The Inspector Report is finally released today which confirms
that the deep state attempted to overturn the election of Donald J. Trump
through the Carter Page phony/fake FISA application.
Buried on Pages 360-366 of the report, and Page 419 in the Appendix
we learn the following.
That the FISA application on Carter Page was “Inaccurate,
Incomplete, or Undocumented Information in the FISA Applications.”
“1. Omitted information from another U.S.
government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that
Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008
to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning
his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped
with facts asserted in the FISA application;
2. Included a source characterization
statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated
and used in criminal proceedings," which overstated the significance of
Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's FBI handling agent, as
required by the Woods Procedures;
3. Omitted information relevant to the
reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source (who, as previously noted, was
attributed with providing the information in Report 95 and some of the
information in Reports 80 and 102 relied upon in the application), namely that
(1) Steele himself told members of the Crossfire Hurricane team that Person 1 was
a "boaster" and an "embellishment".
4. Asserted that the FBI had assessed that
Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo
News article, based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he
only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Simpson; this
premise was factually incorrect (Steele had provided direct information to Yahoo
News) and also contradicted by documentation in the Woods File-Steele had
told the FBI that he also gave his information to the State department;
5. Omitted Papadopoulos's statements to an
FBI CHS in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump
campaign was
collaborating with Russia or with outside
groups like WikiLeaks in the release of emails;
6. Omitted Page's statements to an FBI CHS in
August 2016 that Page had "literally never met" or "said one
word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of
Page's emails; if true, those statements were in tension with claims in
Steele's Report 95 that Page was participating in a "conspiracy" with
Russia by acting as an intermediary for Manafort on behalf of the Trump
campaign; and 7. Selectively included Page's statements to an FBI CHS in
October 2016 that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent
of Russia but omitted other statements Page made, including denying
having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even
knowing who Divyekin was; if true, those statements contradicted the claims in
Steele's Report 94 that Page had met secretly with Sechin and Divyekin about future
cooperation with Russia and shared derogatory information about candidate
Clinton. We found no indication that NSD officials were aware of these issues
at the
time they prepared or reviewed the first FISA
application. Regarding the third listed item above, the 01 Attorney who drafted
the application had received an email from Case Agent 1 before the first
application was filed containing the
information about Steele's
"boaster" and "embellishment" characterization of Person 1,
whom the FBI believed to be Source E in Report 95 and the source of other
allegations in the application derived from Reports 80 and 102. This information
was part of a lengthy email that included descriptions of various individuals
in Steele's source network and other information Steele provided to the Crossfire
Hurricane team in early October 2016. The 01 Attorney told us that he
did not recall the Crossfire Hurricane team
flagging this issue for him or that he independently made the connection
between this sub-source and Steele's characterization of Person 1 as an
embellisher. We believe Case Agent 1 should have specifically discussed with
the 01 Attorney the FBI's assessment that this subsource was Person 1 that
Steele had provided the information so that Person 1 could have assessed how
these facts might impact the FISA application. As described in Chapter Five,
Evans and the 01 Attorney told us that they would have wanted to discuss this
information internally within NSD and with the FBI and likely would have, at a
minimum, disclosed the information to the court.
Prepared as a Public Service by the Law Office of Vincent J. Sanzone, Jr., Esq.
(908) 354-7006