This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/09/us/politics/fbi-russia-investigation-ig-report.html

The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
What to Look for in the Watchdog Report on the Russia Investigation Highlights From the Horowitz Report on the Russia Investigation
(about 8 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is expected to release a much-anticipated report on Monday that will delve into the early stages of the F.B.I.’s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia’s 2016 election-interference operation. WASHINGTON — A much-anticipated report on the early stages of the F.B.I.’s investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia heavily criticized how the F.B.I. obtained court orders to eavesdrop on a former Trump campaign aide but found no evidence of political bias or improper motivation by the F.B.I.
The high-stakes case has pervaded throughout official Washington for more than three years, upending Republicans’ longstanding support for federal law enforcement, overturning the bureau’s leadership and igniting scrutiny that has continued long past the exhaustive special counsel’s report released in April. The 434-page report by the Justice Department’s independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, is an exhaustive examination of a case that has reverberated throughout official Washington for more than three years, challenging Republicans’ longstanding support for federal law enforcement, overturning the bureau’s leadership and igniting scrutiny that has continued long past the exhaustive special counsel’s report released in April.
President Trump and his allies mounted a counteroffensive that was part defense, part redirection — accusing the F.B.I. of engaging in an unlawful attempted coup and raising many conspiracy theories. Their allegations fell to Mr. Horowitz to investigate, and we expect his report to address a handful of major questions. The report found no evidence to back up the president’s claim that the F.B.I.’s investigations of his campaign and four former aides were inspired and tainted by political bias.
This conspiracy theory is multifaceted and complex, but the report is expected to debunk its essential elements. But in a finding that President Trump is certain to seize on, the report documented a pattern of omissions, errors and inconsistencies in the bureau’s applications for warrants to eavesdrop on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide.
The president’s narrative, for which he has offered little evidence, is essentially that a cabal of politically biased law enforcement and intelligence officials — a “deep state” — set out to sabotage and spy on his campaign because they were opposed to his election and wanted to undermine him if he won. Under this narrative, there was a wide-reaching conspiracy to use false opposition research funded by Democrats to justify opening an investigation that would allow them to infiltrate and spy on the Trump campaign, wiretap a former Trump campaign adviser and sabotage Mr. Trump’s presidency. Here are some of the key findings, which will be updated by reporters from The Times.
According to people briefed on a draft of his report, Mr. Horowitz did not find evidence supporting the narrative that Mr. Trump and his allies have spent the better part of three years promulgating. The report debunked essential elements of the president’s conspiracy theory.
The report is expected to fault the F.B.I. and the Justice Department for bureaucratic shortcomings. The president’s narrative, for which he has offered little evidence, is essentially that a cabal of politically biased law enforcement and intelligence officials — a “deep state” — set out to sabotage and spy on his campaign because they were opposed to his election and wanted to undermine him once he won.
Mr. Horowitz closely scrutinized every aspect of the early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, interviewing all of the main and secondary players and going through all of the paperwork from each stage in search of mistakes, procedural fouls or deliberate wrongdoing. While his inquiry is not expected to support Mr. Trump’s accusations, that does not mean Mr. Horowitz found no serious flaws. Mr. Trump and his allies claimed a wide-reaching conspiracy to use false opposition research funded by Democrats to justify opening an investigation that would allow them to infiltrate and spy on the Trump campaign, wiretap Mr. Page and sabotage Mr. Trump’s presidency.
He is expected to say that law enforcement officials failed to coordinate properly and made numerous errors and omissions related to the application seeking a federal court’s permission to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump foreign adviser, and three renewals of the court order. Mr. Horowitz did not find evidence supporting that narrative.
The F.B.I.’s decision to open the investigation met the legal threshold and was not undertaken out of political bias, Mr. Horowitz is expected to conclude. “We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions” by the bureau, the report concluded.
The F.B.I. opened the investigation into links between Russia and the Trump campaign, dubbed Crossfire Hurricane, on July 30, 2016. Mr. Trump’s allies have suggested that this action was an unjustified act undertaken for political reasons. The report also said, “Witnesses told us that they did not recall observing during these discussions any instances or indications of improper motivations or political bias on the part of the participants.”
They have also repeatedly claimed that the F.B.I. did so on the basis of dubious information contained in a dossier of claimed links between Mr. Trump and Russia that was compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had been commissioned to conduct opposition research by a firm in a project ultimately financed by Democrats. In August 2016, in an operation the F.B.I. dubbed “Crossfire Hurricane," the bureau opened investigations into four Trump campaign officials: Mr. Page; campaign chairman Paul Manafort; George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser and Michael T. Flynn, who went to become Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser.
Mr. Horowitz is also expected to conclude that information from the Steele dossier was not used to justify opening the inquiry. There were procedural problems in the process of getting warrants.
While Mr. Horowitz is expected to conclude that the F.B.I. did not attempt to place informants or undercover agents inside the Trump campaign, it is not clear what else he will say about their use. Mr. Horowitz cited multiple errors and omissions related in the applications to eavesdrop on Mr. Page, findings that may bring a renewed focus on the secret process to obtain and approve such warrants.
As part of the Russia investigation, F.B.I. agents authorized the use of at least one informant to figure out whether Mr. Page and George Papadopoulos, another Trump campaign adviser, were working with the Russians. The informant met with the two men while they were still associated with the campaign. The use of the informant, Stefan A. Halper, a Cambridge professor, has led President Trump and his allies to accuse the F.B.I. of spying on his campaign. The F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, has defended the bureau against accusations of spying. In October 2016, the Justice Department obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page, who had recently stepped down from his role as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. Mr. Page had close ties to Russia, which he had visited in the summer of 2016, and had previously interacted with Russia’s foreign spy service. The wiretap application portrayed Mr. Page as a suspected unregistered agent of a foreign power. The court extended the warrant three times.
Mr. Horowitz’s team scrutinized the F.B.I.’s roster of informants for any work they might have done in connection with the Russia investigation. But he found that the F.B.I. did not try to infiltrate the campaign itself, according to people briefed on a draft of his report. The warrant applications relied heavily on information provided by Christopher Steele, a British former intelligence agent who said his information came from a confidential source. In a serious failing, the bureau failed to inform the court that when agents interviewed Mr. Steele’s source, that person failed to back up some of Mr. Steele’s assertions, the report found.
The inspector general is also expected to say that Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese professor who met with Mr. Papadopoulos and offered him dirt on Hillary Clinton, was not an F.B.I. informant, debunking a right-wing conspiracy theory. The inspector general is also said to have received no indication from the C.I.A. that the professor worked for the spy agency, either. Mr. Horowitz also found that investigators should have told the court that Mr. Page had previously given information to the C.I.A. about his overseas contacts. Mr. Page has described himself as an unpaid confidential intelligence source to the C.I.A. and F.B.I.
The report is expected to debunk or reject critiques and claims by Mr. Trump and his allies about the wiretap. But it will also unearth other issues with it. Mr. Horowitz also found that, Kevin Clinesmith, a low-level F.B.I. lawyer, altered an email that was apparently included in the packet of information that went to the court as part of an application to renew the warrant. Mr. Horowitz has made a criminal referral about Mr. Clinesmith for possibly making a false statement that misled his colleague.
In October 2016, the Justice Department obtained permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Mr. Page, who had recently stepped down from his role as a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign. Mr. Page had close ties to Russia, which he had visited in the summer of 2016, and had previously interacted with Russia’s foreign spy service. The wiretap application, which portrayed Mr. Page as a suspected unregistered agent of a foreign power, was ultimately extended three times — twice by the Trump administration. The report shows the relatively low bar for the F.B.I. to open an incredibly consequential investigation.
Though Mr. Horowitz is expected to undermine Mr. Trump’s claims about investigators’ pursuit of a wiretap, including how they portrayed information from the Steele dossier, he is expected to say that the paperwork was bungled in other ways no one was talking about. Without consulting with the Justice Department, top F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators made the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane, according to the report. The investigators had consulted with the deputy F.B.I. director and the bureau’s top lawyer.
Among his expected findings is that investigators should have told the court in the paperwork that Mr. Page had given information to the C.I.A. in the past about his overseas contacts. Mr. Page has described himself as an unpaid confidential intelligence source to the C.I.A. and F.B.I. The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, was not involved in the decision, the report said. Sometime after the investigation was opened, Mr. Comey told the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, and deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, a few details about it.
Mr. Horowitz is also expected to say that, as part of one of the renewals of the wiretap, Kevin Clinesmith, a low-level F.B.I. lawyer working on the case, altered an email from another agency that he sent to a colleague who then signed an affidavit attesting to the accuracy of a packet of information, including that email. Mr. Horowitz has made a criminal referral about Mr. Clinesmith for possibly making a false statement that misled his colleague. The report says there was nothing wrong with this. The Justice Department guidelines for opening an investigation give the F.B.I. the authority to start an investigation — no matter how politically sensitive — on its own.
The report is expected to absolve them of taking investigative action out of bias against Mr. Trump. “We believe that investigations affecting core First Amendment activity and national political campaigns raise significant constitutional and prudential issues,” the report said.
Still, Mr. Horowitz said that in the future a top official — such as the deputy attorney general — should be notified before “such an investigation so that department leadership can consider these issues from the outset.”
Mr. Trump has long claimed the Obama administration had been behind the investigation.
The report found that President Barack Obama and top administration officials played no role in the investigation. Mr. Comey said he believes he told Mr. Obama and other top White House officials about the broad outlines of the investigation in an August 2016 meeting in the Situation Room, at least a month after it was opened.
“Comey said he thought it was important that the President know the nature of the F.B.I.’ s efforts without providing any specifics,” according to the report.
Mr. Comey said that the meeting was also attended by: White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough; national security adviser, Susan Rice; Mr. Brennan and two other top intelligence officials. Mr. Comey said after he relayed this information no one responded or followed up with questions.
The inspector general also took on media reports that Mr. Obama’s C.I.A. director, John Brennan, gave the F.B.I. information that led to the inquiry. Mr. Comey told the inspector general that the information Mr. Brennan passed to the F.B.I. related to election interference but “Brennan did not provide any information that predicated or prompted the F.B.I. open Crossfire Hurricane.”
The report appeared to absolve them of taking investigative action out of bias against Mr. Trump.
Mr. Trump and his allies have demonized a group of top F.B.I. officials who oversaw the opening and early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, portraying them as a cabal who launched a witch hunt in a politicized coup attempt. These include the former director, James B. Comey; the former deputy and acting director, Andrew G. McCabe; Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence agent; Lisa Page, a former F.B.I. lawyer who worked on the case; and James A. Baker, the former general counsel.Mr. Trump and his allies have demonized a group of top F.B.I. officials who oversaw the opening and early stages of the Trump-Russia investigation, portraying them as a cabal who launched a witch hunt in a politicized coup attempt. These include the former director, James B. Comey; the former deputy and acting director, Andrew G. McCabe; Peter Strzok, a former top counterintelligence agent; Lisa Page, a former F.B.I. lawyer who worked on the case; and James A. Baker, the former general counsel.
During an earlier examination into the handling of investigations into Mrs. Clinton’s personal email server, Mr. Horowitz uncovered the fact that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page had sent text messages to each other expressing animus toward Mr. Trump while working on the Russia case. He also found messages by Mr. Clinesmith indicating that he did not like Mr. Trump or his policies. The findings led Mr. Mueller to remove Mr. Strzok and Mr. Clinesmith from the special counsel team.During an earlier examination into the handling of investigations into Mrs. Clinton’s personal email server, Mr. Horowitz uncovered the fact that Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page had sent text messages to each other expressing animus toward Mr. Trump while working on the Russia case. He also found messages by Mr. Clinesmith indicating that he did not like Mr. Trump or his policies. The findings led Mr. Mueller to remove Mr. Strzok and Mr. Clinesmith from the special counsel team.
But as he also did in his report on the Clinton email investigation, Mr. Horowitz is expected to say that, while these text messages demonstrated bad judgment and cast a cloud over the bureau, he found no evidence that any of the actions they took with the investigation stemmed from their personal political views, people familiar with the draft said. But as he also did in his report on the Clinton email investigation, Mr. Horowitz said that, while these text messages demonstrated bad judgment and cast a cloud over the bureau, he found no evidence that any of the actions they took with the investigation stemmed from their personal political views.
Separately, Mr. Trump’s allies have vilified a senior Justice Department expert in Russian organized crime, Bruce G. Ohr, who knew and met with Mr. Steele even after the F.B.I. had officially severed its relationship with Mr. Steele for speaking to the press about his dossier. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, was a researcher at Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Mr. Steele. Separately, Mr. Trump’s allies have disparaged a senior Justice Department expert in Russian organized crime, Bruce G. Ohr, who knew and met with Mr. Steele even after the F.B.I. had officially severed its relationship with Mr. Steele for speaking to the press about his dossier. Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, was a researcher at Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Mr. Steele.
The report is expected to criticize Mr. Ohr for failing to keep his supervisors in the loop about his continued meetings with Mr. Steele, but it is not expected to say that Mr. Ohr was part of any attempted coup. The report is critical of Mr. Ohr’s decision not to let his supervisors at the Justice Department know about his interactions with Mr. Steele and the F.B.I., but said Mr. Ohr did not violate a specific policy or that he was part of an attempted coup.