, as to the specific decisions we outline here in the report, they were either the result of larger team decisions that were not exclusively within the domain of the individuals who had the very troubling messages. or were prosecutor's decisions and not the decisions of these individuals. and we also noted that at least for some of these decisions, the individuals were actually seeking more aggressive approaches than the prosecutors were in some regards. so we looked at all of that evidence and we assessed whether on that record we could make a finding that bias turned
into action by those other individuals. and we didn't believe there was evidence to reach that conclusion. and as to the prosecutor's decision, it was the prosecutor's decision. folks can debate and discuss and there has been a fair amount of it on whether the precedent and assessment here on the application of the gross negligence provision was an appropriate application of that provision. but that's a decision that the prosecutors made based on their judgment as you indicated looking at this over time. >> let me ask you this. in coming to that conclusion that you just talked about, was there -- because it seems like we're having an investigation of the investigation of the investigation. but -- so i ask you this. the people that you work with, your i.g. assistants, were you all solid behind what you just
said or did you have a lot of people saying no, you know, like a jury, half of them -- >> the great thing about having a large team like we had working on this is, much like i've done in other reports fast and furious and others. we sit in a room, hash it out. exchange ideas. but i'm comfortable saying this is the conclusion of all of us in the i.g. i am the one who has to -- and is the one responsible for issuing this but this was our team conclusion of it. but i hasten to add we understand and recognize and state explicitly on how serious the conduct was and how it cast a cloud over the whole investigation. i don't think that can be lost, either. >> thank you very much. >> gentleman from virginia is recognized.
>> mr. horowitz, welcome. we know from the report surrounding former deputy director mccabe's termination that the department of justice at high levels sought to determine nate the clinton foundation investigation. we also know that you found communication between secretary clinton and president obama. during your investigation did you seek access to communications from the department of justice? >> yes, we did. >> what about former obama white house officials? >> we sought department records and department information. we have in the past when we've sought white house records, this is true of administrations going way back, it's been made clear to us that the executive office of the president does not provide records to
inspectors generals of agencies. we would look for them if they were incoming to the department and those would be records that we would seek and obtain, but we don't have authority over any other agency outside government -- outside the justice department. >> did you seek to interview any officials at the white house? , the obama white house? >> i would have to go back and ask the team whether we sought interviews. >> dennis mcdonagh, valerie jarrett. >> i don't believe so. >> how about the president himself? >> no, we did not. >> all right. neither the department of justice -- would you have liked to have had that information if you could get access to it? >> i would have to think about that and talk with the team, frankly, about that and how they would view that. >> neither the department of justice nor the f.b.i. are
mentioned in the constitution. however, each institution has engaged in repeated stonewalling of congress's constitutionally mandated oversight. the text from peter strzok saying we will stop president trump from taking office which we received on the day of your release is an example. it was revealed to you late in your interview as well. do you believe this text shows political bias? >> i think as we found it clearly shows a biased state of mind. >> if so, do you believe the political bias shown by this text had an effect on the initialation of the russia investigation? >> that's a matter that is under review and we're looking at that right now. more to be determined. >> the time proximity as mr. gowdy pointed out, is significant. >> correct. there are these other text
messages in roughly the same time period. >> you were an assistant united states attorney for eight years, is that correct? >> correct. >> in that time did you ever charge any espionage case or 793f? >> i did not. >> i'm trying to understand the need for intent. people never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence, right? >> correct. >> so some courts have stated that willful blindness satisfies the requirement of knowledge. for example, this happens in cases where a defendant is transporting a package containing narcotics. courts have never allowed the defendant to claim he didn't know what was in the package because he should have known and exercised criminal recklessness by failing to determine what was in the package. in your opinion as a former prosecutor, isn't a similar analysis appropriate here?
>> i'm going to demure on what i would have done as a prosecutor or my views as one. i will say what was explained to us in terms of intent was actually really knowledge. the focus was largely on the fact that these documents that were classified weren't clearly marked as classified. >> didn't mrs. clinton, as secretary of state, having the authority not only to read all levels of classified documents but also to classify documents herself, didn't she have a duty to determine whether the unclassified server she used to transact all her official business was moving classified information? >> i think it's fair to say there is a responsibility on senior officials to understand and know what classified information may be present. >> wasn't that the least amount of care we should have expected from her with information that could cause serious harm to our
national security? >> i think i'm going to rely on the evidence that we had here and our review, which was to look at what the prosecutors made as an assessment and as we describe here, their view was unless it was marked, unless it was clear knowledge, they believed that it would be inconsistent with past practice and how they would look at this provision and therefore not charge her. >> following the 2016 election, many of my democratic colleagues called for the determination of f.b.i. director james comey for his mishandling of the clinton investigation. curiously the same colleagues cried foul when president trump, upon the recommendation of department of justice deputy attorney general rosenstein, did, in fact, terminate comey. for instance, on november 14, 2016, one of our democratic judiciary committee colleagues told cnn that comey should be
fired immediately and the president trump out to initiate an investigation into his actions, conversely on may 9, 2017 the same democrat made a yu turn and stated that quote, the firing of f.b.i. director comey by president trump is a terrifying signal of this administration's continued abuse of power on so many levels, end quote. additionally following the 2016 election another of our democratic colleagues insisted that comey should pack his things and go. however, a year later the same person insisted that james comey's firing suggests an attempt to squelch an investigation in an effort to cover up wrongdoing. lastly on october 31, 2016, a third judiciary committee democrat stated that comey's actions make it clear he should resign immediately for the good of the f.b.i. and the justice department. fast forward a year and the same democrat is then
advocating for director comey to receive get this, the profile's encourage award following his termination. so to clear up the apparent confusion among my colleagues, do you believe the termination of former f.b.i. director james comey was justified following your recent findings that describe comey as insubordinate in his handling of the hillary clinton clinton email investigation? >> mr. chairman, as inspector general my responsibility is to get the evidence and the facts and it is then up to others to decide what the appropriate penalty or adjudication should be of that. for the reasons we found here that people should stay in their roles and responsibilities and understand those, i'm going to -- >> you would agree insubordination in the matters that you outlined in your
report is a serious matter. >> i agree it's a serious matter. >> on page 147 of your report, there is a text exchange that i'm curious about. about halfway down the page agent 1 stated he couldn't recall anything specific to add to this exchange. in another exchange on february 4, 2016, agent 1 and an f.b.i. employee who was not assigned to the mid-year investigation discussed agent 1's interview with a witness who assisted the clintons at their chappaqua, new york, residents of the part of this exchange follows. f.b.i. employee, boom, how did the witness go? agent 1, awesome. lied his ass off. went from never inside the skiff sensitive compartmented information facility at residence to looked in when it was being constructed to remove the trash twice to trouble shot
the secure facts with hrc a couple of times to every time there was a secure fax i did it with hrc. rid i can. f.b.i. employee, would be funny if he was the only guy charged in this deal. agent 1, i know, for 1001. that's referring to 18 usc1001. >> even if he said the truth and didn't have a clearance when handling the secure facts, ain't no one going to do s blank, blank. this is your report. we asked agent that no one would be charged irrespective of what the team found. agent 1 stated yeah, i don't think i can say there is a specific person that i worked with in this case that wouldn't charge him for that. wouldn't charge him for that. i think it's a general complaint of f.b.i. agents that are kind of -- kind of being
emotional and complaining that no one is going to do something about -- about something but there is nothing specific that i -- that i can tell you. now, this individual, agent 1, is expressing the opinion that that was a circumstance under which charging somebody would be appropriate, is that correct? >> that's certainly what he is suggesting here. >> bill: all right, now, what is title 18 section 1001? >> making a false statement to a government official in the course of a review or investigation. >> is that not exactly the same statute under which mr. papadopoulos and mr. flynn were charged by the special counsel? >> i don't know but i assume so. >> all right. thank you, those are all the questions i have, mr. chairman. >> bill: we've been watching
for the past 90 minutes. want to jump in for a moment and key on one point with trey gowdy about when he talked about the f.b.i. pre-judging the outcome of the clinton email matter before the investigation was completed and pre-judged the outcome before the russia investigation began. i want to bring in adrienne elrod and jason chaffetz. jason, what is your takeaway? >> i think trey gowdy did the best job of illuminating and articulating and answering his own questions laying out the case why the hillary clinton email investigation was a joke. but the big picture here, the thing where this is going is you have an inspector general says yes, there was bias and a lot of animus.
but he couldn't say the reason they didn't do something was because of x. where this is going is immediately after july 5th, then you start to see these same f.b.i. agents and attorney take action. and that's where you start to see the second part that is currently under investigation by the inspector general. that is where this is going. that's where these people could ultimately end up in handcuffs. >> sandra: trey gowdy captivated everyone. specifically an attack on james comey for what he called a watered-down hillary probe. >> one of the biggest criticism of comey is he didn't consult with loretta lynch or any of her subordinates. he decided to take matters into his own hands. let's keep in mind that when
james comey reopened the investigation open 12 days out before the campaign sunk our poll numbers. we fell to three and lost the election. i want to point out the fact that democrats who have given opening statements so far, you saw this with ranking member cummings have really made it clear that republicans will not stop these relentless attacks on hillary clinton until she is ultimately found guilty. which is not going to happen. >> bill: well, variance of opinion on that and perhaps you are right in the end. one more point to both of you. it was around 10:53. catherine herridge points this out. gowdy lace out the timeline where you close the email matter, okay? you open the russia case against the president. right now peter strzok is involved leading this investigation from the inside. and you get the text messages between strzok and page that make the case the f.b.i. pre-judged the outcome of the
clinton matter and also pre-judged the outcome of the russia matter. they were done with hillary clinton, jason, and they were on to donald trump. >> clearly they had taken care of business. they made sure that hillary clinton didn't have this cloud over her even though i have to agree that i think hillary clinton was wronged in many instances the way the f.b.i. was cavalier and did things. but then you start to see these agents -- we've heard some of their names. some of the names haven't yet been revealed. i think you'll see members push horowitz to reveal the names. there is a classification reason why some of them haven't been revealed. it is the senior echelon that put wheels in motion to start to do some things. was there fisa abuse? did they use taxpayer money to hire people to do certain things? these are all questions that are wheels in motion and have been in motion for many months now. >> that's next and we don't have answers on that. that's the next phase of what
is forward. >> sandra: we'll monitor that hearing. thanks to both of you. first to another big story we're watching today. brand-new reaction coming in from president trump at this moment on the battle over immigration. president trump not backing down. again blaming democrats as he gets ready to meet with house republicans just hours from now. chief white house correspondent john roberts is live. >> good morning to you. the pressure continues to mount politically on the president, the white house, an administration on the practice of separating parents and their children. if the parent crosses the border illegally with children in tow. two big votes on immigration reform measures this week the president has his heels dug in. president trump tweeting this morning we must always arrest people coming into our country illegally. 10,000 children are being sent by their parents on a dangerous trip, unaccompanied children. only 2,000 are with their
parents many who tried to enter our country illegally on numerous occasions and tweeting change the laws. now is the best opportunity ever for congress to change the obsolete laws on immigration. keep it done. we must have strong border security. the white house and president insist congress can fix this problem with children being separated if their parents simply by changing the laws and passing the legislation this week leading new jersey senator cory booker to call that -- let's let him say it. >> well, that's just a load of crap. really, just wrong. give me a break. everybody knows that. and this sounds hyper lying, time for being honorable. >> what the president is looking for from congress is changes to the immigration laws including an end to chain migration and end to the visa lottery program and looking for commitment of $25 billion to build the wall. the measures before congress
include a down payment of 1.6 billion to get started on the wall the president wants. surprisingly it is beginning to attract democratic support including west virginia senator joe manchin who is in a tough reelection battle in november who said this a short time ago. listen. >> we're supporting the border law. i support the 1.6 billion. a lot of democrats that support it. it is more than just a border wall. people have to understand the optics of all we'll have is a wall and nothing more is not right. >> he says in addition to that you have to have electronic surveillance along large parts of the border. more border patrol agents along the border at ports of entry and other items. we should point out, sandra, a lot of republicans are starting to rise up in opposition to this practice of separating children from their parents. orrin hatch says he will circulate a petition among his colleagues to have the white house declare a moratorium on
that practice until congress acts. don't know if that's something the white house would accept. congress has a history of inaction particularly on immigration. >> sandra: all this ahead of a big meeting with the president on this this evening on immigration. john roberts tonight. >> bill: lawmakers have made a stop at our southern border visiting detention center. jeff paul is live from texas near el paso. >> we're about 30 miles southeast of el paso and we're less than a mile from the u.s./mexico border. over my shoulder in the distance beyond the fence you can see the white structures. those are the tents that are housing some of the teenage boys who have attempted to cross the border. they've been moved to make sure at other more permanent facilities for the much younger children who right now are being separated from their parents. as you take a look at these images they're provided by the department of health and human services.
not letting our cameras inside to see the tents. we're told the tents have air condition being, bunk beds and medical care. a congressman was here in the area and led hundreds of people in a march to protest what is happening. he called the separation of kids from their families is inhumane. >> upwards of 20% of the kids here have been taken from their parents. the federal government is doing it but we have to remember the federal government is all of us. >> another demonstration just got underway in el paso again about 30 miles away from where we are. those demonstrators will march to a processing center saying families belong together. >> bill: thank you for that. >> sandra: much more from the joint house hearing with members of congress grilling the inspector general and the f.b.i.'s handling of the
clinton email investigation. we're live on capitol hill with all the fireworks as they continue. >> you ( ♪ ) mike: i've tried lots of things for my joint pain. now? watch me. ( ♪ ) joni: think i'd give up showing these guys how it's done? please. real people with active psoriatic arthritis are changing the way they fight it. they're moving forward with cosentyx. it's a different kind of targeted biologic. it's proven to help people find less joint pain and clearer skin. don't use if you are allergic to cosentyx. before starting cosentyx you should be checked for tuberculosis. an increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms of an infection. or if you have received a vaccine, or plan to. if you have inflammatory bowel disease tell your doctor if symptoms develop or worsen. serious allergic reactions may occur. mitzi: with less joint pain,
watch me. for less joint pain and clearer skin, ask your rheumatologist about cosentyx. i kept putting it off...t get what was i thinking? ago. ask your rheumatologist ok, mr. jones... we're all done. i told you it was easy. with life line screening, getting screened for unknown health conditions is so quick, painless and affordable, you'll wonder why you hadn't done it before. so if you're over age 50, call now and schedule
an appointment near you. for just $149- a savings of over 50%- you'll receive a package of five screenings that go beyond your doctor's annual check-up. ultrasound technology looks inside your arteries for plaque that builds up as you age and increases your risk of stroke and heart disease. after all, 4 out of 5 people who have a stroke, their first symptom is a stroke. so call today and start with a free health assessment to understand your best plan of action. so why didn't we do this earlier? life line screening. the power of preventvention. call now to learn more. it's me. your sleep number 360 smart bed... checking in. last night i warmed your feet so you fell asleep faster. i sensed you roll over and automatically softened your side to melt away pressure points and keep you sleeping blissfully. at 2am, this happened. so, i took care of it. does your bed do that? i'm the new sleep number 360 smart bed.
now you can wake up to smarter sleep. let's meet, only at a sleep number store. >> sandra: we have been watching the joint hearing on capitol hill this morning. following the senate hearing yesterday. you're look being at the key witness, michael horowitz in the days that followed the public release of that inspector general report on the hillary clinton investigation. for more on this we want to bring in byron york. chief political correspondent and elizabeth harrington and brad woodhouse, former communication director for the dnc. we want to bring in byron york first. >> bill: the line of the whole hearing so far goes to trey gowdy's opening moment when he called it textbook bias.
what have you heard today, byron? >> it's a very unusual situation in which the inspector general has finished one investigation into the clinton emails and in the middle of another investigation into the trump russia affair. it's the trump russia affair that everybody is most interested in. to the degree they're trying to make the point that the f.b.i. went easy on hillary clinton, they're really trying to make the point that they threw the book at donald trump. and the whole discussion of bias in the strzok and page texts was part of that. a lot of throat clearing that goes on at the top of these hearings that can go on and on. what we find is later in the day as some of the individual members ask their questions we learn details that will fit into the bigger picture. that's what i expect to happen here today. >> sandra: there has been fiery moments. one was trey gowdy saying that it's not the public's job to
prove the bias shown by the f.b.i. did not influence decision making. bias and fairness cannot co-exist. what did you think when you watched the past few minutes? >> i hope the house position was nearby. it looked like trey gowdy was going to bust a blood vessel. the truth. the republicans, trey gowdy, donald trump, all wanted this i.g. report. they all are upset at the conclusions of the i.g. report. they can't accept them and they won't accept them. the i.g. report concluded that james comey had no political bias and concluded that the agents exchanging those disgusting text messages their bias didn't affect the outcome of the investigation. those were central to their claim that somehow the president was treated unfairly. who was treated unfairly in this was hillary clinton. her investigation played out in public. they kept secret the investigation into president trump. it influenced the outcome of
the election. that's what the i.g. found and why republicans are so upset. >> bill: what do you think? your summary tells us what? >> two days of hearings might not be enough to get through what was a 500-page report that's not just telling that peter strzok said we'll stop trump. that is damning in and of itself but agents crying at their desk because hillary clinton lost and admitting hillary clinton's i.g. guy, who deleted all the emails while congress was seeking them he lied to the f.b.i. which according to james comey is a very serious offense and what did the f.b.i. do? they didn't charge him. they gave him immunity. i want to see answers to these matters. peter strzok, lisa page, andrew wiseman all of these agents would have been better off working for george soros or
msnbc rather than the upper echelons of the f.b.i. running both investigations with the amount of bias they had. >> sandra: trey gowdy we've been talking about that textbook bias. here is that moment and that exchange. >> they pre-judged the outcome of the hillary clinton investigation before the investigation ended. and these exact same f.b.i. agents and attorneys pre-judged the outcome of the russia investigation before it even began. if pre-judging the outcome of an investigation before it ends and pre-judging the outcome of an investigation before it begins is not evidence of outcome determinative bias. for the life of me, i don't know what would be. that's textbook bias. >> well, i think that is the case. we heard that case also a little bit yesterday before the senate judiciary committee. another issue we'll be hearing
today is the f.b.i.'s cooperation with congress and congressional oversight issues. something really fascinating came out yesterday that i expect will be explored more today. the strzok/page texts where page asked strzok trump isn't going the become president, is he? strzok said no, we'll stop it. the f.b.i. has turned over the first part of that, but somehow they did not turn over the answer, which was the no, we'll stop it part which was the revelation. got to figure out how that happened. >> bill: you started on this. this is taking us from one investigation to the next. the next investigation is the russia matter. but if you have all these communications between peter strzok and he is running your investigation, how do you put somebody like peter strzok on the witness stand if he were in a trial or court of law and say this guy is a credible witness?
because you can always come back to the commentary he was offering over a period of 9 to 12 months and say wow, you had it in for this campaign. you were against this campaign from july -- for another year. if you think just objectively, isn't that the poison pill in this entire russia matter/bob mueller matter that gives us no credibility? last word on that. >> bill, here is the thing. strzok and page never talked publicly about their concerns. they never -- they could have leaked the fact. >> bill: but brad. i got -- we don't know yet what decisions peter strzok gave to other f.b.i. agents during that russia matter that went on for a year. he was fired -- if indeed he had a bias from the beginning, what decisions did he make within the agency that took the
investigation to london or to washington or to new york city name it? >> you are glossing over the fact that mueller took both these agents off the investigation as soon as he became aware of the texts. >> bill: he had been running it for a period of nine months. >> what does it say about mueller's judgment that he didn't look into their backgrounds and buy as. mueller is supposed to be so unimpeachable. >> that's a joke. he took them off. >> you have to look into their backgrounds and judgment before you put them on the investigation. >> he took them off. >> bill: peter strzok has a lot of explaining to development we're all aware of that. he is willing to testify and won't take the fifth. let's see if that happens. we have to squeeze in a quick break here. you have to tie it back to peter strzok and ask yourself whether or not he is the poison pill.
>> at this point i think it's crystal clear the only answer republicans will accept is that hillary clinton must be guilty. they will keep going on and going until they get that answer. even if the facts will never support it. republicans in congress are only willing to use their full arsenal of constitutional weapons to attack hillary clinton or protect donald trump. >> sandra: that hearing is still ongoing. that was a few moments ago.
more on this. let's bring back our panel. we've all been watching the developments in that hearing room. it continues now but byron, final thoughts from all three of you on a big day where a key witness, michael horowitz, continues to answer questions to congress. >> the point that bill was making before the break about peter strzok is the reason why the horowitz report even though it's about the clinton investigation, is actually devastating for the mueller investigation because it does show anti-trump bias of the lead people involved in the beginning of the trump investigation. donald trump can say about the mueller probe from the very beginning this game was rigged against me. you can see it in what they wrote. he will be making that argument over and over and over. not in court but on twitter and tv. >> bill: elizabeth. >> the bias is so clear when you look at what happened in the hillary investigation.
everyone was given immunity, exonerated her months before she was interviewed and they didn't record the interview. you look at the alternative how the russia investigation has been handled pre-dawn raids, guns drawn against paul manafort going back decades. the double standard is clear and bias is a key part to why there is a difference in the this investigation. >> sandra: brad. >> we've said for a year and a half that james comey's conduct of the hillary clinton email investigation helped elect donald trump. nothing will change that. >> bill: thank you for hanging on. back to the hearing in a moment here on the hill. ♪motorcycle revving ♪ motorcycle revving ♪motorcycle revving ♪ motorcycle revving ♪ no matter who rides point,
♪ there are over 10,000 allstate agents riding sweep. ♪♪ and just like tyrone taylor, they know what it takes to help keep you protected. are you in good hands? directv now gives you more for your thing. get all the good stuff about tv without all the bad stuff. yes! you can still stream your favorite shows... yes! ...with no annual contract. wait, what? it's live tv. yes! with no satellites. what? and no bulky hardware. no bulky hardware! isn't that great news? yes! noooooo! no! noooo. try directv now for $10 a month for 3 months. more for your thing. that's our thing. visit directvnow.com
today's senior living communities have never been better, with amazing amenities like movie theaters, exercise rooms and swimming pools, public cafes, bars and bistros even pet care services. and there's never been an easier way to get great advice. a place for mom is a free service that pairs you with a local advisor to help you sort through your options and find a perfect place. a place for mom. you know your family we know senior living. together we'll make the right choice. ♪ ♪ adapt supply chains based on trends, tweets and storms. and make adjustments on the fly. ♪ ♪ the ibm cloud. the cloud for smarter business.
will keep you up on it. when it continues. >> busy news day. that's going to continue. it's only tuesday. that's it for us come out numbered starts right. >> melissa: fox news alert for you, president trump giving up to make a maximum us from now at the national federation of independent business and 75th anniversary celebration. he is expected to tout the u.s. economy and growth under his administration. he can go off topic as you know and address immigration reform, the controversy over the administration zero-tolerance policy. it will bring you that live as soon as it happens. and we have another fox news alert, lawmakers pulling no punches as doj inspector general michael horowitz testifies publicly for a second straight day on capitol hill following the release of his scathing report on the fbi's