A new
report released by
special counsel John Durham concludes
the FBI should never have launched
its 2016
Russia investigation in the first place.
Durham, who was picked by the Trump
administration, writes
that the over 300 page report details
a four year probe
which yielded
very little in terms of prosecutions.
He adds, quote,
The FBI used raw and analyzed
and uncorroborated intelligence
and, quote, ignored material information
that did not support the narrative
of a collusive relationship
between Trump and Russia.
We should note
this report is at odds
with the 2019
DOJ inspector general's findings
that there was a basis,
a legitimate reason
to open this investigation
So let's talk about it
with CNN senior law enforcement
analyst Andy McCabe.
He's the former deputy
director of the FBI.
And importantly, he oversaw
what became known
as a CROSSFIRE
hurricane probe into Trump in 2016.
And Andy your name is in this report
almost 60 times 58 times the morning.
Morning in your
words you
were quote deeply
involved in the decision
to open the investigation
John Durham
says that you shouldn't have launched it.
What's your response
John Durham is wrong
and it's not just me
that says that every other entity
that's investigated
our in our activities in 2016 agrees
and that's of course as you mentioned
the DOJ
inspector general
Michael Horowitz
as well as the Senate
Intelligence Committee led
of course at the time by a Republican.
So this is this
report Poppy stands as an anomaly.
I have my own theories
as to why it stands as an anomaly.
I don't think this investigation
was legitimate from its inception.
Why?
Because simply because John Durham
made clear
from the very beginning,
shortly after he was appointed
exactly what he was going to conclude.
He's made public remarks
indicating that he thought that we had
possibly broken
the law and inappropriately investigated
the president,
which is an odd thing for any
then US attorney to do
at the beginning of an investigation.
I echoed the same sentiments of
of his boss
William Barr,
who was attorney general at the time.
So I don't think it's surprising
where the where the report came out.
It's disappointing.
And it continues to fuel a false
narrative about
alleged FBI
malfeasance that continues to this day,
almost seven years after the events
in question.
But, you know,
as I said, I'm not surprised.
I'll note
at the time that he was appointed by Bill
Barr,
Democratic senator of Connecticut,
where obviously Durham
Practice and practices,
Chris Murphy told CNN
he had a, quote, reputation
of being apolitical and serious.
So among the things that he concluded is
he says the FBI under your purview
in this investigation
displayed a, quote,
lack of analytical rigor. That's a quote.
He also said that you used, quote, raw
un analyze
an uncooperative intelligence
to launch investigation
and makes the accusation that essentially
you guys use different standards
for which to launch this
as opposed to probe into Hillary Clinton.
What's your response?
Yeah, that's that's entirely inaccurate.
He's got a lot packed into that question.
So I'll address a couple of those points,
if that's okay.
The investigation was initiated
not based on raw,
uncorroborated intelligence,
but but on significant understanding
and awareness of what the Russians
were doing.
In their
multipronged effort
to influence the 2016 election.
We knew
the Russians
had been targeting us in cyberspace.
We knew the Russians had been going after
and stealing
electronic information
from our political institutions,
from government institutions
for over a year
until the beginning of of 2016
we knew they targeted
the DNC and exfiltrated
an enormous amount of information
about Hillary Clinton.
And then we knew that
the Russian Russians use that information
in an effort to impact the election
by releasing
those emails
on the eve of the Democratic
National Convention.
We only found out later
at the end of July
that prior
to weaponizing that information,
they'd made essentially an offer
to the Trump campaign
that they had information
about Hillary Clinton
and that they would use it
to benefit the Trump campaign.
So with that understanding
of what the Russians were doing,
we had the question
the very real
and very significant question
of whether
or not members of a domestic
political campaign
had conspired with
or taken assistance from the Russians.
We didn't know if they had
we didn't know who that might have been,
but we knew that it was something
that had to be investigated.
That's the opening of the case
that, as I said, the IG
and other investigative entities
approved of that action in hindsight.
And he also included
in Durham's report
are disparaging text messages
about former President Trump.
I'll just highlight this one.
We can show our viewers.
This is on
August 15th, 2016, about two weeks
after the investigation was launched
between two key
team members, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page.
Here it is, quote,
I want to believe the past
you threw out
for consideration in Andy's office
that there is no way he,
meaning Trump, gets elected.
But I'm afraid we can't take that risk.
It's like an insurance policy
in the unlikely event that you die
before you're 40.
That obviously
has gotten a lot of attention
for many years.
You said last night
to my colleague
Anderson Cooper, look, that
was, quote, objectionable
and unfortunate.
Is there a lesson learned
for the agency writ large
from exchanges like that?
I think there's
a lot of lessons
learned for the agency
and certainly for those two
individual aides
who were
involved in in those communications.
If you're asking me,
did the agency learn that they should now
monitor the private communications
of all their employees
to safeguard
against the occurrences like this?
No, I don't believe that's true.
But there's no place in the FBI
for people involved in an investigation
to be approaching that work
from a politically motivated standpoint.
And I can tell you right now
that at no time
did I or anyone to my knowledge
understand that Peter Strzok
or Lisa Page harbored those.
We're having
those sorts of conversations.
Neither of the two of them
ever gave me
or anyone else that I'm aware of.
Any indication
that their work on this investigation
was being influenced by the professional,
by their personal opinions
So and that that stands to this day.
And just to put a button on it,
because of the point you made up in terms
of not letting anything in terms
of personal political beliefs
interfere with the work that is done.
I thought it was interesting
that in this report, Durham
suggested creating a sort of a position
for a nonpartisan FBI
lawyer or agent
who would essentially step in and oversee
and help
put checks on anything
that would be deemed
a politically sensitive investigation.
Do you think that's a good idea?
It's not a bad idea,
but I don't think it's necessary.
I mean, look,
that person
that's that role, that voice exists
in the FBI to this today.
And that's the general counsel of the FBI
and the staff
of the general counsel's office,
including dozens of attorneys
who do nothing but advise the FBI
on the implications
of their national security work.
Those people, Jim Baker,
who is who is general counsel
at the time,
and many of the lawyers who work for him
were present in all of the meetings
in which
opening this investigation
and conducting this investigative
matter were discussed.
And we had those conversations
about what the implications would be,
the legality of what we were doing,
the authority behind the steps
that we were taking.
So those conversations happened.
If Mr.
Durham and then
in a failure
to come up with
any other significant recommendations, is
suggesting that
the FBI should have another lawyer,
I think that's great.
They should have another lawyer.
I'm sure they have plenty of work to do.
But those kind of conversations,
that sort of oversight
that he's suggesting
is already taking place
and has always taken place in the FBI.
Andrew McCabe, thank you very, very much.
Obviously, you were critical
in this investigation.
Appreciate you answering questions
this morning.