tv Senate Homeland Security Committee Holds Hearing on FB Is Crossfire... CSPAN December 3, 2020 8:01pm-9:49pm EST
created by america's a cable television company as a public service brought to you today by your television provider. >> the senate homeland security committee held a hearing on the fbi's crossfire hurricane investigation into possible ties between the 2016 trump campaign and russian officials. after senator gary peters top democrat on the panel delivered the opening statement no democrats took part. this runs an hour and 45 minutes. [silence] >> i don't see senator peters so i will just go.
>> good morning this hearing is called to order. title of this hearing is congressional oversight in the face of executive branch media suppression and in particular case study of the crossfire hurricane corrupt investigation. i will add that. the hearing is quite a bit broader than that but will certainly focus on that. i became chairman of this committee in january 2015 and will competeb my six-year term t the end of this month. we can all be proud of more that more than 100 pieces of legislation we worked on together as a committee that became law. other more than 200 bills that we passed out of committee although not signed into law can still serve as a basis for future legislation. our committee and subcommittees are also have brought oversight jurisdiction and response bullies that we have not ignored. we investigated and exposed problems within the va healthcare system, human
trafficking, national security leaks and systemic violations of the hatch act within the postal service to name just a few. most recently we filed eight hearings and roundtables on the current administration response to the coronavirus and it is not surprising that some of our oversight investigations do not receive bipartisan support, in particular, those concerning corruption within the obama administration. in february 2018 we reflecting on his eight years in office president obama stated, we do not have a scandal that embarrassed us and further in may 2018 is stated i did not have a scandals. not only were the scandals denied by the former president but also largely ignored by both democrat colleagues and most of the media. nothing could be further from the truth. a short list of the known scandals of his trades why they should not be ignored and need to be fully investigated and exposed. i will depart for my full written statement because i have had more detail on these as i list them out and i asked my full statement be in the record
but go down a quick list and i want to make a couple points of why these are relevant. fast and furious. results of that we have missed attkisson to testify to being spied on was a result of that scandal the obama administrators started spying on [inaudible] eric holder was held in contempt of congress but never held accountable for it. i'm highlighting right now which shows one of the problems congress has in its oversight capabilities and we have no method of enforcing subpoenas or prosecuting someone held in content if that person held in contempt is a member of the administration. it really renders us very toothless in terms of effective oversight. ben ghazi and i won't go into the details there other than stay that susan rice went on sunday morning shows live to the american people and said there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked by a hateful
video. secretary clinton was unrecordee to comment to one of the father of one of the fallen heroes quote, we will make sure that person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted unquote and just so happens that producer of the video was killed shortly thereafter and served a year in jail and prison for probation violation on a separate charge. i view that is somewhat of an abuse of power. irs scandal. the irs was turned into a political weapon against conservatives targeted and not allowed to have tax exempt status and in that case the entire employee luis lerner refused to testify but she pleaded the fifth before congress and later, by the way, she retired with full retirement benefits and was never held accountable and never punished and irs later knew that after she responsive records including many of her e-mails had been lost due to hard drive crashes.
once again, no one was held accountable. the biden ukraine college of interest scandal, we want to point out is that how the press actually was interested in this back in october of 2015 when "the wall street journal" inquired of the vice president's office about that conflict of interest with hunter being on burisma's board a and the october 21 that was exact same day of the vice president biden decided not to run in the primary against billy clinton and again in december 2019 political published a 20 page article on biden inc. revealing an awful lot of the types of financial foreign entitlements that senator grassley and my investigation also revealed in our september 2020 report and passed that point across pretty well ignored the glaring conflict of interest that george kenton said was
awkward for all policymakers trying to run an anticorruption agenda in ukraine. clinton e-mail scandal. this is -- when i took over chairman in january 2015 it was in march 2015 that it was revealed that hillary clinton ran most of her e-mails through a private server and not only is this committee the full general oversight committee of congress but we have specific legislative jurisdiction on federal records so that began my work in this committee's work for the last six years investigating some of the corruption in the obama administration. it's important that to note that this represents, from my standpoint, unequal application to justice and hillary clinton was exonerated and this e-mail scandal of the media examination gave them more into the crossfire hurricane scandal and i just wanted to talk about one of the text that peter stzrok
texted lisa page shortly after the exonerated hillary clinton that said and damn this feels momentous. he's talked about crossfire hurricane because this matters in the other one did to in the media exam but that was to ensure we did not affect something out. this matters because it matters. super glad to be on this voyage with you. yet we had the inspector general when he reviewed the pfizer abuse in his report claimed that there was no proof that political bias affected any actions. i would challenge that statement. final want and want to talk about is what we uncovered in our july 2017 report on leaks. the overall summary was that report showed that 125 leaks in the first 126 days of the trump administration, 62 of them would have been defined as harming national security according totr the obama administration's definition of that and that is 62 compares with eight or nine
during both of the bush and the obama administration and this is an explosion of leaks and by the way those leaks are what drove and sustained the false narrative of a rush in collusion trump campaign and those proven totally false but was the center of the hurricane crossfire hurricane investigation and special counsel and quite honestly morphed into an impeachment trial here in the senate. common ailments of the scandals i abuse of executive branch power is this misconduct remains hidden or goes unpunished it represents a serious threat to our individual freedomse and our democratic republic. i do not make that statement lightly. i would also say they reallyur demonstrate a pattern of bias and unequal treatment. certainly, bias inly the media, bias in the social media and the censorship we witnessed over thd
last few months but also a pattern of bias and unequal treatment in our justice system. i pointed that out earlier. i would also say a pattern of unequal treatment, unequal loyalty and bias within the executive branch. i find it shocking that within two weeks of president trump taking office two of his phone calls to world leaders were leaked to the press. this is unprecedented and what spawned our investigation into the leaks to show that 125 weeks of the first 126 days. this cannot go on and this is dangerous to our democratic republic. unfortunately, my efforts to uncover the truth have been severely obstructed by the idiots involved with trans bureaucrats and every incentive to keep it hidden. this is been true during both the obama and trump administrations and for example, fbi did not meaning me for produce records with about the crossfire hurricane of ossetian
until i subpoenaed them in august of this year and even then documents are heavily redacted and that's just a quick example. we did in one of her reports on the transition and abuse of the gsa process this is an e-mail that gsa produced tod us and you can see we can't read the whole thing except for the mobile phone number of the senator sender of the e-mail. this is the exact same e-mailf produced by the fbi and as you can see almost everything is redacted and there is no reason for things to be redacted and nothing evolving or harming national security here. might embarrass the agency but doesn't harm national security print this is what we been dealing with and this is the resistance we have encountered in our investigations into abuse of power. in may senator grassley and i had the list of obama officials who unmasked open campaign in
that list has been compiled and up and provided to the committee because it remains stuck somewhere between the nsa and the permit of justice. without those records it would be not be productive so we have not interviewed the officials involved in those unmasking's. finally just yesterday the state department produced an unclassified version of an e-mail that senator grassley and i questioned in august that still contains several reactions. i was able to review the undacted version and can only say it remainsna remains classified should not be classified and the information would not harm national security but would reflect poorly on the vice president biden and that is not a valid reason for classification or for indefinitely withholding information from congress. these investigations have also beenas hampered by false allegations made against me and senator grassley by senior democrat leaders including this committee's ranking member. in letters reportedly classified
staff memos immediatelyra leaked to the press and statements on the floor enter the media they have accused senator grassley and we are receiving and disseminating russian disinformation and this is patently false and is easily provenen so by careful examinatn of our reports. no matter how many times we issued denials a compliant media repeated the false allegations this was the exact playbook used by the steele dossier and the russian collusion and these claimsle are especially galling because in both cases democrats were the real paddlers of russian disinformation and the purpose of today's hearing is to release and examine two timelines and i've got them right here and little more condensed and more general about all of our investigations and one specific and far more detailed on the crossfire hurricane investigations to help place the scandals in perspective we will release the documents and also to
demonstrate how much has been withheld and how many questions remain unanswered andne i ask al of this information be entered into the record. in the volume of information should not be covered in a i've talkedng and to three witnesses to talk about the scandals in which they have detailed knowledge. again, i think the witnesses for the time they taken to prepare and appear before this committee and i look forward to the testimony.ta i want to thank the witnesses for your time and appearance here and with that i will turn it to senator peters. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman pitt mr. chairman, i just want to start by saying i certainly appreciate the bipartisan workhat we've accomplished together ding this congress and under our leadership this committee has a vance importantegislation to strengthen border security and
to safeguard crical facilities and institutions from terrorist attacks from a streamlined government inefficiency in the process save taxpayer dollars and ensure oversight of the coronavirus of the emergency spendi. it does its best work for t mac people when we come together in areas that we can virtually agree on and iegret that today's hearing doe not meet our bestas traditions of nonpartisanship and bipartisanship. this committee h already heldio a hearing on oversight of crossfire again investigation and we hrd testimony on tha apartment of justice of general horwitz on the errors in misconduct but his nonpaisan independent investigation found. inspector general horwitz interviewed more than 100 witnesses and reviewedore than 1 million documents over the course of nearly two years to
comean to his conclusions. in ft, i asked that the executive summary of thi report be entered into the record. without objection. >> i will remind the germans that mr. horwitz found that oping and i quote, opening the investigation was in complianc with the department and fbi policies and found quote, no plevidence of political bias in his openingr in any investigative step taken byen te crossfire hurricane teamke "-right-double-quote. we know the inspector general defined problems with this investigation ando the fbi has alrey implemented those recommended chang to prevent those errors fromappening again. in addition to our own committees hearingge the senate judiciar committee which has jurisdiction over the fbi and the department of justi is curreny undertaking its own investigation. prosecutor john durhamas also continued his own investigation
at the departmt of justice and the senate intelligence committee has also investigated at i bipartisan report liincluded that trump campaign manager paul manna for its willingness to share information with theussian intelligence services was a grave, gra counterintelligence threats. i asked the findings of the senate intelligence committee also be ented into the record without objection, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> in addition to our ownso today's hearing seeks to rehash the same matter. it's in a more partisan way. to reach conclusions that the chairman has already announced publicly and the panelists here today are not witnesses to the underlining events in public commentary has been extremely partisan and in some cases, such as disputing the results of theb most recent election entirely divorced from reality.
the strength of american democracy and a peaceful transition of power depends largely on the american people's trust that our elections are free and that they are fair. there was no plot against president trump when he won the election four years ago. or when he lost the election last month. for promoting a demonstrably false nadir of with dangerous rhetoric erodes trust and prevents our country from healing. our committee has a real responsibility to conduct oversight of the federal government's role in the pandemic response and so many other matters impacting national security and given the dangerous world that we live and we simply do not have time to indulge in hyper partisan investigations that simply don't advance the interest of the american people. therefore i do not think today's
hearing is an appropriate use of our committees time and resources or quite frankly, credibility. next year i look forward to returning to our strengths to work together in a bipartisan way to address the devastating public hlth economic and t security challenges that we are facing as a country. thank you,r. chairman. >> thank you mr. peters but it anis tradition of this committee to swear in the wnesses so miss attkisson if you would raise your right hand and the gentleman would stand and raise your right hand. >> do you solemnly swear the testimony you give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so hope you got? >> please be seated. >> our first witness is ms. sharyl attkisson, she's investigative journalistt t ande host of the national television news program the measure. for 30 years ms. attkisson was a
correspondent and anger at cbs news, pbs, cnn and local news. ms. attkisson has authored several books on u.s. politics, the media and government abuses. ms. attkisson has received five emmy awards from the edward arm rural award of investigative reporting and ms. attkisson. >> thank you, good morning everybody. i've been a nonpartisan journalist for nearly 40 years in local news, cnn, cbs, tbs and the national station groups sinclairou and was witness a dramatic devolution in my industry as we allowed ourselves to be transformed into tools of political and corporate interest pushing narratives, planting information on the news and online and seeking to shake public opinion rather than report facts and various views. this means today's media has allowed some of the biggest and most important stories of our time to be covered in a and testicle andlo one-sided often inaccurate and incomplete way or perhaps escape covered entirely
while important violations of law and constitutional rights by powerful interests go unchallenged. we have to confront the fact that our intelligent structure has some insider federal agencies have proven or powerful than congress, the legislative or judicial branches and more influential with the media and largely immune from oversight and after the most egregious violations from prosecution. even the president of the united states whoevereg it may be placd second fiddle to the structure as partly because the news media has dropped the ball and these players are unaccountable operating in an extraconstitutional faction that presents from the administration meaning this is not a partisan issue. it is one example can be found of government spying on journalists and other innocence of americans after an incredible series of revelations beginning in 2013 nobody was held accountable and government agencies have a secret surveillance and subpoenas against fox news reporter james
rosen and in reporters for cbs where he worked at the time announced in 2013 the proved my computers were remotely hacked and might work remotely monitored at the cbs news' system were accessed by the spy effort as well. after the forensic definitively proved government was responsible that secretly installed a keystroke monitoring program x filtrate of files listened in on my secretly after making audio, look through my owork photos and then remotely overwrote computer logs to try to raise their facts as we discover them nothing happened, wrzero. to this day i'm still suing in civil court trying to force the justice department to reveal the names of all the specific agents involved in so i thought at one point both accountability and stop it from happening to others but seven long years later it's an uphill battle and the justice department defends the guilty agency of a taxpayer dollars. it should be no surprise that
intel abuse continues and when top intel officials of the time james klapper and john brennan providedus false information to congress about surveillance on american citizens and the cia spying on senate computers all is forgiven and inspector general referred former fbi director james comey for criminal charges the justice department says no need, he meant no harm but when fbi director for christopher wray falsely testified to congress that there hads been no 702 surveillance abuses contrary to numerous findings by the fisa court and others nobody says a word for it when government officials unmasked at the names of innocent american citizens and when congress makes dozens of referrals for criminal charges regarding alleged intel misbehavior with committee's request relevant to documents or federal agencies that are supposed to oversee when fbi cell phone containing possible evidence of corruption or repeatedly accidentally wiped and when information is illegally leaked for political purposes nothing. the people responsible for the things were confused and did not
understand the question and did not understand the rules and did not mean harm. it was an accident but those not on their team are never afforded the same generous benefit of the doubt. this isev caused a crisis of confidence in our public institutions and among many there is a lack of trust. [audio difficulties] the media may be telling the truth and health officials may be giving good advice but the department of justice may be doing the right thing or the elections aren't fraudulent and many don't buy the story we are telling. we've created an environment over a time of decades and when we look at the public which watches the double standards and we ask why they are mistrustful as if it is they're doing when it is ours. if we are unable to change things we can only expect more of the same or worse. thank you.
>> thank you ms. attkisson for our next witness is mr. kevin brock. mr. brock workedd for nearly 24 years as an fbi agent and after the 911 attacks he served as the fbi's first assistant director for intelligence and later became the first visible deputy director at the national counterterrorism center. mr. brock now works at the private sector but mr. brock. >> good morning, senator johnson, senator peters and members of the committee. i thank you for the invitation to appear before you today and i have submitted a detailed prepared statement which i will summarize now and then be happy to answer any follow-up questions. during my nearly 24 year career in the fbi investigated and managed numerous significant counterintelligenceases and specifically russian counterintelligence investigation. as a senior fbi executive i led initiatives that cause me to work closely with the department of justice to align new fbi policy changes with the attorney general guidelines. as a result i had a deep knowledge and understanding of the attorney gener guidelines for all my career and while
certain changes may havege ocrred to the guideline since my retirement i retain a solid understanding of the attorney general guidines corporate actions of americans from inappropriate overreach by the fbi. gs a former fbi executive and now prate citizen i have authored several op-ed article critical of wired fbi james comey, andrew mccabe and peter stzrok and their initiationnd handling ofed the crossfire hurricane investigation and the harm their actions did to u.s. citizens aligned with the trump campaign. in addition i, i have been a similarly critical of the stunnilyhe inappropriate actions of forr director comey that objectively impacted the hillary clton campaign leading up to the presidential election in 2016. short, i have been speaking up at p some personal ris not for political reasons but rather ou of my concerns that the integrity of the fbi and the trust the erect people have traditionally placed in the fbi have been imperiled by the faulty and reckless actions of those former fbi leaders. i do not speak on behalf ofhe
fbi nor any current or former fbi employee, only myself. i have however received andant and overwhelmingly positive feedback from current and former fbi personnel concerned withhe future of the fbi. let me be as clear as possible. these disgrac former fbi executives never should have opened the crossfire hricane investigation. they did nothe, despitehe doj inspector general subsequent comments to theontrary, have adequate predication for starting an intrusive inveigation of u.s. citizens. i document that open the crossfire hurricane investigation violated the attorney general guidelis and contained no predication that an experienced an knowledgeable fbi counterintelligence agents would deem adequate to sta an investigation. in fact, the document contain exculpatory statements that should have chilled any lingering proceeding further pretty expect her general's assertion i based solely on his interviews of the crossfire
rricane team who, not surprisingly, claimed they have sufficient reasons for investigating the tmp campaign but i respectfully dagree and wi be happy to answer any questions why i believe the idea is mistake ig's report docents startling comments by fbi executives that reveal investigative decisions against u. citizens based on speculation, unsupported by any material. these executives articulated the concern that presidential campaign may have received and accepted this information from gnssia sources and thereby endangering national secity and election integri. ironically the same executives less than two months after opening the crossfire hurricane case received a dossier of determined to b russian disinfmation that the clinton campaign, not only accept but paid for and an indefensible double standard the crossfire hurricane team chose not to initiate a similar investigation in the clinton campaign a
instead used the quote, salaciousnd unverified dossier or as mr. comey's quotes as justication for a fraudulent surveillance of u.s. cizen. in effect, crossfire hurricane team simple use of a clear russian disinformatn operation in its own threat to national security and civiliberties. crossfire hurricane investigation is not an abuse of the fbi but an abuse by the fbi by a rogue ban of reckless ecutives. i'm sorry, it was not an abuse by thebi but an abuse of the fbi by a rue ban reckless executives and because of t duplicityf these disgraced former fbi leaders many americans have lost tst and faith in the fbi, perhaps that is greatest wreckage of this entire debacle. our democracy depends heavily on an objective dispassionate, nonbiased enforcement of laws by the fbi in the trust has been eroded. she must former fbi executives continue t put significance
media appearances, movie nights, teaching eggs and gofundme scams. americans like to see accounbility but hope when the efforts of this committee to shed lightht is welcome and commendable perhaps it willt least prevent something like crossfire hurricanes from ever happening again. to any american or future presidential nominee. >> thank you mr. brock our final witness is mr. lee smith. mr. smith has worked in the press for more than 30 years running on foreign policy and national security and media and written to "the new york times", watching post, wall street journal and the new yorker among other publications but mr. smith has also authored several books on u.s. politics inn the middle east. mr. smith. >> thank you very much, chairman johnson. thank you for the invitation to speak for the committee and the committee members and staff in nearly four years ago a series of crimes were committed in full
view of the public and to date no one has been charged. it was the one set of crimes and arguably committed during the course of crossfire hurricane that the fbi investigation of russian interference in the 2016 election of the possible involvement of the trump campaign. the crimes began on the leaks of classified intercept between then president elect donald trump's incoming national security advisor michael flynn and the russian ambassador to the united states. in january and february 2017 "the washington post" published a story source to intercept flynn's phone calls and speculated that they might have broken the law by discussing the foreign policy of the united states with foreign officials and through general plan is the beginning of a twisted journey forced upon him by political professional rivals and ending only last week when the presidential pardon. our america those leaks are the
centerpiecewi of one of the most remarkable crimes spree in our history. classified information leaked serially first organizations for the purpose of prosecuting a political warfare against a sitting president. reporters rarely, if ever, saw the classified documents and relied on badly spun accounts of the documents sent to them by a circle of intelligence leaders. the classified information was used to advance the narrative the trump had been compromised by russian spies. au.s. officials and new, not ony that they were breaking the law but they also knew they were marketing a lie and they knew where it originated. according to notes taken by former cia director john brennan he brief them president obama in late july 2016 that the hillary clinton campaign had proved a plan to quote, vilified donald by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by russian security services. knowing the purpose and
providence of the story brennan, nonetheless, posted to senior u.s. officials as fact and briefed then senate minority leader harry reid on information drawn from the tutorials dossier paid by the clinton campaign and brennan also took it to the fbi and said he shared that information regarding the russian officials with the bureau so that they could take it. sworn testimony before congress in may 2017 the former cia director said the information he gave to federal lawng enforcemet serves as a basis for the fbi investigation. it was to learn more color in weight to the russia smear targeting trump the government officials leaked classified information like the flynn intercept and none had never been charged. the press itself was honored in the washington post in "the new york times" were rewarded a joint pulitzer prize for their numerous stories source to classified information leaked to advanced a fraudulent narrative. because of its pushing russian gate american intelligence
services and lawn force 40s are regarded with skepticism, if not contempt, by half of the u.s. public. programs like foreign intelligence surveillance act warrants and confidential human sources and classified intelligence designed to keep citizens safe from terrorism were organized crime and adversarial states returned against americans and were simply practicing their right to participate in our political process. thus the crossfire hurricane investigation, much they knew, even transitional moment in our history and i lived in and reported from the middle east for more than a decade and the shape of the fbi and media joint operation is unmistakable and signals the marriage of the ministry of the interior responsible for domestic spying to the ministry of information responsible for manufacturing of propaganda and a combined effort to destroy anyone perceives as an opponent. with crossfire hurricane major
american institutions and the press and our intelligence community have adopted the practices and a focus of the third world world. it is not clear at present how we might return from that territory. the issue is not simply that the press and our intelligence services have forfeited the faith of large parts of the u.s. public but they have injected into our publics sphere a conspiracy theory and what they've done is the equivalent of dumping mercury to every american river, lake and reservoir. thank you. >> thank you, m brock. i will start the questioniquestioni ng or mr. smith i will start the questioning to mr. brock this is information we shoul have had years ago. it was recently revealedhen john ratcliffe released a document that said the u.s. intelligence communityeported back on july 26, 2016 that allegedly approval by hillary clinton on jul26b proposal for
foreign policy advisers to vilified donal trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by russian security services. mr. broc in her testimony you talked abo the unequal application or the uneal treatment by the fbi of the clinton campaign versus the trump campaign paid to me this is just exhibit a and that unequal treatment for here y have the intelgence community knowing that it's hillary clinton approving of a plan to stir up the scandal and tying candidate trump to russian collusion and tha explains the whole steele dossier, doesn't i connectdi the fbi knew that was bought and paid for by the heller clinton campaignnd the fbi knew that the primary sub source of that steele dossier been investigated b them in 2 20 -- 2009. they knew all of this forure by the end of january 2017 but
some of this information was known in july and in october and sopeak i terms of the unequal treatment of the two campaigns and also i want you to speak t to -- igree with you that this was no an adequate predicates for an investigation. okay. but spea to the fbi guidelines about ctinuing an investigation when you have all this exculpatory information. >> jack, one of the -- >> get the microphone closer to you. >> one of the most puzzling aspects of this whole really this national tragedy and is a tragedy for the fbi certainly as we look back and see that the thin basis for launching an investigation like this, when you have or when you juxtapose the reasons that the fbi stated in their opening communication for starting up a case and then
the comments to the inspector general later as to why they felt they were compelled to investigate the trump campaign t they don't add up with a certain logic that should have been applied to the dossier and its connection to the clinton campaign and there is, if they applied the same logic to the dossier and the fact that the clinton campaign arranged for and paid for that and received russian disinformation then they would have had to open up a separate counterintelligence investigation and yes, they didn't speak quite hontly, close down the trump investigation >> if it was predicated on all that false information. >> it was predicated, not only on then information but a fourth hand hearsay and it also, the statements that they relied on contained to a scope of tory statements that a, there was no indication of the trump campaign received or accepted the russian
suggestion that they haded information damaging to heller clinton and b, the russians were prepared to release in a matter what the trump campaign did or not. that is in their own opening ec. that right there for an experienced counterintelligence leader in the fbi should have been enough to say we don't have enough to open up a case. >> i want to -- i want to address max questions to the two journalists. there really has been, and there is an unholy alliance between lirals, democrats and the mediast it is completely unequal treatment by the media, by most of the mia and democrat versus republican. again, exhibit a in ts bias is how they eated the whole russian hoax. as our report showed 125 leaks in the first26 days that just drove this, sustained it, fueled
this false narrative. i will srtth with ms. attkisson. what duty doeporters have two reveal their sources when the sources give them false information? >> it is a case--case thing. there is no standard across our profession. one of the things i'm criticized is at the beginni of the trump admistration manycr news organizatis announced that they were suspendingheir normal ethics and standards that dictate how their news organizationypically deals with things such as use of anonymous sources that they were suspending these because ty said they needed to suspend their stdards to cover a uniquely dangerous president and i've argued and i thank you have observed that i think there is no more import time for us to keep our standards and ethics and when we are covering somebody that maybe we don't like or we have song feelings about that is what standar are for. insteadha we saw this listing te
starting in 2016 time. in this changing of everything in the weight we use to cover things. at cbs news they were very strict rulese went by to use anonymous sources as a last resort a only with very certain and specific caveats and disclosures and all that has changed. even the news organization pele use it as a top one in the country, if not the wld andhere is no body that dictates how this stuff haso be handled. >> as i've been trying to convert conduct these investigations one of the things i determined is it's an inquiringdu of press that has access to sources that won't come to congress because they don't trust congress to keep their identities secured. they go to the press of the press finds out about this stuff sooner than congress does or quite honestly,ti the foreman of justice officials. i fully understand and fully support free press and any
member of the press protecting the confidential of the sources but that is when they give them to information and mr. smith is there an obligation to protect the source that's given you false information connect. >> yeah, i don't think. >> please turn on your microphone and get closer. >> i see it differently. i think that what we've seen is as i try to describe in the opening statements is the actual artnership between the press and people who are providing false informationat to prosecuta campaign against the trumpng administration. i'm very familiar with the left-wing bias in the media. my family father, grandfather, great-grandfather all work to the press and i was a literary editor at the village voice which was the first alternative weekly in america cofounded byv norman mailer. i come from the left. i'm familiar with left-wing bias and what we have seen the last oseveral years has nothing to do with left-wing bias and this is
not about partisanship but what we've seen is something very destructive and very dangerous and how this started was in part because of the financial collapse of the prestige press which began with the advent of the internet we have seen as a consequencer the moral and professional collapse of the press. what we're talking about now a s not a normal media. it is a platform for information operations, it is not just about partanship. >> senator peters. >> maybe he has blinked off. i will go to senator lankford. >> mr. chairman, thank you to ou witnesses and thank you very much for that and i want to go back on that one statement you made about that journalism and media has become alatform for
disinformation in many ways. how does tha get turned around in your perspective? you been around media you whole life and how to get accurate informion and is one of the top questions i get asked by people in my state of oklahoma is how do i find out the facts? >> there are different for all the different complaints that we rightly have about the internet and those in social media there are very trends are happening as well so there are different alternative outlets. there are different journalists and different sources for people to follow and if we are talking about our national media like the brands i talked about in my opening statement these brands and brand names will concede to exist for as long as they have people who own them who do not care how much money they make. how to make these particular brands responsible and accountable again? to an american public that needs soundon information? i don't know. i am telling you there is real
news out there and there are people who are and who gather news and who disseminate news and i think those need to be encouraged about what people ask you back in oklahoma i was a one of the essential things is local news is important. i'm not sure that anyone needs to be competing entirely with the post or the times or cnn. local news is very important for people to make those decisions right there and figure out what they are doing and then the national news will get to them as well. >> ,"thank you. ms. attkisson i want to ask you a question aut what you experienced t personally and wht was expressed by mulple journalists. there's anp story in 2018, ptember 2018 and i wanto read a clip of this story. it was asking this question that the trump may use extraordinary rhetoric to undermine trust in the press but obama arguably went farersing extraordinary tions to block the flow of
information to the public the ama administration used the 1917 espionage act with unprecedented vigor prosecuting more people under tt law for leaking sensitive information to the public than all previous administrations combined. oba justice department dug into confidential communications between news organizations and theisource as part ofns that efrt and they discuss the 20 associated press offic phone lines and reporters homophones, cell phones, seasoning them wiout notice as a part of the investigation and then wen into what happened to james rosen as well and a fox news. you experienced this as well at cbs. my question t you is what ould be done to an entity or agency to hold them to account? th were never held to account for literally intimidating the press and for tracking the press and for investigating journasts through this process tapping ce phones and such.
what should be done in that situation told administration to account? >> at a minimum one would think there would be an apology and the people who took part in these actions would no longer be in a position that they could ever work and the governments gain and do these types of things but people can't see that anything happened to them so why should anyone change the way they operate. in my case this was illegal actions. obviously they should be prosecuted but here is the prosecute tool authority and the foreman of justice and fbi are the ones implicated in since they are not good to do the job you have someone like me just trying to bring a case in court to force to do with the justice department is supposed to do criminally and they spend the taxpayer money dragging it out, fighting it, trying to get the g courts to dismiss the case. i think because there is no accountability time and time again they may say people need more training or we will really aerate our policies but this happens over and over again and they know again from
administration to administration some ofpo the same people nothig happens to f them so the behavir doesn't change. >> mr. brock, let me ask you a follow-up. he been around the fbi and they've now reted from and there's still no agency inhe process so what should a could be done to an agencyr leadership or individuals when they have anbuse of power and how should the investigation be handled and what is missing and why can't we seem to close the loop on these investigations? >> some of what were talking today may not rise to common activity and violation of policy by the attorney general guidelines the executives involved were all fired and with good reason and cause. there was some accountability there but, you know, what this committee is doing shedding light on the abuses of that took place by this small rogue ban of
executives at the fbi headquarters is vitally important. this is not the fbi i knew or worked in. it is not the fbi agents who work tirelessly and analysts and other support personnel who work tirelessly every day for, you know, for the good reasons that the fbi exists. this was a hijacking of the fbi and again, if given respect to the inspector general conclusion of no bias it is clear that there was bias involved by the text messages that were written by peter strzok and lisa page. it is clear by the statements by former director comey and deputy director mccabe that they held a personal animus toward the president and there is no dispute on that. this investigation was clearly a malicious undertaking. >> the struggle i have is i know
a lot of great fbi agents that are frustrated and disappointed and quite frankly embarrassed for how leadership handles some of these investigations and they don't do it this way and the statement over and over is if i did as a line agent what james comey did as a leader i would have been fired but they seem to be held to a different account than what leadership is being held to account and i do want to ask you one quick follow-up statement and i think i know eyour answer but i want to get clarification. james comey said in september 30 testimony before judiciary that he was proud of the work done by crossfire hurricane and that was the investigation on president trump and at that time canada trump and for the most part it was done by the book was his word. for a lot of us we were most shocked by his two words proud of it and it was by the book. would you agree with those statements? >> i wouldn't be proud of crossfire hurricane and i'm
proud of fbi agents but no, this was not done by the book, not even remotely. it was, we keep saying it over and over again for the fbi cannot walk outside the door without articulating adequate predication to be able to interview a u.s. citizen and we should all be concerned and vigilant that the fbi adheres to those policy guidelines and in this case they had none. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i want to thank you, senator lankford. senator scott i believe he's remote for attending this and i think this is part of the problem. i thank you all understand i'm snot gotten a great deal of support for these investigations over the last six years and i think the attendance of this hearing shows that and when i try to point out with the lack of accountability of eric holder being held in contempt of congress congress is a paper tiger. the reason these people aren't held accountable is there i no way to hold them accountab and
who investiges the investigators? who prosecutes the prosecutor not is an enormous problem and is certainly what i've come to understand in the six years is trying to do this is trying to get this out obviously the bias in the mia and the attacks that i've had put up with it doesn't bother me personally but it bothers me in terms of the reflection and the impact on our democracy and our freedom and this is serious and yet we've got senators attending this hearinand i got my ranking memb in the appropriate hearing for this committee to have and that is the problem. senator scott [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]
[inaudible] >> ms. attkisson, can you hear me? >> now i can. >> could you hear me before? >> no, i'm sorry. >> i believe that americans do not want to see their president involved in corrections. i believe all along we need to have a thorough investigation of hunter biden and his relationship in ukraine and i
believe the public needs to know how vice president of the united statesen was able to stop a foreign governments from investigating a company that was pain is on $83000 a month and i think this is, i mean, whatever the facts are the facts ought to come out so ms. attkisson what have you learned about hunter biden and ukraine number one. number two, why hasn't the mainstream media cared and assuming the joe biden will become the next present of the united states will they start carrying? >> i have not done as deep a dive into the hunter biden question as other journalists who have written good pieces, including left-leaning publications is starting about a year ago this time and we were doing great investigations and i think that can be attributed to the fact that at the time there must've been people putting out the narrative, as i say in the news, the do not want joe biden to be the nominee or wanted someone else so therefore even among left-leaning political
figures and so on this was debated but then once joe biden became the nominee it evaporated at least the discussion among the liberal press and left-leaning figures and became supposedly a conspiracy theory by conservatives at that point although it was quite well documented and covered previously. i've learned that at the very least some very legitimate claims to ask about conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest and i learned that if you substituted the name biden and trump or trumps children and biden's children i think you would have undoubtedly have had a very different kind of media coverage than the lack of interest and the advocacy thatat comes from the media that are trying to crawl to the story in the discussion of it data by social media and powerful interests that don't want to talk about and do i think it will change under a biden presidency? i don't think so buried i think there will be some criticism in the popular press of joe biden when he comes under criticism by
others in the left-leaning again press or political figures doing the same thing but not going to do or come under the same sort of scrutiny or tax and the one-sided coverage that president trump got and have written books about this showing thatth the false coverage, not just the biden coverage but the media mistake made all the way "the new york times" andhe washington post and to cnn over and over again the false reporting and false information i don't think we will see that and i think in the campaign that was demonstrated and we won't feel a whole different kind of news coverage with biden for reasons i've explained with news organizations and i agree with lee. now largely taken over by narratives and propagandade invited the corporate interest to use us for their talking points and distributional of narratives and storylines and by and large that is what many of us have become.
>> so how can somebody who believes their legitimate leg jake tapper not care about this? they have betrayed themselves to be legitimate journalists that want to get to the facts, hold people accountable they are very clear they want to hold both sides ofccountable so how can they continue then to not care about something like hunter biden? >> i worked at cnn back when it was a news organization back in 19993 and it will not have dreamed of covering stories and i've spoken to many insiders of the book that i just wrote a narrow that this once prestigious and fairly straight down the middle news organization has taken and you have to understand if you realize that the media landscape has now been successfully co-opted and we have invited them and i say we've been infiltrated they want to turn us into these mouthpieces and understand that when you do that
job you put forth a narrative even if it proves not to be true and you are given promotions and attention in your views have been amplifiedti by the like-minded media and social media and it feels like you're doing everything right and your colleagues are patting you on the back and it just feeds upon itself that it evolves into a situation where is not journalism as i knew it and as i think many americans if you have been around long enough thought of it but it's all been redefined and changed. >> you take individuals like jake tapper and can they know back to becoming the german journalists again or is it just the way it set up with their producers in the way cnn works that it will never go back to a normal investigation and a fair media outlet? >> a lot of people weighed in on that when i interview them recently, including people who were executives at cnn and where they are part of the discussions
about changing the way cnn worked and to what it is today. i'm not an expert on this but a lot of people think that it is not going to be able to go back to what it once was even though there was a demand and even people who want to get their left wing news from cnn or maybe they're right leading news from fox or someone else they still want to place they can go that they feel is just telling you the story where it leads and more down the middle. the people i spoke to to the extent these are news executives working in the industry they don't feel if they had to guess that cnn can go back to what it was but they can also don't think it can survive moving forward without donald trump's a villain in the way it was in the last four years. >> ju pretty quickly, we' had these hearings recently about twitter a facebook places like thathere they censor conservatives and they allow maduro or whatever they want but what you think or what
do youll think the iact that has on our democracy wn a conservative -- they can't say much on twitter oracebook but venezuela and maduro gets his own citizen of the ayatollah or the commont party of china can do whater they want? what you think the impact of that is on our democracy and the ability of us to do our jobs? >> you like me to awer -- i mean, it's laughable, of course. they had ayatollah who tweets all the time he gets away with death to israel and death to united states and president of the united states and if you look at his tweet or twitter feed now it's three quarters is censored. but ... twitter feed now, three quarters is sensocen. what is not is that it is marked with advisories. this is getting through to people outside of washington,
outside of new york, outside of los angeles, people see it is a farce. they understand that not just the media, they understand social media and that the game is tilted get them and people are getting and they let the iranian lunatics and islamic republic post whatever they want and american conservatives are thrown off for something ridiculous. it's laughable. the serious thing is happening in the real world off of twitter. americans are seeing what's happening. it's a great thing. >> may i say one thing. >> there is danger in the notion sometimes we say, those of us that say why aren't you censoring this because you are censoring that and in personally think as a journalist that it ought to be don't censor, don't
expect they have that role and to do what i call fact checks and carry the information they create a market demand to let us invite that in because we were not asking for it and now that it's here if you serve everybody equally, we will be happy. i think the whole trend is bad for everybody. to maintain the protection for the content that's uploaded and the ability to censor on the moderation they have to publish the policies and be transparent and i think people should have a
positive action if they are censored or destroyed by following. i will turn that over to the senator maybe we willalk about this more in just a second that the social media companies n be permittedvi to be the sensors the nation. if it's political speech, no. why shoulwe entrust him with the power and the right way to do ts is to give american citizens action to sue over as it relates to citizensp or censorship that wld clear this
up quickly and that is what the tenology companies don't want. let me turn to you to talk about this process that requires as i understand it either the director or the deputy dirtor dr to certify every fisa application. now, the judiciary committeen which i ao said has had the formereputy director of port onhe committee and they've testified in effect that actually since the process is just a fmality, you know, they, neither of them nor the representative really read the application, they don't take it that seriously. it's just a signature on a page. is that your understanding of statute? in the >> not for this type of case. it would be startling to me that an fbi director and deputy director would treat an
application against a presidential campaign and in a nonchalant way i would assume they would read it word by word to the deepest degree possible as to the nature and applicability. if it was a normal suspected intelligence officer, that's one thing. fairly routines and pro forma bt that isn't what we are talking about here so we sign it off in a rubberstamp manner that it's hard to fathom. >>s a former leader of the bureaume. at least outright falsehood with
the bureau submitted to that court as part of the process because the falsed misinformatio and what they've done in the crossfire hurricane case. >>very other fisa application for the vitally important cases, counterterrorism cases, life a death investigation its tremendous damage. i don't thinkhis court was strong enough it was unverified and then two times after
uttering those words he signed off on an application and its dependent o that the dossier for the probable cause. so it's difficult to square what their inking was and why they went forward like this other than in ulterior motive. >> let m >> lete ask about your written testimony that you are of the view to justify opening the crossfire hurricane investigation. tell us about that. >> i want to be clear because obviously i'm taking a different position than what the inspector general wrote in his report. but if you read it carefully, he interviewed the team members and all of them spoke about the necessity of the investigation. nobody disputes that. that is an fbi responsibility.
russia always tries to interfere with elections and other parts of the government activities. nobody is disputing that. crossfire hurricane was a case opened against u.s. citizens and members of a presidential campaign unprecedented. never been c done before. you would think it would be handled with care marked all over. they literally took the fourth and information the fbi receivd information from the foreign we now know to be from australia who in turn had at conversation with george papadopoulos who in turn received information now known i'm not sure how you rally all of that together to make sufficient predication for opening s even a preliminary limited investigation.
they opened up a full investigation that gave them the ability to use all of the investigative powers they were to exculpatory statements that should have stopped the show right thenen but didn't. >> and now we know the source of the dossier that was the principal source for the fisa warrants and we've heard testimony that they wouldn't have issued had it not have been for the steele dossier subject to the counterintelligence investigation. you just can't make this stuff up. this is the biggest scandal in
history. you talked about the care with which this investigation was handled. it seemed it was handled with a lot of care at the fbi headquarters and that's unusual for an investigation of this nature to be lost at the headquarters from a very small groupus of people. why would the procedure here in the initiation, why was it unusual? >> it's hard to understand how anomalous that they would first of all openp the counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign without incredibly substantial justification and toun it out of headquarters the field
offices handle the investations. that is what the experience is anden making a judgment about whher there is adequate predication under the guidelines that exist they took this out of the director's office and ran this investigation and i would be willing to wager they've never read the attorney general guidelines, didn't understand them. >> thank you for your service and for your testimony. and that the testimony of the judiciary committee has heard. i think it is clear there was an enormous amount of care taken
and it was done for political purposes. i think it becomes increasingly clear for all the reasons outlined the outright lying to the court, this was done very deliberately by people who didn't want the 2016 election results to stand and weaponize to interfere the presidential election and sadly they toceeded and that is going go down as one of the great disgraces of american history and this committee and senate needs to make sure that it never happens again. >> i agree. if you could stick around i actually want to turn you into a witness but i want to make a wpoint based on what was said that they paid for the steele
dossier and i think this shows the jaw dropping bias and unequal treatment of justice when they continuehi to pursue e trump campaign where they had no evidence, they had exculpatory and they didn't lift a finger to investigate what was happening in the campaign. the question i want to ask you, i want to talk about the difficulty we have here in congress investigating these things. the resistance i'v ipad to gettg documents even out of agencies under a trump and republican administration by the way, you did an excellent job with mr. dorsey and particularly because you had whistleblower information. you had documents so you could ask some pretty hard questions. some pretty revealing questions.
my big problem. how much of that was to question them before your committee? >> there's no doubt the stonewalling and i think that is the only word you could reasonably useor the stonewallig by the fbi above the judiciary committee and this committee and the crossfire hurricane and origins has hampered the investigation and has been deliberate. they've withheld information from us and documents.
we've had to issue subpoenas in some cases so it shouldn't be able to have the source of material and i will tell you also the senate has an oversight responsibility and the public has a right to know and when a presidential election has been interfered with and the fbi has been leveraged by a political party in this case the clinton campaign leveraging the most powerful law enforcement party in the world to interfere in a presidential campaign and they successfully did it that's something the senate must investigate and has a right to be part of that process and i'm afraid they've been denied by the fbi which to this day is refusing to turn over the key
documents. it has confirmed the conclusion that the fbi has a pretty fundamental reform and what is being described a political atmosphere has taken over and those that are investigating and bringing criminals to justice but if you have a political group in washington, d.c. and what they are doing is dangerous. >> you set me up for my next question and again i appreciate you participating and caring about it. it didn't have a whole lot of participation. we had a couple of democratic senators go on and off and not ask any questions, so we are not particularly inquisitive and that is part of the problem, but i made this comment a couple of times when it comes to investigations about wrongdoing in theti political realm, we dot completely backwards. take a look at the corruption that we now know about how long
criminal prosecution and putting somebody in jail because it rarely happens anyway. so congress needs to first investigate we refer those to the justice department. and the extent of the corruption is incredibly troubling for every member of congress in every u.sandevery u.s. senator,r of the committee but obviously it doesn't because apparently corruption is partisan. if it is in the side of your
party, not worried about it. i'm worried about it regardless how much would it hamper a criminal investigation of congress had the samee information. >> i appreciate ur frustration, senat. i think all of us are looking for a deep level of cooperaon the f.nsparency from it's betr to rip the band-aid off and if there are things embarrsing to the fbi that have to be revealed, then let's
get it over with. the bureau has taken a beating over the last three or four years at the hds of some bad actors. there were some poor decions made with the polical bias or not they were decisions that dramatically impacted the american trust and the fbi. right now federal law is very narrow it's hard to get at corrupt activity and maybe we need a new definition if there are family members.
the political officers and difficulto prosecute maybe we need a new definition of corruption and new laws and it might be difficult for congress to pass the kind of legislation. but right now it is frustrating for the fbi to see a lotf corrupt activity and n be able to take much action against it. her criminal violations wound the flesh, corruptio wounds the soul of the nation and it is ting away at us right now in a very parsan way as you pointed out, senator. so, i would encourage opening the aperture and looking at different activities and deciding wheer or not we can tolerate that as corrupt activity in the country.
transparent. i don't know if he ever befed congress but i know when we had the director before the commite i asked them a couple of questions and the queion i had because he always said this happened before i became director happened under his watch the predicate to beg we be found out the fbi knew the primary sub source was a suspected russian agent. they knew that the campaign bought t steele dossier and there was russn information and that yet in march of 2018, the members of the fbi how they are preparing to brief and the intelligence committee and representatives in the steele dossier was reliable.
how can that happen. i didn't get aery good response. do you understand how that could ppen? >> senator i'm going to choose my words carefully here. my interests are to restore the credibility of the fbi and the amican people. christopher ray has don a very good job of advancing a level of trust. i do agree and i think there's frustration among the retired agents that a currently in the fbi and there should b an urgency to be transparent. buagain iay i don't have
visibility into some of t sources that may need protecting. there are entirelyiable reasons, so i t cannot second-guess that. i do think that it is irresponsible to hear calls. they shouldave the account and be called to testi to explain themselves. buthere's factors that can come into play. >> did you think that this was acceptable? >> i think what you are running into, and this is something they should be called into account, you have a unit or section
inside the headquarters that is doing that kind of reacting following protocols lined up for them and these are lower-level employees making these decisions. i don't know to whatm. extent tt is reviewed by the higher-ups. but when i see something like that, myn first instinct is that is just somebody following the rulebook and not giving a lot of thought. >> go ahead, mr. smith. >> director ray has been withholding documents since virtlly the time he srted. they both went in and asked t then speaker to notive away
any documents. >> my final set of questions, i don't want to keep people any longer than we need to accused falsely h because there is no proof of accepting or probably soliciting the information through these investigations. again, nothing could be further from the truth. but that's the weapon they've beenen using time and time agai. it's worked. the press keep the drum beat up.
in particular they always talk about russian interference in the 2016 election which by the way, i don't denyy or condone. i was way ahead of the curve in my subcommittee in the senate for an. i held hearings on the russian disinformation and interference. this is what they do i want to ask the two journalists putting things into perspective i don't know how much russia paid for the facebook ads. i don't know what impact they had distributing apparently true e-mails by the way it pales in comparison to the impact jack
dorsey denies of his censorship, the extreme bias in the media. do you agree with that assessment that the interference, the ability of the media and social media to impact vastly outperforms anything they could potentially do and real quick, ted cruz asked do you have the ability to impact politics and he said no. you all agree russia can use your platforms which is why you are on guard and put controls in place. you don't agree that using your own platforms and censorship you can search manipulation and can affect the politics and they
just all say no. it's astounding. what do you think of that? >> in purchasing facebook ads and so on, absolutely. there is no denying that in any way. the other is unless it is viewed through a lens i do not understand it's a way of manipulating public opinion or saving public opinion and information. i think that is the hard part about attacking it. the interests responsible for p convincing big tech started taking this rule they were not interested in and that interest understand how powerful this is and they've exploited it in a svery dangerous way working on
solutions to the problem, there are investors and journalists and technical experts trying to make it where there will be platforms using perhaps the block chain technologies and things i do not fully understand. i don't think that americans understand the economic power in terms of small businesses. i've had to intercede a number of times.
they said we are not going to let you use our phones anymore. that could destroy business overnight. at&t didn't do that. they gave a chilling quote and he said because of being d plot formed by the companies and organized interest coming after you on social media appearing to generate the campaign against you but the businessman in me says pull your punches to be the platform did have no outlet at all for the big tech companies
and social media coming after them and d platforming them you get the sense of how effective this is managing the news that we see. >> to build on that point, i don't know how exactly this works but i found this out from doctor robert epstein who h been monitoring the iluence on the campaigns that for exale "the new york post" allows google to read their gmail. it kind of part of the deal so that they can be up tre in the search results. mr. smith, do you want to speak to the point that i made about the impact social media have compared to the foreign influence? >> twitter notoriously buried the hunter biden story and new york post reporting on the biden family and their relationshi with foreign officials in ukraine and china, so the idea that this is the actual election
interference. le me talk about 2016. it dn't happen with the russians. the election was shapeped and e issu isn't russian disinformation. the issue in 2016 was clinton campaign disinformation. that was theis fundamental thing and that is what they were trying to do. they were trying to shape the electiontr and the transition tm and pridency team as well. i just want to say tother things and that is i definitely age about what's happening. if you see sometimes what appears to be random on twitter or facebook or other social media plaorms they will school to someone and suspe someone temporarily and then bring them back. th is meant to draw invible red lines wereines or disappearg redlines. peopleon't know exactly what they are n supposed to s and they are effectively being
scoled to censor themselves so this is a very dgerous thing. i 100% agree with that. the last thing i wanted to say i'm sorry there isn't more general interest. i'm sure many americans do find this incredibly important and i also want to say the work that you and this committee have done everything from putting out the page e-mails to the hunter biden conflict it'seen extremely important. there's lots of researchs out there and journalists doing real work and wetr thank you for the important and vital work that this committee has done without which there's different things really the amount of research that has gone in your products i would commend you and thank you for it. >> one final point i learned after this election they found
out they were sending reminders to vote one of the things we emphasized here is anticorruption the ownership of the media. how could we prevent the oligarchs for the message for example, ukraine and other countries. and it wasn't long before i started realizing may be it's the pot calling the kettle
black. we call our media moguls weoligarchs. is that part of the same problem and is that true. >> they are american billionaireses and moguls and ty exert way too much power. i haven't explored the business aspect the problems i track have more to do with outside influences both political and corporate understanding the first of the century and they get their people hired and use nonprofits and crisis management firms and global law firms and shape the terms and after they
had controlled much of the news landscape they thought we could still get unfettered accessf to the information online so they said about it in a manner for that source of information and that is where we are today. >> do you have any final comments? >> i agree 100% and that is why i said what we are looking at in the media isn't simply about partisanship. they are suffering as a platform t.as a sword and shield for the oligarchs. you are correct. if you look at the major washington media press organization, the "washington post" and the atlantic, this is precisely what's going on. it's not just political partisanship. these are platforms for the oligarchs. >> do you have any closing comments? >> just in general in terms of the hearing.
>> i encourage congress to look at other ways to look at controlling information at the monopoly and trust busting in the early part of the 20th century. advocacy journalism which is noat we are stuck with right now is the moneymaker and it depends on clicks and so you will have people exercising over the censorship and burying things. thank you for the opportunity, senator, that your work here on the committee i believe is very important and exposing the bad actions that were taken by a few individuals in the fbi and the damage that they did as a result to the lives of u.s. citizens. >> i want to thank the witnesses
for what you've contributed. >> that is a real concern when you see what's happening here. of power. it's disappointing. i want to thank my colleagues that had some thoughtful questions and i want to thank you for your thoughtful testimony. i will say what i intend to do we have an editor that will hopefully condense down the best parts and edit this down and maybe we will get more on the hearing. it's important that we do so. we did that with the hearing from november 19th that was all about the early treatment what could make more sense. nd yet the attacks on the hearing were just jaw-dropping, the point where the witness wrote an op-ed attacking doctors risking their lives with an
op-ed in "the new york times" as they ran the headline to me that goes to the territory to be attacking the vice chair of medicine, a senior professor of epidemiology from yale and treated over a thousand high-risk patients attacking them in that way. i hope all of them don't get attacked for participating in what i think is a important hearing so thank you for your patriotism in doing so and it remained open for 15 days until december 18th for statements and questions for the record this hearing is adjourned.
so no sooner had he been elected that south carolina makes good on its promise to proceed towards seceding from the union. >> he had no choice given the resounding nature of the vote and the way that it's reported in the press and the deal as roosevelt said during the campaign began to work towards and represent a fundamental threat for the american way of life so he devoted himself to preventing roosevelt fro being able to enact it.