How's This For Predication

Regular readers will recall that, according to the Attorney General Guidelines for the FBI's National Security Investigations, in order to obtain a FISA warrant the FBI must first have a Full Investigation opened. Once again, below is the required predication for opening a Full Investigation. Note that the difference between a Full and a Preliminary Investigation is that in the case of a Full the FBI must be able to cite "specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that a [described] circumstance ... exists." Meaning, specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that the circumstance actually exists. In a Preliminary Investigation the standard is that the circumstance may exist. Among the practical differences that arise from this distinction is that in the case of the Full Investigation the FBI is allowed to use more intrusive investigative techniques--specifically, FISA.

Here are the relevant parts of the Guidelines, and I've highlighted the portions that would logically apply in the circumstances that the FBI claimed gave rise to the Crossfire Hurricane Full Investigation:

FBI Headquarters or a field office may initiate a full investigation if there are specific and articulable facts that give reason to believe that a circumstance described in Part II.B.l of these Guidelines exists.  

Part II.B. 

1. Circumstances for Opening an Investigation 

The circumstances on which the initiation of a ... full investigation may be based are: 

a. An individual is ... an international terrorist or an agent of a foreign power.

b. A group or organization is ... a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power,c. ...

d. An individual, group, or organization is ... engaging, or has ... engaged, in activities constituting a threat to the national security (or related preparatory or support activities) for or on behalf of a foreign power.

e. A crime involved in or related to a threat to the national security has ... occurred, is ... occurring, or will ... occur. 

f. An individual, group, or organization is ... the target of a recruitment or infiltration effort by an international terrorist, foreign power, or agent of a foreign power under circumstances related to a threat to the national security. 

g. An individual, group, organization, entity, information, property, or activity is ... a target of international terrorism, espionage, foreign computer intrusion, or other threat to the national security. 

For a long time I was absolutely convinced that Crossfire Hurricane could only have been opened based on the Steele dossier's claims with regard to Carter Page. I assumed that the FBI had had access to the early "reports" from the dossier, in which Steele stated that Page was coordinating with Paul Manafort on behalf of the Trump campaign with high level Russian officials to obtain collusive electoral assistance from the Russians. The FBI claimed for a long time that it hadn't had that access, but that now appears to be yet another, um, misstatement:

Undercover Huber
@JohnWHuber 

WOAH! 

Source #1 (Steele) “reported the information contained herein [the FISA warrant application] to the FBI over the course of several meetings with the FBI from...June 2016 to August 2016”.

I thought the FBI only got the “dossier” allegations mid-September? 
8:19 PM · Apr 16, 2020

Nevertheless, it appears to be fact that the FBI really did open Crossfire Hurricane as a Full Investigation based solely on predication relating to George Papadopoulos--not Carter Page. However, we know from disgraced former FBI Director James Comey that Crossfire Hurricane was an "enterprise" investigation--in other words, it was claimed that there was an "enterprise" or "group in fact" of individuals engaged in the activity to be investigated: collusion with Russia that constituted a threat to the national security.

As part of the FISA application against Carter Page the FBI had to provide a brief summary of the predication for that Full Investigation. Undercover Huber has drawn attention to that "predication". Over the last couple of days I've been reviewing the claimed probable cause as presented in the FISA application. Here is my version, with some redactions replaced by identities as we now know them. It's more extensive than UCH's version:

In or about July 2016, the Australian government provided information to a [U.S. Government official] regarding efforts made by the Russian Government to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Specifically, according to this information, during a meeting in or about April 2016 between an Australian official [Alexander Downer] and George Papadopoulos, [REDACTED], Papadopoulos suggested that Donald Trump's campaign had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that Russia could assist with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. It was unclear whether Papadopoulos or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly or through other means. It was also unclear from this reporting how Donald Trump's campaign reacted to the alleged Russian offer. Nevertheless, as discussed below, the FBI believes that election influence efforts are being coordinated between the RIS and Page, and possibly others.

The FBI is investigating several individuals associated with Donald Trump's campaign, including Papadopoulos and Page, to determine the extent to which such individuals are engaged in unlawful activities in support of Russia's efforts to undermine and influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. The FBI believes that Page is coordinating election influence efforts with the Russian Government. As discussed below, Page has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers, and has been identified by source reporting as an intermediary with Russian leadership in "a well developed conspiracy of co-operation" to influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election.

So, the Guidelines require specific and articulable facts, and the FBI provides these specific facts (which, however, we now know are inventions and not facts) which appear to form the core of the predication that ultimately led to the Mueller Witchhunt and the fake impeachment of President Trump:

Papadopoulos suggested that Donald Trump's campaign had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that Russia could assist with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton. It was unclear whether Papadopoulos or the Russians were referring to material acquired publicly or through other means. It was also unclear from this reporting how Donald Trump's campaign reacted to the alleged Russian offer.

I submit that, while "unclear" "suggestions" "of some kind" are specific facts, they do NOT "give reason to believe" that the circumstances as described actually exist, nor do they provide predication for undertaking an investigation that was targeting a candidate for the presidency. Such suggestions can only give rise to a suspicion that such circumstances may exist--which logically could only lead to a Preliminary Investigation. IOW, no FISA.

In fact, of course, most of the assertions contained in the two paragraphs from the FISA application are either flat untrue or extemely misleading. For example, we know that the basis for the Michael Flynn investigation--Flynn is one of the individuals being investigated for "unlawful activities in support of Russia's efforts to undermine and influence the 2016 U.S. Presidential election"--were untrue. Again, the claim that Page was the coordinator of collusion with Russia is based on untruths. Also, the claim that Page "has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers" implies that Page was in a clandestine intelligence relationship with those Russians--which we, and the FBI, know was not the case.

All of this leads to an interesting situation. Here we have the FBI initiating an unprecedented Full Investigation that is clearly targeting a presidential candidate as an agent of a foreign power--that's the reality behind the legalese--yet instead of seeking a FISA on the individual (Papadopoulos) whose claimed statements led to opening that investigation, the FBI instead turns around and targets a FISA against a different individual (Page).

That logically leads to the question: Why was Crossfire Hurricane not predicated on Page's past supposed "relationships" with Russian intelligence officers or his supposed "secret meetings" in Moscow as the Trump campaign's collusion coordinator? The most logical explanation I can offer is this: The FBI did not want to draw attention to the Steele dossier as the basis for the investigation. If questions about the underlying investigation--not just the FISA--should ever arise, they would be able to deny that the investigation was predicated on Steele's bogus information. They would be able to claim that they had instead relied on information provided by a high official of a close allied nation: Australia. Much better than basing it all on a dodgy character like Steele. Too bad the Downer narrative turned out to be another in a long lines of hoaxes.

This is, in fact, what has happened. The FBI has denied that the predication--which is readily seen, now, to be grossly inadequate--was based on the Steele dossier. In addition, to bolster that defensive position, the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which claimed as the Intel Community's "assessment" that Russia was actively "meddling" in the election, was invented to support the basic legitimacy of Crossfire Hurricane.

And that explains why Barr and Durham think the ICA is so important.