John Durham, a U.S. attorney who began conducting a broad investigation concerning how the Trump-Russia probe had begun released a statement on Monday, Dec. 9, announcing his disagreement with the conclusion of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) report—after Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz claimed that the probe’s launch by and large adhered with DOJ and FBI policies.
“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,” Durham said in a Dec. 9 statement.
As The Hill’s Kevin R. Brock put it, Horowitz’s report is essentially “one long exposé of a confluence of actors at the top of the FBI who, by their own words, despised Donald Trump and came together to open and run an investigation into his 2016 presidential campaign, falsifying documents, withholding evidence, and using a confidential source who had stated clearly that his goal was to prevent a Trump presidency.”
Brock then pointed out that the 443-page report is fundamentally flawed, given that Horowitz in the end implicitly dismissed President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers’ assertions of potential political biases.
In other words, the inspector general is attempting to say, “Since no one admitted to being motivated by their personal biases, he could not reach [a conclusion where the FBI investigation was launched out of political animus],” Brock explained.
The team then did something unprecedented in the history of the FBI—running confidential sources and undercover operatives against presidential campaign members while secretly recording their conversations, The Epoch Times reported on Dec. 9.
“And, in what amounts to a profound disgrace to everything the FBI stands for, the team obtained authorization to electronically eavesdrop on a U.S. citizen, former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, through duplicity—by withholding information, falsifying information, using uncorroborated information, and by using a source whom the FBI knew was unreliable and not credible,” Brock analyzed.
On the other hand, former FBI Director James Comey is clear on one thing long before his “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation—or the impeachment inquiry—had begun: to urge Americans to “use every breath we have” to prevent President Trump from being re-elected in 2020, he said Dec. 10, 2018.
The inspector general’s report cited a long list of abuses found in the FISA process, but ultimately failed to delve into why these abuses occurred in the first place, Brock noted, urging a proper investigation.
“There needs to be some type of assessment of accountability,” Brock wrote. “If these dismal actions were done with devious intent, that is fraudulent and possibly criminal.”
“The abuses are bad enough. Yet, a failure to examine responsibility would be devastating to an FBI that was hijacked by a rogue, biased leadership team and is trying to rebuild the trust of the American people,” Brock wrote, referring to Comey’s vow to remove the president from office.
Another Hill contributor, Jonathan Turley, also cited that Horowitz found numerous false statements and misrepresentations used to continue the clandestine investigation targeting the Trump campaign as well as its associates.
“Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared rather early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts,” Turley wrote in a Dec. 9 column.
“Despite this shockingly damning report, much of the media is reporting only that Horowitz did not find it unreasonable to start the investigation, and ignored a litany of false representations and falsifications of evidence to keep the secret investigation going,” Turley pointed out. “Nothing was found to support any of those allegations, and special counsel Robert Mueller also confirmed there was no support for collusion and conspiracy allegations repeated continuously for two years by many experts and members of Congress.”