Office of the Inspector General Report

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

problems.

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,
VoV

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

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Guest Post, Legal, The Constitution