Trump Administration Declassifies Full Susan Rice Email – But Is It Incriminating?

The Trump Administration has declassified an email that Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice sent to herself on January 20, 2017, the day that President Trump was inaugurated. The email memorializes a January 5, 2017 meeting in the Oval Office in which leaders of the intelligence community along with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, discussed Michael Flynn.

Excerpts of the email were previously available but the full text has now been released to Politico and can be viewed here.

While some Republicans have viewed the email as a smoking gun in what they term “Obamagate,” it is not clear that the email is evidence of any wrongdoing by the Obama Administration. The second paragraph notes that “President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’”

“The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective,” Rice said in the email. “He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”

The president then asked if there was any reason that information could not be shared fully with the incoming Trump team “as it relates to Russia.”

Then FBI-Director James Comey answered the question. His reply is newly declassified.

“Director Comey affirmed that he is proceeding ‘by the book’ as it relates to law enforcement,” Rice wrote. “From a national security perspective, Comey said he does have some concerns that incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak. Comey said that could be an issue as it relates to sharing sensitive information. President Obama asked if Comey was saying that the NSC should not pass sensitive information related to Russia to Flynn. Comey replied ‘potentially.’ He added that he has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified information to Kislyak, but he noted that ‘the level of communication is unusual.’”

The one-page email concludes with the paragraph, “The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said that he would.”

The declassified email comes on the heels of another document released by Richard Grenell, the acting Director of National Intelligence, last week. The earlier document names Joe Biden’s office as the source of a request for the unmasking of Flynn’s name in intelligence reports.

The documents certainly mention Biden and Flynn and a host of others, but what do they mean? The answer is less than what the Trump Administration is implying.

Rice’s memo does show that the FBI was aware of Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak, the Russian ambassador, but it does not prove that the FBI had the Trump campaign under surveillance, but it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

The Rice email undercuts the Obamagate conspiracy theory by bringing the meeting into the open rather than trying to deny it or hide the details. Rice openly acknowledges the meeting took place and says the investigation was “by the book.” Is there evidence to the contrary? If so, the Trump Administration has not provided it.

Likewise, the fact that a number of Obama Administration officials requested unmasking is not sinister in and of itself. In fact, the requests for unmasking undercut the claims that the Trump campaign was being surveilled.

When an official sees a FISA intelligence report, the names of US citizens who were detected because they were communicating with a foreign person who was the target of the surveillance are “masked” to US intelligence officials. For example, an American might be anonymized as “US Person 1.” Unmasking requests are not uncommon. Politifact reports that there were approximately 27,000 such requests in the first two years of the Trump Administration.

The fact that Obama officials were requesting that Flynn’s name be unmasked is an indication that they did not know who he was. This would not have been the case if they were intentionally eavesdropping on the Trump campaign. Further, the large number of requests for unmasking is evidence that the Obama Administration officials were not gossiping about Flynn’s contacts with Kislyak. If they had known beforehand that it was Flynn, they would not have needed to create a paper trail with unmasking requests.

Reaching back a few weeks further, the FBI notes released by Flynn’s lawyers also fall short of proving wrongdoing on the part of investigators. The documents, which Flynn’s advocates claim prove that Flynn plead guilty to protect his son and that the FBI tricked Flynn into lying, do not show anything outside the “range of normal prosecutorial hardball” per Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare Blog.

In reality, Flynn plead guilty not once but twice. His proponents overlook a December 2018 sentencing hearing in which Flynn himself blows their theories out of the water. In that hearing (transcript here), Flynn acknowledged his guilt, acknowledged that he was aware that lying to the FBI was a crime, and declined to challenge the circumstances under which he was interviewed by the FBI.

In the end, we are left with a man who was not targeted by the FBI but was swept up in surveillance of foreign diplomats. Flynn then lied about his conversations with Kisylak when he knew that doing so was a federal crime. Flynn’s phone calls to Kislyak were not illegal but lying about them was. The FBI did not force Flynn to lie but rather gave him the rope to hang himself.

Based upon current evidence, to make the Obamagate allegations a crime, we would have to assume that any surveillance of a presidential campaign staffer is illegal or unethical. In reality, it is not a bad thing if surveillance of foreign agents nets campaign staffers. Being a member of a political campaign does not confer immunity from investigation or prosecution even though it does make such matters politically sensitive.

Nevertheless, the Trump Administration is proceeding full steam ahead with the claim that the Obama Administration acted illegally, even to the point of threatening to subpoena former officials in the case. This is true even though last week President Trump was unable to cite a specific crime that was supposedly committed by the Obama Administration. Instead, Republicans make the generic claim that Obama tried to “weaponize” the FBI and intelligence agencies for political purposes, which sounds a lot like what the Trump Administration is doing.

Republicans may want to think twice about that. In about eight months, Donald Trump may be a private citizen once again and Democrats might very well control both houses of Congress. If the GOP sets a precedent of hauling former Administration officials before Congress for trumped-up political investigations, Mr. Trump and his subordinates may find that they have a lot to answer for.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Team Trump Rehabilitates Mike Flynn As Unlikely Campaign ‘Rock Star’

The Trump campaign is in need of a focal point now that the Coronavirus pandemic has tanked the economy. Some campaign advisors think they might have found that focus in Michael Flynn.

Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI last year and was awaiting sentencing when the DOJ dropped the charges yesterday. Amid allegations of improper actions by federal agents, the former army general has become a cause celebre among Republicans, but his favorability among Republicans may not translate into a more general election advantage.

The party line is that Flynn is both innocent and was wrongfully prosecuted. While there may have been problems with the former general’s investigation and prosecution, it is highly questionable whether those problems would have resulted in his exoneration as both Erick Erickson and David French have recently pointed out.

Instead, we are left with a lot of evidence that Flynn is dirty but escaping punishment for his crimes. The general’s legal problems go much deeper than his charge of lying to the FBI, but many on the right overlook Flynn’s other issues.

In addition to the investigation of his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, Flynn was accused of illegally lobbying for Turkey and two of his former business associates were indicted on charges of illegally running a disinformation campaign for the Turkish government against a dissident cleric in the United States. The three men apparently plotted to kidnap the dissident, Fethullah Gulen, and but never carried out the operation. Gulen was to be returned to Turkey’s authoritarian ruler, Recip Tayyip Erdogan, in exchange for $15 million.

Flynn was never formally charged for these acts, leading David French to speculate, based on court documents that reference a plea deal, that Flynn agreed to provide evidence against his business partners in exchange for pleading guilty to the charge of lying to the FBI and cooperating with Mueller investigation. ABC News reporting seems to confirm this suspicion.

Adam Goldman

✔@adamgoldmanNYT

Prosecutor tells judge that Flynn could have been indicted in secret Turkey lobbying effort. Two of Mr. Flynn's former business associates were just charged in that scheme.

44

8:02 PM - Dec 18, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

23 people are talking about this

Despite the revisionist history of some right-wing pundits, Flynn did not lose his job as national security advisor because he lied to the FBI. Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President Pence, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and Press Secretary Sean Spicer. Flynn misled the three about his conversations with Ambassador Kislyak and did not admit the truth until he was outed by the Washington Post. Flynn’s lies led these other officials to make false statements.

The decision to drop the charges against Gen. Flynn does not represent an exoneration. In contrast, it may well be the opposite. Flynn is a proven and habitual liar who pleaded guilty. Dropping the charges against an admitted and unrepentant felon because he is a friend of the president represents one of the swampiest aspects of government.

Now, there are reports that the Trump campaign wants to make Flynn into a campaign surrogate. The Daily Beast reports that no less than nine Trump officials have said that they would like to give Flynn a prominent role in the campaign.

“Years ago when Nelson Mandela came to America after years of political persecution he was treated like a rock star by Americans,” John McLaughlin, one of President Trump’s chief pollsters, said. “Now after over three years of political persecution General Flynn is our rock star. A big difference is that he was persecuted in America.”

But Flynn was not persecuted.

The problem with the theory that Flynn was caught in a perjury trap is that perjury traps are easy to avoid. All you have to do to evade them is to not lie. Flynn did not meet that low bar and was caught red-handed in multiple lies at multiple times.

The Trump campaign may try to twist the circumstances of Flynn’s case into a myth of harassment by Deep State agents, but, for those of us outside the Republican Party, there is more to the story. The real story here is the White House intervention in a criminal case on behalf of one of the president’s cronies.

Propping Flynn up on the campaign stage between now and November will serve as a reminder to voters that the rule of law does not necessarily apply if you have the right connections in Trump World. Putting evidence of cronyism and favoritism on display at front and center during a presidential campaign may not be the best strategy for Republicans, but Trump is going to be Trump.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Durham And Horowitz Find No Evidence Of Conspiracy Against Trump

The twin reports from Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz and US Attorney John Durham have been eagerly awaited by both sides in the debate over whether members of the Trump campaign were baited by intelligence and law enforcement agencies in an effort to establish a probable cause to begin an investigation. A few weeks ago, we reported that Horowitz’s report would not contain bombshells about Deep State conspiracies that had been unearthed and now it seems that Durham will not give conspiracy theorists any Christmas gifts either.

The Washington Post reports that  Horowitz had submitted a number of questions to Durham, who was handpicked by Attorney General Barr to investigate and prosecute misconduct in the DOJ relating to the Russia investigation. Among the questions was whether Durham had evidence that Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor, was a government asset who was used to entrap members of the Trump campaign. The Post’s sources, who have seen a draft copy of the Horowitz report, say that Durham has no evidence to contradict government denials that Mifsud was an asset.

The inspector general’s office, the Durham investigation, and the DOJ all declined to comment on the report.

Sources indicate that the Horowitz report will find that there was adequate cause for the FBI to initiate the Russia investigation but will also find fault with FBI handling of the case. In particular, Horowitz will criticize later renewals of the FISA application for Carter Page, which failed to convey that information from Christopher Steele was not as reliable as previously believed. Nevertheless, the report will apparently not conclude that the omissions were significant enough to have compromised the integrity of the entire renewal.

Horowitz will also find fault with Kevin Clinesmith, the FBI lawyer who altered an email that related to the FISA application against Page. Clinesmith was forced out of the FBI after his deception was discovered and may be indicted by Durham. Again, Horowitz will say that the action did not compromise the integrity of the investigation.

Clinesmith, who spoke with the Post, also sent emails and text messages with anti-Trump comments. Clinesmith said that such messages were jokes and that his political views did not affect his work.

The Horowitz report will also address the origin of the Russia investigation. As was commonly believed, the investigation was based upon comments made by Trump advisor George Papadopoulos to the Australian ambassador in May 2016. Even though the DNC hack was not public knowledge until July, Papadopoulos told Greek and Australian diplomats in May that Russia was in possession of stolen emails relating to Hillary Clinton. Papadopoulos got his information from Mifsud, who he now claims was an agent for some western intelligence agency.

The full IG report has not yet been released to the public, but Barr, who has seen drafts of the report, has disputed Horowitz’s conclusions that there was no conspiracy of DOJ officials who were biased against President Trump and worked to undermine his presidency. The Washington Post reported recently that Barr has praised Horowitz’s work but believes privately that the IG does not have access to enough information to draw firm conclusions. With the DOJ exonerated, Barr has indicated that he believes the key to the conspiracy may lie with other agencies such as the CIA or with foreign governments.  

Without being specific, Barr told CBS News last May, “I assumed I’d get answers when I went in and I have not gotten answers that are well satisfactory, and in fact probably have more questions… Some of the facts that … I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened.”

It is not known whether Horowitz has contacted the CIA and other intelligence agencies to look into possible ties to Mifsud, but Barr and Durham have reportedly reached out to foreign governments. Horowitz’s questions to Durham involved whether he might have found additional information that the IG was not privy to and that would change his conclusions. Durham’s answer seems to have been negative.

At this point, it seems that the Horowitz and Durham investigations will undercut years of conspiratorial talking points from the Trump Administration and Republican pundits. However, don’t expect the sunlight of facts to dispel the myth that moles within the government were out to get Donald Trump. A characteristic of conspiracy theories is that layers can be added to the conspiracy to deny information that contradicts the narrative. Years of breathless-but-wrong revelations of DOJ wrongdoing won’t be easily overcome.

To paraphrase a favorite Ronald Reagan aphorism, it isn’t that the Deep State believers are ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Don’t Hold Your Breath For Deep State Bombshells In IG Report On FBI

The DOJ inspector general report on allegations of corruption in the investigations into members of the Trump campaign in 2016 is due out on December 9. The report by Inspector General Michael Horowitz has been eagerly anticipated by both sides in the debate over the origins of the Russia investigation, but the early signs indicate that proponents of the Deep State conspiracy theory may be disappointed.

Over the weekend, CNN reported the IG found evidence that an FBI employee altered a document connected with the surveillance warrant application for Carter Page, a former Trump campaign advisor. The CNN report did not detail what changes were made to the document and it is not known what role the document played in obtaining the warrant, but the alterations were reportedly significant enough to change the meaning of the document. The Washington Post cited US officials who said that the employee falsely claimed he had supporting evidence to back up the changes.

On the surface, the report seemed damning for the FBI, but, reading beyond the headline, the incident is much less sinister than it first appeared. The employee in question was a low-level attorney rather than an FBI agent or manager and, after the deception was discovered, the employee was forced out of the bureau. The incident became public as Horowitz turned over evidence of the alteration to federal prosecutor John Durham.

The Post reported that Horowitz found that the incident did not undermine the legal and factual basis of the federal investigation into Carter Page. The finding that the incident did not compromise the probable cause for the investigation undermines Republican claims that the counterintelligence investigations into members of the Trump campaign were begun in bad faith. Sources with knowledge of the report say that Horowitz found the FBI’s work to be sloppy but not indicative of a Deep State conspiracy against Trump.

Several Republicans have raised expectations for the IG report in recent weeks. President Trump, who said that he is “waiting for the report like everybody else,” told Fox News several weeks ago, “I predict you will see things that you don’t even believe, the level of corruption — whether it’s [James] Comey; whether it’s [Peter] Strzok and his lover [Lisa] Page; whether it’s so many other people — [Andrew] McCabe; whether it’s President Obama himself. Let’s see whether or not it’s President Obama. Let’s see whether or not they put that in.”

Likewise, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas) said, “It doesn’t take 500 pages to tell the inspector general that everything was done properly. The IG report is going to find that there were problems.”

The question is how big the problems were and whether there was intentional abuse. Some of the problems are discussed in an assessment by the IG released last week that found "numerous issues" with FBI handling of secret sources The Washington Times reported that that the issues including failing to vet sources in a timely manner and insufficiently clear guidance from FBI headquarters. The assessment made 16 recommendations which were reportedly being implemented by the FBI.

"Ineffective management and oversight of confidential sources can result in jeopardizing FBI operations and placing FBI agents, sources, subjects of investigation, and the public in harm's way," Horowitz said in a two-minute video accompanying release of the assessment.

In the wake of the assessment and revelation about the FBI lawyer, Carter Page is among those trying to tamp down expectations. In an interview with CNN’s Michael Smerconish over the weekend, Page said, “The keyword that you just said is sloppiness, right? And unfortunately, the way that this inspector general report has been assembled and completed over the last couple of years and particularly over the last few months, is completely sloppy. It’s only one side’s perspective.”

Indeed, the fact that the draft report was submitted to Attorney General Barr in September but the only hint of a prosecution is the unnamed former FBI lawyer is a strong indication that there was little unethical or criminal activity for Horowitz to find. The lack of criminal referrals to Durham or leaks trumpeting Obama-era FBI corruption is a strong hint that the conspiracy claims are duds.

While the report has not yet been released to the public, insiders say that the report paints an objective picture that is critical of the FBI but does not support the claim that there was a high-level conspiracy to undermine the Trump campaign. However, because the report does criticize the FBI, sources within the government say that it will give ammunition to both sides.

“You can see how the warring factions will seize on the various parts of this to advance their respective narratives,” a person familiar with the report told the Washington Post.

That will be particularly true for those who rely on cherry-picked passages cited by pundits without looking at the entire report.

Originally published on The Resurgent

FBI Foils Election Day Bomb Plot

There has been a lot of talk lately about incivility and the potential for violence in the current political climate. Yesterday, the danger came sharply into focus when the FBI arrested Paul Rosenfeld for plotting to blow himself up on the National Mall in Washington, DC on Election Day.

Per NBC News, Paul Rosenfeld of Tappan, N.Y. was arrested by the FBI after sending text messages and letters to a reporter in Pennsylvania last August and September. In the messages, Rosenfeld threated to publicly detonate a bomb on the mall to kill himself. The reporter notified law enforcement and Rosenfeld was promptly arrested. In a search of his home, authorities discovered a bomb containing eight pounds of black powder. Crating and other components increased the total weight of the bomb to 200 pounds.

Rosenfeld, who was unhappy with the direction of the country, planned the attack to draw attention to his political beliefs. Was he promoting a radical leftist ideology or was he a right-wing militant? Neither, as it turns out.

Rosenfeld believed in sortition. What the heck is “sortition,” you ask? Sortition is a political system in which representatives are chosen by lot rather than by election or appointment. In such a system, a random sample of regular citizens becomes responsible for government decisions. The system was used in ancient Athens to determine members of courts and councils.

Paul Rosenfeld was ready to sacrifice his life because he wanted government representatives to be randomly selected people rather than political elites. If Rosenfeld would give his life for such a belief, how many other Americans would give their lives to stop what they are told is an attempt to destroy their country and their way of life?

Authorities believe that Rosenfeld acted alone. I would also speculate that he may be suffering from some sort of mental illness. Mental illness is also a frequent factor in the mass shootings that seem to plague modern society.

After his arrest, Rosenfeld confessed to the plot and told the FBI that he did not intend to hurt anyone else. He only planned to kill himself.

"Had he been successful, Rosenfeld’s alleged plot could have claimed the lives of innocent bystanders and caused untold destruction," said FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William Sweeney.

The foiled bomb plot underscores the danger present in the current heated environment. Although Rosenfeld’s ideology seems divorced from reality, it is often unhinged radicals who convince themselves to pull the trigger on violence.

As Sen. Rand Paul warned this week, with violent rhetoric common on both sides, “I really worry that somebody is going to be killed and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation ... they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.”

Thus far, law enforcement has been able to intervene and stop most violent plots but there have been exceptions such as the attack on the Republican baseball team and the white-supremacist car attack on protesters at Charlottesville.

The sheer number of angry activists and people with mental problems in the US means that more political violence and bloodshed is certain to occur. When it does, we should pray that the act does not ignite the powder keg on which the nation is currently perched.

Originally published on the Resurgent

Why It Doesn't Matter That There Were No Hearings For Carter Page's FISA Warrant

Judicial Watch raised the hackles of Republicans this weekend when it announced that the Justice Department had said that no hearings were held prior to issuing the FISA warrant for former Trump advisor Carter Page. Many Republicans took this to mean that something nefarious was afoot with the investigation of Page, President Trump’s former campaign advisor, but that isn’t necessarily the case.

“It is disturbing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts rubber-stamped the Carter Page spy warrants and held not one hearing on these extraordinary requests to spy on the Trump team,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in the press release. “Perhaps the court can now hold hearings on how justice was corrupted by material omissions that Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC, a conflicted Bruce Ohr, a compromised Christopher Steele, and anti-Trumper Peter Strzok were all behind the ‘intelligence’ used to persuade the courts to approve the FISA warrants that targeted the Trump team.”

The Judicial Watch press release fails to tell the whole story, however.

Aside from mischaracterizing surveillance of someone that the first paragraph of the release refers to as “a former Trump campaign part-time advisor” as “spy[ing] on the Trump team,” the obvious question to ask is how many hearings are normally held on FISA applications. The answer is not many, but that is not proof of any wrongdoing on the part of the FBI or the FISA court.

The fact is that search warrants of all sorts are almost always issued by judges without hearings because the law does not require a hearing. If you have ever watched a television cop show, you’ve seen the process. The police gather preliminary evidence to show probable cause and then take this to the judge to get the warrant. The search warrant is then served, or, in the case of a FISA warrant, surveillance is conducted. The search and/or surveillance are then used to gather more evidence to determine whether an indictment, arrest and prosecution are warranted.

Logically, it makes sense that the law would not require a hearing before a warrant for a search or surveillance is issued. Who would take the opposing side in the hearing? If the suspect were invited to defend himself in a hearing to consider whether his property should be searched or he should be monitored, law enforcement would lose the element of surprise. It would be an extremely dense suspect who did not take the warning and clean out any incriminating items or break off contact with people who could implicate him in a crime.

So, who acts on the behalf of the suspect to prevent law enforcement agencies from abusing their power to search and surveil innocent Americans? The answer is that both the Justice Department and the judge act on their behalf.

In Just Security, former FBI agent Asha Rangapappa described the process of obtaining a FISA warrant in a 2017 article titled, “It Ain’t Easy Getting a FISA Warrant: I Was An FBI Agent and Should Know.” To get a FISA warrant, the FBI first must conduct a threat assessment to determine that there is a national security reason for the warrant. Second, the FBI would have to gather evidence to show probable cause that the target of the warrant was knowingly working on behalf of a foreign entity. Mere fraternization with agents of a foreign power would not be sufficient to meet this requirement. Finally, the warrant application is submitted to Justice Department attorneys who verify the claims made by the applicant and determine whether the evidence is sufficient to present to a judge. The application can be returned to the investigator multiple times until the evidence is both strong enough to meet the legal standard and able to be corroborated.

“It’s true that since its inception in 1978, the FISC has approved the vast majority of the over 25,000 FISA applications it has reviewed – some estimates put the number at over 99 percent,” says Rangapappa. He adds, “But that’s not surprising given the extensive process described above.”

This is confirmed by a 2013 letter to Congress from Reggie Walton, the presiding judge of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, in which the process for approving FISA warrants was discussed. The letter does state that in some cases where there is “special legal or factual concern,” the Court may request face-to-face meetings with law enforcement. The “frequency of hearings varies depending on the nature and complexity of matters pending before the Court at a given time, and also, to some extent, based on the individual preferences of different judges,” the letter says. In many cases, problems or questions about applications are resolved with telephone calls or informal contacts.

“FISA does not provide a mechanism for the Court to invite the views of nongovernmental parties,” Judge Walton wrote. “In fact, the Court's proceedings are ex parte [i.e., without a response from the opposing side] as required by the statute… and in keeping with the procedures followed by other courts in applications for search warrants and wiretap orders.”

The 99 percent approval rate for applications, the letter notes, is based only on “final applications submitted to and acted on by the Court.” About a quarter of applications have “substantive changes” before they are approved. The judge noted that the approval rate for wiretap applications in domestic criminal cases is higher than that of FISA warrant applications.

Andrew McCarthy, a writer for National Review and a former federal prosecutor, agrees that hearings are not a part of the process for getting warrants. On Twitter, McCarthy said, “There generally are no hearings on warrants, and you don’t want there to be because the four corners of the warrant application must state the probable cause. If they don’t, the judge should reject the application, not hold a hearing.”

“In nearly 20 years as a prosecutor, and hundreds of warrants, I never had a hearing to get a warrant,” McCarthy continued in a second tweet. “I had judges tell me ‘no,’ or tell me I needed to beef up this or that allegation with more solid evidence. But never a hearing.”

So, it’s true when Judicial Watch says that there was no FISA hearing before the warrant to surveil Carter Page was granted. It’s also true that it is not a big deal that there was no hearing. The law does not require a hearing and hearings are conducted only in rare circumstances. By making a mountain out of a nonexistent molehill, Judicial Watch has done a disservice to people who trust the organization to expose wrongdoing in the justice system. The press release is an overtly partisan attempt to smear the Justice Department and undermine an ongoing investigation.

Originally published on The Resurgent

FBI Releases Carter Page FISA Warrant

On Saturday, the FBI released a heavily redacted version of the FISA warrant application for Donald Trump's former campaign advisor, Carter Page. President Trump and other Republicans had charged the FBI with illicit spying on members of the Trump campaign.

The document (available here), which is 412 pages, is heavily censored with entire pages blacked out. The application was from October 2016, but even the exact date was redacted.

”The FBI believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian Government, ” the application says and then continues after a redaction, “[to] undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election in violation of criminal law.”

“Page has established relationships with Russian Government officials, including Russian intelligence officers,” the application states, but the evidence supporting these claims is censored.

”Source # 1” appears to be Christopher Steele, the author of the controversial Steele dossier. Republicans had alleged that the FBI did not disclose that the dossier was commissioned by Democrats as opposition research into Donald Trump.

In contrast to these claims, the application states, ”The FBI speculates that the identified U.S. person [who hired Steele] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate # 1’s [Trump's] campaign.”

”Notwithstanding Source # 1’s reason for conducting research into Candidate # 1’s ties to Russia,” the application says, based on Source # 1’s previous reporting history with the FBI, whereby Source # 1 provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes Source # 1’s reporting herein to be credible.”

The uncensored parts of the application detail the allegations from Steele that Page had been told by the Russian government there was ”kompromat” on Candidate # 2, Hillary Clinton. The application says that the kompromat could possibly be released to the Trump campaign.

The application also contains background material on Page’s prior connections to Russia and cites several media reports that detailed alleged meetings between Page and representatives of Vladimir Putin's government. There is a reference to a letter written by Page to then-FBI Director James Comey. In the letter, Page, who was fired from the Trump campaign in September 2016, denied wrongdoing and called the allegations against him ”completely false media reports.”

Nevertheless, the FBI said that there was ”probable cause to believe that Page [redacted] knowingly engage in clandestine intelligence activities (other than intelligence gathering activities)” for a foreign power.

The redacted application strikes a blow at Republican claims that the FBI did not disclose the political nature of the information from Christopher Steele to the FISA court judge who issued the warrant. Less clear is how much evidence the FBI already had against Page before the warrant was issued. The Steele dossier and news reports were previously known, but a large part of the application is still classified.

Carter Page has not yet been indicted by the Mueller investigation even though he was questioned extensively in June 2017. This raises the possibility that either the surveillance did not uncover any criminal acts by Page or that he has been cooperating with investigators.

Originally published on The Resurgent

IG Report Says Comey Was Wrong, But Not Politically Biased

The report by the Department of Justice's inspector general is out and Republicans are not going to be happy with the findings. The report faults former FBI Director James Comey for his handling of the Clinton email investigation, but did not attribute his actions to political bias.

Per Bloomberg, the report, which will be made public later today, says that Comey did not follow FBI protocol when he held a press conference to announce the FBI findings in July 2016 and then reopened the investigation with a memo to Congress in October. Comey was also criticized for not keeping DOJ superiors, including then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, informed about the investigation.

"While we did not find that these decisions were the result of political bias on Comey’s part, we nevertheless concluded that by departing so clearly and dramatically from FBI and department norms, the decisions negatively impacted the perception of the FBI and the department as fair administrators of justice,” Inspector General Michael Horowitz said in the report’s conclusions.

The Washington Post reports that the report will also contain previously unseen text messages between FBI Agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

“[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page wrote to Strzok.

“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” Strzok responded.

The inspector general condemned the texts, but said that there was no evidence that they affected the FBI's work.

“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that improper considerations, including political bias, directly affected the specific investigative actions we reviewed,” Horowitz said in the report . “The conduct by these employees cast a cloud over the entire FBI investigation.”

The full report will be released to the public on Thursday afternoon.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Trey Gowdy Blows Up 'Spygate'

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) just undercut President Trump’s claims about “Spygate.” The fiery former prosecutor from South Carolina responded to the president’s accusations of illegal spying on his campaign by saying that the FBI has an “obligation” to follow leads.

“When the FBI comes into contact with information about what a foreign government may be doing in our election cycle, I think they have an obligation to run it out,” Rep. Gowdy said as he discussed President Trump’s accusations about improper conduct by the FBI on CBS News on Wednesday.

“Based on what I have seen, I don't know what the FBI could have done or should have done other than run out a lead that someone loosely connected with the campaign was making assertions about Russia,” Gowdy continued. “I would think you would want the FBI to find out whether there was any validity to what those people were saying.”

Gowdy, who chairs the House Oversight Committee, was one of the congressional leaders briefed by the Department of Justice on the surveillance of Trump campaign associates last week. After the briefing, Gowdy says he is confident that Russia was the target of the investigation and not the Trump campaign itself.

“I think the FBI, if they were at the table this morning, they would tell you that Russia was the target and Russia's intentions toward our country were the target,” Gowdy said. “The fact that two people who were loosely connected to the Trump campaign may have been involved doesn't diminish the fact that Russia was the target and not the campaign.”

In response to a question, Gowdy said that he doesn’t know why President Trump persists in using the term “spy” to describe the FBI informant. In his role as a prosecutor working with law enforcement, Gowdy said that he had never heard the word “spy” used to describe an informant.

“Under cover, informant, confidential informant, those are all words I'm familiar with, I've never heard the term spy used,” Gowdy said.

Rep. Gowdy said that he doesn’t believe that President Trump has enough information about the investigation to understand the true aim of the probe. “I think his lawyers have an obligation to share with him what Devin [Nunes] and Paul [Ryan] and I saw last week,” Gowdy said. “I'm convinced when he sees it, he's going to say, 'you know what, that's what I told [James] Comey I wanted the FBI to do.”

Gowdy said he believes that the president should agree to testify before Robert Mueller’s special counsel investigation, saying, “He didn't collude with Russia, he doesn't know anything about it, and if anyone in his campaign did, he wants the public to know it, I think that's what he ought to tell Mueller.”

Gowdy also criticized Attorney General Jeff Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia probe. “If I picked someone to be the country’s chief law enforcement officer and they told me later, ‘oh, by the way, I’m not going to able to participate in the most important case in the office,’ I would be frustrated too,” Gowdy said. President Trump immediately used Gowdy’s comment to attack Sessions.

So far, none of the congressional leaders briefed by the DOJ have backed President Trump’s claims that the FBI acted improperly. It is undisputed that the FBI investigated members of the Trump campaign, the questions are whether there was probable cause for them to do so and whether the surveillance was political in nature rather than a legitimate counterintelligence investigation. To date, the president has not supplied evidence that the surveillance was scandalous rather than necessary.

Claims that the FBI investigation were used to undermine the Trump campaign seem implausible. Even though the Steele dossier was investigated in the summer of 2016, it was not public knowledge until after the election was over. Where the FBI did intervene to affect the election, Comey’s October memo to Congress, it was to Donald Trump’s benefit.

President Trump has a duty to clarify his accusations against the FBI and the Department of Justice. If he has evidence of improper conduct, he should come forward with it. If he cannot provide evidence, he should stop publicly attacking and undermining America’s top law enforcement agency.

Originally published on The Resurgent