Shortly after the FISA report was dropped showing an extreme bias within the FBI and DOJ against President Donald Trump, the Washington Post was forced to admit that Republican Rep. Devin Nunes was right about his assertions relating to the report.
According to the Post, Nunes was a «fair amount» right in his version of the events compared to Rep. Adam Schiff.
[H]ow much is the Nunes memo itself vindicated?” Aaron Blake of the Washington Post asks. “A fair amount, it turns out,” he wrote, clarifying “at least, in Horowitz’s estimation.”
Blake continues by comparing passages in the memos to Horowitz’s final report: “how accurate and complete the four [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)] applications to surveil Page were.” According to Blake, Nunes’ assertions were closer than Schiff’s which had “probably the worst line of the Democrats’ rebuttal.”
Nunes: “In the case of Carter Page, the government had at least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However, our findings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant information was omitted.”
Democrats: “FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign. … DOJ met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet probable cause requirement.”
Horowitz: “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 information to [the Justice Department National Security Division’s Office of Intelligence] and failing to flag important issues for discussion.”
Blake mentioned how Horowitz discovered that “a now-former FBI lawyer altered a document to make it look like Page wasn’t a source for another government agency, when in fact he was — a fact that could have been exculpatory for Page.»
While the Democrats claimed that the Steele dossier was only for «narrow use» in the FISA application process, Nunes asserted that it was “an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application.”
Nunes: “The dossier … formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. … Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information.”
Democrats: “DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page but made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016, chiefly his suspected July 2016 meetings in Moscow with Russian officials. … DOJ’s applications did not otherwise rely on Steele’s reporting, including any ‘salacious’ allegations about Trump.”
Horowitz: “We determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team’s receipt of Steele’s election reporting on September 19, 2016 played a central and essential role in the FBI’s and Department’s decision to seek the FISA order.” A fourth element of the initial FISA application, claiming Page coordinated with Russia on behalf the campaign, “relied entirely on” information from the dossier.
Blake once again confirms that Nunes’ depiction of the events is more accurate than Schiff’s.
He continued by highlighting yet another disagreement on whether or not the FBI was open about the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the dossier.
Nunes: “Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts.”
Democrats: “DOJ in fact informed the Court accurately that Steele was hired by politically-motivated U.S. persons and entities and that his research appeared intended for use ‘to discredit’ Trump’s campaign.”
Horowitz: A footnote in the application “stated that Steele was hired by an identified U.S. person (Glenn Simpson) to conduct research regarding ‘Candidate # 1’s’ (Donald Trump) ties to Russia and that the FBI ‘speculates’ that this U.S. person was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit the Trump campaign.” The FBI “assumed, but did not know at the time of the first application, that Steele was conducting opposition research.”
Nunes was right… again!
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below!