Office of the Inspector General Report

| December 19, 2019

Veritas Omnia Vincit has read the OIG report concerning the Crossfire Hurricane team’s efforts to obtain FISA surveillance authority, all 500 pages of it. Someone had to, and I’m glad it wasn’t me. As you might imagine, he comes away with a few conclusions, which he is kind enough to share.

No Bias In The OIG Report? What are lies to promote a position unproven if not bias?

Veritas Omnia Vincit

“However, immediately after the Crossfire Hurricane team received Steele’s election reporting on September 19, the team reinitiated their discussions with OI and their efforts to obtain FISA surveillance authority for Page, which they received from the FISC on October 21. The decision to seek to use this highly intrusive investigative technique was known and approved at multiple levels of the Department, including by then DAG Yates for the initial FISA application and first renewal, and by then Acting Attorney General Boente and then DAG Rosenstein for the second and third renewals, respectively. However, as we explain later, the Crossfire Hurricane team failed to inform Department officials of significant information that was available to the team at the time that the FISA applications were drafted and filed. Much of that information was inconsistent with, or undercut, the assertions contained in the FISA applications that were used to support probable cause and, in some instances, resulted in inaccurate information being included in the applications. While we do not speculate whether Department officials would have authorized the FBI to seek to use FISA authority had they been made aware of all relevant information, it was clearly the responsibility of Crossfire Hurricane team members to advise them of such critical information so that they could make a fully informed decision.“

As I read through the OIG report there are a multitude of such entertaining highlights. Full disclosure time for those unaware of my political affiliations I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I currently despise both parties with equal vigor. I am, however, always interested in subject matter that discusses the power of government and the processes associated with that power. As a consequence I often irritate Republicans and Democrats when I poke at the processes the majority party of the day is using to exercise that power. I like to consider the 200 years of erosion of the founders’ vision and the general acceptance of that by most of society in that context of current exercise of power by both the big government right and even bigger government left. Some of the regulars know I’m not a fan of the current occupant of the White House, nor was I a fan of his predecessor.

There is no “evidence of bias” that the OIG was able to find, he said as much in the report and in his testimony. Those who hate Trump enjoy using that phrase to point out that without evidence there is no wrongdoing. Indeed in purely technical, legal terms a lack of evidence means one can’t really be convicted of anything. We’ve all heard the phrase, it’s not what you know it’s what you can prove. When you read the OIG report what one might know is indeed far different that what can be proven. As I’ve said previously the OIG is chock full of, “We’ve investigated ourselves, and found no evidence of wrongdoing” moments.

I think what you take away from that depends largely on your political leanings. If you hate Trump you believe the OIG report is an endorsement of the techniques used to gain warrants for wiretaps, recordings, surveillance, etc… If you like Trump the OIG report is full of quotable moments that support Trump as well. Both sides can find things that make their position more comfortable for them in this report.

That said there is perhaps another way to read this report, a report that outlines “inaccurate information, inconsistent with assertions” or what a layperson would call a lie. That other way involves considering what kind of government do you want governing your nation? In that context, for me, this a very disturbing report on a number of levels. The first of which is how easy it is to use a secret process to surveil, wiretap, and place Confidential Human Sources into the life of a person with zero history of criminal activity and who had previously served his nation honorably based on those “inaccurate” bits of information. The second is perhaps to realize what the OIG is, it’s sort of a watchdog however it’s also a functional component of our government bureaucracy. As a consequence there is little benefit for the OIG office to point out that “inaccurate” information from a “questionable” source of “information” is actually lies told to the FBI by a liar using a document that was made from whole cloth to support the lies and then used by people who clearly indicated their personal disdain for the subject of the investigation to meet the apparently very low bar of “evidence” required to spy on American citizens. In that quote above the significant information they mention is the truth, and the inaccurate information inconsistent with that truth were the lies they used to support their investigation.

If you read that OIG report in the context of policy and procedures allowed the FBI in the execution of their investigatory duties it’s frightening stuff, or at least it should be to anyone who is under the impression they live in a free country. The report in great detail outlines how full of shit Steele was and how clearly it was known that he was full of shit. An unbiased investigator, truly unbiased, would have walked away at that point and said this violated the principle of truth and integrity in our investigations. None of the people involved were truly unbiased, whether they hated Trump or instead so supported the FBI that they willingly overlooked these improprieties they were all guilty of being complicit in the use of state power to conduct an investigation without actual evidence. The FBI has been exposed as somehow less than the fearless, honest, filled with integrity organization the propaganda has claimed it to be for decades. It’s not just this recent investigation that’s exposed that reality, although this OIG report does nothing to restore any sense of integrity to the FBI.

As a kid I was in awe of FBI agents, always portrayed as honest guys filled with a sense of purpose and decency working on our behalf, a little humorless perhaps as portrayed but integrity deep as the ocean and unquestionably honest. As an adult I like to believe there are many who fit that mold still, especially working the anti-terror task forces. This report shows another FBI, the over zealous corruption by political hacks of what should be a premiere investigative body. Regardless of all the good work being done by the FBI their image will be tarnished in the eyes of the general public for years to come as a result of this report and other recent exposures that have shown how certain agents are as corrupt as the people they are investigating or perhaps more so in certain cases.

After reading this report, it turns out I’m not the only who has a rather large concern over the processes utilized by the FBI in green lighting these investigations. The current presiding judge of the FISA system has made her concerns public with a recent order to the FBI.

Rosemary Collyer, presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance

Court, said in the unusual public order that the report “calls into question

whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.” She

ordered the FBI to explain in writing by Jan. 10 how it intends to remedy those


Collyer said the FBI’s handling of the Page case “was antithetical to the

heightened duty of candor” required by the law that established the

surveillance court. Judges on the court rely entirely on the government’s

submissions. Because they are the only documents the court sees, the government

has a heightened duty of candor, she said. — NBC News

Everyone should read this report for themselves, don’t rely on my interpretation or anyone else’s interpretation either. Read it and consider if this is what you thought you were agreeing to defend when you took your oath. When you stated you’d defend the Constitution did you think it meant supporting a pack of lies promoted by the top law enforcement agency of the United States to spy on US citizens without any criminal history whatsoever? Did you think it meant supporting an OIG report that outlines all manner of misconduct, but then finds no evidence of bias after pointing out lie after lie after lie in the body of the report? That’s as sinister for me as the idea that senior FBI agents would knowingly submit lies to a secret court secure in the knowledge they’d get their way and be able to conduct an investigation into whomever they disliked at the moment.

Your take on the OIG report might be quite different from mine, that’s as it should be and I welcome your words in response to mine as always.

Thanks for reading,

Thanks, V. Another thought-provoking essay for our crew to mull.

Category: "Truth or fiction?", "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Guest Post, Legal, The Constitution

Comments (14)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Poetrooper says:

    The primary lesson to be learned from all this by any thinking citizen is that one should never, EVER, talk to any representative of the FBI without your lawyer present. It would be wise to extend this policy to ATF, DEA and Homeland Security as well.

    It’s a sad commentary on the state of our nation but it is not unexpected. At some point, big government bureaucracies always change their focus from protecting and serving their constituents to self-preservation.

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      You are correct my fall back advice is never talk to the police unless you are a victim filing a report. If they visit your door step outside and talk to them if you feel you must talk, never invite them inside without a warrant on their part.

      They are no longer your friends no matter what you think. Individuals will vary of course but as an institutional enforcement mechanism there is little benefit to you to cooperate.

      How you know this is true is watching what any law enforcement officer, personnel, etc…does when confronted with an IA investigation or any authority questions they lawyer up without speaking to their fellow officers. If the LEO community knows to never cooperate and speak while being investigated that’s the lesson for the rest of us.

      • just lurkin says:

        This video explains in great detail why no one should talk to the police except, as you state, to file a report.

        • AW1Ed says:

          The law professor makes a great case for using the 5th, and the police officer student agrees with every thing he said. This is a must-watch video for anyone who happens to interact with the police, which could be anyone of us.
          If being investigated, be polite and courteous, but be firm in your desire for legal representation before making any statement. The “…can and will be used against you.” is no joke.
          Thanks, just lurkin.

          • Mason says:

            People always ask cops if they should get a lawyer. Cops will always say, if you’ve got nothing to hide then why need a lawyer? A cop makes two calls after shooting somebody. The first is to their wife. The second is to get a lawyer.

            Read into that what you will.

    • Toxic Deplorable Racist SAH B Woodman says:

      I would add, not only have your lawer present, but also make your own personal audio recording of the interview. DO NOT rely on the FiBbIe “302”, which is usually written after the fact, from (faulty/prejudiced) memory.

  2. ninja says:

    Well, look who set the initial example: The First Director of the FBI: J. Edgar Hoover.

    Wasn’t he a Cross-Dresser as well?

    It’s called PROJECTION.


    “Later in life and after his death, Hoover became a controversial figure as evidence of his secretive abuses of power began to surface. He was found to have exceeded the jurisdiction of the FBI and to have used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders and to collect evidence using illegal methods. Hoover consequently amassed a great deal of power and was in a position to intimidate and threaten others, including sitting presidents of the United States.”

    • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

      Shit does travel downwards unfortunately when the head is corrupt the body must also follow eventually…

      You are correct that the FBI was corrupted early on, after Hoover there was hard work done to remove that stigma and I thought (perhaps naively so at the time) that some level of integrity had been restored. Especially when I read some of the reports and materials written by those involved in that post Hoover period.

      This latest OIG report supports your stance that it was corrupt from the start.

    • Mason says:

      Hoover laid the groundwork for the entirety of the agency. His leadership spanned seven decades. He led the agency for 48 years. He’s been dead 47. So this is his legacy.

      They’ve had issues since the beginning. This just shows that they really haven’t changed as an institution from when they were spying on American citizens for Hoover’s political machinations.

      • David says:

        I must be thick today, I can’t fit 48 years into 7 decades. Six decades, easily, but 7?

        I am thoroughly disillusioned with the integrity of the FBI, though. I think I will instead trust that bastion of altruistic integrity, the IRS. Paging Mrs. Lerner? Mrs. Lerner?

  3. Poetrooper says:

    Here’s additional explanation from the I.G. regarding the “No bias found” statement:

    He and his investigators found bias–they just didn’t have the investigatory powers to prove it.

    • Mason says:

      As Barr said too, they only can say that nobody admitted to being biased. The IG is not a criminal investigation and is limited in scope and authority.

  4. 5th/77th FA says:

    Good synopsis VOV and thanks for doing it. I’ve been scratching my watch and winding my butt trying to decide if I wanted/needed to read this report. Not sure if my blood pressure would take the stress of how much it would just piss me off. You and I think alike on a lot of subjects and I feel as you do. Trump was not my FIRST choice, but I support him and what he has tried to do. And yes, baring some major malfunction between now and next November, I plan to vote for him again.

    Two things for sure we have had emphasized during this whole fiasco. (1) The demoncans and republicrats will stoop to any low necessary to maintain their grips on power and (2) The corruption of our government institutions is way yonder deeper than we feared.