Adam Schiff

Let's go to invited Russian help. Mr. Durham, you're aware of Donald Trump's public statements along the lines of, hey, Russia, if you're listening, hack Hillary's emails.

I thank you for yielding.

The question is what I asked you, Mr. Durham. You get to give the answer, not the question.

Why, Mr. Durham, would you leave out a glaring contrast between the FBI's public discussion of the Clinton investigation right before the election and it's keeping confidential the Trump investigation?

Your report attempts to make a case that the investigations of Clinton were given more favorable treatment to that of President Trump.

There's clear evidence on the issue of collusion. I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy in plain sight.

The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, the Russians gave help, and the President made full use of that help, and that is pretty damning.

Yes, they did what they did and in glaring contrast how they treated the Trump investigation which was kept secret before the election whereas the Clinton investigation was discussed publicly affecting the outcome. Isn't that correct?

Chair Jordan seems to be looking for any excuse to discredit law enforcement and DOJ, who are finally holding Donald Trump accountable for his serious violations of the law.

You see my colleagues today; they are making themselves footnotes and foot soldiers in the history books that will chronicle Donald Trump's corruption.

I move for unanimous consent to enter the entire transcript into the record, so the American public can see for itself exactly what he said.

You thought it was appropriate for you to intervene with an independent investigation by the Inspector General because he was reaching a conclusion you disagreed with?

You violated department policy by issuing a statement while your investigation was ongoing, didn't you?

DOJ policy provides that you don't speak about a pending investigation and yet you did, didn't you?

The only distinguishment between his investigation and yours is he refused to bring charges where he couldn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and you did.

Well, it is illegal to conspire to get incriminating opposition research from a hostile government that is of financial value to a campaign. Wouldn't that violate campaign laws?

You think it's insignificant that he had a secret meeting with Russian delegation for the purpose of getting dirt on Hillary Clinton, and the only disappointment expressed at that meeting was that the dirt they got wasn't better?

Are you really trying to diminish the significance of what happened here and the secret meeting that the President's son set up in Trump Tower to receive that incriminating information?

Are you aware, Mr. Durham, that Mueller and Congressional investigations also revealed that Don Jr. was informed that a Russian official was offering the Trump Campaign, quote, 'very high-level and sensitive information,' that would be…

That Manafort provided this information to Russian intelligence while Russian intelligence was engaged in that social media campaign and the release of stolen documents to help the Trump Campaign, correct?

As an illustration of this, both Mueller and Congressional investigations found that Trump's Campaign Chair, Paul Manafort, was secretly meeting with an operative link to Russian intelligence named Konstantin Kilimnik, correct?

Mueller also reported that, though he could not establish the crime of conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt, he also said, quote, 'A statement that the investigation did not establish certain facts does not mean there was no evidence of…

Mueller found that a Russian intelligence service hacked computers associated with the Clinton Campaign, and then, released the stolen documents publicly, is that right?

Russia did so through a social media campaign that favored Donald Trump and disparaged Hillary Clinton, correct?

The Mueller investigation revealed that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in 'sweeping an systemic fashion,' correct?