Inspector General report on Russia probe clears FBI of bias, but uncovers flaws Inspector General report on Russia probe clears FBI of bias, but uncovers flawsOn Monday, the Justice Department’s internal Watchdog released a highly-anticipated report about surveillance into the Trump campaign in 2016. He found no evidence of political bias, but it did find some serious flaws. Cbs News, instigative, correspondent, Catherine Herridge reports from the Inspector General fat know nothing was concocted and they got caught. The report was heavily critical of the FBI, finding fault in the for surveillance, more applications for Trump campaign, aide Carter, page 17, significant inaccuracies in the warrant request, including exculpatory evidence favorable to Paige. It was clear: the FBI lost an intrusive investigation on the thinnest of suspicions. The report also criticized the FBI’s Reliance on Christopher Steele dossier used to justify parts of the investigation. Do this information was uncorroborated believed to be with Ivanka Trump assistant district attorney for New York County, Katherine? Let me start with you. Fbi director Christopher Wray, responded to this report in an interview on Monday. Let’S listen to some of what he said: 40/40 corrective actions to address all of those things in a way. That’S robust and serious, and we’re determined to learn the lessons from this report and make sure the FBI emerges from this even better and stronger. Do we know about these corrective actions that he mentioned? One of the pieces of emphasis in the report today is that the FBI took actions in 2016 and 2017, with the surveillance warrants and on its. They didn’t seem to have this additional step for oversight with a justice department, so, for example, when there was evidence that was exculpatory, so that’s evidence that would have been helpful to the Carter page defense. It would have Justified the surveillance warrant that information didn’t trickle up to the justice department in a timely way and bluntly. It never got to the surveillance Court until after the warrants had expired, is so they’re. Looking at a process where this type of information can move through the cyst more quickly and then way that it can be fully acted upon by the justice department and measure to see if the surveillance warrants are necessary, mentioning I don’t think so I mean I think, That there could be individuals who were disciplined for that. I think the important takeaway from this is that we have these institutions. Institutions can be flawed, but not corrupt through and through, and that’s what the bottom line of this I hear reports look. There was no political bias. There was nothing wrong in the commencement of this investigation into the 2016 interference with our election and the Trump campaigns involvement. There was nothing wrong with it that was all proper. There was nothing wrong with the decision you go get a warrant. They work, but there were serious mistakes made in the process of getting that warrant to this is exactly what are institutions should be doing, which is they should find fault with how they proceed and they should fix those files and that again it means our institutions are General working they’re working as they’re supposed to be working allegations that they’re corrupt through and through, are false, and instead we need to focus on exactly the sort of important checks and balances that make it such that we can address the flaws. That are real surprising. A lot of folks are reacting very strongly to this report, who feels Vindicated or exonerated by the finding 16th. We didn’t have this very public statement from the attorney general saying that he disagreed with that finding saying it was predicated on the thinnest of suspicions, and then we had this highly unusual situation where the US attorney and kinetic John Jerome cuz running a separate investigation into The origins of the Russia probe put out a public statement saying he also disagreed on this point. So from my vantage point, it was highly unusual to see so much daylight in between the two entities and then finally on the mistakes that were made with the surveillance warrant applications for the Trump campaign aide. The Horwitz report is very clear in the language that it uses. It said it did not find evidence or have testimony part part of me testimony from witnesses that show that there was political bias in the situation, but it also says they didn’t get good reasonable explanations about why so many mistakes were made on something that was clearly So high profile – and they knew would be subject to additional scrutiny, agree with the Inspector General and what was found M & L significant. Is that I think it’s very significant and disturbing. I think that, to the extent that there are internal disagreements within the Department of Justice Department of Justice, fortunately, when things come out this way, it undermines the legitimacy of our institutions of Department of Justice as a whole and particularly John Durham statement, because it is not Done prosecutors do not come out in the middle of their investigations and say this what we found that is so unusual I mean, and it’s essentially what Denny was highly criticized about with regard to Hillary Clinton’s emails so when and if prosecutor ever does that it should Be in extreme situations and not run Mel wants, because it does exactly that switches cast some doubt on whether or not there is some kind of political bias going on here on one part or another, and maybe the investigation will show that there are things that the Investor General got wrong, has more power in subpoenaing than the inspector-general that’s, but he should wait until his conclusions are done and especially that he gave these. It came out with such a vague accusations that it’s not possible for us to go back and stop check and say: okay, what what? What is it? What are the inconsistency even said? He just said I kind of disagree, and that’s just strange and really, I think inappropriate. What do you think Rebecca is the broader effect here when you think about the institution that is the Department of Justice to have such a public disagreement played out in this way. 3 years – and so this is just both additional strain on the institutions and a reflection of the increasingly delicate state that the institution is in, I think that a lot of people are jumping out on either side on saying NOC. My side is right, see my side of right, not the partisan debate that is inappropriate and shouldn’t be drawn into this institution unless absolutely necessary and part of the way that we avoid it. As we go through procedures and process – and I know it sounds kind of like this procedures and processes – are there to protect legitimacy and reputation of Department of Justice as neutral what the effect on public opinion in those institutions how it is that those are viewed when You see the kind of public disagreement hang out in this way by General, Michael Horowitz will testify in a public hearing on Wednesday. What do lawmakers want to hear from him? Who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in holding his public session has already hinted that Heath, the foreign intelligence surveillance Court? This is the surveillance court that makes decisions on the warrants. I do take some disciplinary action if they were misled by FBI. Officials in the course of these applications would play out, but he feels there has to be some accountability on that front and I think we can expect to see more of these political divisions between Republicans and Democrats on the core findings of the Horowitz report. Very much you’re welcome The Justice Department’s internal watchdog released a highly anticipated report about surveillance of the Trump campaign in 2016. It found no evidence of political bias, but it did uncover some serious flaws. CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge and CBSN legal contributor and former Assistant District Attorney for New York County Rebecca Roiphe join CBSN’s “Red and Blue” to discuss the report’s findings.