MAJOR UPDATE: Grassley, Johson Charge Horowitz Dossier Misleads Public

We don't know the substance behind these allegations because the substance is classified, so we'll have to wait for developments. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that Senators Grassley and Johnson would go public like this if they didn't believe they had sound reasons for doing so.

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:

UPDATE: Sean Davis went right to work on this one. It turns out out that there are only 5 footnotes in the IG report that are at least partially redacted. Two of those pertain to Joseph Mifsud, so that means that if Grassley and Johnson are interested in four redacted footnotes, then--at a minimum--at least one of those footnotes of interest pertains to Mifsud.

But Davis does better than that:

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

That's devastating, when you consider that Steele's "reporting" would later form the basis for much of Team Mueller's interrogation of witnesses during its witchhunt. They were knowingly--because Strzok was on Team Mueller--relying on "reporting" that they knew could not be relied upon. #342 is at least as long as the actual text passage. Further, this reporting by Strzok that casts doubt on Steele's reliability occurs months before the final FISA renewal! If #342 contradicts Strzok's statements, my guess is that it's not in the direction of greater reliability. No wonder Grassley/Johnson think it's important that we should see that footnote. 

#347 is another very long footnote--in fact it's easily more than twice as long as the passage it's attached to. The passage reflects Steele's "sub-sources" directly disputing Steele's own credibility:

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

Someone seems to be lying--either Steele or Steele's "sub-source." Wouldn't you like to know what #347 has to say about that? Team Mueller had only just got under way at that point--August, 2017. There was absolutely nothing to prevent Team Mueller from packing up shop at this point and saying: We've determined that the information we were given cannot be relied upon. We're not going to continue compromising a presidential administration based on this BS. Didn't the public deserve to know just how unreliable Steele and his "dossier" were?

The footnotes pertaining to Mifsud (#164, #484) don't appear in a context that allows for much informed speculation, so I'll leave that be. The Steele related footnotes are plenty for now. If you want to fit these footnotes into an even wider perspective on the Russia Hoax, Debra Heine has an article today that covers some of that: Sens. Grassley and Johnson Say ‘Certain Sections’ of IG Report Are ‘Misleading’ in Letter to AG Barr.