Is the establishment starting to come around???
First, all year, I have wanted to learn more about the origins of the dossier that largely kickstarted FBI’s investigation of the Trump campaign. In July, the Ranking Member joined me in a bipartisan letter seeking voluntary cooperation from the firm that produced the dossier. The dossier was based largely on Russian sources within Russia, and was put together by a former British spy. It made salacious and unverified claims about Trump. The company responsible for producing it, Fusion GPS, was uncooperative.
In response to our bipartisan request, it dumped on the Committee about 32,000 pages of press clippings and 8,000 pages that were entirely blank. Since then, it has provided zero additional documents.
The founder of Fusion GPS initially indicated he would rely on his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than testify at the Committee’s hearing in July. He later agreed to a private staff interview, but refused to answer dozens of key questions.
I would like to compel him to answer questions and compel him to provide the documents that Senator Feinstein and I both asked him in July to provide voluntarily. But, under our Committee’s rules, I don’t have the authority to do that on my own.
Now, why would Democrats not want to follow-up and get the documents from Fusion GPS that we already asked for together? Do they not want to know more about how this company put together its anti-Trump dossier from Russian government sources?
Well, in light of recent news, the resistance from Democrats to this line of Trump/Russia inquiry is now a little more understandable. It turns out, the Clinton campaign and the DNC are the ones who paid Fusion GPS for the information it gathered from Russian government sources.
I don’t know whether the Ranking Member or her staff knew that fact earlier this year when I was trying to persuade her to do bipartisan follow-up with Fusion GPS. But, I do know that unless both sides are willing to ask tough questions, no matter where the facts lead, there can be no bipartisan oversight.
So, we have learned that the DNC paid for an anti-Trump dossier based on information from Russian government sources.
Second, we have learned that the Inspector General uncovered evidence of partisan bias by a senior FBI official at the center of both the Clinton and Trump/Russia investigations, which led to his dismissal from Mueller’s team.
Before that news broke, back in October I wrote to that FBI official requesting voluntary cooperation and a private transcribed interview with the Committee. The Ranking Member did not sign that letter.
The Committee has received no letter in reply. We are still waiting for documents from the FBI about his and other officials’ participation in the draft Comey statement. The FBI should comply voluntarily, but if they don’t I would issue a subpoena to require that the documents be provided and that the witness sit for a deposition. However, under our Committee rules, I don’t have the authority to do that on my own.
Finally, I have long had concerns that the scope of the FBI’s Clinton investigation was artificially narrowed. Recent revelations about these text messages showing political bias only heighten those concerns.
In recent federal court filings, the FBI said that the scope of the investigation was limited in two ways. First, it was limited to two issues dealing only with the handling of classified information. Second, the scope of the FBI’s review was limited to the time when former Secretary Clinton was at the State Department.
But what if there was evidence of crimes not related to the mishandling of classified information? What if the facts showed some obstruction, such as intentional destruction of documents after she was Secretary of State?
Why exclude those topics from the scope of the inquiry? Who made those decisions and why? Was there any political bias in those decisions?
Certain areas shouldn’t be declared off-limits beforehand in an investigation. An investigation should go where the facts take it.