Basically, the senators are demanding that AG Barr declassify four footnotes in the Horowitz Dossier. The reason for their demand is that they assert that the classified footnotes contradict supposed "information" that was made public in the Horowitz Dossier. The senators' letter to Barr is in two versions--one classified, the other unclassified and made public. The unclassified version states in part:
We have reviewed the findings of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with regard to the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation, and we are deeply concerned about certain information that remains classified. Specifically, we are concerned that certain sections of the public version of the report are misleading because they are contradicted by relevant and probative classified information redacted in four footnotes. This classified information is significant not only because it contradicts key statements in a section of the report, but also because it provides insight essential for an accurate evaluation of the entire investigation. The American people have a right to know what is contained within these four footnotes and, without that knowledge, they will not have a full picture as to what happened during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
I'm guessing that Barr will need to take these complaints seriously. They strike at the credibility of both OIG and DoJ. Could it be that these footnotes relate to John Durham's harsh comments on Horowitz's work?
The full text:
Which 4 IG report footnotes? Only 3 are fully redacted:
#211 pertains to Steele/Deripaska,
#342 to the FBI interview of Steele's "Primary Sub-Source," and
#347 to an FBI interview of another Steele sub-source.
Two partially redacted footnotes (#164, #484) refer to Joseph Mifsud.
In other words, all four of the footnotes that drew the attention Grassley/Johnson pertain to either Chris Steele or Joseph Mifsud. I don't think it's coincidental at all that these are the two characters cited for starting up the FBI's bogus Russia Hoax investigation. And Steele, of course, was (in McCabe's words) "crucial" to obtaining the Carter Page FISA. That means that this challenge by two GOP senators to the credibility of Horowitz's Dossier is potentially a very serious matter. It could pertain to the origins of the Russia Hoax investigation or the Page FISA--or both.
So let's look at the context for those footnotes.
#211 is all about Steele's relationship with Oleg Deripaska--the Russian oligarch who we know was being courted during the election by Bruce Ohr and Andy McCabe for use against Trump. We read on p. 91 (I've inserted Deripaska's name):
We asked Steele about whether he had a relationship with Deripaska. Steele stated that he did not have a relationship and indicated that he had met Deripaska one time. He explained that he worked for Deripaska's attorney on litigation matters that involved Deripaska but that he could not provide "specifics". 211
So, Steele had no relationship with Deripaska--except that Steele worked for Deripaska's lawyer on Deripaska's legal business. Does that sound like a distinction without much difference? It does to me. And, in light of the Grassley/Johnson claim that the footnote appears to contradict the text, I'd be very interested to read #211 for myself. Because the only thing my limited imagination can come up with is that the footnote contradicts Steele's claim that he had "no relationship" with Deripaska.
The context for #342--a rather lengthy footnote--appears on pp. 188-189, and it's all about Steele's reliability and his ability to vouch for the reliability of his so-called "sub-sources." That's a pretty big deal, coming as it does in mid-February, 2017, three months before the Mueller witchhunt got ginned up. What that means is that this is one more very strong indicator that, as Strzok would tell Lisa Page in May, the FBI knew there was "no there there." And the next question should be, what did Rod Rosenstein know about this. With that in mind, here's the context:
Following the January interview with the Primary Sub-source, on February 15, 2017, Strzok forwarded by email to Priestap and others a news article referencing the Steele election reporting; Strzok commented that "recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal [Steele] may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network." According to the Supervisory Intel Analyst, the cause for the discrepancies between the election reporting and explanations later provided to the FBI by Steele's Primary Sub-source and sub-sources about the reporting was difficult to discern and could be attributed to a number of factors. These included miscommunications between Steele and the Primary Sub-source, exaggerations or misrepresentations by Steele about the information he obtained, or misrepresentations by the Primary Sub-source and/or sub-sources when questioned by the FBI about the information they conveyed to Steele or the Primary Sub-source. 342
FBI documents reflect that another of Steele's sub-sources who reviewed the election reporting told the FBI in August 2017 that whatever information in the Steele reports that was attributable to him/her had been "exaggerated" and that he/she did not recognize anything as originating specifically from him/her. 347