Trump and the FBI (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Sarah Flores

Flores now works for CNN on its election coverage team.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Crossfire Hurricane Report’s Inconvenient Findings

 

[lazyike]

Just days after AG Barr say Americans must support law enforcement, AG Barr attacks the FBI and the President at a rally in Pennsylvania calls the FBI "scum"....you just can't make this stuff up.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

On August 1, 2016, Strzok and a supervisory special agent (SSA 1) traveled to the European city to interview the FFG officials who met with Papadopoulos in May 2016. 177 According to Strzok and SSA 1, during the interview they learned that Papadopoulos did not say that he had direct contact with the Russians; that while his statement did not include him, it did not exclude him either; and that Papadopoulos stated the Russians told "us." Strzok and SSA 1 also said they learned that Papadopoulos did not specify any other individual who received the Russian suggestion. Strzok, the Intel Section Chief, the Supervisory Intelligence Analyst (Supervisory Intel Analyst), and Case Agent 2 told the OIG that, based on this information, the initial investigative objective of Crossfire Hurricane was to determine which individuals associated with the Trump campaign may have been in a position to have received the alleged offer of assistance from Russia.

After conducting preliminary open source and FBI database inquiries, intelligence analysts on the Crossfire Hurricane team identified three individualsCarter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn-associated with the Trump campaign with either ties to Russia or a history of travel to Russia. On August 10, 2016, the team opened separate counterintelligence FARA cases on Carter Page, Manafort, and Papadopoulos, under code names assigned by the FBI. On August 16, 2016, a counterintelligence FARA case was opened on Flynn under a code name assigned by the FBI. The opening ECs for all four investigations were drafted by either of the two Special Agents assigned to serve as the Case Agents for the investigation (Case Agent 1 or Case Agent 2) and were approved by Strzok, as required by the DIOG. 178 Each case was designated a SIM because the individual subjects were believed to be "prominent in a domestic political campaign."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The opening EC for the Carter Page investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Carter Page "may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security." The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Page was a senior foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign, had extensive ties to various Russia-owned entities, and had traveled to Russia as recently as July 2016. The EC also noted that Carter Page was the subject of an open, ongoing counterintelligence investigation assigned to the FBI's New York Field Office (NYFO), which we describe in the next section.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Steele's handling agent, Handling Agent 1, told the OIG that he first learned of the Mother Jones article on November 1 when SSA 1 emailed him a copy. Handling Agent 1 telephoned Steele that day and asked him if he had spoken with the author of the article. According to Handling Agent l's records, Steele confirmed that he had spoken with the author. Handling Agent l's notes state that Steele was "concerned about the behavior of [the FBI] and was troubled by the actions of [the FBI] last Friday" (i.e., Corney's announcement concerning the discovery of additional Clinton emails). The notes also state that Handling Agent 1 advised Steele that he must cease collecting information for the FBI, and it was unlikely that the FBI would continue a relationship with him. Handling Agent 1 told us he had no further contact with Steele after the November 1 telephone call. Upon learning of Steele's actions, then Assistant Director E.W. "Bill" Priestap decided that Steele had to be closed immediately.

Senior leaders in the FBl's International Operations Division concurred with this decision during a meeting on November 3 and advised the FBI's Legal Attache (Legat) in the European city where, as described in Chapter Four, members of the Crossfire Hurricane team met with Steele in early October, that the decision to close Steele was "non-negotiable." Handling Agent 1 finalized the necessary paperwork on November 17, 2016, which stated that Steele was closed on November 1 and was being closed for cause due to his disclosure of his confidential relationship with the FBI to a third party. 313 Strzok told the OIG that the FBI closed Steele "because he was a control problem. We did not close him because we thought he was [a] fabricator." According to Strzok, Steele's decisions to discuss his reporting with the media and to disclose his relationship with the FBI were "horrible and it hurt what we were doing, and no question, he shouldn't have done it."

As a consequence of his closing, Handling Agent 1 halted payment of $15,000 to Steele. Handling Agent 1 told the OIG that the FBI never paid Steele for information related to the 2016 U.S. elections. FBI records show that Steele's last payment occurred on August 12, 2016, and was for information furnished to the FBl's Cyber and Counterintelligence Divisions (CD) that was unrelated to the 2016 U.S. elections.

Steele told us that by the time of the Mother Jones interview, he and Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS had decided not to continue with the FBI because the FBI "was being deceitful." In particular, Steele stated that he had asked Ohr and possibly Handling Agent 1 prior to late October 2016 why the U.S. government had not announced that the FBI was investigating allegations concerning the Trump campaign. Steele said that he was told in response that the Hatch Act made it a criminal offense for a federal official to make a public statement within 90 days of an election to the detriment or benefit of a candidate. 314 Both Ohr and Handling Agent 1 told us that they had no recollection of discussing the Hatch Act with Steele.

Steele explained that he became frustrated with the FBI at the end of October when Corney notified Congress close to the election that the FBI was reopening the Clinton email investigation and The New York Times quoted law enforcement officials as saying that they had found no direct link between Trump and the Russian government. 315 Steele said that he, his firm, and his clients believed it was not appropriate for the FBI to make announcements in violation of the Hatch Act while at the same time not disclosing its investigative activity concerning the Trump campaign. According to Steele, the FBI's conduct compelled him to choose between his client and the FBI, and he chose his client because he believed that the FBI had misled him. Steele said that Simpson arranged for the video conference interview with Mother Jones and Simpson actively participated in the call along with Steele. Steele told us that he believed the interview was "off the record" and under the same rules as his other interviews arranged by Simpson. He does not know whether Simpson either before or after the interview may have changed the rules.

- Not only does this confirm that the FBI never revealed the existence of the investigation (quite the opposite, there was an article stating there was no investigation), it appears that Steele went to the FBI because he expected them to do something about what the Russian were not. Seeing they had refused to do so, yet nonetheless issued a statement about Hillary, Steele went to Mother Jones.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Two reports by Horowitz and there has been no explanation how or why the article, "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia," The New York Times, October 31, 2016, came out.

 

[The Z Machine]

Two reports by Horowitz and there has been no explanation how or why the article, "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia," The New York Times, October 31, 2016, came out.

Yeah, one has to wonder who the sources were for that article.

What a craptastic series of events it was with the FBI and these two candidates in 2016.  You know people said that these were the worst set we'd ever seen, and lordy have they been proven correct.

 

[RBM]

So in regards to the FISA court we know that the FBI in fact without question:

- Used an in-verified report as justification to obtain the warrant 

- Witheld exculpatory evidence when going back to renew the warrant

- Witheld who funded the report and what it was funded for

So who gets punished?

 

[The Z Machine]

So in regards to the FISA court we know that the FBI in fact without question:

- Used an in-verified report as justification to obtain the warrant 

- Witheld exculpatory evidence when going back to renew the warrant

- Witheld who funded the report and what it was funded for

So who gets punished?

The American people?  The whole world?

The FBI probably just should have announced in October 2016 that multiple members of the Trump campaign were being investigated for coordination with a foreign power and dissemination of stolen materials.  I think that would have helped.

 

[RBM]

The American people?  The whole world?

The FBI probably just should have announced in October 2016 that multiple members of the Trump campaign were being investigated for coordination with a foreign power and dissemination of stolen materials.  I think that would have helped.

Yes the proper thing to do would have been to inform the candidate. 

So instead they illegally surveiled associates of the campaign. That's called spying for those keeping score. 

 

[RBM]

I believe Comey's signature is on the initial application. I think we should all hope he will be dealt with as harshly as we all would if caught lying to the courts. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yes the proper thing to do would have been to inform the candidate. 

So instead they illegally surveiled associates of the campaign. That's called spying for those keeping score. 

is that the way investigations work?  You inform the folks under investigation that they’re being investigated?  

Why was the surveillance “illegal”?  The Ig report finds the opposite. 

 

[tommyGunZ]

Just to clarify because perhaps I’m missing something:  Are pro-Trump folks really claiming that the FBI was plotting to take down Trump, and chose to keep the investigation secret while torpedoing the Clinton campaign by announcing the investigation?  

 

[The Z Machine]

Yes the proper thing to do would have been to inform the candidate. 

So instead they illegally surveiled associates of the campaign. That's called spying for those keeping score. 

What was illegal about the surveillance? Was that in the Horowitz report?

 

[Dickies]

Just to clarify because perhaps I’m missing something:  Are pro-Trump folks really claiming that the FBI was plotting to take down Trump, and chose to keep the investigation secret while torpedoing the Clinton campaign by announcing the investigation?  

Yes.

 

[sho nuff]

Yes the proper thing to do would have been to inform the candidate. 

So instead they illegally surveiled associates of the campaign. That's called spying for those keeping score. 

If we are going to keep saying it was illegal, we are going to need some citations.  And yes...two others asked so this may seem like piling on...but its an important distinction to be made.

 

[RBM]

is that the way investigations work?  You inform the folks under investigation that they’re being investigated?  

Why was the surveillance “illegal”?  The Ig report finds the opposite. 

Trump wasn’t under investigation. If members of his team were, yes, the appropriate step is to inform him. 

The warrant was obtained illegally. Wouldn’t that make the spying illegal?

 

[RBM]

What was illegal about the surveillance? Was that in the Horowitz report?

The warrants were obtained illegally. Connect the dots. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So in regards to the FISA court we know that the FBI in fact without question:

- Used an in-verified report as justification to obtain the warrant 

- Witheld exculpatory evidence when going back to renew the warrant

- Witheld who funded the report and what it was funded for

So who gets punished?

Sorry, do you want to have this conversation?

 

[RBM]

Sorry, do you want to have this conversation?

It will be short. There’s nothing more to add. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It will be short. There’s nothing more to add. 

Ha, well I enjoy your posts, but you are sincerely off here. Have you looked at the 17 errors/omissions?

 

[sho nuff]

Trump wasn’t under investigation. If members of his team were, yes, the appropriate step is to inform him. 

The warrant was obtained illegally. Wouldn’t that make the spying illegal?

Again...I believe this is false...the IG certainly dod not make this claim...and I am not aware of anyone who has

 

[RBM]

Ha, well I enjoy your posts, but you are sincerely off here. Have you looked at the 17 errors/omissions?

Was the Steele dossier the majority of the justification for the warrant?  Yes.

Is it now a fact it was not verified?  Yes.

Did the FBI mislead the court and sign off that it was a legit document?  Yes.

Did they withhold the fact that this was paid for by the DNC as oppo research?  Yes.

Listen to Barr explain the exculpatory evidence that was witheld from the renewals. He sums it up well. 

 

[[scooter]]

Ha, well I enjoy your posts, but you are sincerely off here. Have you looked at the 17 errors/omissions?

Was the Steele dossier the majority of the justification for the warrant?  Yes.

Is it now a fact it was not verified?  Yes.

The dossier didn't need to be verified to get the warrant. That's not how law enforcement works except maybe in Mother Russia.

Your narrative is an insult to the millions of good people who dedicate their lives to law enforcement.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

But she lost because she ignored Wisconsin  Michigan  and Pennsylvania. 

She was in PA 15 times.  It was her 2nd most-visited state as a candidate.

I assume she won Florida, PA, Ohio and North Carolina?  Since those were her four most-visited states?

 

[sho nuff]

Was the Steele dossier the majority of the justification for the warrant?  Yes.

Is it now a fact it was not verified?  Yes.

Did the FBI mislead the court and sign off that it was a legit document?  Yes.

Did they withhold the fact that this was paid for by the DNC as oppo research?  Yes.

Listen to Barr explain the exculpatory evidence that was witheld from the renewals. He sums it up well. 

No...there is nothing indicating it was the majority of the warrant.  Please cute if you are going to make this claim.

No...some issues (like Page traveling...which was part of the justification for using it as probable cause) was verified.  Even if it hadn’t been, I believe it was credible enough to be a part of probable cause.  Ive seen no legal reporting that says otherwise.

The IG agreed it was a legit document (the FISA application that is).

Sure...though, what is the relevance of the funding?

I believe Barr had several missteps in his summary just as he did with the Mueller report.  I believe he is acting politically in step with Trump rather than aligning with the law.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Was the Steele dossier the majority of the justification for the warrant?  Yes.

Is it now a fact it was not verified?  Yes.

Did the FBI mislead the court and sign off that it was a legit document?  Yes.

Did they withhold the fact that this was paid for by the DNC as oppo research?  Yes.

Listen to Barr explain the exculpatory evidence that was witheld from the renewals. He sums it up well. 

You completely evaded a really simple question, I take it you did not read the 17 errors and omissions. I will take each of these though:

*************

There were 4 Fisa's, so already you are talking about agreeing that 3 of the 4 were fine. Here is Page's.

As for the 4th, Page's, actually no - the FBI actually had previously declined to go after Page. The sole new piece that made him worth surveilling was the info that he was traveling to Moscow to meet with Kremlin and Rosneft personnel - which he did.

I can already tell you do not realize that the whole dossier was not submitted. Three memos were. The only thing attested to in those memos was that Page was traveling to Moscow for that NES event, which he did. The FBI never represented to the whole dossier.

About the info about who paid for the dossier here is the language:

Source #1, who now owns a foreign business/financial intelligence firm, was approached by an identified U.S. person, who indicated to Source #1 that a U.S.-based law firm had hired the identified U.S. person to conduct research regarding Candidate #l’s ties to Russia (the identified U.S. person and Source #1 have a long-standing business relationship). The identified U.S. person hired Source #1 to conduct this research. The identified U.S. person never advised Source #1 as to the motivation behind the research into Candidate #l’s ties to Russia. The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s campaign.

^^Now if *you were reading that during the 2016 election just who in the world do you think they're talking about paying him?

Sorry can you just mention one piece of truly exculpatory evidence? Exculpatory of what? Page was under CI investigation already and he had fallen into being used as a tool by Russian Intelligence Services previously. Are you seriously going to tell me that you as an FBI agent having learned of a former RIS asset being on a presidential campaign and having left it was now going to travel to Moscow to meet with Kremlin and Rosneft persons would not actually be worth surveilling in the middle of an actual hack and dissemination campaign by those same Russian intel services? I'd really like to hear that.

 

[RBM]

No...there is nothing indicating it was the majority of the warrant.  Please cute if you are going to make this claim.

I can’t go on if you’re just going to blatantly lie and disregard this fact. Horowitz and Barr have said it. You’re totally free to disregard those two but I’m not going to engage if that’s the case. 

 

[Joe Summer]

"The warrant was obtained illegally" is not a phrase or description found in the Horowitz report.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

15.  Wow.  Maybe a part time campaign  wasnt a great idea.    Trump did 4 events a day.      Btw she was in michigan 2x and Wisconsin  zero.    

Some people might learn those new facts and change their opinion that the # of visits is what drove Clinton's wins or losses in a state.

 

[RBM]

There were 4 Fisa's, so already you are talking about agreeing that 3 of the 4 were fine. Here is Page's.

I’m not sure you read the report Saints. Surprising that you missed “dossier played central and essential role in obtaining FISA warrants”.

WarrantS....plural. I think you’re going off the debunked Schiff memo from last year. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I’m not sure you read the report Saints. Surprising that you missed “dossier played central and essential role in obtaining FISA warrants”.

WarrantS....plural. I think you’re going off the debunked Schiff memo from last year. 

We concluded that the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016, played a central and essential role in the decision by FBI OGC to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter Page, as well as the Department's ultimate decision to seek the FISA order.

 

[sho nuff]

I can’t go on if you’re just going to blatantly lie and disregard this fact. Horowitz and Barr have said it. You’re totally free to disregard those two but I’m not going to engage if that’s the case. 

You can then cite where they said this.  Along with how it was illegally obtained as you claimed.

Because I've read what Horowitz wrote and don’t believe it says what you are claiming here

 

[RBM]

Good piece...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/12/11/wsj-columnist-dissects-the-doj-ig-report-and-finds-it-really-blows-up-adam-schiff-n2557709

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Good piece...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/12/11/wsj-columnist-dissects-the-doj-ig-report-and-finds-it-really-blows-up-adam-schiff-n2557709

“IG report says dossier played ‘central and essential role’ in getting FISA warrants.

Ok, now you have a problem - Matt Vespa has misrepresented to you what the report says. I just quoted the report itself and I am happy to quote the other two places where that phrase appears, which is basically similar to what I have above.

But the fact that the report says something totally different from Vespa, won't stop you from trusting him as a source, will it?

 

[John Blutarsky]

Good piece...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/12/11/wsj-columnist-dissects-the-doj-ig-report-and-finds-it-really-blows-up-adam-schiff-n2557709

 

[John Blutarsky]

Ok, now you have a problem - Matt Vespa has misrepresented to you what the report says. I just quoted the report itself and I am happy to quote the other two places where that phrase appears, which is basically similar to what I have above.

But the fact that the report says something totally different from Vespa, won't stop you from trusting him as a source, will it?

Watching you try and defend the Steele Dossier is worthy of applause. Not working but the effort is applauded.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Watching you try and defend the Steele Dossier is worthy of applause. Not working but the effort is applauded.

Bluto, I just quoted the OIG report vs Vespa, either accept it in black and white or not. I posted the actual report as soon as it came out for comment.

 

[John Blutarsky]

The effort 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

None of the Carter Page FISA renewal applications included any information obtained from Ohr during the course of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, even though the interviews described above took place before Renewal Application No. 1 was filed in January 2017. In the Rule 13 Letter, NSD advised the court that NSD officials were not aware of the FBl's interviews of Ohr at the time of the renewal applications, and we found no documentation indicating otherwise. Further, Evans, the 01 supervisors, and the 01 Attorney who drafted the applications told us that they were not aware at the time of the renewal applications that Ohr had provided information to the FBI related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Similarly, Yates, Boente, Rosenstein, and the ODAG officials who reviewed the renewal applications told us that they were also not aware that Ohr had provided the FBI with information related to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

As described in Chapter Nine, handwritten notes of an FBI briefing Boente received in February 2017 indicate that the FBI advised Boente and others at that time-including Evans, then Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord, then Deputy Assistant Attorney General George Toscas from NSD, ADAG Tashina Gauhar, ADAG Scott Schools, and Principal ADAG James Crowell-that Ohr knew Steele for several years and remained in contact with him, and that Ohr's wife worked for Simpson as a Russian linguist. However, none of these handwritten notes-which include separate notes taken by Boente, Schools, and Gauhar-stated that the FBI had interviewed Ohr or that Ohr had provided the FBI with information regarding Steele's election reporting or Steele's feelings toward candidate Trump. Schools told us that he recalled a meeting in which the OGC Unit Chief referenced Ohr having contact with Simpson, but Schools was not sure if it was during this February 2017 briefing or another briefing. 

On October 12, 2016, Evans's concerns about Steele were briefed to Corney and McCabe in a meeting attended by at least Priestap, Strzok, Lisa Page, and the OGC Unit Chief. According to notes of the meeting, the group discussed that Evans was concerned Steele may have been hired by someone associated with Hillary Clinton or the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and that the read copy of the FISA application would not be filed with the court that day so that Evans could further assess the potential bias. The notes reflect that the group discussed that Evans was also concerned that the foreign intelligence to be collected through the FISA would not be "worth [the] risk." Following the meeting, the OGC Unit Chief emailed Anderson and the OGC Attorney on October 12 and advised them that the concerns Evans had raised were discussed with Corney and McCabe and that both were "supportive" of moving forward despite those concerns.

During his OIG interview, Evans told us that he thought he did not raise the concern about the potential value of the collection outweighing the risk until sometime after OI worked through the bias issue with the FBI. According to Evans, he raised on multiple occasions with the FBI, including with Strzok, Lisa Page, and later McCabe, whether seeking FISA authority targeting Carter Page was a good idea, even if the legal standard was met. He explained that he did not see a compelling "upside" to the FISA because Carter Page knew he was under FBI investigation (according to news reports) and was therefore not likely to say anything incriminating over the telephone or in email. On the other hand, Evans saw significant "downside" because the target of the FISA was politically sensitive and the Department would be criticized later if this FISA was ever disclosed publicly. He told the OIG that he thought there was no right or wrong answer to this question, which he characterized as a prudential question of risk vs. reward, but he wanted to make sure he raised the issue for the decision makers to consider. According to Evans, the reactions he received from the FBI to this prudential question were some variations of-we understand your concerns, those are valid points, but if you are telling us it's legal, we cannot pull any punches just because there could be criticism afterward.

- Trump and his supporters rarely care about any of these decision makers like Assistant Deputy Attorney General Scott Schools, who oversaw Ohr, or Assistant Deputy Attorney General James Crowell, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart Evans, or Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord, or Deputy Assistant Attorney General George Toscas, or Assistant Deputy Attorney General Tashina Gauhar. Where is Schools today?

Evans is referenced 167 times in the Horowitz report. Schools 34 times. Etc.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Shortly after he was sworn in as DAG, Rosenstein received briefings about the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Rosenstein told us that, as a result, he was more familiar with the facts of the case than is typical for FISA applications. Rosenstein received a copy of the application in advance of NSD's oral briefing, and told us he "would have looked through it." Although he could not recall whether he reviewed the application in its entirety, he recalled reading enough to understand the substance of the allegations involved. Rosenstein told us that he had reviewed FISA applications almost every day after his confirmation, and he believed Renewal Application No. 3 was "above average" in terms of the justification for the continued coverage in the renewal. He said that he was in a different position than those who considered the previous applications because by the time he received the application, many different Department officials had approved the prior ones and three different federal judges had found probable cause. He also said he had a conversation with Boente about the application in which Boente expressed the view that a DAG should not refuse to sign a FISA application that establishes probable cause, and when there is a legitimate basis for conducting the investigation, just because it could end up becoming "politically embarrassing" at some later point. 376

Further, Rosenstein told us that he did not view the application as being "particularly sensitive" when he received it in June 2017 because at that time the campaign was over, and Carter Page did not have any connection to the Trump Administration. On June 29, Ol's Deputy Operations Section Chief provided a briefing on the June renewal application to Rosenstein, and, according to Gauhar, Rosenstein brought his copy of Renewal Application No. 3 to the briefing. Gauhar and the Deputy Operations Section Chief did not recall any significant questions during the briefing about the renewal. However, Rosenstein told us that he recalled raising a question (at this briefing or immediately before it) about whether continued FISA coverage was going to produce useful information given that the FISA coverage targeting Carter Page had been leaked to the media. He said that he remembered being told that this renewal would likely be the last one unless new evidence was uncovered. On June 29, Rosenstein signed the application, and the application was submitted to the FISC the same day. By his signature, and as stated in the application, Rosenstein found that the application satisfied the criteria and requirements of the FISA and approved its filing with the court.

- As opposed to political bias affecting decision making, it turns out that that possibility was explicitly guarded against.

- Rosenstein also found the Page Fisa "above average" compared to other Fisa applications.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We did not review the entirety of FISA obtained through FISA [redacted] surveillance - targeting Carter Page. We reviewed only those [redacted] under FISA authority that were relevant to our review.

- Horowitz did not even review the full Page Fisa applications.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

John Durham's investigation into the FBI Russia probe comes into focus

A clearer picture of the next charged investigation into the FBI's probe of Russian interference in the 2016 election is emerging, and President Donald Trump is already cashing in on suggestions that it could reveal damning accusations of bias by law enforcement and intelligence officials that last week's inspector general report debunked.

The probe by federal prosecutor John Durham is now said to be wrapped up as soon as springtime and Justice Department officials in recent days indicated that Durham will dig deeper and cut harder on questions that Michael Horowitz, the department's independent watchdog, already asked.

...

It's unclear what form Durham's findings will take when they are completed, and if they will even become public. Barr said Tuesday that Durham could reach an "important watershed" in the late spring or early summer but that he hasn't discussed with Durham yet how his findings would be presented.

The Justice Department does not have a formal guideline on the timing of the release of information or investigative steps related to electoral matters, but several former department officials, as well as inspector general Horowitz, have cited an unwritten policy known as the "60-day" rule to criticize former FBI Director James Comey for his decision to notify Congress of a key movement in the Clinton email investigation just days ahead of the 2016 election.

While the Clinton email probe had a potential to find criminal wrongdoing by a political candidate, Durham's investigation does not appear to have a similar target. Any political implications should be considered, though, when determining the timing of its conclusion, former officials said.

"If [Durham] is going to release some kind of report that relitigates and brings a whole new narrative to the Russia investigation, then the timing of the release of that should be considered in conjunction with the political calendar because it can be reasonably foreseen to have a significant political impact," said Carrie Cordero, a former national security counsel at the Justice Department and CNN legal analyst.

- The Durham report is due out in spring, maybe early summer, but there appear to be no guardrails that it will not come out before the election. It's not really clear that Durham is bound by any typical DOJ rules.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The following day, December 17, Corney completed his review of the FBI's draft submission for the ICA and emailed Priestap, McCabe, Strzok, the Intel Section Chief, the FBI Director's Chief of Staff, and Baker describing a call he had with then Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper:

Thanks. Looks okay to me. FYI: During a secure call last night on this general topic, I informed the DNI that we would be contributing the [Steele] reporting (although I didn't use that name) to the IC [Intelligence Community] effort. I stressed that we were proceeding cautiously to understand and attempt to verify the reporting as best we can, but we thought it important to bring it forward to the IC effort. I told him the source of the material, which included salacious material about the President-Elect, was a former [ ] who appears to be a credible person with a source and sub-source network in position to report on such things, but we could not vouch for the material. (I said nothing further about the source or our efforts to verify).

I added that I believed that the material, in some form or fashion, had been widely circulated in Washington and that Senator McCain had delivered to me a copy of the reports and Senator Burr had mentioned to me the part about Russian knowledge of sexual activity by the President-Elect while in Russia. The DNI asked whether anyone in the White House was aware of this and I said "not to my knowledge." He thanked me for letting him know and we didn't discuss further.

McCabe told the OIG that he had three reasons for believing that the Steele election reporting needed to be included in the ICA: (1) President Obama had requested "everything you have relevant to this topic of Russian influence"; (2) the Steele election reporting was not completely vetted, but was consistent with information from other sources and came from a source with "a good track record" that the FBI had "confidence in"; and (3) McCabe believed the FBI, as an institution, needed to advise the President about the Steele election reporting because it had been widely circulated throughout government and media circles, and was likely to leak into the public realm. 

- Horowitz found that Comey actually wrote at the time - in December 2016 - that the White House had no knowledge of the Steele dossier.

- Besides John McCain and Lindsey Graham, we can add Richard Burr as someone who knew not only about the Steele dossier but also about the claims of the peepee tape.

 

[The Z Machine]

It's not really clear that Durham is bound by any typical DOJ rules.

Why do I suspect that the "Durham report" will only be released in snips and leaks and only when politically most convenient for the POTUS.

Could they be more obvious in conducting an investigation for political purposes by someone outside the normal DOJ structures?

Barr should be ashamed for his conduct in authorizing such activity.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why do I suspect that the "Durham report" will only be released in snips and leaks and only when politically most convenient for the POTUS.

Could they be more obvious in conducting an investigation for political purposes by someone outside the normal DOJ structures?

Barr should be ashamed for his conduct in authorizing such activity.

I agree. Durham and Barr appear to be operating outside all DOJ tradition and protocol. He’s more or less a royal inquisitor. Anything can happen.

 

[James Daulton]

I agree. Durham and Barr appear to be operating outside all DOJ tradition and protocol. He’s more or less a royal inquisitor. Anything can happen.

Why do I suspect that the "Durham report" will only be released in snips and leaks and only when politically most convenient for the POTUS.

Could they be more obvious in conducting an investigation for political purposes by someone outside the normal DOJ structures?

Barr should be ashamed for his conduct in authorizing such activity.

The Durham report will be timed to generate as much a frenzy in his base as he can.  We just have to hope that the dems frenzy continues as it's been.  Trump's lost the suburban women, if they don't come back he can't win.  It's not like he's going to all of the sudden start pulling tons of educated whites.   I guess if there's a true "blexit" he could still win, but really, just run ads of his comments and attacks on black people.  That should shut him out from gaining any momentum with blacks. 

 

[shader]

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/

The first FISA warrant to spy on Page was obtained during the 2016 election, after Page had left the Trump campaign but weeks before the election was to be held.

- The problems that Greenwald discusses are real, but he is also shading some information himself. Page was pushed out the campaign because of his Russian connections and the most egregious violations occurred after the inauguration during the renewals because that's when the FBI became aware that the Page lead was going nowhere. For instance Greenwald raises the problem that the FBI was told that one of Steele's sources was unreliable by Steele himself, but also the time that they actually interviewed one of the sources was January 2017, when he denied telling Steele some of the details that Steele reported, again well after the election. It's probably worth mentioning that Page was himself a distraction for the FBI, Manafort, Flynn and Papadopoulas were eventually convicted, while Page was never indicted. Page was also under investigation and he knew that, so any detail gleaned from teh Fisa was lessened greatly by the fact that Page already knew he was being listened in on.

- I also think this is interesting, from the report:

the FBI had opened a counterintelligence investigation on Person 1 a few days before the FISA application was filed

The EC also noted that Carter Page was the subject of an open, ongoing counterintelligence investigation assigned to the FBI's New York Field Office (NYFO), which we describe in the next section.

According to Evans, he raised on multiple occasions with the FBI, including with Strzok, Lisa Page, and later McCabe, whether seeking FISA authority targeting Carter Page was a good idea, even if the legal standard was met. He explained that he did not see a compelling "upside" to the FISA because Carter Page knew he was under FBI investigation (according to news reports) and was therefore not likely to say anything incriminating over the telephone or in email. 

- The FBI opened a Fisa investigation into the Steele source in the 3 memos used in the Page application and Page already knew he was under investigation for a totally separate counterintelligence matter.