A Closer Look At The FBI's Carter Page Investigation (Part 3)

In the first two parts of our closer look at the FBI's investigations of Carter Page, we focused on events beginning in March, 2016--about the time that Page joined the Trump campaign as a foreign policy adviser--and continuing to mid-September, 2016, the supposed time when FBIHQ first obtained "information" from Christopher Steele's so-called "dossier." That "dossier", as Devin Nunes has repeatedly stated, was in fact the product of the Clinton campaign's oppo research shop--Fusion GPS. The Fusion persons behind that "dossier" included Glenn Simpson and Nellie Ohr, wife of high level DoJ official Bruce Ohr, who was a close contact of Steele.

As we saw in Parts 1 & 2 of our closer look, the FBI's New York Field Office (NYFO) began its investigation of Carter Page after having been in contact with Page off and on beginning in 2009. During the same period, 2009 - 2013, Page was an asset of the CIA. What precipitated the falling out between the FBI and Page was the Three Russians case that the NYFO pursued against Russian officials based in New York. Page became a key witness in that case beginning in 2013 (the year that the CIA stopped using Page as an asset), but shortly before the trial was scheduled to begin there was a falling out between Page and the prosecution team (FBI agents and prosecutors from both the US Attorney in New York - SDNY - as well as DoJ).

Yesterday in the comments section to Part 2 there was an extensive discussion regarding Page's actual role in the Three Russians case, sparked by discrepancies between the complaint in the case (dated January 23, 2015 - my aging eyes mistakenly read that as 2013) and the press release issued by DoJ on March 11, 2016. The press release announced the guilty plea of the only one of the Three Russians who remained in the US, Evgeny Buryakov. The result of the guilty plea, of course, was that Carter Page was never called upon to testify at a trial. That should have been a happy ending for all concerned, but instead it was the beginning of an FBI Counterintelligence investigation of Carter Page that resulted in the FBI obtaining four FISA orders against Page. Those FISA orders, the final renewal of which was obtained by Team Mueller, became a key part of the FBI's (and Deep State's) effort to oust President Trump.

The discussion in the comments yesterday was very disturbing for me, as it opened new issues that--while probably not directly related to the Russia Hoax itself, or perhaps coincidentally or opportunistically related--nevertheless raised issues of prosecutorial abuse that have figured prominently in the Team Mueller Witchhunt. In this post I'll try to make sense of what happened between the FBI and Carter Page. That may not be possible, due to a lack of necessary information, but we may nevertheless get some idea of what may be hidden and what matters the Durham investigation may be looking at that are not public knowledge at this time.

A Closer Look At The FBI's Carter Page Investigation (Part 2)

Let's continue with our "Closer Look" at the FBI's investigation of Carter Page, as explained in the Horowitz FISA report.  Part I of our "Closer Look" dealt with the origins of the investigation in the FBI's New York Field Office's (NYFO) dealings with Carter Page--which stretch back to 2009--and stopped at the point that the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened (July 31, 2016) and a separate sub-investigation was opened on Page. Here we will look at Horowitz's account of FBI investigative activity with regard to Page prior to the FBI's supposed first knowledge of the Steele "dossier" on September 19, 2016.

Once again I've pasted in several pages from the OIG report--the full section, with footnotes. The page numbering is included as before: (paper doc page number/pdf file page number). My comments are in "quote" format.


(77/110)

IV. Investigative Steps in Crossfire Hurricane Prior to Receipt of Christopher Steele Reporting on September 19

A Closer Look At The FBI's Carter Page Investigation (Part 1)

Carter Page remains at the heart of the Russia Hoax--which is natural, given that the FBI's investigation of Page served as the vehicle for obtaining a FISA order that encompassed much of the Trump campaign. The OIG FISA report, or Horowitz Dossier, devotes several pages to tracing the origins of the investigation of Page that was initiated by the FBI's New York Field Office (NYFO). A closer look at this section of the report is worthwhile because I believe it will expose the weakness of the Russia Hoax generally, including the probability that the rationalizations offered by the FBI exhibit bad faith. At the same time we will also see that those rationalizations do pose difficulties for the Durham investigation.

In what follows, I have inserted the full text of the reports treatment of the origination of the Carter Page investigation. Redactions are indicated by asterisks: "***" and the footnotes from the report are included, but are placed at the end of the text excerpt. I have inserted my own comments in a "quote" format. There are also further relevant selections from the report appended which I have labeled as an Appendix. As for identifying the page numbering, I have adopted a format that presents first the page number as it appears in the text, followed by a slash and a number that represents the page number in a PDF viewer--which may be easier to use for anyone looking at the original.

Page 61/94 and following.

C. The Pre-Existing FBI New York Field Office Counterintelligence Investigation of Carter Page

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:

Horowitz Unearthed More Steele Conspiracy Tales

IG Michael Horowitz's FISA report continues to be scrutinized and mined for relevant new facts that shed light on the origins and development of the Russia Hoax. Today at the Washington Examiner Rowan Scarborough lays out new facts that demonstrate that the Russia Hoax was rooted in cynically contrived conspiracy theories emanating from the Clinton camp.

In Trump conspiracy theories beyond the Steele dossier were passed to FBI Scarborogh documents from the FISA report that Christopher Steele provided the FBI with at least three additional anti-Trump conspiracy stories, all of which were as untrue as those contained in his "dossier" memos. We can leave to another time the whole question of who actually wrote these materials and simply note that Steele spread them.

Scarborough provides a usefull account of Steele's connections to the Hillary campaign through Fusion GPS, his meetings with reporters and with FBI officials, as well as his provision of materials to political figures such as John McCain. IG Horowitz put together a timeline for Steele's activities and, in doing so, discovered that there was more to Steele's involvement in the election than merely the dossier. Here are the three new items presented in the FISA report.

OH! So Maybe This Is Why The Flynn Hearing Was Delayed

Recall that the government, i.e., Team Mueller lawyer van Grack, decided to ask that the hearing on Flynn's motion for release of Brady material be delayed. The cited reason was that there would be information in the forthcoming Horowitz Dossier that would be relevant to the Flynn case. Van Grack is probably hoping that this will allow the case to be thrown out without getting into the issue of his own misconduct. Get a load of this:

🚨

IG REPORT

The FBI used Christopher Steele to get information on General Flynn.

FBI promised Steele he would be paid "significantly" for this information.

cc @KerriKupecDOJ pic.twitter.com/iLLDcTVnbJ

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) December 9, 2019

So, in other words: Get us dirt on Flynn and we'll give you significant amounts of money. Horowitz's writeup--and, look, Horowitz is an experienced prosecutor, so he knows what he's saying--clearly states that the FBI informed Steele that they were ready to pay--for dirt.

Does that sound to you like an open invitation for someone based outside US jurisdiction to, like, make stuff up? It sure sounds like it to me. I guaran-damn-tee you, I never spoke to a source like that. Does that sound like evidence of "improper motives" to you? Like, the FBI really wanted to "get" Flynn? Yeah.

UPDATED: "Just Good People Trying To Protect America"

That would be James Comey's version of the Horowitz Dossier.

Zerohedge's version is: "The world's loudest wrist slap."

Don Surber says (once again): No excitement without indictments.

But how about this? Isn't the fact that Comey can even semi-credibly make such a laughable statement in public an indictment in and of itself? An indictment of Michael Horowitz, the pretend IG?

In the meantime, John Solomon wants you to know about The Comey FBI's 17 Worst Failures, Inaccuracies, & Omissions Flagged In The FISA Report. Which would seem to be a pretty tall order, but Solomon takes the bit between his teeth, and he does pretty well.

Here's the short version: The FBI systematically lied about almost everything to do with presenting a case for the FISAs on Carter Page. The FBI lied both by omission and commission.

UPDATE 1: Regarding lies by omission, Techno Fog gives you the documentation, just so you know that the idea that "mistakes were made" doesn't pass the laugh test:

You'll hear a lot about "omissions" in the upcoming IG Report.

To put those omissions into context as you read:

There is a duty under the FISC Rules to include material facts and to correct a "misstatement or omission of material fact" pic.twitter.com/g3V70D14g3

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) December 9, 2019

UPDATE 2: I quoted Don Surber above without having read his blog by that name: No excitement without an indictment. Do yourself a favor and read it. Excerpt:

The Inspector General's report reveals Obama used the FBI to spy on Donald John Trump. 

Big deal. 

We already knew that. 

Who is going to jail for this? 

Republican Congressman Mark Meadows said, "Some former FBI and DOJ officials are about to have some serious explaining to do. 

Oh no! Not explaining to do. Anything but that. 

... 

Hillary got away with laundering bribes through her Fake Charity and sending classified email to a server in Red China. 

Quid Pro Joe got away with putting the arm on Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was making trouble for Biden's coke-addled womanizing son. 

And now Obama has gotten away with spying on President Trump. 

Let us reserve our energies for battles we can win: appointing conservative judges, rolling back regulations, downsizing the bureaucracy, tax cuts, trade agreements that are not written by sellout politicians, and making America great again.

I'll still wait to see what Barr/Durham come up with.

MULTIPLE UPDATES: FISA Report: We Waited How Long For THIS?

Obviously I've only just started on the Executive Summary, but the third paragraph in tells you the story: Comb through the report for factual details, limited as they may be, but don't waste your time on conclusions--such as, mistakes were made but there was no bias, etc.

Here's the third paragraph:

Our role in this review was not to second-guess discretionary judgments by Department personnel about whether to open an investigation, or specific judgment calls made during the course of an investigation, where those decisions complied with or were authorized by Department rules, policies, or procedures. We do not criticize particular decisions merely because we might have recommended a different investigative strategy or tactic based on the facts learned during our investigation. The question we considered was not whether a particular investigative decision was ideal or could have been handled more effectively, but rather whether the Department and the FBI complied with applicable legal requirements, policies, and procedures in taking the actions we reviewed or, alternatively, whether the circumstances surrounding the decision indicated that it was based on inaccurate or incomplete information, or considerations other than the merits of the investigation. If the explanations we were given for a particular decision were consistent with legal requirements, policies, procedures, and not unreasonable, we did not conclude that the decision was based on improper considerations in the absence of documentary or testimonial evidence to the contrary. 

Well for goodness sake! If you were a government bureaucrat and you were going to commit a crime using government bureaucracy as the vehicle for that crime, and you wanted to conceal that crime from bureaucratic watchdogs--what would you do? Wouldn't you ensure that your actions--corrupt as they might be and with whatever illegal intent--followed in form while not in substance with all the applicable "rules, policies, or procedures"? Of course you would! Would you, on the other hand, provide "documentary or testimonial evidence" of your real intent? Uh, NOOOOO!

Exactly what use is an Inspector General like Michael Horowitz who doesn't "second guess discretionary judgments" of officials when those judgments are the spearhead of the most outrageous scandal in US history--an effort by the intelligence apparatus of the US government to prevent the election of a candidate for US President and, having failed in that effort, to drive an elected president from office on the basis of false charges. And now I'm gonna have to plow through 500 pages to try to pull out the facts that might be useful for getting at the truth. I'm frankly hacked off. There's no reason that Horowitz couldn't have come to stronger conclusions.

What a joke. On us. On We the People.

UPDATE 1: Official reaction from John Durham and Bill Barr--excerpted. It's seems pretty clear that they didn't buy off on that third paragraph as adequate any more than I did (h/t to commenter Joe for passing these links along).

John Durham:

“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff. However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Note that while Durham has "the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General", he doesn't exactly say that that respect extends to Horowitz personally. He told Horowitz a month ago that Horowitz's conclusions were wrong, and Horowitz went right ahead with a limp wristed approach. You all know how much stress I've placed on "predication" for the FBI investigation and how utterly inadequate--corrupt--the case opening was. It's great to be backed up on that assessment by the guy who's been doing the deep dive into it all. Anyone who thinks Durham didn't clear that statement with Barr, guess again.

Barr's statement is a bit more "nuanced"--clearly he let Durham take the strongest shot at Horowitz's corrupt performance--but he doesn't leave much doubt about his own views.

Bill Barr:

"Nothing is more important than the credibility and integrity of the FBI and the Department of Justice. That is why we must hold our investigators and prosecutors to the highest ethical and professional standards. The Inspector General’s investigation has provided critical transparency and accountability, and his work is a credit to the Department of Justice. I would like to thank the Inspector General and his team.

As you'll see, what Barr is saying amounts to this: Thanks for gathering some facts. Here are our preliminary conclusions, which are that the facts clearly show that the FBI trashed their "credibility and integrity."

The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory. Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump’s administration. In the rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance of Trump campaign associates, FBI officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source. The Inspector General found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory. While most of the misconduct identified by the Inspector General was committed in 2016 and 2017 by a small group of now-former FBI officials, the malfeasance and misfeasance detailed in the Inspector General’s report reflects a clear abuse of the FISA process. 

FISA is an essential tool for the protection of the safety of the American people. The Department of Justice and the FBI are committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to rectify the abuses that occurred and to ensure the integrity of the FISA process going forward. 

No one is more dismayed about the handling of these FISA applications than Director Wray. I have full confidence in Director Wray and his team at the FBI, as well as the thousands of dedicated line agents who work tirelessly to protect our country. I thank the Director for the comprehensive set of proposed reforms he is announcing today, and I look forward to working with him to implement these and any other appropriate measures. 

With respect to DOJ personnel discussed in the report, the Department will follow all appropriate processes and procedures, including as to any potential disciplinary action."

UPDATE 2: From what I've seen so far there's very little in this ~500 page report that's news. Not in the sense that we're surprised by anything. We either knew it already or reasonably inferred it. There is more detail, but that's the bottom line. And AG Barr concludes what we all already knew:

the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that ... were insufficient to justify the steps taken.

Reading the report will do nothing but confirm that. With that in mind I'll probably concentrate on Horowitz's handling of legal issues such as predication and the use of the various rules and regulations that the FBI and DoJ used to cover their asses.

UPDATE 3: Gotta luv this:

We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page. 

Let that sink in. The OIG investigation found that the FBI systematically hid from the FISC the true nature of their relationship with Carter Page. The FBI systematically created in the mind of the FISC a counter-factual impression. But somehow Horowitz didn't see that as exhibiting "improper motivation." Because the FBI didn't write an EC to the case file stating: "We are acting with improper motivation."

That's just one very brief example. That's what the report is all about. Three monkeys who see only mistakes, not "improper motivation."

Quick Hits

More trouble for the FBI:

BREAKING: A second Comey FBI agent in addition to FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith will be cited for misconduct in the Russia "collusion" probe, making it more implausible that their supervisor Strzok was unaware of their conduct and that they were rogue agents operating on their own

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 5, 2019

BREAKING: Justice IG Horowitz has 104 criminal or administrative investigations of alleged misconduct related to FBI employees open as of Sept. 30, according to new OIG report. The criminal investigations involve "serious allegations of official misconduct."

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) December 5, 2019

Bill Barr and his pal "Bob", the butt of his jokes:

BASED BILL BARR pic.twitter.com/c6yl31toIL

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) December 5, 2019

https://t.co/q7knGtLjMu pic.twitter.com/NPcMXV17Cf

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) December 5, 2019

Nancy's Speech for the Ages:

Except that...E pluribus unum means "FROM many, one." Not "FOR many, one." 🙄 @SpeakerPelosi https://t.co/rbTanlqehp

— shane@theshow (@shanetheshow1) December 5, 2019

Turning Over The 2016 Rocks

That's the theme of Holman Jenkins' column in today's WSJ: "Who Will Turn Over the 2016 Rocks?" Jenkins, in line with his NeverTrumpism, buys into the idea that James Comey--among others--was "played by the Russians" (re a supposed forged email chain), even while backhandedly acknowledging the difficulties of that position:

"Making further mincemeat of Mr. Comey's rationale [the supposed email chain], the inspector general has revealed that his FBI colleagues judged the Russian intelligence to be 'objectively false' and possibly a Kremlin plant."

Nevertheless, Jenkins finishes off with some big picture observations of the lay of the land facing the Deep State and its Fourth Estate lackeys. I offer them here as food for thought for the Thanksgiving weekend, as we await solid news in the coming weeks:

Wafting above all is an odor of 1963, when the press deliberately ignored Lee Harvey Oswald's communist affiliations in favor of a distracting talking point about right-wing extremism in Dallas. Do I think the republic today can survive a full airing of the US intelligence community's inept actions in the 2016 race? Yes, and with minimal shock at this point. It's the FBI and CIA that are unlikely to survive without undergoing a sweeping institutional housecleaning. 

Which brings us to the latest inspector general's report due in a couple weeks, itself a down payment on a criminal investigation now in the hands of US Attorney John Durham. Because Washington is seldom keen to prosecute even plainly illegal leaks when Republicans are the victims, and because unprofessional credulousness in the face of dubious "intelligence" (like the Steele dossier) is not about to become a crime, the cathartic prosecutions of Obama intelligence officials that some Trump loyalists crave are unlikely to happen. 

Many of us avidly await the coming revelations for a different reason: to see if the mainstream media will finally interest itself in the truths of 2016.  Looming over the fourth estate is a quietly important question: whether continuing to collude in a coverup can remain consistent with commercial survival.

My reactions:

Major Development In The Flynn Case

This afternoon there was a major development in the Flynn case. The government--meaning, the USA for DC--filed a motion to abate the schedule that Judge Sullivan had set for the Flynn case. I take it that this was by agreement with Flynn's attorney's--my reasons for believing so should be apparent from Sidney Powell's tweets. However, what I'll do is paste in CTH's copy of the motion as well, because it highlights the most relevant section.

As sundance notes, the most likely conclusion to be drawn is that some issues regarding the Brady material requested by Flynn are addressed in the forthcoming OIG FISA report--which the motion specifically references as a reason to abate the schedule that Judge Sullivan had set. It also seems likely from this that DoJ may have intervened here to suggest this abatement, since one presumes that the USA would not otherwise be aware of the relevance of the OIG FISA report to the Flynn case. I would expect that Judge Sullivan would grant this agreed motion. At this point I won't speculate as to the ramifications of this. You can see from Powell's tweets that she doesn't seem displeased to see Flynn's case formally connected to the various investigations of FBI misconduct by OIG and, by extension, John Durham.

ADDENDUM: Here's my thinking. At a minimum, this delay will allow the judge to make his decision based on much more information about the background to this case than he has at present. Official information, not just assertions in the pleadings of the two parties. IMO, this can only be good for Flynn.

#BREAKING Government filing motion to abate schedule in @GenFlynn case as we await Judge Sullivan's order on our motion for exculpatory evidence & #IGReport #Brady#GovernmentMisconduct@Techno_Fog @SaraCarterDC @ProfMJCleveland @jsolomonReports @seanhannity @LouDobbs

— Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) November 26, 2019

If the Court grants the order, the sentencing date will evaporate and we will have time to digest the IGreport and Judge Sullivan's next order.@BarbaraRedgate @SaraCarterDC @seanhannity @JackPosobiec @LouDobbs @jsolomonReports @Techno_Fog pic.twitter.com/OTkBcvqfmC

— Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) November 26, 2019

OIG's Interlocking Reports

Brian Cates at Epoch Times has a simply outstanding article out that examines the OIG's very recent (11/19/19) report on the FBI's management of its Confidential Human Source program. Cates' article is titled Why DOJ Inspector General Horowitz Had to Produce Two Reports, which gives a clear indication of where he's going: the relationship between the CHS report and the forthcoming FISA report--due out 12/9/19. Before we get into that, lets review a few background matters, which will help guide our way forward.

First, commenter Forbes recently referred to the forthcoming OIG FISA report as "more an audit than an investigation." I demurred--to an extent, adding that Forbes was on to something. That something is that OIG investigations are often confused with criminal investigations by prosecutors--which they are not. So, for reference, here is how OIG describes its work:

The OIG has jurisdiction to review the programs and personnel of the FBI, ATF, BOP, DEA, USAO, USMS, and all other organizations within the Department, as well as contractors of the Department and organizations receiving grant money from the Department. The OIG fulfills this mission, in part, through auditing and inspecting Department programs and issuing reports of its findings. Below please find the OIG’s audits, evaluations, inspections, and reviews.

I won't get into the distinctions, but rest assured they are real. However, to provide two very relevant examples, the CHS report is classed as an audit: Audit of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation’s Management of its Confidential Human Source Validation Processes. In this case, OIG audited the FBI for compliance with applicable guidelines. Here are the findings of that audit, short and not so sweet:

We found that the FBI's vetting process for CHSs,
known as validation, did not comply with the Attorney
General Guidelines. We also found deficiencies in the
FBl's long-term CHS validation reports which are relied
upon by FBI and Department of Justice (Department or
DOJ) officials in determining the continued use of a
CHS. Further, the FBI inadequately staffed and trained
personnel conducting long-term validations and lacked
an automated process to monitor its long-term CHSs.

Ouch.

McCarthy: About The "Premise" Of That Investigation ...

Commenter Cassander's prodding reminded me to read Andy McCarthy's latest article--The First Glimpse into Horowitz’s FISA-Abuse Report. I haven't got far into it, but right near the beginning McCarthy really hits the nail right on the head, skewering some of the spin that some of us have been fretting over. McCarthy addresses the business about the "premise" (or "predication") for the FBI investigation that served as the basis for the Carter Page FISA that is the main focus of the OIG FISA report--due out December 9th.

I discussed this at some length earlier today, but McCarthy gets right to the heart of the CNN spin very elegantly and pithily. It's a useful reminder of how we need to focus on key issues in order to separate the wheat from the chaff. After briefly recounting the news, the revelations about disgraced former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith's bad behavior with other people's emails, McCarthy writes:

UPDATED: What Can We Reasonably Expect From OIG's FISA Report?

I'll admit I was a bit bummed by the end of yesterday. The initial upper of learning that, beyond the obvious misrepresentations in the Carter Page FISA application, OIG determined that an FBI lawyer had actually altered material that was submitted in support of a renewal application was followed by the heavy downer of the NYT's claims that downplayed the overall significance of the OIG report. Although the sources for the NYT story were obviously interested parties, what disturbed me beyond the spin was semi factual assertions such as these (I quote from the WSJ):

The Justice Department's inspector general is expected to conclude there was a proper legal basis for the government's application to monitor a former Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser, but that errors and lapses in judgment were made during the process, according to people familiar with the matter.

Now, some of this could be spin. "Errors and lapses in judgment" could be a minimum assessment. If there were proof of motive, those "errors and lapses in judgment" would unquestionably be criminal acts. The problem from a prosecutorial standpoint is establishing the motive beyond a reasonable doubt. Even obvious bias against a political candidate may not be adequate to establish that the bias was itself the motivation that actuated the "errors and lapses in judgment" that led to a FISA warrant. And three FISA renewals. Against a man who has been charged with no crimes.

What were some of these "errors and lapses in judgment"? According to the NYT the report will say that

The paperwork associated with the renewal applications contained information that should have been left out, and vice versa, ...

In other words, errors and lapses of judgment of both omission and commission. Two glaring examples come immediately to mind:

FISA Report: "It's Historic!"

That's what President Trump says he's "been told" about the forthcoming OIG FISA report. Who told him that? Presumably that's what Bill Barr told him, when Barr and White House Counsel Pat Cippolone met with Trump recently in the Oval Office. Recall that the conversation, as viewed through the windows, appeared to be "animated," and Trump delayed his flight to Louisiana by 45 minutes. Historic, never been anything like this before, gonna be criminal charges, the leak about the FBI lawyer is the tip of the iceberg. Trump was saying all this.

More highlights:

Also: Barr is a "great attorney general, we maybe woulda ended this thing long ago if he'd been in there." This was "an overthrow attempt of the presidency."

"Durham will be coming out" shortly after OIG's FISA report.

Does the criminality go all the way to the Oval Office? To Obama?

How high did it go? "Personally I think it went all the way. Because for Brennan and Clapper and all those losers over there, for them to be doing things, let's see what it all says, it's impossible, Susan Rice, ... No, I think this went to the highest levels, I hate to say this, I think it's a disgrace, they thought I was gonna win and they said, How can we stop him? They wrote up the phony, the fake dossier, the disgusting fake dossier, and they tried to have it put out prior to the election."

Like any Trump interview, it's hard to follow a single thread for long, but you get the picture. I don't think he's overselling this.

Did The FBI Lawyer Who Altered A Doc Work For Strzok?

This morning Fox has its story about the former FBI lawyer--"forced out of the bureau"--who "altered" a document relating to the Carter Page FISA. There are two significant paragraphs in the Fox story--Horowitz reportedly finds FBI lawyer falsified FISA doc; WaPo stealth-deletes Strzok connection--that contain tantalizing information:

The new evidence concerning the altered document, which was related to the FBI's FISA court warrant application to surveil Page, is expected to be outlined in Horowitz's upcoming report. CNN first reported the news, which was largely confirmed by The Washington Post.

The Post, hours after publishing its story, conspicuously removed the portion of its reporting that the FBI employee involved was underneath Peter Strzok, the FBI's since-fired head of counterintelligence. The Post did not offer an explanation for the change, which occurred shortly after midnight. Earlier this week, the DOJ highlighted a slew of anti-Trump text messages sent by Strzok when he was leading the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the probe into the Trump campaign. 

Horowitz reportedly found that the FBI employee who modified the FISA document falsely stated that he had "documentation to back up a claim he had made in discussions with the Justice Department about the factual basis" for the FISA warrant application, the Post reported. Then, the FBI employee allegedly "altered an email" to substantiate his inaccurate version of events. The employee has since been forced out of the bureau.

Of course lots of people working Counterintelligence (CI) at FBIHQ would be "underneath" Strzok. However, I doubt that very many FBI lawyers at that level would have been that involved with the Carter Page FISA, so that leads to the suspicion that the misrepresentations to DoJ were made with Strzok's knowledge--possibly even at his request. There can be no doubt that Horowitz pursued that angle and that Durham will continue to press the issue if it hasn't already been resolved. Who else knew besides the lawyer? Surely more than just that lawyer pored over the original documentation that was supposed to provide probably cause against Carter Page (which is required for a FISA against a US person).

The other item of interest confirms my doubt that an original investigative case file document had been altered. It sounds like the lawyer made verbal representations to DoJ and then "altered an email" to corroborate the verbal representations. Again, how would that work? Probably the lawyer who claimed to have an email to support the claimed version of events (a surveillance matter) said he/she would forward the substantiation. But, rather than forwarding the entire email simply "quoted" it--an edited, altered, quote.

Again, we'll be learning more.

An additional point. Sidney Powell, lawyer for Michael Flynn, follows all these developments closely. She will be sure to include reference to this matter in countering government claims that she has "no reason to doubt" their representations regarding the Flynn 302 that was created by Strzok, probably in cooperation with others at the FBI.

MULTIPLE UPDATES: CNN Claims FBI Official Under Criminal Investigation Re Page FISA

See bottom for additional UPDATES.

UPDATE: CNN has updated their reporting. The "FBI official" is now reported to be a "former FBI lawyer," so I've changed the body of the blog. See bottom for additional UPDATES.

Further, we learn:

During one of interviews this year, [OIG] confronted the witness about the document. The witness admitted to the change, the sources said. 

The lawyer, who was a line attorney, is no longer working at the bureau, said a person familiar with the matter. A line attorney is a lower level lawyer within the FBI. 

No charges that could reflect the situation have been filed publicly in court.

But Durham is on the case. The fact that this was a "lower level lawyer" strengthens my belief that this is probably a misrepresentation rather than a physical alteration. Nevertheless, since the FISA in question concerned unquestionably the most consequential case in Bureau history, I refuse to believe that a "lower level lawyer" just did this on their own account--whether it was a misrepresentation or a physical alteration. Durham must be pushing to find out who's behind this. Also, while this lawyer is no longer working at the Bureau, the fact that he/she was interviewed by OIG makes it a near certainty that he/she was still employed when the interview took place.

Now begins the original blog:

---------------------------------

It's difficult, well, not possible, to be sure what's being said in this CNN story: FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe. On the face of it, it seems clear enough, but as soon as you start asking questions it becomes more elusive.

Here are the main factual statements:

A former FBI lawyer is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN. 

... 

It's unknown how significant a role the altered document played in the FBI's investigation of Page and whether the FISA warrant would have been approved without the document. The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document's meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

There are multiple ways to explain this, so I'll try to keep this simple.

Save The Date: December 9th!

Yes, that's December 9 ... 2019! The OIG FISA report will be released on that Monday. Lindsay Graham says it's a lock:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Wednesday that Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report on allegations of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant abuse during the 2016 election will be released on Dec. 9. 

During an appearance on "Hannity" Wednesday, host Sean Hannity noted Horowitz will be coming before Graham's committee on Dec. 11 to testify on the matter and went on to ask Graham not to allow a Friday night document "dump" that could muffle the coverage of the news. 

In response, Graham smiled and nodded. 

"It'll be December 9th -- you'll get the report," the South Carolina lawmaker said.

"That's locked."