Media Bias and the Review of “Four” (One) FISA Application(s) and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) appreciates the OIG’s crucial independent oversight role and the thoroughness and professionalism your office brought to this work. The Report’s findings and recommendations represent constructive criticism that will make us stronger as an organization. We also appreciate the Report’s recognition that the FBI cooperated fully with this review and provided broad and timely access to all information requested by the OIG, including highly classified and sensitive material involving national security.
The Report concludes that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation and related investigations of certain individuals were opened in 2016 for an authorized purpose and with adequate factual predication. The Report also details instances in which certain FBI personnel, at times during the 2016-2017 period reviewed by the OIG, did not comply with existing policies, neglected to exercise appropriate diligence, or otherwise failed to meet the standard of conduct that the FBI expects of its employees — and that our country expects of the FBI. We are vested with significant authorities, and it is our obligation as public servants to ensure that these authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Anything less falls short of the FBI’s duty to the American people.”
– Director Christopher Wray to Inspector General Horowitz
If the quote above confuses you, it may be because of the president’s, William Barr’s and the right-wing media’s representation of the investigation performed by the Inspector General’s office into the initial opening of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into possible Trump-Russia connections. A report that has been mischaracterized to insinuate the FBI’s investigation was based in left-wing bias, and was influenced by then-president Barack Obama. This, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth.
In multiple areas of the report, the findings clearly state that there was no wrong-doing or bias involved in the opening of the investigation. Also, judging by the results of the long-term investigation (over 40 indictments, many of whom members of Trump’s cabinet) one could say the investigation was obviously necessary. Yet, the media doesn’t seem to mention much of that. Here are some quotes from the actual report that you can download from this site in the Important Documents of 2019 tab.
“Crossfire Hurricane was opened as a Full Investigation and all of the senior FBI officials who participated in discussions about whether to open a case told us the information warranted opening it. For example, then Counterintelligence Division (CD) Assistant Director (AD) E.W. “Bill” Priestap, who approved the case opening, told us that the combination of the FFG information and the FBI’s ongoing cyber intrusion investigation of the July 2016 hacks of the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) emails, created a counterintelligence concern that the FBI was “obligated” to investigate. Priestap stated that he considered whether the FBI should conduct defensive briefings for the Trump campaign but ultimately decided that providing such briefings created t he risk that “if someone on the campaign was engaged with the Russians, he/she would very likely change his/her tactics and/or otherwise seek to cover-up his/her activities, thereby preventing us from finding the truth.” We did not identify any Department or FBI policy that applied to this decision and therefore determined that the decision was a judgment call that Department and FBI policy leaves to the discretion of FBI officials. We also concluded that, under the AG Guidelines and the DIOG, the FBI had an authorized purpose when it opened Crossfire Hurricane to obtain information about, or protect against, a national security threat or federal crime, even though the investigation also had the potential to impact constitutionally protected activity.”
Page iii of the Executive Summary of the Report
Moving ahead a few pages, the report repeats its conclusion of there being no evidence of political bias in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane and the investigations into four individuals related to the Trump campaign.
“As discussed in Chapter Ten, we determined that, during the 2016 presidential campaign, the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both before and after they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation. All of these CHS interactions were consensually monitored and recorded by the FBI. As noted above, under Department and FBI policy, the use of a CHS to conduct consensual monitoring is a matter of investigative judgment that, absent certain circumstances, can be authorized by a first-line supervisor (a supervisory special agent). We determined that the CHS operations conducted during Crossfire Hurricane received the necessary FBI approvals, and that AD Priestap knew about, and approved of, all of the Crossfire Hurricane CHS operations, even in circumstances where a first-level supervisory special agent could have approved the operations. We found no evidence that the FBI used CHSs or UCEs to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. After the opening of the investigation, we found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs or UCEs within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. Finally, we also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI’s decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”
Pages xvi – xvii of the Executive Summary
One must wonder, then, how did William Barr come to the conclusion he insisted upon during his summary of the report? We’re not even through the Executive Summary at this point, and we’ve already read twice that the Office of the Inspector General found no evidence of bias or wrong-doing when opening the investigation. Including his, and the right-wing media’s characterization of the initiation of the investigation essentially being a propaganda piece orchestrated by the Obama Administration, and the Clinton campaign. Here’s how the report details the reasons for the opening of the investigation:
“At the time the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened in July 2016, the U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC), which includes the FBI, was aware of Russian efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. The Russian efforts included cyber intrusions into various political organizations, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). Throughout spring and early summer 2016, the FBI became aware of specific cyber intrusions for which the Russian government was responsible, through ongoing investigations into Russian hacking operations conducted by the FBI’s Cyber Division and the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division (CD).
In March and May 2016, FBI field offices identified a spear phishing campaign by the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the General Staff Intelligence Directorate (GRU), targeting email addresses associated with the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign, as well as efforts to place malware on DNC and DCCC computer networks. In June and July 2016, stolen materials were released online through the fictitious personas ‘Guccifer 2.0″ and “DCLeaks.” In addition, in late July 2016, WikiLeaks released emails obtained from DNC servers as part of its “Hillary Leak Series.’
By August 2016, the USIC assessed that in the weeks leading up to the 2016 U.S. elections, Russia was considering further intelligence operations to impact or disrupt the elections. In addition to the Russian infiltration of DNC and DCCC computer systems, between March and August 2016, the FBI became aware of numerous attempts to hack into state election systems. These included confirmed access into elements of multiple state or local electoral boards using tactics, techniques, and procedures associated with Russian state-sponsored actors. 163 The FBI learned that Russian efforts also included cyber-enabled scanning and probing of election related infrastructure in several states.
It was in this context that the FBI received information on July 28, 2016, about a conversation between Papadopoulos and an official of a Friendly Foreign Government (FFG) in May 2016 during which Papadopoulos ‘suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion’ from Russia that it could assist this process with the anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to candidate Clinton and President Obama. As described below, the FBI opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation 3 days after receiving this information.”
Pages 49 – 50, Chapter Three of the IG Report
I may have missed the part where it said the investigation was a fraudulent orchestration of the Obama Administration and the Clinton campaign, but I may have missed it. I’ll read on. Here’s what the court said about the related investigations into Carter Page, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and George Papadopoulos:
“The opening EC for the Carter Page investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Carter Page ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Page was a senior foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, had extensive ties to various Russia-owned entities, and had traveled to Russia as recently as July 2016. The EC also noted that Carter Page was the subject of an open, ongoing counterintelligence investigation assigned to the FBI’s New York Field Office (NYFO), which we describe in the next section.
The opening EC for the Manafort investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Manafort ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Manafort was designated the Delegate Process and Convention Manager for the Trump campaign, was promoted to Campaign Manager for the Trump campaign, and had extensive ties to pro-Russian entities of the Ukrainian government.
The opening EC for the Papadopoulos investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Papadopoulos ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Papadopoulos was a senior foreign adviser for the Trump campaign and had ‘made statements indicating that he is knowledgeable that the Russians made a suggestion to the Trump team that they could assist the Trump campaign with an anonymous release of information during the campaign that would be damaging to the Clinton Campaign.’
The opening EC for the Flynn investigation stated that there was an articulable factual basis that Flynn ‘may wittingly or unwittingly be involved in activity on behalf of the Russian Federation which may constitute a federal crime or threat to the national security.’ The EC cross-referenced the predication for Crossfire Hurricane and stated that Flynn was an advisor to the Trump campaign, had various ties to state-affiliated entities of Russia, and traveled to Russia in December 2015.”
Page 60 of the IG Report
In the very next section of the report, it notes that Carter Page was already part of a pre-existing FBI NY field office counterintelligence investigation. As is further explained on page vi of the Executive Summary regarding the investigation into Page:
“We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI’s decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page”
Page vi of the Executive Summary of the IG Report
What’s worse if the media characterization that this investigation involved multiple “illegal” FISA warrants. In reality, not only were all of the FISA warrants found to be perfectly justified, but there was never more than one in the first place. The only FISA warrant into an individual involved in Crossfire Hurricane was Carter Page himself.
“On September 19, 2016, the same day that the Crossfire Hurricane team first received Steele’s election reporting, the team contacted FBI OGC again about seeking a FISA order for Page and specifically focused on Steele’s reporting in drafting the FISA request. Two days later, on September 21, the FBI OGC Unit Chief contacted the NSD 01 Unit Chief to advise him that the FBI believed it was ready to submit a formal FISA request to 01 relating to Page. Almost immediately thereafter, 01 assigned an attorney (01 Attorney) to begin preparation of the application.
Although the team also was interested in seeking FISA surveillance targeting Papadopoulos, the FBI OGC attorneys were not supportive. FBI and NSD officials told us that the Crossfire Hurricane team ultimately did not seek FISA surveillance of Papadopoulos, and we are aware of no information indicating that the team requested or seriously considered FISA surveillance of Manafort or Flynn.”
Page vi of the Executive Summary of the IG Report
Furthermore, now that the right-wing media’s claims that the investigation was politically motivated, and that the FISA warrants were unlawful have been thoroughly debunked, how about that popular claim that the Steele Dossier was the primary reason for opening the investigation in the first place? Had these commentators read past the cover, they would’ve seen this inconvenient quote from page ii of the Executive Summary:
“We did not find information in FBI or Department ECs, emails, or other documents, or through witness testimony, indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of t he Crossfire Hurricane investigation. Although not mentioned in the EC, at the time, FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele’s election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele’s reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.”
Page ii of the Executive Summary of the IG Report
So where are all of these accusations of corruption coming from? They stem from a small part of the report regarding private communications between two FBI agents involved in the investigation, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. Keep in mind, these were private communications. Being federal employees, there are many rules that one must follow in the public light, which includes not endorsing or disparaging a political candidate or party, or taking certain political stances not related to their line of work. However, these were entirely private communications, wherein there are no rules of the like. As a federal employee, you are perfectly entitled to a political opinion, in fact, one might argue your opinion to be far more valid than those of the general public because of your proximity to federal issues.
This is irrelevant, though, as I said before. These were private communications, and have now even led to a lawsuit from Lisa Page against the FBI for releasing the private communications, as there is question regarding their validity to the investigation. No matter, the report itself may be critical of the communications, it also clearly states the following:
“As part of our review, we also sought to determine whether there was evidence that political bias or other improper considerations affected decision making in Crossfire Hurricane, including the decision to open the investigation. We discussed the issue of political bias in a prior OIG report, Review of Various Actions in Advance of the 2016 Election, where we described text and instant messages between then Special Counsel to the Deputy Director Lisa Page and then Section Chief Peter Strzok, among others, that included statements of hostility toward then candidate Trump and statements of support for then candidate Hillary Clinton. In this review, we found that, while Lisa Page attended some of the discussions regarding the opening of the investigations, she did not play a role in the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane or the four individual cases. We further found that while Strzok was directly involved in the decisions to open Crossfire Hurricane and the four individual cases, he was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those matters.
As noted above, then CD AD Priestap, Strzok’s supervisor, was the official who ultimately made the decision to open the investigation, and evidence reflected that this decision by Priestap was reached by consensus after multiple days of discussions and meetings that included Strzok and other leadership in CD, the FBI Deputy Director, the FBI General Counsel, and a FBI Deputy General Counsel. We concluded that Priestap’s exercise of discretion in opening the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced his decision. We similarly found that, while the formal documentation opening each of the four individual investigations was approved by Strzok (as required by the DIOG), the Executive Summary Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation decisions to do so were reached by a consensus among the Crossfire Hurricane agents and analysts who identified individuals associated with the Trump campaign who had recently traveled to Russia or had other alleged ties to Russia. Priestap was involved in these decisions. We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.”
Pages iii and iv of the Executive Summary of the IG Report
In conclusion, while the IG did recommend specific new FBI policies be put in place as precaution, the report did not conclude under any terms that there was any wrong-doing involved in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, nor in the investigations into Papadopoulos, Manafort, or Flynn, nor in the FISA warrant in the investigation into Carter Page.
Let us not forget, Paul Manafort was sentenced to 7.5 years in prison; Michael Flynn was convicted of lying to the FBI in 2017, and his sentencing was delayed so that he could further cooperate with the Mueller probe; Papadopoulos was convicted of lying to the FBI and sentenced to twelve days in prison, one year of probation,and was fined almost $10,000; and while Carter Page has not been convicted to date, he is still part of an on-going investigation as of this writing. Looking at this track record, it would be hard to create a narrative that these men were under investigation for no other reason than political motivation.
While the right-wing press is still spinning their narratives, without a single quote from the actual report, mind you, remember how important it is to seek information for yourself. You can download the complete redacted report below. The redactions are likely due to on-going investigations, much like the Mueller Report redactions were upon its first public release. See above regarding Carter Page.
The Seventh Floor 