Now get ready for MSN to spin this as a win for the Dems

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 fou nd in t his review were arguably more significant than others, we believe t hat 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 resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete infor mation 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, t he 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 t he time the relevance of t he information to t he 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 j udgments in place of the j udgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh t_he probative va lue of t he 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 t he facts that cut against probable cause, or reassess t he information supporting probable cause as the investigation progressed. The agents and SSAs also did not follow, or appear to even know, the requirements in t he 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 the 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 reliability 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 responsibility 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 policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons. Accordingly, we have today initiated an OIG audit that will 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.

Will there now be a bi-partisan appetite to revise the FISA statutes?

would hope so, but don't expect it.


didnt they just approve it again with no real complaint?

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by the reluctance/refusal of the IG to draw conclusions as to the motivations behind the lying and obfuscations.

It is frustrating, though.

The left will be able to hide behind the report because it does not make those claims.

You can and will see what you want to see.

BMX Bandit said:

---

would hope so, but don't expect it.


didnt they just approve it again with no real complaint?

---

Yes but that was Title 7 not Title I. They reapproved the query function.

Sidney Powell is going to like this.

Not so fast - Durham makes statement that he does not agree with IG's findings.

Page 411:

Quote:

---

The renewal applications also continued to fail to include information regarding Carter Page's relationship with another U.S. government agency and information Page had shared with the other agency about his contacts with Russian intelligence officers, even after the Crossfire Hurricane team re-engaged with the other U.S. government agency in June 2017 (item nine above). As described in Chapter Eight, following interviews that Page gave to news outlets in April and May 2017 stating that he had assisted the U.S. intelligence community in the past, one of the SSAs supervising Crossfire Hurricane sought additional information about the issue. SSA 2, who was to be the affiant for Renewal Application No. 3 and had been the affiant for the first two renewals, told us that he wanted a definitive answer to whether Page had ever been a source for another U.S. government agency before he signed the final renewal application, because he was concerned that Page could claim that he had been acting on behalf of the U.S. government when engaging with certain Russians. This led to interactions between the OGC Attorney assigned to Crossfire Hurricane and a liaison from the other U.S. government agency. In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison's recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016. As noted above, that August 2016 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency. However, the OGC Attorney altered the liaison's email by inserting the words "not a source" into it, thus making it appear that the liaison had said that Page was "not a source"; the OGC Attorney then sent the altered email to SSA 2. Relying upon this altered email, SSA 2 signed the third renewal application (that again failed to disclose Page's past relationship with the other agency). Consistent with the Inspector General Act of 1978, following the OIG's discovery that the OGC Attorney had altered and sent the email to SSA 2, who thereafter relied on it to swear out the final FISA application, the OIG promptly informed the Attorney General and the FBI Director and provided them with the relevant information about the OGC Attorney's actions.

---

Uh-oh. Altering evidence.

(Edit: Page 411 via the pdf pages; Page 372 listed on the report.)

Wendy 1990 said:

---

Not so fast - Durham makes statement that he does not agree with IG's findings.

---

Neither does Barr. And it is DOJ's views that result in grand jury indictments.

Page 416:

Quote:

---

As noted throughout this report, Case Agent 1 was primarily responsible for some of the most significant errors and omissions in the FISA applications, including (1) the mischaracterization of Steele's prior reporting resulting from his failure to seek review and approval of the statement from the handling agent, as the Woods Procedures required, (2) the failure to advise OI of Papadopoulos's statements to FBI CHSs that were inconsistent with the Steele reporting relied upon in the FISA applications that there was a "well-developed conspiracy of co-operation" between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russia, (3) the failure to advise OI of Page's statements to an FBI CHS regarding him having no communications with Manafort and denying the alleged meetings with Sechin and Divyekin, ( 4) providing inaccurate and incomplete information to OI about information provided by another U.S. government agency regarding its past relationship with Page that was highly relevant to the applications, (5) the failure to advise OI of the information from Bruce Ohr about Steele and his election reporting, and (6) the failure to advise OI of the inconsistences between Steele and his Primary Sub-source. The explanations that Case Agent 1 provided for these errors and omissions are summarized in Chapter Five and Chapter Eight of this report. While we found no documentary or testimonial evidence that this pattern of errors by Case Agent 1 was intentional, we also did not find his explanations for so many significant and repeated failures to be satisfactory. We therefore concluded that these explanations did not excuse his failure to meet his responsibility to ensure that the initial FISA application, the first renewal application, and the third renewal application were "scrupulously accurate."

---

(Edit: Page 416 via the pdf pages; Page 377 listed on the report.)

pagerman @ work said:

---

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by the reluctance/refusal of the IG to draw conclusions as to the motivations behind the lying and obfuscations.

It is frustrating, though.

The left will be able to hide behind the report because it does not make those claims.

You can and will see what you want to see.

---

What would he have to find in order to determine there was bias?

A bad actor that wrote "Hey, F--k you, Trump" in the margin of the phonied up evidence they submitted to the FISA court?

captkirk said:

---

pagerman @ work said:

---

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by the reluctance/refusal of the IG to draw conclusions as to the motivations behind the lying and obfuscations.

It is frustrating, though.

The left will be able to hide behind the report because it does not make those claims.

You can and will see what you want to see.

---

What would have to find in order to determine there was bias?

A bad actor that wrote "Hey, F--k you, Trump" in the margin of the phonied up evidence they submitted to the FISA court?

---

Don't ask me, I believe there obviously was bias.

But the headline at CNN right now is (predictably):

Report Finds Errors in Russia Probe, but Says Launching It Was Justified with a sub title of "A highly anticipated new watchdog report says the start of the FBI's Russia investigation was unbiased, undercutting a key White House narrative".

MSM has to carry the water for perpetrating if not being directly involved in the Russia Hoax. The only thing that matters from today's report was Durham basically said the origins of the spying was not legal.

This is where the dishonesty of the press will be obvious. The predicate could be supported and I think many in the country would buy that. The press stops there. The story is far from over though, and the report was clear that everything after was BS. This whole thing was a sham beyond step 1. The press won't write that accurate and complete headline.

drcrinum said:

---

Page 411:

Quote:

---

In an email from the liaison to the OGC Attorney, the liaison provided written guidance, including that it was the liaison's recollection that Page had a relationship with the other agency, and directed the OGC Attorney to review the information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016. As noted above, that August 2016 information stated that Page did, in fact, have a prior relationship with that other agency.

---

Uh-oh. Altering evidence.

---

They altered evidence to get a renewal. In addition, they knew about the relationship at the time of the initial application, yet failed to disclose it.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-comey-fbis-17-worst-failures-inaccuracies-and-omissions-flagged-in-the-russia-fisa-report/

Why the many delays of this report...deals were made.

kag00 said:

---

This is where the dishonesty of the press will be obvious. The predicate could be supported and I think many in the country would buy that. The press stops there. The story is far from over though, and the report was clear that everything after was BS. This whole thing was a sham beyond step 1. The press won't write that accurate and complete headline.

---

Here's the problem I am having. The timelines do not line up.

Bruce and Nellie Ohr meet with Steele in D.C. late July 2016.

FBI claims they never saw the Steele Dossier until September 2016.

But there were open investigations on Page, Manafort, Papapdopoulus, and Flynn in August 2016? The four people named in the dossier?

3 Toed Pete said:

---

A big key to all of this, which the MSM will never bring up, is who and why was accessing the NSA database and unmasking US citizens? We know Fusion GPS likely had access and we know obama's UN ambassador unmasked 280+ citizens. Obviously this was not under Horowitz's purview but certainly Durham has investigated this. I really want to see this answered. These people wiped their ass with the US Constitution.

---

Unfortunately, the Intelligence Community Inspector General is a corrupt Dem who started this Ukraine mess. Michael Atkinson. He was at DOJ Nat Sec division in 2016. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. No way he would investigate this.

aggiehawg said:

---

3 Toed Pete said:

---

A big key to all of this, which the MSM will never bring up, is who and why was accessing the NSA database and unmasking US citizens? We know Fusion GPS likely had access and we know obama's UN ambassador unmasked 280+ citizens. Obviously this was not under Horowitz's purview but certainly Durham has investigated this. I really want to see this answered. These people wiped their ass with the US Constitution.

---

Unfortunately, the Intelligence Community Inspector General is a corrupt Dem who started this Ukraine mess. Michael Atkinson. He was at DOJ Nat Sec division in 2016. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. No way he would investigate this.

---

Oh yeah, just see how he handled the "whistleblower" for the current fiasco. I hope he is found criminally liable for that steamy pile of bull*****

Trump should fire Wray tonight. Put someone in there that is going to flay the FBI open and cut out the cancers.

Question - how is it the FISA court Judges have no culpability in the apparent abuse of the court??? Are they not required to question the filings presented before them? Do they just rubber stamp them because the almighty FBI signed off on them? Is it possible they (Judges) are complicit and turn a blind eye? Does no one question their integrity and thoroughness in the process? No queries whether they may be biased? Who vets the Judges and is it a permanent appointment? Why can't they be every bit as corrupt as those who file for FISA warrants?

drcrinum said:

---

Wendy 1990 said:

---

Not so fast - Durham makes statement that he does not agree with IG's findings.

---

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/9/john-durham-says-he-disagrees-doj-ig-conclusion-ru/

Quote:

---

...Mr. Durham says he's reached a different conclusion.

"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," Mr. Durham said in a statement.

Mr. Durham noted the inspector general's authority was limited to information within the Justice Department, while his investigation found information from "other persons and entities both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S."

---

---

remember, Horowitz is only allowed to look into and talk with people in the FBI and DOJ, he isn't allowed to talk w people in the intelligence divisions.. CIA, NSA, etc. thus he didn't speak with Clapper, Brennan, Lynch, (I don't think Comey or McCabe either).. .thus Durham has a hell of a lot more power in investigating the "Big Picture"... Horowitz exposed a few things that Im sure Durham was well aware of already (Steele document, Nelly Ohr, etc) Think about what the NSA may have provided Durham in regards to intelligence? who knows what the NSA had on all these guys? Horowitz would not be allowed to look at that information, also Durham has most definitely spoken with people from all divisions in the FBI, DOJ, CIA, NSA, UK, Italy, Ukrane.. so long way to go on all this.. let the media gloat about this report a few days..

yeah too bad this Adkidson IG is in the swamp, he isn't gonna help in any way.. Trump should have had him removed if he could have? maybe they wanted him there to keep doing his misdeeds so he could be followed? just a thought

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1204103657559642112.html?refreshed=1575947159

Here's an interesting thread about CHS from the OIG Report. Clearly FBI CHS Source 2 is Halper (discussed starting Page 313); however, it is highly likely the Steele's Primary Sub-Source is also Halper, but they are disguising it because Steele never told Horowitz's Team the identity of his Primary Sub-Source. If this is true, then clearly there was a major manipulation going on: Halper, the FBI CHS vs. Halper, Steele's major source.

Short video of Lindsey Graham. He gets it.

drcrinum said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1204103657559642112.html?refreshed=1575947159

Here's an interesting thread about CHS from the OIG Report. Clearly FBI CHS Source 2 is Halper (discussed starting Page 313); however, it is highly likely the Steele's Primary Sub-Source is also Halper, but they are disguising it because Steele never told Horowitz's Team the identity of his Primary Sub-Source. If this is true, then clearly there was a major manipulation going on: Halper, the FBI CHS vs. Halper, Steele's major source.

---

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say it's either Leshchenko or Glen Simpson.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/09/ig-report-continued-specific-fisa-date-redactions/

A fascinating bit of sleuthing by Sundance. Well worth a read. I'll say it once again, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is a bed of snakes.

Steele's Primary Sub-Source received info from a sub-source he/she did not know via a telecom which ended up in the Dossier. The Primary Sub-Source subsequently identified the sub-source as Sergei Millian based upon listening to a youtube voice recording of Millian. See Page 191, footnote #345 at the bottom of the page.

Unbelievable. Nice way to ruin someone's reputation. Millian disappeared for a long time because of this. He has publicly denied being a source for Steele's Dossier...I've seen DMs of his on Twitter denying it.

I think there was a whole lot of fabrication that went into the Steele Dossier.

I have found this to be an excellent source of investigate of information, I have seen a few things from her linked here but never a direct reference. CoreyDigs. coreysdigs.com

https://twitter.com/CoreysDigs


https://www.youtube.com/c/CoreysDigs