Both reports were based on the same exact evidence. Nunes told the truth; Schiff did not
I
ronically, a week that included the introduction of two articles of impeachment turned out to be one of the best of Donald Trump’s presidency.
First, there was Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s long-awaited report on the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation of Russian influence on the 2016 election. Horowitz declared himself unable to state conclusively that the initial investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign via electronic surveillance of campaign advisor Carter Page was motivated by political bias against Trump.
But Horowitz didn’t deny the possibility, and he provided ample circumstantial evidence of bias against Trump from the very start. He identified no less than 17 egregious errors in the preparation of affidavits in support of four applications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to eavesdrop on Page. Worst of all, the FBI knew that far from being a Russian plant, Page was actually working for the CIA. FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who worked for a period of time on Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller’s team, changed a CIA statement that Page was a CIA source to read that he was not a CIA source, and the altered statement was included in one of the FISA applications.
The IG’s report found that the so-called Steele dossier had played a central role in the granting of permission to eavesdrop on Carter Page, and that the FBI failed to inform the FISA court that the dossier was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign. Nor did the FBI inform the FISA court that the main source upon whom the dossier was based had repudiated much of what Steele had allegedly quoted from him and had characterized what he did actually say as little more than “bar talk,” meaning hearsay based on hearsay.
Create a free account to keep reading.
