Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) questions Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz (C-SPAN)

Thank You mr. inspector general there's a text exchange between FBI lawyer Lisa page and FBI agent Peter Straub from August the 8th of 2016 and that text exchanges Lisa Paige wrote Trump's not ever going to become president right with the question marred and then right with a question mark and an exclamation point in case anybody reading it may have missed the point of her emphasis Peter struck responded no no he's not we all stop it do I have that text exchanged right you do now Lisa Paige was an FBI lawyer who worked on the Clinton email investigation that's correct did she also work on the rush investigation she did how about the Moller Special Counsel team she did for a period of time all right so we're three for three on her working on the two most important Bureau investigations in 2016 and beyond now is this the same Lisa page that Andy McCabe used to leak information to a news outlet she was a Special Counsel and as we indicated in our earlier report she was the individual through whom he provided that information wasn't there also a text about an insurance policy in case Trump won and a meeting and Andy's office she was part of that text string too wasn't she correct that was on August 15 all right so this August 8 text was not the only time FBI lawyer Lisa page was able to use the text feature on her phone this is the same Lisa page who admonished the agent interviewing Hillary Clinton not to go into that interview loaded for bear because Clinton might be the next president it's the same Lisa page who said Trump was loathsome awful the man cannot become President Clinton just has to win and the Trump should go F himself now most of those comments were before the Clinton investigation was over and we are somehow supposed to believe that she did not prejudge 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're gonna 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 FBI agent Peter struck wrote no no he's not we'll stop it now I think this is the same Peter struck who worked on the Clinton email investigation do I have that right that's correct st. Peter struck who not only worked on the Russia investigation when it began but it was one of the lead investigators at the inception of the rush of pro do I have the right Peter struck that's my understanding now is it the same Peter struck who was put on the Muller Special Counsel team yes all right st. Peter struck and this is not the only time he managed to find the text feature on his phone either this is the same Peter struck who said Trump is an idiot Hillary should win 100 million to zero now mr. inspector general that one is interesting to me because he's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act at the time he wrote that in March of 2016 he's supposed to be investigating her for violations of the Espionage Act and he can't think of a single solitary American that wouldn't vote for her for president me can you see our skepticism this senior FBI agent not only had her running he had her winning a hundred million to nothing so what if they'd found evidence sufficient to indict her what if they had indicted her is this the same Peters he wasn't part of the interview of Secretary Clinton was he he was present for the interview so four months before that interview where he was present he's got her running and winning a hundred million to zero it's the same Peter straw who wrote the bigoted nonsense of Trump Trump's a disaster I have no idea how destabilizing his presidency would be he wrote F tromp tromp is an effing idiot on the prospects of Trump winning he wrote this is an effing terrifying in addition to see me to like the F word I think we have the same FBI agent lisa page and the same FBI agent Peter struck working on a Clinton email investigation to Russia probe and on Muller's team so we have the right text and we got the right people I want to make sure we have the chronology right July 5th 2016 Comey announces no charges for Secretary Clinton right correct July 28 2016 the FBI initiates a counterintelligence investigation into Russia and the Trump campaign and struck is not only on that Russia investigatory team he's actually leading it so that's three weeks after Clinton is exonerated by Comey struck is leading an investigation into Russia and possible connections with the Trump campaign that's on the 28th of July now on the 20 on the 31st of July three days after the Russia investigation began struck wrote damn this feels momentous the other one did too but this was to ensure 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 eff things up this one we're three days into it inspector general Horowitz 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 nah that one was different that one really mattered you know it almost sounds inspector-general Horowitz like they were going through the motions with the Clinton investigation the boy they sure were excited about the Russian one then we get to August 6 this is less than ten days after the Russia investigation begins and Paige says you are meant to protect the country from that menace and then we get to August 8 2016 less than two weeks after the Russia investigation even began the lead FBI agent says he will stop Trump from becoming president this is two weeks into an investigation and he's already prejudged 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 15 just over two weeks into the Russia investigation struck says I want to believe the path you threw out that there's 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's not going to be present it will stop it what do you think the it is and that phrase will stop it oh I think it's clear from the context it's we're gonna stop him from becoming president that's what I thought too now I wonder who the Weir's in the wheel stop it who do you think the way is well I think that's probably subject to multi both interpretations we'll see if we don't do them where the broader or a broader group beyond that I mean it's hard to fathom a definition of weed that doesn't include him so we know he's part of we you could assume that the person he's talking with his FBI attorney who also happens to be working on the Russian investigation she may be part of the weed but I wonder inspector general did you find any other FBI agents or FBI attorneys who manifest any animus or bias against the president at trunk we did how many we had found three additional FBI agents as we detail in the report and were any of them working on the Russia investigation let me just create two agents and one attorney two other agents one other attorney were they working on either the Russia investigation or the Muller probe I believe two of the three were but I'd have to just double check on that okay now Bob Muller was named special counsel on May the 17th 2017 one day later mr. Horowitz one day later Peter struck 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. Struck's explanation for oh I know what he was I'm asked for I'm asking the guy who had a distinguished career in the Southern District of New York and had a distinguished career at the Department of Justice do you rather cross-examine hater struck on that explanation or would you rather direct the examination on that explanation probably cross-exam that's what I thought 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 prior oddest that you outlined I think a reasonable explanation of it or a reasonable inference of that is that he believed he would use or potentially use his official authority to take action but this is 24 hours into him being put on the Muller probe there's no way he possibly could have prejudged the outcome of the investigation 20 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 Paige and Peter struck the way they talked about Donald Trump would you have left them on the IG investigation had now did you ever have an agent when you were a prosecutor with this level of bias you know as I've laid out here I thought this was completely antithetical to the core values of the department and extremely serious I'm sorry I heard you but you can say it where mr. Nadler can hear you too I you know my view of this was that this was extremely serious completely antithetical to the core values in my personal view having been a prosecutor and worked with FBI agents I can't imagine FBI agents suggesting even that they might use their powers to investigate frankly any candidate for any office well I can't either and I'll let me ask you this in conclusion I think you've already you laid out in your opening that Peter Struck's obsession with Donald Trump and the Russian investigation may have led him to take his eyes off of the Weiner laptop and in a notably ironic way calls Jim Comey to be a little bit later in sending those letters to Congress so that is one example of outcome determinative bias but I got to ask you used to used to be in a courtroom you were on the side of the United States and you work for the Department of Justice if someone is prejudging the outcome in an investigation before it ends and someone is prejudging the outcome of an investigation before it even begins what is more textbook bias than prejudging 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 that we were asked to look at and then the ultimate prosecutorial decision were impacted by struck page and the other's views and what we ended up finding particularly as to the prosecutors decision was that 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 mentioned in my opening statement the idea here was to put out the facts for the public members of Congress to see and and so there folks who want to take a look at those issues obviously can assess them themselves well my time is up I hope one of my other colleagues will explore that because the explanation I've heard is that the failure to prosecute was predicated upon their belief that there was not sufficient evidence of intent on her behalf and I don't know where in the hell you would go to find better evidence of intent than interviewing the person who actually was doing the intending and when you make up your mind that you're not going to charge someone and you make up your mind that you need to not go in loaded for bear and then you read the 302 and there's not a single damn question on intent is really hard for those of us who used to do this for a living do not conclude they've made up their mind on intent before they even bothered to talk to the single-best repository of intent evidence which would be her without our mr. chairman may I make an inquiry mr. chairman in order to prepare our questions could I have your guidance on how much time each member is to be allowed five minutes and mr. Cummings can have the amount of time he thinks is necessary the other members will have five minutes gentleman from Maryland thank you

Channel: C-SPAN

Views: 1,265,304

Rating: 4.785604 out of 5

Keywords: Trey Gowdy, Clinton Email Investigation, C-SPAN

Id: PIVzua11qYc

Length: 15min 57sec (957 seconds)

Published: Tue Jun 19 2018