The Robert Mueller Investigation

[jimmyjazz 45,907]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

None of us is.  

Snap.

[henrygandorf 29,189]

hadn't clicked on this thread in a while...

[JimmyJames 12,271]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

hadn't clicked on this thread in a while...

English Bob: “That’s a wise policy. A wise policy.”

[Anastasis 23,469]

39 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

None of us is.  

  

On 5/9/2019 at 3:51 PM, DDD Dad said:

I said I thought you were wrong.  I have no idea what the report will show but my sense is that it's less likely that it will find wrongdoing than find it.  Just a hunch.

 

#Bothsides. SAD!

 

I do bet that you probably dont have to have the difference between case opening predicate and probable cause for a FISA authorization explained to you though. So you got that going for you. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Anastasis

[DDD Dad 14,336]

On 5/8/2019 at 9:13 PM, Anastasis said:

What I do think [the OIG] will report is that the FISA Page application took a non-standard path outside the typical FBI processes and procedures.  That there should have been greater transparency wrt the origins of Steele's material, and that there were irregularities around the entrance of the Steele materials into the FBI and his continuing engagement even after his formal relationship with the FBI was closed (e.g. perkins coie Baker interactions, Corn Baker back channel, Gaeta Steele conduit, and the Ohr back channel, etc.). Dahobbs is probably still looking up a definition of what back channel means, but all of this stuff is already in publicly released testimony. I think it will be critical of the Steele materials. Auditors gonna audit. This type of shit is a slam dunk unless it gets ruled out of scope or redacted for some reason. As with the Clinton investigation OIG report, I think that he will stop short of suggesting political bias influenced any of the decisions. Nor do I think that he will address other aspects alluded to by FBI agents in their "private" communications, such as the CIA leaking re: the Russia investigation. 

Pos rep, sir.  Pretty good prediction.

 

[DDD Dad 14,336]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  I do bet that you probably dont have to have the difference between case opening predicate and probable cause for a FISA authorization explained to you though. So you got that going for you. 

 

 

Edited December 12, 2019 by DDD Dad

[Anastasis 23,469]

46 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Pos rep, sir.  Pretty good prediction.

Yeah, that one developed a pretty good patina. 

[ndawg 1,242]

When we're warming our hands around a fire blazing out of an oil drum, reluctantly trading blankets for food after returning empty handed from a grueling day of foraging, I can't wait for Anastasis to regale us with the tale of FISA abuse, and how it was the real cause of the steep decline of our civilization.

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, ndawg said:

When we're warming our hands around a fire blazing out of an oil drum, reluctantly trading blankets for food after returning empty handed from a grueling day of foraging, I can't wait for Anastasis to regale us with the tale of FISA abuse, and how it was the real cause of the steep decline of our civilization.

I will probably be manning the campfire, trying to scavenge diesel to fuel the generator so I can fire up the sous vide and cook us a proper game meal.   

[David Dennison 18,856]

3 hours ago, DDD Dad said:

None of us is.  

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/none-or-none-are

[DDD Dad 14,336]

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/none-or-none-are

Yeah I’m gonna have say that’s a no, dawg.

 

Try Strunck & White or some other real source, not Quick and Dirty Tips.com.

 

But if we are going with the Queen’s English then it’s another story entirely.

[David Dennison 18,856]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Yeah I’m gonna have say that’s a no, dawg.

 

Try Strunck & White or some other real source, not Quick and Dirty Tips.com.

 

But if we are going with the Queen’s English then it’s another story entirely.

It's pretty simple. If the "none" is plural, then "none are" is correct . If the "none" is singular, "none is" is correct.

Rocket surgery, I know.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I will probably be manning the campfire, trying to scavenge diesel to fuel the generator so I can fire up the sous vide and cook us a proper game meal.   

Actually if we’ve reached that point, not only will you and I not be talking to each other over the net or over the campfire, but in all likelihood we will both be dead. 

Hope we don’t get to that point personally. I prefer the present course of arguing over meaningless subjects on the net until we retire to our warm beds.

[jimmyjazz 45,907]

I have unwittingly created a firestorm of grammatical fury.

Or something.

[David Dennison 18,856]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I have unwittingly created a firestorm of grammatical fury.

Or something.

This might be a good time to talk about people who don't use the Oxford comma.

They are worse than Trump.

[DDD Dad 14,336]

This might be a good time to talk about people who don't use the Oxford comma.
They are worse than Trump.

On this we can agree.

[Anastasis 23,469]

15 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

This might be a good time to talk about people who don't use the Oxford comma.

They are worse than Trump.

Agreed. But the real terrorist are people who use double sentence spacing.

*will advance acknowledge that I slip up on both from time to time in informal settings.*

[jimmyjazz 45,907]

Team Oxford, team double space.  Old habits.  I'll cut a, bitch.

Damn.

[DDD Dad 14,336]

Agreed. But the real terrorist are people who use double sentence spacing.
*will advance acknowledge that I slip up on both from time to time in informal settings.*

I will cut you.

[Anastasis 23,469]

55 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I will cut you.

Let me guess. You still typing out your briefs with monospace fonts. That must get awkward. 

[DDD Dad 14,336]

Let me guess. You still typing out your briefs with monospace fonts. That must get awkward. 

Garamond FTW.

[PsychMike 1,551]

Stopped  by this last page to see what kind of intelligent insights are being offered about the Mueller investigation and how it relates to recent world events. But the Surly feckers are spacing out. OK, cool, and Hook 'em!

[Anastasis 23,469]

Maybe in the future we don't shout down people who highlight the fraught nature of the intersection of political opposition research with the surveillance state. 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-fusion-fiasco-11576195213?

 

The FBI’s Fusion Fiasco

Christopher Steele has little credibility left after the inspector general’s report.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has had its worst week in modern history. The Justice Department’s inspector general found that the bureau had deceived a federal court and abused Americans’ civil liberties. It was equally humiliating for the crew that gulled the FBI into its excesses: Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and their media acolytes.

Fusion is the opposition-research firm the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign hired in 2016 to kneecap Donald Trump. Fusion in turn hired Mr. Steele, a British former spy, to compile the infamous “dossier” that the FBI used to obtain surveillance warrants against former Trump aide Carter Page. Mr. Simpson, a onetime Wall Street Journal reporter, tapped a network of media buddies to provide the operation cover.

For years, Mr. Simpson spun a tale of how his firm—a team of “professionals”—had hired the “extremely well-regarded” former “lead Russianist at MI6.” Mr. Simpson told the Senate in August 2017 that he wanted Mr. Steele to look into Mr. Trump’s Russia business dealings. So it was “alarming” when Mr. Steele instead found a “political conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and Russia. Especially because Mr. Steele had “a sterling reputation as a person who doesn’t exaggerate, doesn’t make things up, doesn’t sell baloney.” The duo felt “obligated” to report this “national-security threat” to the FBI. The media would later assert that Mr. Steele had proved a valuable source to the FBI in the past; many claimed the FBI corroborated the dossier.

Now Mr. Horowitz has exposed the many fictions. His report notes that Mr. Steele was hired from the start to find Trump-Russia collusion. Mr. Steele told the inspector general that Mr. Simpson asked him in May 2016 to determine “whether there were any ties between the Russian government and Trump and his campaign” and “whether Russia was trying to achieve a particular election outcome.” The timing is notable: Mr. Simpson was talking about collusion months before the FBI was—and even before Mr. Steele reported it to him.

The Horowitz Report on the FBI and its Consequences

00:00 / 23:45

SUBSCRIBE

The report notes that the FBI didn’t bother to confirm any of Mr. Steele’s explosive claims before presenting them to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in October 2016 as a reason to surveil Mr. Page. The bureau also assured the court that Mr. Steele was a “reliable” source, whose prior reporting had been “corroborated and used in criminal proceedings.”

Yet even as the FBI prepared the warrant application, its “reliable” source was working with Mr. Simpson to turn their FBI plant into political gold—briefing reporters, trying to gin up an October surprise against Mr. Trump. The inspector general’s report says Mr. Steele grew frustrated that “the U.S. government had not announced that the FBI was investigating” the candidate. So on Oct. 31 he outed himself and the FBI’s “substantial inquiry” in a Mother Jones interview. The inspector general’s report says Mr. Simpson described this as his “Hail Mary attempt.”

Only after Mr. Steele exposed the FBI’s investigation did the bureau fire him and begin its overdue diligence. In November and December 2016, the FBI sent teams to talk with people who’d worked with Mr. Steele professionally. They were told he’d held only a “moderately senior” position at MI6 and that he “demonstrates lack of self-awareness,” was “prone to rash judgments,” and “didn’t always exercise great judgment.” Former FBI agent Peter Strzok acknowledged that Mr. Steele was the type to “follow the shiny object.” Just the sort of guy you’d trust to dig up accusations of treason against a presidential nominee.

A source-validation review found that Mr. Steele’s prior work had only ever been “minimally corroborated” and never used in a criminal proceeding. The FBI discovered its guy worked for an attorney who represented a Russian oligarch. It tracked down the supersleuth’s sources, in particular his primary source who provided the allegations against Mr. Page in the FISA application. This primary source said “he/she never expected” Mr. Steele to present their discussions as “facts” since there was “no proof” and it was “hearsay,” the kind of “conversation that [he/she] had with friends over beers.” The source said that Mr. Steele had in any event “misstated or exaggerated” statements and the source’s access to Russian officials.

The Justice Department was similarly unimpressed with Fusion’s work product. Official Bruce Ohr told the inspector general that Mr. Simpson over the years would call with tips on Russian crime figures, but since most of it didn’t prove “actionable,” he “did not do anything with it and did not try to introduce Simpson to the FBI.” Ouch.

With quality like this, it’s no wonder the FBI’s strenuous efforts to corroborate the dossier proved a bust—as the inspector general has confirmed. None of the allegations provided to the FISA court were validated. Others—such as Trump attorney Michael Cohen’s alleged trip to Prague—were proved “not true.” Overall, “the limited information that was corroborated related to time, location, and title information, much of which was publicly available.” The dossier did at least get Carter Page’s job description right.

The findings overall are a warning to a red-faced press corps and FBI: Beware oppo researchers who offer noble intentions and fantastical claims. Sometimes they’re just oppo researchers. And poor ones at that.

[David Dennison 18,856]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

I will cut you.

OK, boomer.

[HenryJames 66,046]

 

[bernorange 8,361]

Quote

...
Following news that Democrats had not signaled renewed interest in revising FISA, Conn Carroll, communications head for FISA-critic Mike Lee (R., Utah), told CNN’s Jake Tapper that the opposite was true of Republicans.

“A number of Republican colleagues who have been deferential to the FISA program in the past did approach Sen. Lee after yesterday’s hearing looking to work with him on FISA reform going forward,” Carroll told Tapper. “There is absolutely a new urgency in the conference about the issue, and Sen. Lee looks forward to working with his new FISA-skeptic allies to craft new safeguards in light of the very damning IG report.”
...

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/following-ig-report-senate-republicans-plan-major-reforms-to-fisa-program/

[Chad Fuck 17,673]

 

And absolutely no one was surprised by this.

[Anastasis 23,469]

#bothsides.  LOFL. 

[David Dennison 18,856]

Republicans are going to revise FISA laws and give primary opponents an opening to claim they are weak on terror?

Riiiiiiiiiight. 

[Anastasis 23,469]

  

21 hours ago, Anastasis said:

Y'all catch that guys? That last part is an interesting wrinkle.  Oleg Deripaska was a client of Christopher Steele.  Oleg Deripaska was also a target of the CH investigation. Christopher Steele was providing information from a questionable network of Russians to influence the direction of an FBI campaign into Russian interference in the US election, of which his client was a target. What a world.  And particularly relevant to the Mueller invetigation, why didn't Mueller pull on this string. Seems kinda relevant to an investigation of Russian influence activities related to the 2016 election.    

Back to this for a second. 

Wheeler is cooking up something in this vein this morning. 

 

 

@emptywheel

In addition to showing real problems w/Page FISA app process, DOJ IG Report shows that Christopher Steele was helping Deripaska settle a score w/Manafort while doing a dossier on Manafort. Let's assume for a moment that made disinformation child's play. https://justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf…

24m

Consider what a win-win-win that would be for Russia. Deripaska gets to totally discredit a guy who exposed Russian sports corruption (Steele was also working on RU attacks on doping agencies even while GRU was hacking them).

24m

Deripaska gets to distract the FBI from the people Russia was affirmatively TRYING to coordinate with (Don Jr, for example).

22m

And--because the FBI was desperate to figure out which Trumpsters were coordinating with Russia and so acted rashly, just like the US acted rashly after 9/11 to embrace torture--they broke all their rules on the Carter Page FISA app.

21m

Now, in spite of the fact that the Mueller investigation showed a lot of evidence that Manafort and Stone (childhood buddies) worked to maximize Russia's help, most people believe it found nothing bc the Carter Page FISA was horribly fucked up.

20m

Reminder, Manafort returned to the US on January 12, 2017 from a meeting set up by sanctioned-along-with-the-GRU-Deripaska aide Viktor Boyarkin and told Priebus that the dossier was shit and the GOP could undermine the RU investigation by focusing on it.

18m

None of this excuses the short-cuts made on the Page application. In fact, they're part of the PROBLEM with the errors--because the focus on Page, along with violating his rights, also distracted the FBI from the people it should have been focused on.

 

 

 

 

OVD navigates the situation such that he settles his score with Manafort, feeding Steele disinformation undermines his future credibility as an operative, and the FBI chases down a rabbit hole focused on dip shit Carter Page (who was a CIA asset in Russia matters - this is what the FBI lawyer fabricated in the app, the information from CIA regarding his nature as an asset).

Rash actions by the FBI result in tarnishing the FBI and confidence in their ability to deploy the surveillance apparatus appropriately is maybe just a happy side piece. Total political shit show dynamic in the USA set in. And you wonder why Putin has a smug grin on his face when they walk to the stage in Helsinki. 

 Play spooky games, win spooky prizes.

 

To be clear, I don't think that the reality requires that much draft. And Marcy is somewhat pot committed in that she has been on the Dossier is Disinformation tip since 2017. But I think that it does highlight the particularly fraught nature of the relationship between Deripaska and Steele, and why Priestap indicated that it would be an area of concern and should have been on their radar during the assessment of the Steele material.

I think that Deripaska's motivations were likely more clear cut. He wanted to get his fucking money from Manafort or stick a knife in him, and he wanted to get access to the United States. He probably sniffed out Steele's relationship with Fusion, and his tasking.  Where it goes from there, who knows? There are a couple holes in the description of Steele's network, maybe he fits he there, or maybe through intermediaries.  Or maybe no where.  Maybe questions the FBI should have asked.

Edited December 13, 2019 by Anastasis

[David Dennison 18,856]

So, where in the IG report does Horowitz say the Carter Page warrant was improperly approved? I can't seem to find it.

[GW Hayduke 1,953]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

So, where in the IG report does Horowitz say the Carter Page warrant was improperly approved? I can't seem to find it.

The IG report is silent on that question.

The most important point is that information from the Page warrant did not impact the Mueller Report or his findings, the numerous indictments under the Russia investigation, the world learning about the trump tower meeting, the world learning about Stone’s work with Wikileaks, the world learning about the Moscow Tower project, the world learning about the 100+ contacts between Russia and the campaign, or the world learning about Manafort providing internal polling info to the Russians. 

The bottomline is that the inappropriate conduct related to Page is unfortunate and should be addressed but is inconsequential to what we know about the campaign’s coordination with Russia.

Edited December 13, 2019 by GW Hayduke

[jimmyjazz 45,907]

4 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

The bottomline is that the inappropriate conduct related to Page is unfortunate and should be addressed but is inconsequential to what we know about the campaign’s coordination with Russia.

That's the bottom line for those who don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

[Anastasis 23,469]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

So, where in the IG report does Horowitz say the Carter Page warrant was improperly approved? I can't seem to find it.

First time reading audit findings?

If that is the rhetorical ditch you want to jump in after reading the report, I will concede it to you.

 

 

We do not speculate whether or how having accurate and complete information might have influenced the decisions of senior Department leaders who supported the four FISA applications, or the court, if they had known all of the relevant information. Nevertheless, it was the obligation of the FBI agents and supervisors who were aware of the information to ensure that the FISA applications were "scrupulously accurate" and that OI, the Department's decision makers, and ultimately, the court had the opportunity to consider the additional information and the information omitted from the first application. The individuals involved did not meet this obligation.

...

We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.

We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resu lted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. In most instances, the agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant. On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh the probative value of the information. Further, the failure to update OI on all significant case developments relevant to the FISA applications led us to conclude that the agents and supervisors did not give appropriate attention or treatment to the facts that cut against probable cause, or reassess the information supporting probable cause as the investigation progressed. The agents and SSAs also did not follow, or appear to even know, the requirements in the Woods Procedures to reverify the factual assertions from previous applications that are repeated in renewal applications and verify source characterization statements with the CHS handling agent and document the verification in the Woods File.

That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within t he FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command's management and supervision of the FISA process. FBI Headquarters established a chain of command for Crossfire Hurricane that included close supervision by senior CD managers, who then briefed FBI leadership throughout the investigation. Although we do not expect managers and supervisors to know every fact about an investigation, or senior officials to know all the details of cases about which they are briefed, in a sensitive, high-priority matter like this one, it is reasonable to expect that they will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in order to provide effective oversight, consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility. We concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliabi lity of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not.

In our view, this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command. For these reasons, we recommend that the FBI review the performance of the employees who had responsibi lity for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers and supervisors in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation, including senior officials, and take any action deemed appropriate. In addition, given the extensive compliance failures we identified in this review, we believe that additional OIG oversight work is required to assess the FBI's compliance with Department and FBI FISA-related pol icies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons. Accordingly, we have today initiated an OIG audit that wil l further examine the FBI's compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. This audit will be informed by the findings in this review, as well as by our prior work over the past 15 years on the Department's and FBI's use of national security and surveillance authorities, including authorities under FISA, as detailed in Chapter One.

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

ABG 

Always Be Grifting.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/12/britain-mueller-report-russian-media-uk-us?__twitter_impression=true

Britain needs its own Mueller report on Russian ‘interference’

Glenn R Simpson and Peter Fritsch

 

Our Washington-based research firm, Fusion GPS, conducted much of the early investigations into Russia’s support of the Trump campaign, aided by our colleague Christopher Steele, the former head of MI6’s Russia desk. While our initial focus was on Russian meddling in US politics, it has since become increasingly clear that Britain’s political system has also been deeply affected by Russian influence operations.

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,584]

11 hours ago, Anastasis said:

If that is the rhetorical ditch you want to jump in after reading the report, I will concede it to you.

 

Yeah. That Page-warrant-was-improper ditch. Acknowledged, Worlds Without End. Good luck with Moby.

[Anastasis 23,469]

12 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

That Page-warrant-was-improper ditch.

In your own words:

On 5/9/2019 at 4:02 PM, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

It is the credibility of Steele based on his past track record of working with the FBI that is considered, not who is paying for his services in a particular case.

The FBI misrepresented the past track record in the application, which was pivotal in the setting of uncorroborated information serving as the central and essential basis of the decision to approve the application.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Meanwhile, true American hero Carter Page’s most recent lawsuit has gone down in flames again, this time at the hands of a couple of trump judges.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/02/appeals-court-refuses-to-revive-carter-page-lawsuit-074761

Not to worry though, Carter has read all of the Republican talking points espoused by people like a certain poster on this board and is “taking his case to the Supreme Court.”

Those lawsuits will go down in flames as well but they will generate further attention to the most important issue our country faces today, the greatest threat to humanity there is—FISA warrant abuse. Just ask tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,584]

8 hours ago, Anastasis said:

In your own words:

The FBI misrepresented the past track record in the application, which was pivotal in the setting of uncorroborated information serving as the central and essential basis of the decision to approve the application.  

Then it sounds like you're not conceding on the trimming Titanic that an associate of the person responsible for the trim did not get his private bath suite.

[David Dennison 18,856]

21 hours ago, Anastasis said:

First time reading audit findings?

If that is the rhetorical ditch you want to jump in after reading the report, I will concede it to you.

 

 

We do not speculate whether or how having accurate and complete information might have influenced the decisions of senior Department leaders who supported the four FISA applications, or the court, if they had known all of the relevant information. Nevertheless, it was the obligation of the FBI agents and supervisors who were aware of the information to ensure that the FISA applications were "scrupulously accurate" and that OI, the Department's decision makers, and ultimately, the court had the opportunity to consider the additional information and the information omitted from the first application. The individuals involved did not meet this obligation.

...

We concluded that the failures described above and in this report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions. Although some of the factual misstatements and omissions we found in this review were arguably more significant than others, we believe that all of them taken together resulted in FISA applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.

We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resu lted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete information to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. In most instances, the agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at the time the relevance of the information to the FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant. On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own judgments in place of the judgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh the probative value of the information. Further, the failure to update OI on all significant case developments relevant to the FISA applications led us to conclude that the agents and supervisors did not give appropriate attention or treatment to the facts that cut against probable cause, or reassess the information supporting probable cause as the investigation progressed. The agents and SSAs also did not follow, or appear to even know, the requirements in the Woods Procedures to reverify the factual assertions from previous applications that are repeated in renewal applications and verify source characterization statements with the CHS handling agent and document the verification in the Woods File.

That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within t he FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command's management and supervision of the FISA process. FBI Headquarters established a chain of command for Crossfire Hurricane that included close supervision by senior CD managers, who then briefed FBI leadership throughout the investigation. Although we do not expect managers and supervisors to know every fact about an investigation, or senior officials to know all the details of cases about which they are briefed, in a sensitive, high-priority matter like this one, it is reasonable to expect that they will take the necessary steps to ensure that they are sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances supporting and potentially undermining a FISA application in order to provide effective oversight, consistent with their level of supervisory responsibility. We concluded that the information that was known to the managers, supervisors, and senior officials should have resulted in questions being raised regarding the reliabi lity of the Steele reporting and the probable cause supporting the FISA applications, but did not.

In our view, this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command. For these reasons, we recommend that the FBI review the performance of the employees who had responsibi lity for the preparation, Woods review, or approval of the FISA applications, as well as the managers and supervisors in the chain of command of the Carter Page investigation, including senior officials, and take any action deemed appropriate. In addition, given the extensive compliance failures we identified in this review, we believe that additional OIG oversight work is required to assess the FBI's compliance with Department and FBI FISA-related pol icies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons. Accordingly, we have today initiated an OIG audit that wil l further examine the FBI's compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations. This audit will be informed by the findings in this review, as well as by our prior work over the past 15 years on the Department's and FBI's use of national security and surveillance authorities, including authorities under FISA, as detailed in Chapter One.

 

Translation: there was probable cause to issue a warrant on Carter Page.

[Anastasis 23,469]

38 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Translation: there was probable cause to issue a warrant on Carter Page.

An interesting tact, continually defending a probable cause determination based on misstatements, errors, omissions, and at least one case of outright manipulation and falsification of evidence by the FBI. 
 

 

Edited December 14, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23,469]

2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Then it sounds like you're not conceding on the trimming Titanic that an associate of the person responsible for the trim did not get his private bath suite.

Most compelling counter to my position  so far has been “But Orange Man”. 

Y’all should have just lead with that from the get go. 

[triplehorn 2,664]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Translation: there was probable cause to issue a warrant on Carter Page.

Yep.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

32 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

An interesting tact, continually defending a probable cause determination based on misstatements, errors, omissions, and at least one case of outright manipulation and falsification of evidence by the FBI. 
 

 

Interesting tact, claim to not support trump yet continue to hammer trumplican talking points. 

As for misstatements, errors etc, happens every day thanks to a bunch of republican appointed judges (some dems too) over the last 40 years. And will continue to happen thanks to trump.

You got any solutions to this problem or are you just here to bitch about FISA warrants like you were some carter page defense attorney paid bot?

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13,584]

24 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Most compelling counter to my position  so far has been “But Orange Man”. 

Y’all should have just lead with that from the get go. 

It's you selectively giving greater weight to items within the report while effectively devaluing its conclusion.

[Thetexashammer 1,062]

47 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

An interesting tact, continually defending a probable cause determination based on misstatements, errors, omissions, and at least one case of outright manipulation and falsification of evidence by the FBI. 
 

 

The FISA application would have been very different if the FBI had disclosed the Page was metting with russian agents ON BEHALF OF THE CIA, don't you think?

[David Dennison 18,856]

53 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

An interesting tact, continually defending a probable cause determination based on misstatements, errors, omissions, and at least one case of outright manipulation and falsification of evidence by the FBI. 

Did the IG say there would have been no probable cause without those things?

 

[Anastasis 23,469]

24 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

It's you selectively giving greater weight to items within the report while effectively devaluing its conclusion.

What was the conclusion of the report that I am effectively devaluing?

  

[David Dennison 18,856]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What was the conclusion of the report that I am effectively devaluing?

That there was sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant on Carter Page.

[Anastasis 23,469]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

That there was sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant on Carter Page based on misstatements, errors, omissions, and at least one case of outright manipulation and falsification of evidence by the FBI. 

FIFY