We identified at least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications, and many additional errors in the Woods Procedures. These errors and omissions resulted from case agents providing wrong or incomplete infor mation to OI and failing to flag important issues for discussion. While we did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of the case agents who assisted OI in preparing the applications, or the agents and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive satisfactory explanations for the errors or problems we identified. In most instances, t he agents and supervisors told us that they either did not know or recall why the information was not shared with OI, that the failure to do so may have been an oversight, that they did not recognize at t he time the relevance of t he information to t he FISA application, or that they did not believe the missing information to be significant . On this last point, we believe that case agents may have improperly substituted their own j udgments in place of the j udgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh t_he probative va lue of t he information. From page 358:
We determined that, on August 15, 2016, Case Agent 1 sent a written summary by email to the OGC Unit Chief describing Page's Russian business and financial ties, his prior contacts with known Russian intelligence officers, and his recent travel to Russia. In this email, Case Agent 1 stated his belief that the information provided "a pretty solid basis" for requesting authority under FISA to conduct surveillance targeting Page. The next day, August 16, the OGC Unit Chief emailed Stuart Evans, then NSD's Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight responsibility over 01, to advise him of the possible FBI request for a FISA order to surveil Page. The email from the OGC Unit Chief stated that "I don't think we are quite there yet, but given the sensitivity and urgency of this matter, I would like to get 01 involved as early as possible." On or about August 17, 2016, in response to the Crossfire Hurricane team's prior Carter Page name trace request, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior interactions with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013. 489 The memorandum also detailed the information that Page had provided to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. As detailed in Chapters Five and Eight, the Crossfire Hurricane team did not accurately describe to 01 the nature and extent of the information that the FBI received from the other agency, which we found was highly relevant to an evaluation of the FISA request. Additionally, in August 2016, Page made statements to an FBI CHS that, if true, were in tension with the reporting the FBI received subsequently from Steele, alleging that Page was being used as an intermediary by Manafort to conspire with Russia. The FBI did not inform 01 of Page's statements before any of the four FISA applications were filed, and did not inform 01 of the CHS operation until June 2017, shortly before filing the last FISA application.
Here's some nice coverup on page xv:
Ethics Issues Raised by Nellie Ohr's Former Employment with Fusion GPS Fusion GPS employed Nellie Ohr as an independent contractor from October 2015 to September 2016. On his annual financial disclosure forms covering calendar years 2015 and 2016, Ohr listed Nellie Ohr as an "independent contractor" and reported her income from that work on the form. We determined that financial disclosure rules, 5 C.F.R. Part 2634, did not require Ohr to list on the form the specific organizations, such as Fusion GPS, that paid Nellie Ohr as an independent contractor during the reporting period. In addition, for reasons we explain in Chapter Eleven, we concluded that the federal ethics rules did not require Ohr to obtain Department ethics counsel approval before engaging with the FBI in connection with the Crossfire Hurricane matter because of Nellie Ohr's prior work for Fusion GPS. However, we found that, given the factual circumstances that existed, and the appearance that they created, Ohr displayed a lapse in judgment by not availing himself of the process described in the ethics rules to consult with the Department ethics official about his involvement in the investigation.
In short, it appears to be confirmation that the FISA applications reliance on Russian contacts by Page were based upon contacts at the behest of the United States.
What a load. No bias, mistakes were made. There will be a few sham internal reviews, revised procedures, some training, etc. The whitewash is so thick it could serve as a load bearing wall. There will be no justice from within the system. Only if the people rise up and administer justice themselves will there be a purging of the corruption that is so deep that it cannot be cured from within the system.
1.) Collusion amongst FBI personnel to spy on the opposition party’s Presidential candidate's campaign
2.) Horribly inept employees and systematic training issues within the FBI
Take your pick but either choice in the public sector would spell doom for the institution. It’s pretty clear Horowitz does yoga because he’s bending and twisting into unnatural positions to legitimize this nonsense.
Thanks, grey-whiskers.
Here are my translations of this giant wad of lies. (See what a difference it can make when you write with a political bias? Let’s substitute my bias for the DS bias in the report and see how it reads.)
“at least 17 significant errors or omissions” = 17(!!!) or more crimes
“and many additional errors” = more crimes
“providing wrong or incomplete infor mation” = lying
“failing to flag important issues for discussion” = sweeping facts under the rug
“did not receive satisfactory explanations” = ... because there aren’t any satisfactory explanations, because there was no excuse for this, because the only logical explanation is that this was a criminal invasion of privacy with no legal basis
“did not know or recall” = lied because if they told the truth they would be incriminating themselves
“may have been an oversight” = was in no way an oversight, but saying it was sounds a lot better than saying that they were conspiring to bring down Trump and ensure Hitlery was elected
“did not recognize at t he time the relevance of t he information” = Hahahahahahaha! = FULLY RECOGNIZED the relevance of the information, but admitting so would have halted their criminal acts. Hahahahaha. Whoo boy! Tell me another whopper. I can hardly stand it.
“did not believe the missing information to be significant” = knew the missing information was crucial
“may have improperly substituted their own j udgments in place of the j udgment of OI, or in place of the court, to weigh t_he probative va lue of t he information” = didn’t give a damn about what was the right and legal thing to do. They substituted their own POLITICAL BIASES for judgment.
“a pretty solid basis” = a pretty flimsy basis, in fact, really no basis whatsoever
“I don’t think we are quite there yet, but given the sensitivity and urgency of this matter, I would like to get 01 involved as early as possible.” = HURRY UP, YOU FOOLS! If we don’t get on this RIGHT NOW, Trump could be elected and we are going to jail.
“did not accurately describe to 01” = Hmmm. This one has me stumped. Could either be that they lied to 01 OR that they are protecting 01 and trying to deflect any blame from 01. Based on my guesss that 01= 0vomit, I’d go with the latter.
“did not inform” = withheld important information
“a lapse in judgment” = bias against Trump