20

information -- you know, I'm taking it out of the context that we've been talking
about, just in a more generic context -- and knowledge about whether that
information is classified or not.

If you think about a traditional sort of leak case, for example, and if you
have just someone who is the recipient of leaked information that didn't do
anything to elicit a leak of that information, there's a different question about
publishing it. That's a very different question than complicity for leaking it. So it
is a little bit similar, a little bit analogous.

MR. GOWDY: I've been gone so tong, | don't. remember the answer to this
question, but can you be guilty of a conspiracy when the act took place before the
conspiracy was formed?

MS. MCCORD: Not for the conspiracy to commit that act.

MR. GOWDY: Is misprison of a felony a possible charge if you after the
fact knew about a crime taking place and failed to report it or does that require you
having a duty to report it?

MS. MCCORD: | don't -- I'm not competent to answer that question right
now --

MR. GOWDY: I'm noteither. I'm just trying to figure out what potential
criminality could exist if Mr. Conaway hacked into Mr. Rooney's email and | had
nothing to do with it, but | thought, this is some interesting stuff, I'm going to
participate in the dissemination of it. I'm just trying to figure out what the range of
possible criminal conduct could be for that. Can you think of anything?

MS. MCCORD: |'m not -- I'm just not prepared today to tell you
every -- every possible crime that there could be, because it's so factually specific.

If what you're -- never mind.


41

We also had concerns that the incoming National Security Advisor
appeared to have lied to the incoming Vice President that we thought someone in
the White House should be aware of.

Ultimately, the decision was made by Deputy Attorney General Yates to
advise the White House. And we determined, after some discussion, that the
best point of entry -- because we didn't have established relationships with people
over there yet. It was -- they hadn't taken office yet -- was the incoming -- White
House counsel, Don McGahn.

MR. SCHIFF: And do you know before you would go over to meet with
Don McGahn whether anyone else at the Bureau or Justice Department had
informed the White House of the Flynn conversations?

MS. MCCORD: | believe Director Comey had advised, | don't know exactly
who, a very small group, perhaps just the President.

MR. SCHIFF: And what's the basis of your belief that the Director had
informed the President?

MS. MCCORD: So when | -- after | learned the information in more
specific detail from Mr. McCabe, and did not try to reach Ms. Yates that night,
decided to wait until the next morning, unbeknownst to me, she was summoned to
the White House for a meeting the next morning.

And in a pull-aside after that -- | believe to discuss the Intelligence
Community report, which by then had just come out. And there was an
unclassified report, there was a classified report, and then there was an even

higher level of classification of that report.


MR. SCHIFF:



46

of the potential compromise as well as that it appeared that Vice
President-elect Pence had been given untrue information by General Flynn.

We did indicate we had no reason to believe that the Vice President-elect
was witting of that. Well, at this point, he is not the Vice President-elect anymore.
He was Vice President-elect when he made the statements, but at this point he is
the Vice President.

She also did tell Mr. McGahn that General Flynn had been interviewed by
the Bureau just earlier that week. | believe it was the day before. | believe it was
on Wednesday that he was interviewed, by my recollection. And we
also -- Mr. McGahn asked a variety of questions | can get into if you want, or not.

MR. SCHIFF: Yes, please.

MS. MCCORD: Okay. He asked how Mr. Flynn did and we -- or how
General Flynn did, and we declined to answer that question. He asked if it would
be okay to ask if General Flynn was under criminal investigation, and Ms. Yates
said it would be okay to ask, but it would not be okay for us to answer that.

He asked if there were any constraints we were putting on their use of that
information.

MR. SCHIFF: So | just want to make sure, so the White House counsel
asked whether it'd be appropriate for them to inquire about whether someone in
the White House was under investigation; and Ms. Yates informed the
White House that's not an appropriate question for them to have answered?

MS.MCCORD: For us to answer. She is -- and | remember it just
because it was sort of a memorable way she stated it, was that it would be okay
for you to ask. It would not be okay for us to answer. And he did not press it at

all.


14

counterintelligence investigations, not criminal investigations. And that proceeded

throughout the fall and, of course, after the election and into this year, as you're

* aware.

At some point, and | don't know, you would have to talk to the Bureau about
how they keep track of their own records and the way they open different
investigations. They can open as a Cl or counterintelligence investigation, open
as a criminal investigation, and they can sometimes merge these. And | can't tell
you when these would have been merged. | can say that by early 2017, | would
say, is when there were more discussions about potential criminal, you know,
looking at this as criminal investigations in addition to counterintelligence
investigations.

MR. GOWDY: | think if | wrote it down right, you said individuals. Do you
recall any of the names of people, either formerly or informally, connected with the
Trump campaign?

MS.MCCORD: Yes.
SSC

MR. GOWDY: And you said these would have been Cl investigations at
the time, not necessarily criminal.

MS. MCCORD: So the way it was explained to me by the Bureau was that

MR. GOWDY: Before we get to those individuals, who with the FBI would
you have -- who would have briefed you, who would you have worked -- which
agent would you have worked most closely with?

MS. MCCORD: So recall, | was the -- by the time we were receiving any


74

MS. MCCORD: So that would be considered a very sensitive
circumstance, and that would mean it would get extra vetting and more reviews.
For example, even though my role was never to actually sign these, | only, you
know -- | would occasionally be asked to read one and consult on one, and that
was, you know, usually either because it was novel, or particularly sensitive it, and

didn't happen that often but certainly in the case of Carter Page it did happen.


56

doesn't have anything that wouldn't be on DOJ servers, which is entirely accurate.
But there's a small group of documents that she had printed out and is in
possession of, which, again, would be on DOU's servers, but | am happy to talk to
you about this.

HS think Mr. Gowdy's request is if you could just provide those
documents.

MR. GOWDY: Pardon me?

MS. MCCORD: The emails.

MR. GOWDY: Thank you.

MR. CONAWAY: Could | ask one real quick. So the cell phones that
these two gentlemen were using, they were the brand new issued government cell
phones or --

MS. MCCORD: | don't know.

MR. CONAWAY: They didn't look like yours?

MS. MCCORD: |Ididn'tsee them. This was a phone conversation where
he explained to me.

MR. CONAWAY: Oh, okay. Gotcha. Thank you.

MR. ROONEY: | think that we can safely assume that the incoming NSA
Director probably shouldn't have the same password as anybody else, but that's
just my commentary.

| want to ask you a couple questions that are kind of --

MR. SCHIFF: Jim was suggesting everyone has the same password. It's
MAGA. Probably not very secure, but --

MR. ROONEY: It might be.

MR. SCHIFF: You never know.


54

MS. MCCORD: So, | mean -- as we would get regularly briefed on the
various strands of the counterintelligence investigation, that included, you know,
additional work with respect -- or additional investigation with respect to
Mr. Flynn's involvement.

And ongoing at the same time was Mr. Flynn was around the same
timeframe filing, you know, registration under FARA belatedly, again, not related to
Russia, but that provided some avenues of, you know, inquiry.

MR. SCHIFF: Did you have any involvement in the facts that led up to the
discovery of the discussions that General Flynn, Jared Kushner, and the Russian
ambassador had?

MS. MCCORD: | did not.

MR. SCHIFF: Did that take place while you were there?

MS. MCCORD: It did not. | learned about that in June or July, whenever
that story broke. That was the first | knew about it.

MR. SCHIFF: And when did you leave the Department?

MS. MCCORD: May 12.

MR. SCHIFF: The Flynn investigation was open when? Do you know?

MS. MCCORD: So when Mr. McCabe first called me to tell me about the

And so -- but | was not aware of that until | learned from Mr. McCabe about

MR. SCHIFF: And did Mr. McCabe tell you what the basis was for the


responses.

MR. ROONEY: Okay. When did the FBI first approach the National
Security Division to open a criminal investigation regarding Russia and the 2016
elections? Like was there one thing that like sort of kicked that off that started
that?

MS.MCCORD: There's really not. You know, the -- after the incident -- or
not incident. After knowledge of the phone conversations between General Flynn
and Ambassador Kislyak occurred, there was certainly discussion of, you know,
that violating, you know, a criminal statute.

And, you know, we had some discussions about how we -- you know, this is


— 64
answer that, and if he couldn't, he would certainly know who. | mean, | don't
know that he was the one who was called. | don't know who was the one that
was contacted, but he would know.

MR. GOWDY: Thank you.

MR. HIMES: Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. McCord, for being here.

| want to start with a question. Ms. Yates testified in front of the Senate
about the second meeting that you were talking about before meeting with Don
McGahn on January 27. She remembered in testimony to the Senate that he
brought up four points: Whether the information about General Flynn triggered
any statute; asked why it was in DOJ's interest whether one member of the
White House might lie to another; third, whether any action the White House would
take would interfere with the investigation of General Flynn; and fourth, whether
they could get access to the underlying information.

| wonder -- that's her testimony. Does that refresh your memory of that
meeting, and is there anything you might add to that?

MS. MCCORD: Well, those are all things within the scope of what | hope |
had conveyed earlier. And -- but | just don't -- | just -- to my mind, it wasn't that
much different than the previous meeting; in other words, we went over really
those four subjects the previous meeting as well.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Okay. Let me shift gears here. We are getting into
the process by which the investigation was established, by which people came
forward to the investigation.

So just for the benefit of those of us and the readers ultimately of our report

who are not blessed with law degrees, | want to do a bunch of just sort of basic


52

push any further on the explanation. He then said that he wanted to know what
they would need to do to (nnn
basis of Ms. Yates and me going to the White House.

And, remember, we're on unsecure cell phones, so that's why he didn't refer
| knew what he was talking about. And | said,
well, that is something we contemplated. And we had actually, in fact -- | left this
out, but Ms. Yates had also indicated to Mr. McGahn on either Thursday or Friday
or both that we would also talk to the Bureau about providing access.

And so, | knew that that's what he was following up on, and | let John know
that | would need to talk to the Bureau and make those arrangements. And | then
called Ms. Yates on Sunday morning and told her that this inquiry had come in,
and | also told her about the oddity of the email coming from General Flynn's
account.

And the next morning, | did call the Bureau right away. Well, first |

checked -- no, | called the Bureau right away to see if they could get the

And they were able to accomplish that, got them into an office

that—becausc I Ts! [i

Ps And that was Monday, January 30.

And so, | had talked to the deputy attorney general's staff who said that
Ms. Yates was going to call back Mr. McGahn and let him know that we could

make those available. That was my expectation.


24

the applications with connection to Carter Page?

MS.
MR.
MS.
MR.

MCCORD: There were not.
GOWDY: What --
MCCORD: Atleast I'm not aware of any. | don't believe there were.

GOWDY: And this application, the standard approval for having it

approved is what, probable cause?

MS.
MR.
MS.
MR.
MS.
MR.
MS.
MR.

MCCORD: Yes.

GOWDY: And that would manifest itself in what, an affidavit?
MCCORD: Yes.

GOWDY: Signed by whom?

MCCORD: By whichever agent, Bureau agent.

GOWDY: By a Bureau agent.

MCCORD: Yes.

GOWDY: Do recall which Bureau agent signed the FISA applications

in Carter Page's case?

MS.
MR.
MS.
MR.
MS.

MCCORD: | don't.

GOWDY: Were you part of the drafting of any part of that application?
MCCORD: Not the drafting, no.

GOWDY: Reviewing it?

MCCORD: | saw one of the earlier versions that then went through a

number of edits and clarifications and, you know, questions that DOJ had of the

Bureau, information, you know, for additional information and additional

clarification. | don't believe | ever read -- | know that | never read the final version

that went for approval. | did see an earlier version.

MR.

GOWDY: To the extent you can recall, what was the probable cause


42

And so she'd been summoned over to a meeting of the National Security
Council to discuss that. And there was a pull-aside -- | learned when | then went
to talk to her after she got back from that meeting that there had been a pull-aside
after that with Director Comey and the President where they had alluded to this
as

And, of course, Ms. Yates was in the unfortunate position of not knowing
what they were alluding to because | hadn't briefed her yet. So that was my fault.
| was very apologetic that | hadn't had an opportunity to tell her before she was in
that pull-aside meeting.

MR. SCHIFF: And that pull-aside was Sally Yates, Director Comey, and
the President?

MS. MCCORD: That's who | recall her saying was there. It's possible
there was somebody else. | mean, | wasn't there.

MR. SCHIFF: And the general thrust of what you were informed is that

they informed the President, to some degree, (IED

MS. MCCORD: So the way | took it from Ms. Yates is that Director Comey
had already informed the President about it. And the President and Director
Comey were then referring to it, which is why she was a little bit in the dark
because she hadn't been informed of it yet. So she was gleaning from the
conversation what may have happened, and then | was able to fill it in for her.

MR. SCHIFF: And do you know what date that was?

MS. MCCORD: | don't have the date.

MR. SCHIFF: Do you know whether that took place before the Ignatius

column?


73

FISA application? Will the court get involved?

MS. MCCORD: Yes, absolutely. | mean, we have a very rigorous -- we.
| am not there anymore. NSD has a very rigorous oversight process, and any
time the oversight process -- through the oversight process NSD becomes aware
of any type of mistake, it immediately advises the court about that, and
sometimes, you know, moves to remedy it, however, depending on what type of
mistake they have found. And | think the court has, | think, become pretty
comfortable over the last number of years that it can trust that NSD will advise
about FY One minute, Mr. Himes.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Thank you.

So | read a piece by a former FBI agent that described the FISA drafting
process -- approval process before court submission. He called it extreme
vetting. Does that sound about right to you?

MS. MCCORD: That sounds right. That's good.

MR. HIMES: Okay. A common criticism of FISA is the court rarely rejects
applications outright, but instead asks for more information and revisions from the
government. Ofcourse, the ultimate approval rate is actually -- actually is fairly
high, but my understanding is that that's because there is a very deep iterative
process before a final determination is made. Does that sound right to you?

MS. MCCORD: There is with some, but not others. As | indicated earlier,
| think with some, particularly at the staff level, there's an iterative process, but
that's not the case for all FISAs.

MR. HIMES: Last question: How, if at all, would the association of a
target with a prominent presidential campaign affect the preparation of a FISA

application?


MS. CICCONI: Martine Cicconi from Akin Gump.

Thank you.

The interview will be transcribed. There is a reporter making a record of
these proceedings so we can easily consult a written compilation of your answers.
Because the reporter cannot record gestures, we ask that you answer verbally. If
you forget to do this, you might be reminded to do so. You may also be asked to
spell certain terms or unusual phrases.

Consistent with the committee's rules of procedure, you and your counsel,
upon request, will have a reasonable opportunity to inspect the transcript of this
interview in order to determine whether your answers were correctly transcribed.
The transcript will remain in the committee's custody. The committee also
reserves the right to request your return for additional questions should the need
arise.

The processes for the interview is as follows. The majority will be given 45
minutes to ask questions and the minority will be given 45 minutes to ask
questions. Immediately thereafter, we will take a 5-minute break, should you
desire, after which time the majority will be given 15 minutes to ask questions and
the minority will be given 15 minutes to ask questions. These 15-minute rounds
will continue until each side has exhausted its questioning.

The timing for these rounds will be adhered to by all sides, with no
extensions being granted. And time will be kept for each portion of the interview
with warnings given at the 5- and 1-minute mark respectively.

To ensure confidentiality, we ask that you do not discusses the interview
with anyone other than your attorneys. And you are reminded that it is unlawful to

deliberately provide false information to Members of Congress or staff. And


76

provide the information that he was provided?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.

MR. GOWDY: Would you inquire as to whether or not he was associated
with any other parties that may also be principals in that ongoing investigation or
prosecution?

MS. MCCORD: Yes, probably, depending on the facts.

MR. GOWDY: | would ask all of those things, too. But let me ask you,
why with you do that? Why would you ask those series of questions about motive
and bias and opportunity and all that stuff? Why would you do that?

MS. MCCORD: Because it's important for, in the case of a courtroom,
which is what the premise of your question was, it is important for the fact-finder to
know. And if! was the prosecutor, which | always was, | did not -- | did want to
take the sting out of that. | wanted to be able to characterize it in a way, if | had
found and my investigators had found a particular witness to be credible and we'd
overcome whatever biases or other Giglio information might exist, then | would
want the opportunity to explain that to the jury and to the fact-finder.

And so, too, to the extent that you're making an analogy to a FISA, the idea,
just like in a search warrant application or in a Title Ill application, is to be as
candid with the court as possible about, you know, where there could be biases.

MR. GOWDY: | wasn't making the analogy yet. We're still back in the
courtroom.

MS. MCCORD: |'m getting ahead of you.

MR. GOWDY: It's relevant and it's important.

MS. MCCORD: Uh-huh.

MR. GOWDY: Always the same thing, but in this case it is both relevant


75

[1:20 p.m.]

MR. HIMES: Itdid. So that additional scrutiny you referred to occurred in
this case?

MS. MCCORD: Uh-huh.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Allright. Thank you.

| yield back.

MR. GOWDY: Ms. McCord, | think they're going to call votes, so this will
probably be the last time | will have a chance to ask you questions. | want to start
again the same way | did last time. Thank you for being here and thank you for
your service to our country in a very important and difficult job.

| want to pick up where my friend Mr. Himes left off, but | want you to
imagine you're in a courtroom and you are either examining or cross-examining
Mr. Steele. All right? I'll let you pick. You're either the prosecutor and you want
to take the sting out of it before the defense attorney does it or you're being paid
handsomely as a defense attorney.

Would you ask Mr. Steele who his employer was?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.

MR. GOWDY: He's an informant.

Would you ask him whether he had a pecuniary interest in the outcome?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.

MR. GOWDY: Would you ask him -- and this is separate -- how he was
being compensated for his time either that day or through the course of the
investigation?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.

MR. GOWDY: Would you inquire as to what motive he may have had to


78

a reasonable doubt determination like you would see in a court of law in a criminal
case. And |, you know --

MR. GOWDY: I'm with you. And on the counterintelligence part, that's
important, because it may not ever result in a prosecution.

MS. MCCORD: That's right.

MR. GOWDY: Most criminal inquiries at some point the purpose might be
to move it beyond a reasonable doubt. So if all you've got is probable cause, that
ain't much when you're going have a little higher burden in a couple of months.

So I'm with you, probable cause is the bare minimum for an arrest warrant.
My guess is you had lots of conversations with FBI agents that they had probable
cause, but they did not have enough beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore
you may have declined the case, even though they had probable cause. Has that
ever happened?

MS. MCCORD: That wasn't presented at all when we were talking about
Carter Page. There was never a discussion at the time of the FISA about, you
know, it was intelligence collection.

MR. GOWDY: Right. It wasn't calculated towards a criminal prosecution.

MS.MCCORD: Yes. | just want to be clear on that.

MR. GOWDY: Right. No, | was with you on that. But to the extent there
is a difference in how probable cause would play into those, one calculated
towards investigation another towards a prosecution where the burden changes.

MS. MCCORD: Yeah, that's right.

MR. GOWDY: That's all | have unless Mr. Rooney or il or the
chairman have something.

MR. GOWDY: Thank you for coming.


MS. MCCORD: That's correct.

MR. SCHIFF:

MR. SCHIFF:
MS.MCCORD: (i) [is

MR. SCHIFF: And as people were scrutinizing within the Bureau

before it was presented to the President, it came to the attention of Mr. McCabe

MS. MCCORD: That's correct.

MR. SCHIFF: And so there was a delay in completing Si
MS. MCCORD: That's correct.

MR. SCHIFF: And then what happened?

MS. MCCORD: So the first conversation was relatively short because


21

MR. GOWDY: Well, I'm actually not trying to make it complicated.
"Influencing the election" is kind of the phrase that we hear a lot. Is that a crime?
Is working with a foreign government to influence an election a crime?

MS. MCCORD: There could be different crimes that come from that.

MR. GOWDY: And that's what I'm getting at. What could they be?

MS. MCCORD: Well, again, | would go back to what complicity there
might have been in the obtaining of the information, what sources might have
been used, wire sources or others to convey the information, whether it was done
fraudulently based on who you claim to have been in conveying the information or
what the source of that information is. So | think there's a variety of things to be
looked at.

MR. GOWDY: Do all of those assume some complicity in the underlying
act?

MS. MCCORD: No. | don't believe they would have to assume
complicity. If by underlying act you mean the intrusion --

MR. GOWDY: Access, yeah.

MS. MCCORD: -- then no. But as you do know, because | know you were also
were a Federal prosecutor, all criminal offenses do require knowledge and most
require an intent except for strict liability crimes.

MR. GOWDY: All right. Walk us through the application process for a
FISA warrant.

MS. MCCORD: So! should just clarify, | will do that, but | will also -- | want
to make sure that you all are aware that because | was a career DOJ employee,
even when | was the Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security, | did

not have the authority by statute to sign FISA applications, because | was not


27

January of 2017 when Buzz Feed published it.

But I did know that he had come voluntarily to the Bureau with information
that he had obtained through his work that he was being paid for, first by
Republicans, then by Democrats, as opposition research that he thought the
Bureau would be interested in.

MR. GOWDY: | think it was twice you said came to the FBI. Who told you
that Mr. Steele came to the FBI?

MS. MCCORD: | believe | learned that from Mr. McCabe and also through
Stu Evans, the Deputy AAG for the Office of Intelligence, who would have learned
it from someone else in the Bureau. It's possible it was not Mr. McCabe. | have
a recollection of a phone call with him about it.

And came is just sort of my word. | don't know whether -- | mean, to the
extent that suggests physically walked up, I'm not opining on or recalling, or I'm
not sure | ever knew exactly how it was communicated, whether it was an in-
person physical visit, whether it was a phone call, or something else.

MR. GOWDY: Do you think it would make a difference in your deliberative
process if a previously reliable informant had come to the FBI as opposed to the
information being provided by another political party doing opposition research?
They strike me as two kind of different analyses.

MS. MCCORD: | mean, certainly in my entire career as a prosecutor up
until last May, the source of every piece of evidence I've ever sought to rely on, it
was important to me where it came from and whether there was potential -- you
know, how credible it was.

And | would factor everything in that | would expect a court to factor in, and

that would include: Is it coming from a source that might be biased? Is it coming


23

MR. GOWDY: [ns
a

MS.MCCORD: There were not.

MR. GOWDY: Do you recall if there were any FISA applications with
respect to Carter Page?

MS.MCCORD: There was.

MR. GOWDY: How many?

MS. MCCORD: Just -- well, there was an application that was approved in
the fall of 2016. And then it was reapproved after 90 days. It was extended in, |
believe, January of 2017.

MR. GOWDY: Is there both a formal and an informal declination or
rejection policy with the court? Will they allow you to present something
informally and the judge advise you whether or not you have enough? Or is it all
a formal application with a formal acceptance or rejection?

MS. MCCORD: There are times that | know we've sent over read copies
so that the staff can start to get familiar with the read copy. And staff would
advise our attorneys if they thought there might be any issues that would cause
concern before a formal application went over.

But | don't know of any process where the actual judge, the court would,
you know, informally say this is not going to cut it, resubmit it. There were -- like |
said, sometimes there would be dialogue at the staff level.

MR. GOWDY: Were there any --

[Discussion off the record.]

MR. GOWDY: Do you know whether there were any rejections for any of


MR. SCHIFF: Can | just ask you, I'm sorry, before you get into that. The

MS. MCCORD: That's correct.

MR. SCHIFF: What does that mean in terms of what the President was
getting in the interim? That the first [J was held off, did it
subsequently -- was it subsequently amended that day to include information that
might explain it?

MS. MCCORD: Itwas not. It was pulled back and it was not

provided -- at least to the extent | am aware, nothing was then provided to the

President that day on, [lS
SS


18

potential criminal culpability or at least worth investigating and criminal tools like
subpoenas were going to be used, then, of course, you need to open a criminal
investigation because you have to have a grand jury open in order to issue a
subpoena.

MR. GOWDY: There are four pivot points, probably more than four, but
four that | wrote down. The reason that | started with the intrusion into the DNC
server and Podesta's email is that's a pretty clear point for which there could have
been conspiracy or collusion.

MS. MCCORD: Uh-huh.

MR. GOWDY: There's the dissemination of whatever would have been
gathered from that intrusion.

MS. MCCORD: Uh-huh.

MR. GOWDY: And then | guess there's everything else. And | think you
used the phrase influence the election.

MS. MCCORD: Uh-huh.

MR. GOWDY: Was there an investigation, evidence -- which is a word |
like, other people like the word intelligence - of any member of the Trump
campaign conspiring with the hackers of the DNC server and the Podesta email?

MS. MCCORD: At the time | left, that's something that was still under
investigation.

MR. GOWDY: It was still under investigation whether or not the Trump
campaign assisted in the actual intrusion?

MS. MCCORD: Well, | mean | guess you could put it that way. What
| -- what | -- the way | think of itis, it was an active investigation into attributing the

responsible party for the intrusion and making attribution to the responsible party


77

and important. It goes directly to whether or not the fact-finder can believe what
is coming out of the mouth of the witness.

MS. MCCORD: | agree.

MR. GOWDY: So how much of that information was included about Mr.
Steele in the FISA application?

MS. MCCORD: Like | said, | have not read that for over a year, so | cannot
tell you how much. | know everything we knew to include, at least that | was
aware of, was included.

MR. GOWDY: When you say "we," does that include you and the Bureau
or just main Justice?

MS. MCCORD; Well, | can't speak for anything the Bureau knew that
wasn't shared with main Justice. So | can only speak for what information we
were able to glean having asked additional questions and made sure that anything
we had was put in there.

MR. GOWDY: I'm sure no one in the room would do it, but to the extent
there may be an outlier somewhere that is critical of Republicans for asking
questions about the dossier and how it may have come into the hands of the
Bureau, are these irrelevant questions for wanting to ask the Bureau: How did
this witness come forward? How did you vet the sourcing and the subsourcing?
Are those irrelevant, unimportant questions to inquire?

MS. MCCORD: | don't think it's irrelevant or unimportant. | think that
when the affidavit was presented to DOJ, DOJ asked questions about the source
and the subsource and the subsourcing and tried to convey as candidly as
possible what information we had at that time.

! would point out that it is a probable cause determination and not a beyond


62

to actual coordination or conspiracy, or any kind of collusion with the Russian
Government and the Trump campaign in a way -- and this might be out of your
lane -- in a way to assist the Trump campaign from winning the election at

the -- obviously at the expense of the Clinton campaign?

MS. MCCORD: So! think you are -- | want to make sure | understand the
question. Certainly the Intelligence Community assessed that that was the goal
of the Russian establishment was to influence the campaign and through a whole
variety of ways, including the cyber intrusions.

The investigation into whether there was any conspiracy by any members
of the Trump campaign is what was ongoing when | left and certainly wasn't at a
point then to be ready to be charged as --

MR. ROONEY: In May of this year?

MS. MCCORD: [No verbal response.]

MR. ROONEY: Do you think it's possible that with all the active measures
that we have seen, that all those things -- if all those things are true, at the same
time there was also no actual coordination with the Trump campaign to -- and the
Russian Government to collaborate, in some nefarious way, to affect the outcome
of the election against Mrs. Clinton?

Do you think that both those things could be true, that they were
taking -- using RT and Facebook ads and whatever else they were doing as far as
propaganda, but at the same time, they weren't actually coordinating with the
Trump campaign?

MS.MCCORD: That could be true. It could also be true that there was
coordination. That's what the investigation is about.

MR. ROONEY: That's fine.


10

Investigation, which, of course, is part of the Department. And they were involved
in that from a very, you know, early stage.

MR. GOWDY: Would you have also been involved in that?

MS. MCCORD: So | was briefed on that from time to time. | can't recall
the first briefing. And then of course that issue also became an issue that was of
concern to the entire, you know, National Security Council and the National
Security Council staff.

And so in addition to the FBI's investigative role in that matter, there was
also, you know, interest across the National Security Council in what did happen
and what should the government's response be, what should the U.S. response
be.

MR. GOWDY: Would that have fallen more in the counterintelligence or
the criminal side of the ledger or both?

MS. MCCORD: So the FBI would have been looking at it for both,
counterintelligence purposes and to try to determine if we could attribute the
intrusion to any individual that could be potentially charged. So they were, you
know, focused on both of these things.

In terms of the National Security Council and, you know, the different
members and different departments, their work wouldn't have been focused on,
you know, a criminal investigation, it was focused on determining who was
responsible and then how should the U.S. respond to them.

MR. GOWDY: Would Bureau agents ever come to you for advice or
counsel about how to access evidence or whether or not you had enough probable
cause to access evidence?

MS. MCCORD: | guess | would need some clarification on what you mean


incorrect?
MS. MCCORD: No.
MR. SCHIFF: Do you know whether information concerning
MS. MCCORD: It may have been. | just don't fully recall.
MR. SCHIFF: | want to ask you about your involvement in the investigation

vis-a-vis Mr. Flynn, General Flynn.

MS. MCCORD: [i

But in terms of concerns about contacts that might --
MR. QUIGLEY: Excuse me, could | ask if the gentleman will yield just to
clarify?

MR. SCHIFF: Yes.

MR. QUIGLEY: If the question be, do you mean the general election? |
assume that's obvious, but | want to make sure.

MS.MCCORD: Yes.


69
7

MR. HIMES: | guess what | am asking is, because | want to be clear here,
you had talked about more than two sentences with respect to the FISA
application.

MS. MCCORD: Yeah. That's separate.

MR. HIMES: So! am asking about the origination --

MS. MCCORD: Right.

MR. HIMES: -- of the Cl investigation.

MS. MCCORD: Right. | believe there was other information that came

MR. HIMES: Can you be more detailed on that other information?

MS. MCCORD: The problem is, | don't have great recollection about it,
and | worry that | will conflate things | have read in news reporting with what |
actually knew. And | just don't want to do that.

| recall -- what | can -- what | tell you that | recall is information being

But | don't want to get any more specific because | just worry, in the

passage of more than a year, that | will conflate public reporting with what | knew.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Let's shift now to the FISA application process, which
we have been talking a little bit about. And let me ask a few questions about the
process by which an application is submitted under title | of FISA.

Briefly, can you tell me what title | of FISA requires?


71

FBI wants to seek a FISA, they will send over, you know, a preliminary affidavit to
an attorney in the Office of Intelligence, and that begins a process that sometimes
can go on for months to get to a point where the attorney has a comfort level, and
the agent, that the information is reliable and it supports probable cause.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Can you compare how demanding that review is,
say, relative to something we may be more familiar with, the preparation of a, you
know, wiretap application in a State criminal proceeding?

MS. MCCORD: | would say it's very comparable.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Are there multiple layers of review of a FISA
application before it's submitted to the court?

MS. MCCORD: Yes, there are.

MR. HIMES: Can you describe those layers?

MS. MCCORD: So they are -- and | may leave a layer out, to be honest
with you, but the attorney in the Office of Intelligence would complete the
application. It would be submitted to that person's supervisor; | think then yet
another supervisor before it would come across the deputy AAG's desk; and then,
of course, it goes to whomever is signing it, whether it's the AAG, the deputy
attorney general, or the attorney general.

MR. HIMES: So the process until it gets to the deputy AG or other political
appointees is conducted largely or exclusively by professional civil servants?

MS. MCCORD: Yes, exclusively.

MR. HIMES: Exclusively.

MS. MCCORD: In fact, by -- | think it's by statute, that position of deputy
AAG over Office of Intelligence must be a career. Most of the other deputy AAG

positions and principal deputy can be political positions, but not that one.


72

MR. HIMES: Okay. To the extent that you can characterize it, how long
would it typically take to prepare a typical title | FISA application?

MS. MCCORD: Mr. Evans would be better able to answer that, so ! don't
think | can say typical. All | know is it's not a quick process.

MR. HIMES: Are you familiar with --

MS. MCCORD: Now, excuse -- let me make a caveat.

MR. HIMES: Yeah.

MS. MCCORD:

MR. HIMES: Okay. But these were not employed for the FISA application

we are talking about here with respect to Mr. Page?

MS.MCCORD: No. No. No. That's almost always terrorism,
counterterrorism.

MR. HIMES: Yeah. Are you familiar with the FBI so-called "woods"
procedures for FISA applications?

MS. MCCORD: Familiar, but not -- it's not something | have spend a lot of
time with.

MR. HIMES: Under these procedures, can the FBI base a FISA
application on completely unverified allegations?

MS. MCCORD: No.

MR. HIMES: Okay. What happens if the FBI or DOJ makes an error ina


MR. GOWDY: So if it were -- even it were November, there would be one
re-up before you left in May and maybe a second before you left in May.

MS. MCCORD: That's right. So | could be wrong, | could just not be
recalling the second. | believe, though, that the first re-up, | believe Deputy
Attorney General, then Acting Attorney General Yates was still in the office, which
would suggest that it would have been before January 30th, but would have had --

MR. GOWDY: Does there have to be fresh probable cause for a re-up, or
what is the standard by which a judge, a court determines whether to reauthorize?

MS. MCCORD: The court would be looking to whether there was

still -- there wouldn't have to be fresh probable cause. (TT

HE «S Strictly speaking, there wouldn't have to be for a judge

to reauthorize it, but | do recall that there was some of that in this particular case,

MR. GOWDY: Allright. I'm running short of time. No application for

MR. GOWDY: All right. | think | have only got a couple of minutes and I'm

sure | have got colleagues who want to ask you something.

HE There is about a minute left.

MR. ROONEY: Thanks, Mr. Gowdy, for that, yielding. I'll wait until after
the minority goes. So | yield.
_ MR. SCHIFF: Thank you, Ms. McCord, for being here, and thank you for
your service to the country.

| just have a few follow-up questions and then some questions on a




should any issues arise, | just wanted to flag that as we're getting going.

| also wanted to mention, consistent with the committee's rules and my
conversations with staff on both sides, it's certainly our understanding and
expectation that this will remain confidential. But | would just ask that to the
extent any piece of this does not remain confidential, and, again, it's our hope and
expectation that it will, that the NDA that we and Ms. McCord signed this morning
does not present an issue with regard to nonclassified information if there's a
belief that less than the entire context is being provided.

And, Ms. McCord, | know there are no documents that you're intending to
use today. This is obviously based on recollection, some events going back
roughly a year ago or more.

Ms. McCord has spoken with the Special Counsel and also with the Senate
and is relying on her memory here. But | just want to make clear that there are a
lot of dates involved and she doesn't have the benefit of her files or her notes as
we're getting going.

And the last piece is, | wanted to mention that we let the Department know
that she would be coming in and doing this interview.

MR. GOWDY: Very well.

MR. PROBER: Thank you.

MR. GOWDY: Ms. McCord, the committee is looking at four things, four
areas of jurisdiction. What did Russia do with respect to the 2016 election cycle?
With whom, if anyone, did they do it? What was the U.S. Government's
response? And the fourth tranche for purposes of today would be the issue of
maskings and unmaskings, and then the dissemination of classified information.

So our questions will focus on the first couple of those prongs.


lastly, the record will reflect that you're appearing voluntarily for this interview,
which will be under oath.

Ms. McCord, if you could raise your right hand to be sworn.

{Witness sworn.]

HE Thank you.

And just a reminder, when speaking, please make sure the microphone is
on with the green light so that the reporter can transcribe it.

Over to you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CONAWAY: Thank you for being here this morning.

MR. GOWDY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you on behalf of all of us
for being here this morning.

My name is Trey Gowdy, I'm from South Carolina. Tom Rooney is
from -- oh, sorry.

MR. ROONEY: | think he wanted to say something.

MR. PROBER: We can go when you are through.

MR. GOWDY: No. Heavens, no. You gonow. You're being paid more
by the hour than | am, you go.

MR. PROBER: Thanks very much. | just wanted to run through a couple
of housekeeping things before we get started.

As everyone knows, and as I've communicated to staff on both sides, Ms.
McCord's happy to be here and to answer the questions. | just want to make sure
that we're all being mindful of her role as a lawyer and the attendant obligations
there as we are having the conversation. | don't envision any issues arising, but |
wanted to make sure to flag that to the extent anything comes up in that regard.

And then also, of course, open matters and any sensitivity around that,


19

for the dissemination of that information through the Guccifer 2.0 persona.

MR. GOWDY: But you'd agree those are two separate pivot points.
There is the intrusion — and | could have had nothing to do with the intrusion, but
taken full advantage of the fact that somebody else committed a crime.

MS. MCCORD: That's true.

MR. GOWDY: All right. So with those two separate pivot points, and I
think you testified that the matter was still under investigation when you left, what
evidence, regardless of source, regardless of credibility, believability, existed that
any member of the Trump campaign conspired with anyone else to intrude into
either the DNC server or the Podesta email?

MS. MCCORD: | can't recall if there was information -- any information or
evidence at the time | left about conspiring to take part in the actual intrusion.

MR. GOWDY: How about the dissemination of information gathered
during the intrusion?

MS. MCCORD: | can't refer you to any evidence of that as well.

MR. GOWDY: All right. So there's the -- we'll call it a crime, the crime of
the intrusion.

MS. MCCORD: Uh-huh.

MR. GOWDY: Would it be a crime to disseminate information gathered as
a result of someone else's crime?

MS. MCCORD: Itdepends. Itdepends. And maybe you've tried to
embed this in your question. But it depends on what that person who is doing the
disseminating, what their knowledge is about and any wittingness or, | guess,
complicity in the actual intrusion. But | think you've tried to bake into your

question that there wouldn't be any. And | guess knowledge of whether


counterintelligence investigations and terrorism or criminal investigations. Is that
a distinction that you draw? And if so, is there a difference in the way that you
would investigate or manage those categories of cases?

MS. MCCORD: There is a distinction. A criminal investigation is one
where usually from the beginning there is -- reason to beleive, the crime's been
committed. And so from the beginning of the investigation the goal is to
determine whether there is a sufficient quantum of evidence to charge someone
with a criminal offense.

A counterintelligence investigation -- and usually the goal in a criminal
investigation is to get from that starting point to a decision about whether the
evidence is there and, you know, as expeditiously as possible, consistent with the
rule of law.

In a counterintelligence investigation, many of these are not with an eye
toward any types of criminal charges whatsoever. It's in order to obtain
intelligence collection and to determine -- and this might be counterintelligence
investigations regarding potential intelligence officers here in the United States or
elsewhere who are trying to obtain information across a variety of different issues
to share with their own -- with their own governments.

And so, these are oftentimes -- most times, | would say -- not with any kind
of intent or objective of reaching a criminal charge. And so, these might remain
open for years.

MR. GOWDY: Did you have a role or did the Department have a role, if
you know, in investigating the intrusion into the DNC server whenever that may
have taken place?

MS.MCCORD: Yes. So it was primarily through the Federal Bureau of


25

in support of the application, Carter page's case.

MS.MCCORD: Sol am -- this is over a year ago, and | cannot recall with
any great specificity. | do know that it relied on information from Mr. Steele,
Christopher Steele, i) | cdo recall
that was an issue that we discussed, that some of the -- you know, to make it very
clear to the court that for [IIIs
a
Sr. Steele had had a relationship with the

Bureau and they had found him to be credible in the past.

There was also other information that was included in that affidavit, which |
don't have good recall on, but it was not solely Mr. Steele's information or the
information [is

MR. GOWDY: Can you recall what percentage of the affidavit was related
to Mr. Steele and what was related to the stuff you cannot recall? I'm not asking
you to recall something you can't recall. Just from a percentage standpoint, was it
one or two sentences provided by Mr. Steele or 50 percent of the application.

MS. MCCORD: It wasn't one or two sentences, but | can't put a
percentage on it.

MR. GOWDY: Who in the Bureau told you that Mr. Steele had proven to
be a reliable informant in the past?

MS. MCCORD: This, | believe, was in the affidavit. | also -| also had
had conversations with at least one or -- sometimes it's hard for me to remember
whether a conversation was directly with someone at the Bureau or whether it's
something | learned from someone else at NSD that they had talked to the Bureau

about.


EXECUTIVE SESSION

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

WASHINGTON, D.C.

INTERVIEW OF: MARY MCCORD

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Washington, D.C.

The interview in the above matter was held in Room HVC-304, the Capitol,
commencing at 11:12 a.m.

Present: Representatives Conaway, Gowdy, Stefanik, Schiff, Himes,


48

recall he asked. You know, would. it -- was there any restrictions on what they
could do with this information, and Ms. Yates said, no, it wouldn't be right for us to
come over and bring them this and tell them that they couldn't do something with
it. We expected that they would do with it what they saw appropriate to do.

MR. SCHIFF: In terms of chronology, is this before or after the Ignatius
article?

MS. MCCORD: This is after. So the Ignatius article is on the 13th. This
is on the 25th or 26th. It's on, | think, the 26th, actually, a Thursday, now that |
think more about it. And so then we left.

And the next morning, | got a call, I'm pretty sure, from Ms. Yates herself,
direct on my line, | was at the office, saying that Mr. McGahn had called and asked
if we could come back over. He had a few clarifying questions, and she wanted
to make sure | would clear my schedule to go over.

And so | did, and went over with her again. And we went up to
Mr. McGahn's office, and it was the same four people: Mr. McGahn,

Mr. Burnham, myself, and Ms. Yates. And, you know, | didn't take notes at either
one of these meetings, and so | have tried to figure out if I'm conflating things.

| honestly don't remember the second meeting being very much different
than the first meeting. It seems like we pretty much went over -- we pretty much
repeated the same things we talked about.

| had, | mean, just personally, the sense that it was pretty surprising to him
to hear it the previous day, and he just had to process it, and just kind of wanted to
hear again and get also some verification that they really could do what they
wanted; you know, they could use the information that we provided, and we

weren't restricting it.


12

MR. GOWDY: Well, every now and again law enforcement agencies will
ask for access to what they perceive to be evidence. And then when they ask
and don't like the answer, they'll resort to a legal process to access it. Do you
know whether or not they saw the search warrant, discussed one with you, or did
they just ask for it?

MS. MCCORD: For --

MR. GOWDY: To the server.

MS. MCCORD: For access to the server? They did not discuss that with
me.

MR. GOWDY: With respect to whether it's Mr. Podesta's email or whether
it's the DNC server, for those of us that were homicide prosecutors and not other,
more thoughtful, smart stuff, is it a crime to access someone's server and to
intrude in someone's server? Are there potential crimes that would have been
committed in connection with that?

MS. MCCORD: There are computer crimes that involve unauthorized
access to, you know, servers, computers, other types of cyber.

MR. GOWDY: What are the elements of those offenses? Do you recall
what --

MS. MCCORD: | don't have the statute book in front of me.

MR. GOWDY: Would that be true for both an email account and a server?
Would they both be --

MS. MCCORD: | believe both are those that could be the subject of
unauthorized access that could give rise to potential charges.

MR. GOWDY: Allright. So if you've answered this, | apologize, but | want

to ask it again. Were there open criminal investigations with respect to the breach


11

by access evidence.

MR. GOWDY: Search warrant.

MS. MCCORD: Well, obviously they -- | shouldn't say obviously. The Bureau
would come to a prosecutor for a search warrant. And so if it is a national
security matter that is reporting up through the National Security Division, they
would typically be working with not only a lawyer either in counterterrorism
section or our counterintelligence and export control section -- we have attorneys
in both -- but also usually with an assistant United States attorney at one of the
U.S. Attorney's Offices in the country that would have, you know, jurisdiction over
the event.

And that's because a process like a search warrant, we would -- we at the
National Security Division -- would need to be using -- have an open case and
take that to a judge and we would work with an assistant U.S. attorney.

MR. GOWDY: Confusion is probably too strong a word, but there is a lack
of clarity, at least on some of our behalfs, of whether or not the U.S. Government
had access to the DNC server during the pendency of this investigation. Do you
know whether or not they did and whether or not any U.S. Government entity
sought access to the server?

MS. MCCORD: | do not know the answer to whether the Bureau or other
U.S. Government entity had access to the server. What I'm aware of with regard
to the Bureau's investigation is that from an early point in time they reached out to
officials at the DNC to make them aware of intrusions that had taken place and
they did that over a series of different contexts, without getting a lot
of -- cooperation is maybe too strong of a word -- but without getting -- making a

lot of progress in terms of attention to the issue.


61

a statute that hadn't been used ever, you know, in 200 years on the books, and
that we imagined that in many incoming administrations, it's probably pretty
common for incoming officials to reach out to who their counterparts are in
advance of the transition to just sort of say we want to start developing a
relationship.

So | think a lot of us were -- when | say "us," | am talking about like senior
DOJ-level people talking with senior FBI people, sort of hesitant to think -- | mean,
certainly it formed the basis of the about to do a criminal investigation. There's no
question about that. It would appear to violate that statute. But we weren't sure
that it would ever be something as a matter of discretion that a prosecutor would
determine to indict.

Hive.

MS. MCCORD: And the reason | focus on this is just because to the
extent there was ever time we started talking about a criminal investigation, the
only thing | can recall specific timing was is with regard to General Flynn and the
fact that that -- those conversations certainly did seem to violate this statute.

And if | could just clarify one -- my previous response on the sanctions

package.

MR. ROONEY: With regard to all that -- the active measures that you all
were tracking, and even leading up to the Flynn phone call, was there any

evidence that you saw during your time in government that this transcended over


44

referring to because | hadn't briefed her yet. And when | briefed her on what | had
learned from Deputy Director McCabe, then it made sense to her that that must
have been what they were referring to.

But | don't know -- | can't tell you the extent of what Director Comey briefed
to the President, because | wasn't there and also because Deputy Attorney
General Yates also didn't know exactly what had been briefed, if that makes
sense.

MR. SCHIFF: Yeah.

MR. PROBER: Just to put a point on that, and | know this is clear from the
discussion, but this was Ms. McCord's recollection and perception of the
conversation with Ms. Yates --

MS. MCCORD: Right.

MR. PROBER: -- of her recollection and perception --

MS. MCCORD: Yeah.

MR. PROBER: -- so multiple levels of potential ambiguity.

MR. SCHIFF: And so tell us when then the notification was made to the
incoming administration.

MS. MCCORD: So after Vice President-elect Pence did his interview on
Face the Nation that's when we began discussing trying to figure out a point of
contact in the incoming administration to convey this to.

We were not really able to accomplish that before the inauguration. So the
week after the inauguration, Ms. Yates made the decision that we would go and
brief Don McGahn. And so she reached out to ask him if he would take an
appointment, and on Thursday the -- is it the 26th? -- the Thursday after the

inauguration, we went to Mr. McGahn's office and did a briefing that is


32

facts.

MR. SCHIFF: And depending on the facts, if the Russians offered
assistance to the campaign in the form of stolen emails and the campaign
accepted that assistance and the Russians took certain actions to follow through
on that agreement, that could constitute the crime of conspiring to violate the
campaign election laws.

MS. MCCORD: | think it probably could.

MR. SCHIFF: A number of us sat down with Bill Priestap yesterday. Did
you work with Bill during your time at DOJ?

MS. MCCORD: | did.

MR. SCHIFF: And what was his position?

MS. MCCORD: So he was the assistant director over counterintelligence.

MR. SCHIFF: And was he intimately involved in the preparation of the
FISA pertaining to Carter Page?

MS. MCCORD: | believe so. | did not have a lot of discussions with Bill
Priestap at that time about that, but logically he's the one who would have
been -- he was the one in charge of counterintelligence at the time and I'm sure he
had great visibility into that.

MR. SCHIFF: And if he had contemporaneous access to the FISA
applications and a chance to review them, would his recollection be more fresh
than your own about what would be in the FISA application?

MS. MCCORD: Absolutely.

MR. SCHIFF: If it was his view that a substantial part of the FISA
application, indeed more than half of the FISA application was based on sources

not involving Mr. Steele, would you have any reason to believe that that was


49

MR. SCHIFF: Did he give you any indication on the second date that you
had this conversation that he had communicated the information to the President?

MS. MCCORD: He did not.

MR. SCHIFF: Did he tell you anyone else he'd shared it with at the
White House?

MS.MCCORD: He did not. In fact, | did not have the sense it had been
shared because | felt like part of the reason he asked us to come again is to clarify
that they could use the information.

MR. SCHIFF: And what would have been your next involvement with
respect to General Flynn and this issue?

MS.MCCORD: So the next involvement was -- the next day was a
Saturday, and | got an email at about 5:30 that evening. | saw it on my phone
because | was out. My sister and brother-in-law had come to town, and we were
going to see their -- my niece perform, and we were out for a very early dinner.

And my phone indicated | had an incoming email. And | looked at my
phone, and the email said that it was from General Mike Flynn at his Executive
Office of the President email address. That is the email address.

The body of the email said that it was from John Eisenberg. It said that he
was writing to me as the deputy White House counsel for the National Security
Council. He'd been asked to follow up with me regarding matters that I'd spoken
to Don McGahn about, and he was asking if we could have a secure call the
following morning. And then he signed it John Eisenberg.

So | was confused, because the email came from General Flynn's email
address. | recall scrolling up and down several times just to make sure | was

correct. And | did not want to respond directly to General Flynn because it


31

somewhat different topic.

| think Director Comey had testified in open session that the DNC had
offered essentially the forensic blueprint of their server done by one of the private
reputable cybersecurity firms and that was sufficient for what the Bureau's needs
were. Do you have any reason to believe that wasn't accurate?

MS. MCCORD: No, | don't.

MR. SCHIFF: Do you know whether the FBI, in fact, even asked for the
server or whether what they were being offered was sufficient?

MS. MCCORD: | don't.

MR. SCHIFF: In terms of the potential offenses that may be involved when
a foreign government intervenes in our election and the crime of conspiracy, the
crime of conspiracy may be related to conspiring to violate certain election laws in
that context, is that one of the forms that a conspiracy might take?

MS. MCCORD: Right. |! mean conspiracy on its own has to be tied to
some other crime, a conspiracy to commit some type of a crime. So
that's -- that's one possibility.

MR. SCHIFF: So if a foreign government making expenditures during a
Presidential campaign violated U.S. election laws, a conspiracy to work with a
foreign government in the provision of that assistance would be a crime as well?

MS. MCCORD: That's right.

MR. SCHIFF: In the circumstances here, whether the campaign was
involved in the actual break in of the Democratic Party computers wouldn't
preclude it from criminal liability if after the fact it entered into a conspiracy with
Russians to make use of the illegally obtained information on Hillary Clinton.

MS. MCCORD: That's correct -- that could be correct, depending on the


68

must the FBI, to begin a Cl investigation, corroborate all of its information before
an investigation begins?

MS. MCCORD: | would assume not. Again, | don't know exactly what
the DIOG says on opening a Cl investigation, and | apologize for that. But!
didn't -- | was not ever part of the initial decisions to open a Cl investigation, and
that's not something that required any approval from DOJ.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Did anyone at NSD or you personally play a role in
the decision to begin the FBI's Cl investigation into Russian meddling and related
issues in the summer of 2016?

MS. MCCORD: Not me, and no one at DOJ that | am aware of.

MR. HIMES: Okay.

MS. MCCORD: Now--lamsorry. On the cyber side, when the intrusions
became known, | don't know that there was any direction, because it was clear,
you know, everyone at the Bureau, at DOJ, | mean, it was obvious that was going
to be investigated. It was -- it was what appeared to be a nation state-sponsored
cyber attack, and those are things that we investigate very readily.

My answer no was with respect to the other Cl investigations of the
individuals that | had discussed earlier today. | am not aware of anyone at DOJ
directing or asking for those to be open.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Let me push you a little bit on an answer you gave
earlier to the question as to the role that the Steele information played in the
investigation. And do | have that right? Was the Steele information, him coming
forward, was that important to the start of the investigation?

MS. MCCORD: My understanding from the Bureau is that, yes, that was

one piece -- well, actually, | don't know the timing of what came first.


But before we get into that, 2015, 2016, what was your title, what was your
role and responsibilities at the Department?

MS. MCCORD: Sot came over to the National Security Division at the
Department from the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. in the spring of 2014, as the
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. That was a career position. And|
remained career throughout my tenure at the National Security Division.

So in 2015 and 2016 until October, | was the Principal Deputy. In October
of 2016, when John Carlin, then the Assistant Attorney General, departed the
government, | became the Acting Assistant Attorney General, but still held my title
as Principal Deputy.

So in the role both as Principal Deputy and as an Acting Assistant Attorney
General, | had responsibility, of course, when John was there, with John,

Mr. Carlin, for supervising the 350-plus attorneys and staff in the division, and that
covered areas of counterterrorism prosecutions, counter-espionage and export
control prosecutions, national security cyber prosecutions, the Office of
Intelligence, which is where all of the work in front of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court is done, and also the law and policy shop, which is a group of
lawyers that did policy work, to include proposed legislation, working with folks on
Capitol Hill on testimony and other things on national security-related issues,
authorities -- intelligence authorities.

And also those were the lawyers who helped prepare me and Mr. Carlin,
the Deputy Attorney General, and the Attorney General for National Security
Council meetings on issues of national security across a wide spectrum.

MR. GOWDY: From time to time at least some folks in the media and

even of us that aren't experts like you are will draw a distinction between


22

Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. So although | was the head of
the National Security Division for 6 months, | did not sign FISAs. Those did have
to go to someone who was Presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed and
statutorily given the responsibility and authority to sign those.

But typically when the FBI had information that it had put together into an
application to seek a FISA, it would work with attorneys in the Office of Intelligence
at the National Security Division to make sure -- who would go through the FISA
application and work with the agents to determine whether it was sufficient and
had necessary probable cause and met the other necessary criteria under the
FISA statute.

Sometimes they would be turned away, if those requisite standards couldn't
be met. Other times modifications might be made. Sometimes it was a process
that would go on for weeks or even months to, you know, put together the entire
FISA application.

Once the attorney in the Office of Intelligence was satisfied that the
application met the statutory requirements, that would be approved by various
supervisors within the Office of Intelligence, to include the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Intelligence. And then it would go to whomever
the signer was going to be.

So when John Carlin was still the AAG, he would sign, unless he was out of
town and unavailable, in which case it would go up to the Deputy Attorney

General. And if that person was unavailable, it would go to the Attorney General.

MR. GOWDY:
es

MS, MCCORD: [SS
=


59

before it was going to FISA?

MS. MCCORD: Well, | don't know if you would call this a red flag. | know
that Mr. Evans and | discussed making sure that we -- that the application would
be very clear to the court about what's, you know -- which sources are sources
with whom the FBI has, you know, personal knowledge and personal experience,
direct experience, and which are sub sources that the FBI doesn't have its own,
you know, personal knowledge of, and can't independently, you know, verify the
veracity of.

MR. ROONEY: Okay. | want to switch gears, because one of the prongs
of our --

MS. MCCORD: Andlam sorry. | don't mean to interrupt you --

MR. ROONEY: No. Go ahead.

MS. MCCORD: - but! also - | think | indicated maybe earlier that | read a
draft of the affidavit. It was modified -- and we had some of these discussions we
are talking about, and it was modified thereafter, not as a result of court, but just
our own internal DOJ discussions. But | never read the final draft that went to
the -- that went for approval.

MR. ROONEY: One of our focuses on this investigation in our role as
oversight for the Intelligence Community is to try to figure out how we respond to
the Russian active measures in the last election cycle. What role, if any, did you
have in advising the prior administration on how to respond to Russian -- the
Russian active measure campaign?

MS.MCCORD: So! began going to, you know, deputies committee
meetings, certainly through the fall as the discussions were taking place among

the National Security Council deputies about what would be appropriate


66

MR. HIMES: Okay.

MS. MCCORD: There still would be criteria for opening it. It's just | am not
sure it's staggered the same way it is on the criminal side.

MR. HIMES: Okay. How much does the FBI have to know for certain
about a counterintelligence threat before opening an investigation?

MS. MCCORD: | don't know. | don't know exactly what their criteria for
openings says. | mean, certainly by the time you seek anything like a FISA, you
have very specific authorities and standards that have to be met.

MR. HIMES: Yeah. We will come to that hopefully.

Who at FBI would make a decision -- and in this particular case, J
EE ho at FBI would have made the decision to
commence a Cl investigation?

MS. MCCORD: So |! don't know for sure if it -- so | probably shouldn't
opine, except that if, you know, there are a lot of different squads responsible for
different counterintelligence threats at the Bureau. And those agents assigned to
that particular threat monitor very closely what's happening in that area. And if
they think they need to open something, | think they would push that up to their
superiors to open them.

And that's not always something that would be shared with DOJ's lawyers
and National Security Division, unlike criminal investigations, where you would
have interactivity with prosecutors pretty early. That's not necessarily the case at
the very -- at the beginning of a counterintelligence investigation.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Thank you.

Do either FBI or DOJ authorities allow either the FBI or the DOJ to take

political considerations or the preference of a politician, the preference of a party


39

Obviously, we knew about Carter Page because there had been a FISA.
But | had never gotten sort of a full briefing on these counterintelligence
investigations and what happened since then.

MR. SCHIFF: And this was a full briefing you were getting from the
Bureau?

MS. MCCORD: That's right. So it was -- Bill Priesatep came over, Pete
Strzok, and then, | believe, Trisha Anderson from the general counsel's office,
and maybe one other person with general counsel.

And they wanted to outline for a few of us in the Department, a very small
circle from the Deputy Attorney General's Office, and then my office, sort of like
the status of the investigation and what they had done so far.

And the Friday morning of January 13, much to our surprise -- and | didn't
even know this. | hadn't seen this come out. But on January 12, in the evening,
online, David Ignatius had published a piece that indicated that there had been
calls between Ambassador Kislyak and General Flynn about this. But the
substance was not in these -- was not in this newspaper article.

We were all pretty shocked. So | learned of that during the briefing when
somebody said that -- have you seen the David Ignatius article? And | had not
seen it, and that was then made available. And we were all pretty shocked that
this would already be in the press.

At any rate, we had our briefing. And then | believe that night -- because


79

MS. MCCORD: You're welcome.

MR. SWALWELL: Thank you, Ms. McCord, for your service and for
coming in today.

When you left in May, what was the status of General Flynn's case? Was
it open or closed?

MS. MCCORD: It was open.

MR. SWALWELL: How about Mr. Manafort's.

MS. MCCORD: Open.

MR. SWALWELL: How about Mr. Page?

MS.MCCORD: Open.

MR. SWALWELL: And we know now with Mr. Papadopoulos.

In your 28 years of experience at the Department of Justice, particularly in
the National Security Division, have you ever seen a Presidential campaign with
so many contacts with a foreign adversary? Have you ever seen that before?
Has that ever been presented to you before?

MS. MCCORD: | was not at any NSD during any other campaign, so |
really can't answer. And just to be clear, just because this is recorded, | think |
began with DOJ in 1994, so that would be like 23 years. | have 27 years in
government, but not all of it at DOJ.

MR. SWALWELL: Was it ever discussed to give the Trump campaign a
defensive briefing, to alert them that people on their team had these contacts, like
Mr. Papadopoulos or Mr. Page?

MS.MCCORD: So during the -- if we're talking about like sort of during the
fall, that was never discussed with me. There were other defensive briefings that

were provided with respect -- not with respect to Russia at all, but with respect to a


this made the press -- | believe Sean Spicer might have been asked about it that
night, and indicated that there were no -- there was no discussion of sanctions.
But more concerning for our purposes was that on Sunday, the 15th, Vice
President-elect Pence went on Face the Nation and was asked about these
conversations, and specifically said -- although I'm paraphrasing here, | don't have
it in front of me -- that he had discussed this with General Flynn, and General
Flynn had assured him that the conversations were not about the expulsion of

diplomats or the Russian sanctions.

MR. SCHIFF: And when -- what decision was made on the basis of that,
and who made the decision to brief the White House?

MS. MCCORD: So we began discussing this within DOJ, and several of
us felt strongly that we should brief someone in the White House, let someone

know that this statement that the Vice President-elect had made was not true.


55

ES Seneral Flynn?

MS. MCCORD: | don't remember if this came from Mr. McCabe or later in

a briefing from Mr. Priestap or others, but | believe the basis for that had been,

you know,]

MR. SCHIFF: Mr. Himes.

MR. HIMES: How much time do we have?

HR 10 minutes, sir.

MR. HIMES: All right. In the spirit of that, why don't we pass, and if we
want to take a break, that's fine.

MR. ROONEY: Do you want a break?

MS.MCCORD: Yeah.

MR. PROBER: We'll take a couple minutes.

[Recess.]

MR. GOWDY: Ms. McCord, the email that you were making reference to,
Mr. Eisenberg, Mr. Schiff was asking you about, do you have access to that still, or
can you direct us where we could go to gain access to that email exchange?

MS. MCCORD: So it should be in -- | mean, it is a Justice Department
unclassified email, so to the extent you have had access to Justice Department
emails, it should be in that collection. But | also do have access to it that we can
make -- provide to you.

MR. PROBER: Yeah. | am happy to sort of follow up with the committee
on that and have a discussion.

i. based on our prior discussion, | had mentioned to you that she


28

from a source with whom | have a previous relationship and have established
reliability before? And all the other facts and circumstances that one would use to
assess the reliability of the information.

MR. GOWDY: If that analysis would be true for sources, would it also be
true for subsources?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.

MR. GOWDY: Were you able to vet, corroborate, contradict any of the
information provided by Mr. Stecle

MS. MCCORD: You're asking me personally?

MR. GOWDY: Yes, ma’am.

MS. MCCORD: That was not -- | personally am not an investigator and
wasn't an investigatory agent, so | personally did not corroborate information
through other investigations.

MR. GOWDY: From time to time in the old days we would ask law
enforcement officers: How do you know that? How did you come into contact
with that information? Do you recall asking the FBI: How do you know?

MS.MCCORD: Certainly that was done. Now, recall the conversations
are usually going on -- what | know about this is coming to me through those who
are responsible for the day-to-day back and forth with the agents. And Stu and |
certainly -- Stu Evans certainly talked about questions we had on, you know, the
application and questions to go back to the Bureau with. | was not the one doing
that.

So when you asked me before did | corroborate, | took that as me
personally, Mary McCord, and | did not go and try to do my own investigation and

corroborate. These are questions that certainly we were discussing with the


58

don't know if Mr. Gowdy already asked this, but were you or the Bureau, were you
aware, retrospectively, that he was being employed at that point by a private firm?

MS. MCCORD: What! became aware of was that this research that he
was providing to the Bureau he had obtained in the course of his employment,
private employment for the purpose of doing opposition research. Whether he
was still under contract with that private entity at the time, which |, at some point,
learned was Fusion GPS, but certainly not at the beginning, whether he was still
employed by that entity at the time he brought the information to the Bureau, |
don't know.

MR. ROONEY: So they are relying on this guy based on, | think you said,
you know, their relationship prior. Do you have any knowledge as to what
that -- why that relationship was seen as something that they could rely on this guy
historically? Like why was he a reliable source, in your opinion?

MS. MCCORD: Well, my recollection is that -- and this would have been
included in the affidavit -- is that he had provided information previously which had
been verified, and so that's pretty typical in law enforcement for, you know, finding
somebody to be a credible source.

MR. ROONEY: And was this -- | mean, as far as you know, was this
information verified as well for this occasion?

MS. MCCORD: Well, there was a variety of information that Mr. Steele
provide

| it would -- and that -- you know, that's information that was included in
the affidavit. Like they are very explicit when it's an unverified source or
unverified reporting versus when it --

MR. ROONEY: Did anybody raise any red flags about this information like


67

into account in deciding whether to undertake an investigation?

MS. MCCORD: No.

MR. HIMES: Okay. During your 28-year career at DOJ, are you aware of
FBI or DOJ bringing a counterintelligence investigation in order to damage or
undercut a political candidate or opponent?

MS. MCCORD: No.

MR. HIMES:

MS. MCCORD: | can't answer that.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Is it at least possible that a counterintelligence -- that
counterintelligence information could come from a biased source, as is sort of to
what Mr. Gowdy was alluding to, someone who has been paid off and still be
reliable?

MS. MCCORD: Yes, of course.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Can you give me an example of that?

MS. MCCORD: On an intelligence investigation? | mean, | can't give you
a specific example. | can certainly tell you in years of prosecuting that in
prosecuting criminal cases, oftentimes our -- you know, the sources that
prosecutors rely on have got some baggage, either bias-related or otherwise,
and you deal with that.

MR. HIMES: So in opting to begin a Cl investigation, just about beginning
an investigation, is it common for the FBI to scrutinize the sources of its
information?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.

MR. HIMES: And just to be a little bit repetitive to a previous question,


HE Good morning. This is a transcribed interview of Mary
McCord.

Thank you for speaking to us today.

For the record, | an senior counsel at the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence for the majority. There are also various
Members and staff present who will introduce themselves as the proceedings go
on. But before we begin, | wanted to state a few things for the record.

The questioning will be conducted by Members and staff present. During
the course of this interview Members and staff may ask questions during their
allotted time period. Some questions may seem basic, but that is because we
need to clearly establish facts and understand the situation. Please do not
assume we know any facts you have previously disclosed as part of any other
investigation or review.

This interview will be conducted at the Top Secret/SCl level.

During the course of this interview we will take any breaks that you desire.

We ask that you give complete and fulsome replies to questions based on
your best recollections. If a question is unclear or you're uncertain in your
response, please let us know. And if you do not know the answer to a question or
simply cannot remember, just say so.

You're entitled to have counsel present for this interview, and | see that
you've brought them. At this time, if counsel can make their appearances for the
record.

MR. PROBER: Raphael Prober, from Akin Gump.


47

MR. SCHIFF: And this would have been, if you know, prior to the
President's asking Director Comey, or after the President's asking Director Comey
to state publicly that he was not under investigation?

MR. GOWDY: Who is he?

MS. MCCORD: He, meaning the President, not under investigation?

MR. SCHIFF: Yeah.

MS. MCCORD: | think it's before that, but I'd have to be -- I'd have to
refresh with that date. It had to be before that. If I'm recalling correctly, that
was during -- no. | guess the President discussed it in that interview with Lester
Holt, but I'm forgetting. I'm not recalling the date.

MR. SCHIFF: | think it was discussed multiple times, | guess, between the
President and the director. But in any event, the White House counsel was
informed it would not be appropriate for you to answer that question to him, let
alone publicly.

MS. MCCORD: Yeah. | should clarify, he wasn't asking about any
criminal investigation into anyone other than Flynn. He was asking would it be
okay for me to ask if there's a -- if he's under -- he, General Flynn, was under
criminal investigation. He didn't ask more broadly.

MR. SCHIFF: Correct. But the principle, | presume, would be the same?

MS. MCCORD: The principle would be the same. | just wanted to make
sure | hadn't misled and suggested that he asked about the President, because he
had not.

MR. SCHIFF: And I'm sorry, you were going to finish what questions he
had for you.

MS.MCCORD: And there may have been others, but these are what |


45

substantially what Ms. Yates has testified about previously.

MR. SCHIFF: And was Mr. McGahn the only one present from the
White House for the briefing?

MS.MCCORD: No. There was Mr. McGahn and James Burnham, who |
was introduced to for the first time that morning or afternoon. | think it was
morning.

MR. SCHIFF: What was his position?

MS. MCCORD: He was in the White House counsel's office. | don't remember

what his title was. | mean, he is an attorney, but | don't recall -- | think deputy

White House counsel. So it was Mr. McGahn, Mr. Burnham, myself, and Ms.

Yates.

MR. SCHIFF: And what was White House counsel's reaction when you informed
them of the conversations Flynn had had with the Russian ambassador?

MS. MCCORD: | think he seemed very surprised. They both seemed
very surprised. They -- you know, it was not a long conversation, I'd say about
15 minutes. Ms. Yates did the talking. | interjected maybe once to clarify
something, and | can't even recall at this point what it was.

She let them know that we were there because we, you know, had heard

what the Vice President-elect had said on national television in response to the

questions about the conversations between General Flynn and Ambassador

And we explained the reason, because



70

MS. MCCORD: Well, it requires that the target be an agent of a foreign
power, and that there be probable cause that the target is an agent of a foreign
power. And so -- go ahead.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Is it also true that a FISA matter cannot ever be
initiated solely on the basis of First Amendment activities?

MS. MCCORD: That's true.

MR. HIMES: Okay. So if the government simply thinks a U.S. person's
associations are sketchy, the government cannot use that alone as the basis to
conduct a FISA electronic surveillance?

MS. MCCORD: Yes. Sketchy wouldn't be a criteria in the statute.

MR. HIMES: So can you just briefly describe your overall experience at
NSD with the FISA process?

MS. MCCORD: So, you know, it's probably the area of NSD that | was the
least involved with, because | was not a person with authority to sign FISAs. And
Stu Evans, who'd been in the Office of Intelligence for many, many years, was so
expert on this. | deferred a lot to him.

| was much more involved with our CTS and CES prosecutions and our law
and policy piece and some of the National Security Council pieces, just because
that was more in my area of expertise, frankly.

MR. HIMES: Okay. That said, you know, based on the experience that
you do have, let me just ask a couple of questions around your view of the rigor
involved in this process, starting with how closely do FBI and DOJ review
assertions of fact in a FISA application before they take that application to the
court?

MS. MCCORD: Well, | mean, quite thoroughly. It's -- like | said, when the


15

briefings on this -- this aspect, the Cl aspect, as opposed to the cyber aspect of
this -- | was the Acting Assistant Attorney General. So | was not the one dealing
on a day-to-day basis with the Bureau. So | -- my counterparts at the Bureau
often were either Andy McCabe or on cyber or Cl matters Bill Priestap -- not cyber,
but on Cl matters Bill Priestap. On the counterintelligence side it would have
been Carl Ghattas -- | mean on the counterterrorism side it would have been Carl
Ghattas.

The briefings -- we began to have more regular -- well, regular briefings on
the Cl investigations at the beginning of this calendar year, in January, and had
really sort of our first soup-to-nuts kind of briefing either the first Friday or the
second Friday in January. | just can't recall anymore which it was. And we
would have these weekly or biweekly, up really until about the time | departed.

And those were usually done not by Mr. McCabe, but by Mr. Priestap and
agents and supervisory agents and | think the deputy AD, or maybe it was the AD,
I'm not sure, Pete Strzock -- Pete Strzock. And then sometimes there would be
someone from the FBI's general counsel present at the briefings.

MR. GOWDOY: (i Would those have
been opened as separate matters or one matter?

MS. MCCORD: You'd really need to talk to the Bureau about that. i

SS
SS

MR. GOWDY: In what way? II
SS
ES

MS. MCCORD: Well, certainly by early January there was the potential


57

MR. PROBER: It's easy to remember.

MR. ROONEY: A couple follow-up questions from Trey and then | am just
going to ask you a few questions of my own, if | might.

With regard to Mr. Steele and the FISA application, do you know if it made it
through the FISA court unscathed, or do you know if it was rejected at any point,
and if so, why?

MS. MCCORD: | don't have any reason to believe it was rejected at any
point.

MR. ROONEY: Do you know if there was ever any problems with it?

MS. MCCORD: | don't believe there were ever any problems with it.

MR. ROONEY: Would that application -- do you know or think that that
application would have had probable cause to authorize surveillance if you
removed the information provided from Mr. Steele?

MS. MCCORD: | would have to see the application again to opine on that.
| should also just be clear that when | say | don't believe it ever was turned down
or was ever -- had to have modifications, | say that based on | certainly don't recall
that, and it's something that | feel pretty confident Mr. Evans would have told me.
But it's possible | am not recalling or that somebody didn't tell me. It's just | don't
recall there being any issues with the court on that application.

MR. ROONEY: Are you aware of any DOJ or FBI employee who met or
talked with Mr. Steele, either in person or over electronic means?

MS. MCCORD: Well, | know that FBI did talk to Mr. Steele because he
provided information, but | don't know which employee, if that's your question.

MR. ROONEY: Right. Yeah. Well, you'd said before that Mr. Steele had

been considered, | think, by the Bureau as a credible source historically. And!


63

BEE Ore minute.

MR. GOWDY: Real quickly, | will try to do this in 1 minute. | will go back
to the courtroom days. You may have an informant that's working off charges;
that's kind of one concern in front of the jury. You have got an informant who's
being paid; that's another concern in front of a jury. And then you have got these
rare informants that just want to be solid citizens, and they come forward, and
that's not that much of a concern in front of a jury.

Assume information can be correct or incorrect regardless of who the
source is. An enemy could provide accurate information; a friend could lie about
you. So those two aren't super-related.

With respect to Steele, | am trying to figure out whether the
Bureau -- whether he approached the Bureau as a former informant, as a
concerned citizen, or as someone who worked for a private entity called Fusion
GPS. Do you know how the Bureau took that initial call from Steele?

MS.MCCORD: So you would have to ask the Bureau that. All | can tell
you is the way it was conveyed to me, it was a concerned citizen who knew who to
reach out to because he had had a private -- a previous, you know, relationship
with the Bureau. It wasn't Fusion GPS has asked me to pass it along or anything
remotely like that, at least as conveyed to me.

MR. GOWDY: All right. | don't want to intrude on their time. This is the
last question.

Who would the Bureau -- understanding you would have been second or
third removed, who at the Bureau could answer that question of how Steele first
manifests himself to the Bureau in this fact pattern?

MS. MCCORD: Yeah. | would think that Mr. Priestap would be able to


17

MS.MCCORD: From a criminal investigative perspective, | would use the
word conspiracy.

MR. GOWDY: Allright. For purposes of you and |, to the extent | can
remember I'm going to use the word conspiracy instead of collusion. Although I'm
going to have to backtrack because you used the word collusion.

Investigating collusion, between whom and to do what?

MS. MCCORD: So as you recall, we discussed that this was opened as a
counterintelligence investigation initially. So | think that's part of that, and, frankly,
just what's been in the media is why a lot of people have sort of shorthanded this
to refer to Russian collusion.

And for counterintelligence purposes, when the objective is not necessarily
to lead to criminal charges, words like that could be used in that community to
determine whether there was what would be commonly referred to as collusion, |
think.

And so a lot of, | think, what the Bureau was looking at when it first opened
was to determine, you know, what efforts, if any, were made to anyone associated
with the Trump campaign to collude with, conspire with those within the Russian
administration to influence the election. And so that's the kind of context | think
that I'm using that term.

When we talk about conspiracy, we're talking -- to me, when | talk about
conspiracy, I'm talking about is there evidence of a conspiracy that could lead to
criminal charges.

And just to go back to, | don't know if this is to correct or clarify an earlier
response, in terms of the timing, when the first -- in the course of our briefings on

these matters early in 2017, when it became clear that there could be some


Appearances:

For the PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE:

For MARY MCCORD:

RAPHAEL ADAM PROBER, ESQ.

MARTINE CICCONI, ESQ.

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
ROBERT S. STRAUSS BUILDING

1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20036-1564


[12:13 p.m.]
MS. MCCORD: | asked Mr. McCabe for -- and, of course, by this point, it's

January. General Flynn has been announced that he will be the incoming

national security adviser, and so | asked Mr. McCabe (NS
i

es
LT Me
a

MR. SCHIFF: Do you know what date that would have been?

MS. MCCORD: | don't know what date it would have been. It's early
January, within the first 2 weeks of January. | think probably within the first
week -- probably within like the first 10 days of January.

The next morning | -- that night, | didn't try to contact the Deputy Attorney
General, Sally Yates, because it was in the evening, and | knew | couldn't speak
to her. | don't think she was there in the office anymore. And this is not
information | could convey over an unclassified cell phone, and | wanted to talk to
her in person about it, so | thought | would do that the next morning.

The next morning, | was able to talk to the Deputy Attorney General, Sally
Yates. | conveyed to her what Andy had conveyed, plus by then, of course, | had
HEE and shared those with her. She then asked that we request the
EE which | did, and which ultimately were
provided.

MR. SCHIFF: What happened after that in terms of the concerns about

General Flynn?

MS. MCCORD: So on January 13, which was a Friday, was one of our


80

few people that -- some other involvement not related to Russia that | can
remember discussing with the Bureau.

MR. SWALWELL: At any point during your time at DOJ, during the
Presidential campaigns, both primary and general, did anybody, to your
knowledge, come forward to the FBI or DOJ and say, we have seen these
contacts or we have been approached by Russians with information on hacked
emails? Does that question make sense? Other than an FBI --

MS. MCCORD: Other than the briefings we've talked about?

MR. SWALWELL: -- or other than a law enforcement official, did any
citizen or --

MS. MCCORD: Not that I'm aware of.

MR. SWALWELL: And what I'm referring to is evidence has come out and
Mr. Papadopoulos's stipulation of facts said that, you know, he was approached
about dirt on Secretary Clinton. You've seen the emails with Don Jr. and Kushner
and Manafort where they were approached about dirt on Secretary Clinton.

Did anyone proactively, to your knowledge, go to the FBI or DOJ saying
that they were contacted about Russians having information on the Secretary?
Other than Mr. Steele.

MS. MCCORD: Yeah, right. I'm assuming other than Mr. Steele.

Not me, not anybody at DOJ. | do recall -- and | don't know if this person
came forward independently or if this is somebody that the Bureau reached out to
talk to. And it may -- and I've been wondering since | read some of the
documents about Mr. Papadopoulos's case, this professor. | believe there is a
professor that the Bureau talked with. Again, | don't know if that's a professor

who had come to them independently or they went to him and | don't know if it is


26

But | do believe at one point | had a conversation -- | believe with Andy
McCabe -- about the fact that Christopher Steele had been -- was, of course, a
GER but had been a previous FBI source and someone they'd found to
be credible.

MR. GOWDY: Do you recall if the Bureau let you know whether Mr. Steele
was acting in his capacity as a Bureau informant or, | don't know, hypothetically
working for a private entity when he gathered the information?

MS. MCCORD: So | learned at some point -- and | can't recall exactly
when | learned it. In other words, | don't know if | learned this before the Carter
Page affidavit or whether | learned it after.

But | learned that Mr. Steele had originally -- had come to the Bureau with
information that he had gathered originally because he had been contracted
by -- to do opposition research -- contracted by a Republican source to do
opposition research -- | believe this to have been during the primaries -- on Mr.
Trump.

And that later, after it became clear that Mr. Trump was going to be the
candidate for the Republicans, that that -- | don't know if it was the same contract
was taken over -- but his work continued, now being paid by a Democratic source.
And that at some point Mr. Steele came to the Bureau, because he had had a
previous relationship with the Bureau, and reported to the Bureau some of the
information that he had learned through these other -- through these paid work
that he was doing.

| believe | knew that before the Carter Page affidavit or at the time at least
of the Carter Page FISA affidavit. What | didn't know is that that had anything to

do with a dossier. | hadn't seen a dossier. In fact didn't read the dossier until


Carson, Speier, Quigley, Swalwell, and Heck.


50

appeared that the email was not really from General Flynn.

So | contacted someone else | knew at the White House who had access to
email addresses because | didn't have John Eisenberg's email address on my
phone. And that -- | just asked, do you have an email address for John
Eisenberg, and the person sent me the email address.

So | then wrote back an email to John Eisenberg at John Eisenberg's email
address and said | was writing to him because | had received an email that came
from General Flynn's address but appeared to be from him, and | wanted to make
sure it hadn't been sent by mistake; and that | would be available to talk the
following morning. If it needed to be a secure call, | would need to go into the
office to take a secured call, but that | could do that if that's what he needed.

He wrote back right away from a John Eisenberg email address
that -- thanking me. He said something like, Thank you for doing so, in other
words, | think he meant write directly to him, and that maybe we could start by
talking unsecure the next morning, and he'd follow my lead if there was a need for
us to go into the office to do it secure.

MR. SCHIFF: Did he ever make -- clarify for you whether that prior email
had actually come from him?

MS. MCCORD: So the next morning when we actually had a phone
conversation he immediately said that he'd been in General Flynn's office working
with General Flynn the previous day, meaning Saturday, because by now this
conversation we're having is Sunday morning, and that he had left General Flynn's
office to go back to his office.

And at some point in time, his assistant had come into his office with two cell

phones, and that he must have -- it must have been his and General Flynn's. And


34

MR. QUIGLEY: Okay. Sorry.

MS. MCCORD: | believe the piece either came out on the 7th or the 8th.
| don't recall exactly. But that's separate from the concerns about his contacts
with -- potentially improper contacts with the Russians.

| first became aware of contacts he had with Ambassador Kislyak in early

January when Mr. McCabe called me. It was -- | don't remember the exact date,

it was that first week ~-



43

MS. MCCORD: Yes, it did take place before the Ignatius column.

MR. SCHIFF: So the President was informed (ns
that General Flynn had talked with Kislyak about sanctions before it appeared in
the press?

MS. MCCORD: That's right.

MR. SCHIFF: So at least in theory, the leak of that information could have
come from the White House?

MS. MCCORD: Atleast in theory.

MR. SCHIFF: Go further, if you would. After you did discuss it with Sally
Yates then what was the next step in terms of notifying the White House more
formally?

MS. MCCORD: So when we then began -- so at this point in time, this is
still President Obama in the White House. And so we then began discussing -- it
was not until after incoming Vice President-elect Pence went on Face the Nation
that we discussed advising the incoming White House. And --

MR. SCHIFF: Oh, okay. Thank you, that's a helpful clarification. So the
President you're talking about is President Obama at this point?

MS.MCCORD: Yes. Yes.

MR. SCHIFF: Okay. Thank you.

MS. MCCORD: The David Ignatius article was on the 13th. That
pull-aside was before that, right after | learned the information. And it was clear
that from -- | shouldn't say clear because | wasn't in the room, but based on what I
heard from Deputy Attorney General Yates, it seemed like Director Comey had
advised President Obama of something.

| don't know the extent because she didn't fully understand what they were


29

Bureau to obtain as much corroboration as possible, recognizing fully that for

The Bureau continued -- and the standard for that, of course, was probable

cause -- the Bureau continued and was continuing up until the point that | left in

May to try to corroborate iS of Mr. Steele's Iii

MR. GOWDY: If | wrote it down correctly, there was an initial application

with Carter Page and then there was one re-up and then a second re-up?

MS. MCCORD: Not before | left, there was just one, because it would
have been after 90 days. And so there was just one.

MR. GOWDY: Again, refresh my recollection, you left when?

MS. MCCORD: | left May 12th.

MR. GOWDY: And these applications --

MS. MCCORD: Actually, you know, now that | sit down and think about it,
there would have been probably another 90 days passed. | just don't know. |
just can't recall whether there was a second re-up. There might have been.

MR. GOWDY: Do you know when the first application was made or
approved?

MS. MCCORD: Idon't. | remember it being fall, and | can tell you it was
not at all when the press reported this. The press, | believe, was reporting a FISA
on Mr. Page, like, in the summer, which was not the case at all. | think it was
October or November, but | just don't recall specifically.

MR. GOWDY: And these applications are good for 90 days?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.


13

of the email or the server?

MS. MCCORD: At what point in time are you --

MR. GOWDY: At any point in time.

MS.MCCORD: So there were -- the FBI from the time | think it first
learned of the breach into the server began trying to ascertain who had -- who was
responsible for that intrusion. And that -- | can't recall exactly when | became
aware of that, and | don't recall us being specific as to which bucket the FBI had
put that in, counterintelligence versus criminal at the beginning.

But | will say that certainly it was always our hope and objective -- when |
say our, | mean at the National Security Division, working with the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General who was responsible for our cyber investigations -- it
was certainly always the hope that it would get to a point of confidence in who in
particular was responsible for that.

MR. GOWDY: In 2015 or 2016, at any point while you were there, do you
recall either counterintelligence or criminal investigations into either of the major
political candidates and/or their campaigns?

MS. MCCORD: There -- no.

MR. GOWDY: Do you recall either counterintelligence or criminal
investigations into anyone, whether formally or informally connected with either of
the two major political candidates’ campaigns.

MS.MCCORD: Yes.

MR. GOWDY: What can you tell us about that?

MS. MCCORD: So beginning in -- although | was not aware of this at the
time -- but beginning in the summer of 2016 is when the FBI began investigating

some individuals who had been affiliated with the Trump campaign as


65

foundational stuff around the process to both establish investigations as well as
the process associated with the FISA process. So maybe we can move relatively
quickly through these questions.

As a general matter, what criteria or authorities apply to the FBI's decision
to open a counterintelligence investigation?

MS.MCCORD: The Director has a -- their own guidelines for when they
can open a counterintelligence investigation.

MR. HIMES: And are these the same as with criminal or other
investigations?

MS. MCCORD: They are different types of guidelines.

MR. HIMES: Okay. Are investigations -- when we use the word
"investigations," are they the same as assessments or preliminary investigations,
and if not, what are the differences?

MS. MCCORD: So! amnotan expert, on the DIOG, and you should
probably talk to general counsel for the FBI. But when | think of assessments
and preliminary investigations and full investigations, | think of that in the context
of criminal investigations as opposed to Cl investigations.

| actually can't tell you whether they have the three different categories for
Cl investigations that aren't criminal, because my experience with Cl investigations
are these are opened up for the long term. They are opened up to be long-term
intelligence-gathering investigations.

MR. HIMES: In general, if the FBI opens a counterintelligence
investigation, is it fair to say that it has found at least some credible reason to
proceed?

MS. MCCORD: Yes.


the same professor. But! do have a recollection.

MR. SWALWELL: It looks like we are wrapping this up and | don't think
we're going to come back. Is there anything, Ms. McCord, that you would have
asked with respect to what you did that did not come up that you'd like to share
with us?

MS. MCCORD: Can you just give me a moment?

[Discussion off the record.]

MS. MCCORD: | don't think so. | think within the scope of what |
understand the interest here to be, | think we've hit pretty much all of the salient
points.

MR. SWALWELL: Okay. And back to -- on Mr. Steele, you knew him to
be a British -- a former British intelligence officer?

MS. MCCORD: So | believe it was explained to me that he had worked
also with the Bureau formerly as well, but was a British intelligence officer.

MR. SWALWELL: And finally, attempt is also a crime. Is that right? If
you attempt to commit a crime, that itself, even if the crime is not completed, is a
crime in the Federal system.

MS. MCCORD: Yes.

MR. SWALWELL: Thank you. Nothing further.

MR. ROONEY: Thank you, Ms. McCord. That concludes our interview
and we are adjourned.

MS. MCCORD: Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 1:34 p.m., the interview was concluded.]

81


— mn
he must have picked up General Flynn's, and they had the same password, and
he must have mistakenly sent me the email from General Flynn's cell phone.

MR. SCHIFF: So he said that the password for his phone was the same
password as General Flynn's phone?

MS. MCCORD: That's what he said.

MR. SCHIFF: Did he tell you whether the email that he sent to you the
previous day he had sent to you in the presence of General Flynn?

MS. MCCORD: He did not address that. My impression was it was not in
the -- well, he did not say. | mean, the explanation was when he picked up the
phone thereafter, he must have picked up General Flynn's phone, and their
passwords are the same, and so he had mistakenly sent it to me from that phone.

MR. SCHIFF: And that email that came from General Flynn's account said
what again?

MS. MCCORD: It said, you know, Dear, Mary, or Dear, Ms. McCord, | am
the deputy White House counsel for national security. I've been asked to follow
up with you regarding the matters you discussed with Don McGahn. Could we
have a secure call tomorrow?

Now, | did know who John Eisenberg is because | had been attending
Deputies Committee meetings on national security issues, well, for years, but
since the new administration had come in, and he had been present at some of
those deputies meetings on completely unrelated topics but in his role as legal
adviser to the national security counsel. So | did know who he was. | was
familiar with him.

MR. SCHIFF: So what happened the next day then?

MS. MCCORD: So after he explained that, | didn't push him on it. | didn't


53

So the next morning -- of course, Ms. Yates was fired that night,

January 30. So the next morning | inquired with her staff if anyone knew whether
she had actually connected with Mr. McGahn to let him know we'd make them
available, and they said she had.

And so | then contacted Mr. Eisenberg and gave him the information of the
contact Pete Strzok at the Bureau, told him (NM that he was
interested in would be available that afternoon, and he should contact Mr. Strzok
directly to make arrangements to come over.

| then followed up for an additional couple of days to make sure he'd been
able to get access to what he needed to get access to. And as of Thursday
morning -- he told me Wednesday he wasn't able to get over there. And as of
Thursday morning, he said he thought he would be able to get over to the Bureau
that day, and then that is the last | heard.

HRS ive minutes.

MR. SCHIFF: | apologize to my colleagues. | didn't mean to take this

much time.

Did Mr. Eisenberg inform you whether he intended to (i)

MS. MCCORD: He did not.

MR. SCHIFF: Did you ever find out whether he did?

MS. MCCORD: | did not.

MR. SCHIFF: And what involvement did you have after that in this issue?
MS. MCCORD: No real -- no personal involvement.

MR. SCHIFF: Do you know what course either this issue or the

investigation of General Flynn took after that?


16

with respect to Michael Flynn to have potentially violated a criminal statute in light
of his conversations with the Russian Ambassador Kislyak in late December and

that was discussed with the Bureau.

HEE =—No one was putting their fingers on any particular criminal

statutes with respect to sort of collusion at that point. It was still an investigation
into exactly what contacts there had been and how high up these went and what
that might, you know, what that might look at.

So | can't, you know, | can't pinpoint a particular time, you know, reflecting
back on it when any decision was made this is now criminal versus this is
now -- this is still Cl.

MR. GOWDY: What's the difference to you between the word collusion
and conspiracy?

MS.MCCORD: Well, collusion is a word that's been used out in the public
to refer to this investigation. It's, of course, not a crime itself. Conspiracy is a
crime. | don't know what the elements of collusion are because it's not a crime,
but | think people use it in a way that sounds very much like conspiracy.

MR. GOWDY: When you use it, is that how -- we used to used the word
conspiracy. Is collusion tantamount to conspiracy, is ita synonym, are there
distinctions?

MS. MCCORD: | can't answer that because | can't tell you what everyone
who's used that word in the last year is thinking when they use the word. | can tell
you from a --

MR. GOWDY: How about you, when you use it?