FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe (DOJ IG Report thread) (6 Viewers)

[bdb13]

Washington (CNN) —

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

The possibility of a substantive change to an investigative document is likely to fuel accusations from President Donald Trump and his allies that the FBI committed wrongdoing in its investigation of connections between Russian election meddling and the Trump campaign.

The finding is expected to be part of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's review of the FBI's effort to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. Horowitz will release the report next month.

Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham's criminal probe.

Exclusive: Former FBI lawyer under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe - CNN Politics

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

www-m.cnn.com

Terrible if true. Trump will obviously seize upon this.

 

[FullMonte]

The entirety of the Steele Dossier that the CIA said was an internet rumor?

I think you need to reorder those words a little:

The CIA said the entirety of the Steele Dossier was an internet rumor?

 

[SaintForLife]

Here’s a pretty good compilation if you care to read it. It goes over what was wrong, what was true, what is unverified and what was common knowledge. There’s a little bit of every category in there.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-vs-what-mueller-report-said/

"Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.”

But a case could also be made that the memo’s political analysis about Russia’s motivations might have been made by any close reader of the newspapers. By the time this memo was written, The Washington Post had already broken the news that Russia had hacked the Democratic National Committee. So the information was already publicly known and there hasn't been any evidence for the claim that Russia had been cultivating Trump for 5 years.

"There were other aspects to TRUMP’s engagement with the Russian authorities. One which had borne fruit for them was to exploit personal obsessions and sexual perversion in order to obtain suitable ‘kompromat’ [compromising material] on him.”

Once again, there is zero evidence for the pee tapes.

"Russia has extensive program of state-sponsored offensive cyberoperations.”

Again, something that was already publicly known or found out by Google

“Further evidence of extensive conspiracy between campaign team and Kremlin, sanctioned at highest levels and involving Russian diplomatic staff based in the US. Agreed exchange of information established in both directions.”

The Mueller investigation did not find such a level of coordination. Instead, it suggests the Trump campaign was opportunistic about apparent assistance from Russia, but Mueller could not find evidence the conspiracy outlined in the memo existed. Translation: another dud

TRUMP associate admits Kremlin behind recent appearance of DNC e-mails on WikiLeaks, as means of maintaining plausible deniability.”


There has been zero evidence produced that anyone was in contact with Wikileaks which was shown in the Roger Stone trial. This one looks like another publicly known accusation

“This [coordination] was managed on the TRUMP side by the Republican candidate’s campaign manager, Paul MANAFORT, who was using foreign policy advisor, Carter PAGE, and others as intermediaries. The two sides had a mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared.”

We know this is false especially after the IG report and the Putin hating Clinton was publicly known. I see a trend of false info or already publicly known info.

“Top level Russian official confirms current closeness of Alpha Group-PUTIN relationship. Significant favors continue to be done in both directions... and [Petr] AVEN still giving informal advice to PUTIN, especially on US.”

The FBI had figured out by February that the Alfa Bank theory was bogus.

 

[SaintForLife]

More on the Steele Dossier.

-Fiona Hill, who the Democrats called as a witness, said she thought the Steele Dossier was Russian disinformation.

The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.”

The Steele report reads like a pile of rumors surrounded by public information pulled off the Internet, and the Horowitz report does nothing to dispel this notion.

At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”

Worse (and this part of the story should be tattooed on the heads of Russia truthers), the FBI’s interviews of Steele’s sources revealed Steele embellished the most explosive parts of his report.

The “pee tape” story, which inspired countless grave headlines (see this chin-scratching New York Times history of Russian “sexual blackmail”) and plunged the Trump presidency into crisis before it began, was, this source said, based a “conversation that [he/she] had over beers,” with the sexual allegations made… in “jest”!

Steele in his report said the story had been “confirmed” by senior, Western hotel staff, but the actual source said it was all “rumor and speculation,” never confirmed. In fact, charged by Steele to find corroboration, the source could not: corroboration was “zero,” writes Horowitz.

Meanwhile the Steele assertions that Russians had a kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, and that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russians, relied on a source Steele himself disparaged as an “egoist” and “boaster” who “may engage in some embellishment.” This was known to the FBI at the start, yet they naturally failed to include this info in the warrant application, one of what Horowitz described as “17 significant errors or omissions” in the FISA application.

Finally, when the FBI conducted an investigation into Steele’s “work-related performance,” they heard from some that he was “smart,” and a “person of integrity,” and “if he reported it, he believed it.”

So far, so good. But Horowitz also wrote:

Their notes stated: “[d]emonstrates lack of self-awareness, poor judgment;” “[k]een to help” but “underpinned by poor judgment;” “Judgment: pursuing people with political risk but no intel value;” “[d]idn’t always exercise great judgment- sometimes [he] believes he knows best;” and “[r]eporting in good faith, but not clear what he would have done to validate.”

'Corroboration Zero': An Inspector General's Report Reveals the Steele Dossier Was Always a Joke

The report throws water on one “deep state” conspiracy theory of the Russia investigation, but validates complaints about “fake news”

www.rollingstone.com

I don't see how anyone can credibly say that there are parts of the Dossier that were true. The IG report basically showed the Steele Dossier was complete BS and that Steel's sources refuted his own reports!

 

[Beach Friends]

I may have missed it, are we talking about Durham looking into Brennan's records yet?

Just like we now know that Comey and company were shady as hell, I think we will see as bad or worse when Brennan's conduct comes to light.

 

[FullMonte]

At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”

I guess I would read that the FBI had "corroborated limited information" to mean that some of the information in the Steele dossier had been corroborated and was true. Perhaps my grasp of the english language is off?

 

[SaintForLife]

I guess I would read that the FBI had "corroborated limited information" to mean that some of the information in the Steele dossier had been corroborated and was true. Perhaps my grasp of the english language is off?

Did you see the "publicly available information" part? So Steele googled information, put it in the document and the FBI confirmed the information that was already publicly known was correct. What did you think about the IG saying the Steele's sources refuted his information?

 

[SaintForLife]

I may have missed it, are we talking about Durham looking into Brennan's records yet?

Just like we now know that Comey and company were shady as hell, I think we will see as bad or worse when Brennan's conduct comes to light.

I was just reading the article about that. You know that Comey and Brennan are feeling the heat when they are both trying to throw each other under the bus. At minimum Brennan will most likely be charged with lying to Congress under oath.

Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings (Published 2019)

The federal prosecutor investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry is examining testimony by the former C.I.A. director John Brennan and seeking his communications records.

www.nytimes.com

The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

 

[SaintForLife]

Taibbi finds some very interesting angles from the IG Report. As he points out in detail someone is lying between Lynch, Comey and Brennan. He also ask some good questions about Misfud who has never been shown to be a Russian agent.

If Mifsud is not a Russian agent, the absurdity factor of all this multiplies: A years-long counterintelligence investigation will have been based on a botched game of telephone between three Westerners of varying degrees of shadiness, with no Russian-intelligence link ever found. It’s like something out of a Graham Greene novel. The only thing missing is Papadopoulos handing Downer a barroom-napkin sketch of a giant vacuum cleaner.

I'm curious about what Durham will find out about this. Once again someone or multiple people are lying.

Brennan in May of 2017 testified before Congress that he was “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons” that “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.”

Horowitz contradicts this

 

[FullMonte]

Did you see the "publicly available information" part? So Steele googled information, put it in the document and the FBI confirmed the information that was already publicly known was correct. What did you think about the IG saying the Steele's sources refuted his information?

Whether or not the information was publicly available isn't really relevant to your comment. You said "I don't see how anyone can credibly say that there are parts of the Dossier that were true." The Horowitz Report states that there are parts of the Dossier that are true.

I didn't say anything about Steele's methods or sources, I just pointed out that your own article stated that there were parts of the Dossier that were true.

 

[Beach Friends]

Taibbi finds some very interesting angles from the IG Report. As he points out in detail someone is lying between Lynch, Comey and Brennan. He also ask some good questions about Misfud who has never been shown to be a Russian agent.

If Mifsud is not a Russian agent, the absurdity factor of all this multiplies: A years-long counterintelligence investigation will have been based on a botched game of telephone between three Westerners of varying degrees of shadiness, with no Russian-intelligence link ever found. It’s like something out of a Graham Greene novel. The only thing missing is Papadopoulos handing Downer a barroom-napkin sketch of a giant vacuum cleaner.

I'm curious about what Durham will find out about this. Once again someone or multiple people are lying.

Brennan in May of 2017 testified before Congress that he was “aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons” that “served as the basis for the FBI investigation.”

Horowitz contradicts this

If you haven't watched it lately, go back and watch Mueller's face when Jim Jordan was questioning him about Mifsud. He looks like he was going to throw up, especially when Jordan asked him point blank, "Is Mifsud Russian intelligence or western intelligence?"

Now, does anyone really think that Jordan would be highlighting that question if he did not already know the answer?

People like Jordan already know a lot of what is going to come out, it's just a matter of letting the investigation run its course. One thing I am confident of is that Durham is much more likely to undersell what he has so far than to overplay his hand.

 

[samiam5211]

Did you see the "publicly available information" part? So Steele googled information, put it in the document and the FBI confirmed the information that was already publicly known was correct. What did you think about the IG saying the Steele's sources refuted his information?

You realize that the separated corroborated from publicly available for a reason right?

Those are two separate categories separated by the word “or”. They are exclusive categories.

If it was available on google they did not count it as corroborated.

 

[coldseat]

I was just reading the article about that. You know that Comey and Brennan are feeling the heat when they are both trying to throw each other under the bus. At minimum Brennan will most likely be charged with lying to Congress under oath.

Durham Is Scrutinizing Ex-C.I.A. Director’s Role in Russian Interference Findings (Published 2019)

The federal prosecutor investigating the origins of the Russia inquiry is examining testimony by the former C.I.A. director John Brennan and seeking his communications records.

www.nytimes.com

The federal prosecutor scrutinizing the Russia investigation has begun examining the role of the former C.I.A. director John O. Brennan in how the intelligence community assessed Russia’s 2016 election interference, according to three people briefed on the inquiry.

John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr. Brennan’s emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.’s views of a notorious dossier of assertions about Russia and Trump associates.

You guys are pretty excited with all of this hyper speculation. Not seeing anything Brennan has to be concerned about from that article. That Durham and Barr were going to turn over every little rock and look under it for a worm was always known.

Ultimately, I highly doubt Durham is going to charge Brennan, Comey or anybody significan with any crime. I doubt they did anything outside of their authority. You guys may hate them, but they served this country for years under different administration and Comey is a Republican (don't know Brennan political affiliation). They wouldn't have put their career and life in jeopardy to order an illegal covert operations on a US political candidate (like you guys seem to think and suggest).

Not sure what y'all are expecting/hoping they'll be charged with.

 

[SaintForLife]

Whether or not the information was publicly available isn't really relevant to your comment. You said "I don't see how anyone can credibly say that there are parts of the Dossier that were true." The Horowitz Report states that there are parts of the Dossier that are true.

I didn't say anything about Steele's methods or sources, I just pointed out that your own article stated that there were parts of the Dossier that were true.

It's really hard to take your argument seriously when you are pointing to information that was already publicly on the Steele Dossier. That's not a Dossier. That's called Google.

Why won't you address the fact that Steele's own sources refuted his information? That's a pretty big deal isn't it?

 

[SaintForLife]

You realize that the separated corroborated from publicly available for a reason right?

Those are two separate categories separated by the word “or”. They are exclusive categories.

If it was available on google they did not count it as corroborated.

Please point out what information was corroborated specifically.

Once again, STEEL'S OWN SOURCES REFUTED HIS INFORMATION!

 

[Beach Friends]

You guys are pretty excited with all of this hyper speculation. Not seeing anything Brennan has to be concerned about from that article. That Durham and Barr were going to turn over every little rock and look under it for a worm was always known.

Ultimately, I highly doubt Durham is going to charge Brennan, Comey or anybody significan with any crime. I doubt they did anything outside of their authority. You guys may hate them, but they served this country for years under different administration and Comey is a Republican (don't know Brennan political affiliation). They wouldn't have put their career and life in jeopardy to order an illegal covert operations on a US political candidate (like you guys seem to think and suggest).

Not sure what y'all are expecting/hoping they'll be charged with.

So, you think that Mifsud just happened to bump into Papadopoulos?

 

[FullMonte]

It's really hard to take your argument seriously when you are pointing to information that was already publicly on the Steele Dossier. That's not a Dossier. That's called Google.

Why won't you address the fact that Steele's own sources refuted his information? That's a pretty big deal isn't it?

Ok...let me make my argument more clearly for you:

Does the phrase stating that the FBI had "corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information" mean that information in the Steele Dossier is accurate? It's a simple yes or no question.

I didn't address the fact that Steele's own sources refuted his information because I wasn't addressing whether or not Steele's entire reporting is correct or not, or whether he was reliable as a provider of information to the FBI. But, since you want me to address it, I'll address it while remaining relevant to the statement that you made (that I was responding to). Are you saying that the source for every piece of information in the Dossier refuted Steele's reporting?

Or to sum up both questions: Is it still your claim that there is nothing in the Steele Dossier that is accurate? If not, then it is your claim that the Horwitz Report is in error when it states that the FBI corroborated some of the information, correct?

 

[Beach Friends]

Ok...let me make my argument more clearly for you:

Does the phrase stating that the FBI had "corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information" mean that information in the Steele Dossier is accurate? It's a simple yes or no question.

I didn't address the fact that Steele's own sources refuted his information because I wasn't addressing whether or not Steele's entire reporting is correct or not, or whether he was reliable as a provider of information to the FBI. But, since you want me to address it, I'll address it while remaining relevant to the statement that you made (that I was responding to). Are you saying that the source for every piece of information in the Dossier refuted Steele's reporting?

Or to sum up both questions: Is it still your claim that there is nothing in the Steele Dossier that is accurate? If not, then it is your claim that the Horwitz Report is in error when it states that the FBI corroborated some of the information, correct?

I am sure that every now and then even Alex Jones says something that is true. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day. Neither is reliable.

I don't know why there is this desperate desire to defend the use of the dossier. It was garbage even Steele's sources were shocked the gossip they provided was used for anything, let alone to throw the most powerful nation in the world into chaos.

 

[SaintForLife]

I am sure that every now and then even Alex Jones says something that is true. After all, a broken clock is right twice a day. Neither is reliable.

I don't know why there is this desperate desire to defend the use of the dossier. It was garbage even Steele's sources were shocked the gossip they provided was used for anything, let alone to throw the most powerful nation in the world into chaos.

All he can do is play a semantics game by focusing on there was at least something on the Dossier was true even if 97% wasn't true. We do know from the IG report that ZERO of the major claims in the Dossier were true and NONE of the information from the Dossier that was used on the FISA application was true.