In the past several days; and in anticipation of an inspector general report/release tasked to look into the FISA processes of the prior administration; I have been assembling a file, a series of reminder questions, that peer into the heart of the 2015/2016 FISA surveillance.  Today, is another reminder…  [*ahem* Sidney Powell, please note]

Left to right: Kathryn H. Ruemmler, President Obama, Lisa Monaco and Susan Rice.

Knowing what we know now, consider this long forgotten letter from Susan Rice’s lawyer Kathryn Ruemmler.  Ms. Ruemmler is currently the global co-chairman of the Latham & Watkins white collar criminal defense practice; she formerly served as White House Counsel to President Obama.  Ask yourself: how do these paragraphs reconcile?

[Feb 23, 2018] The memorandum to file drafted by Ambassador Rice memorialized an important national security discussion between President Obama and the FBI Director and the Deputy Attorney General. President Obama and his national security team werejustifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

[…] While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony.

Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office. (link)

How could Ms. Rice be aware of a “national security compromise”, “particularly surrounding Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn” after a “briefing by the FBI”, if she was not briefed on the existence of an FBI investigation”?

See the problem?

Perhaps now it is worth remembering a certain paragraph within the Susan Rice letter that mysteriously dropped from the radar.  When Senator Lindsey Graham first revealed the existence of the Susan Rice “memorandum to draft”, it was at the height of the Mueller investigation.

Likely as a consequence of that ongoing investigation, there was paragraph omitted from the public release of the Susan Rice memo.  I am pretty darned sure that paragraph would answer the question I asked moments ago…. and that’s why, 700+ days later, that memo  has never been unredacted and/or released.

So here’s the background and citations for everyone to refresh.

On February 8th, 2018, Senator Lindsey Graham first revealed an inauguration day 2017  email from Susan Rice to herself. That’s 700+ days ago, and yet we still don’t know what is behind the removed and classified paragraph.

Why is this being kept hidden?

At 12:15pm on January 20th, 2017, Obama’s outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a memo-to-self. Many people have called this her “CYA” (cover your ass) memo, from the position that Susan Rice was protecting herself from consequences if the scheme against President Trump was discovered. Here’s the email:

On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also present.

President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities “by the book“.

The President stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would, by the book.

From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.

[Redacted Classified Section of Unknown length]

The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.

Susan Rice ~ (pdf link)

This has the hallmarks of an Obama administration justification memo, written by an outgoing National Security Advisor Susan Rice to document why there have been multiple false and misleading statements given to incoming President Trump and his officials.

This is not a “CYA” memo per se’, this appears to be a justification memo for use AFTER the Trump-Russia collusion/conspiracy narrative collapsed; and if the impeachment effort failed.

The “By The Book” aspect refers to President Obama and Susan Rice being told by CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director James Comey, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, that President Trump was the subject of an active counterintelligence investigation…. Yet, Rice denies ever knowing about Trump being under investigation?  This contradiction cannot be reconciled.

So with the Mueller investigation concluded, why didn’t Senator Lindsey Graham release the full email content, including the classified and redacted aspects which remain hidden?

Susan Rice responded to Senator Graham’s letter through her attorney Kathryn Ruemmler. Again, Ms. Ruemmler is the global co-chairman of the Latham & Watkins white collar criminal defense practice; she formerly served as White House Counsel to Obama.

Ruemmler’s letter stated there was nothing unusual about Rice’s email memorializing a White House meeting two weeks after the meeting occurred, January 5, 2017. Additionally, Ms. Rice’s lawyer said her client was completely unaware of the FBI investigation into President Trump at the time she made the draft on January 20th.

In part, Ms. Ruemmler’s letter on behalf of Rice states:

The memorandum to file drafted by Ambassador Rice memorialized an important national security discussion between President Obama and the FBI Director and the Deputy Attorney General. President Obama and his national security team were justifiably concerned about potential risks to the Nation’s security from sharing highly classified information about Russia with certain members of the Trump transition team, particularly Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.

In light of concerning communications between members of the Trump team and Russian officials, before and after the election, President Obama, on behalf of his national security team, appropriately sought the FBI and the Department of Justice’s guidance on this subject. In the conversation Ambassador Rice documented, there was no discussion of Christopher Steele or the Steele dossier, contrary to the suggestion in your letter.

Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, and upon the advice of the White House Counsel’s Office, Ambassador Rice created a permanent record of the discussion. Ambassador Rice memorialized the discussion on January 20, because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining days of the Administration and transition.

Ambassador Rice memorialized the discussion in an email sent to herself during the morning of January 20, 2017. The time stamp reflected on the email is not accurate, as Ambassador Rice departed the White House shortly before noon on January 20.

While serving as National Security Advisor, Ambassador Rice was not briefed on the existence of any FBI investigation into allegations of collusion between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia, and she later learned of the fact of this investigation from Director Comey’s subsequent public testimony.

Ambassador Rice was not informed of any FISA applications sought by the FBI in its investigation, and she only learned of them from press reports after leaving office.

Here’s the full letter:

.

Everything about this Susan Rice email, including the explanations from her lawyer Kathryn H. Ruemmler, is sketchy and suspicious. The sketchy extends to Senator Graham’s lack of action to declassify the redacted paragraph.

Nothing about this DC activity is passing the proverbial sniff test…

As we await the DOJ Inspector General report on FBI FISA authorized surveillance directed toward the Trump campaign and incoming Trump administration; which apparently is significant enough connected to the DOJ case against Flynn such that the prosecution has requested a delay in further proceedings until the IG report is released; I would remind everyone the biggest challenge for current U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr is not necessarily investigating evidence we do not know, but rather navigating through the minefield of evidence a significant portion of the American public are well aware of.

Borrowing from a comment to emphasize the point therein:

We will know the FISA Report is a whitewash if Byrne and Butina are not addressed by disclosing whether Republican presidential candidates other than Trump were surveilled.

For Rogers to conduct his audit and for Collyer to conclude therefrom that 85% of the 11/1/15 through 4/18/16 searches were unauthorized, the database has to have some type of access/search history — whether who or what or when or all three — and for Collyer to conclude that the same person was searched multiple times suggests that its access/search history is qualitative, not just quantitative.

This should also be the case due to the need to regulate statutory two hop authority under Title 1. If you cannot audit access/search history through one or two hops, you cannot know whether the accessor/searcher stopped at two hops for enforcement purposes.

Under such circumstances, the database is subject to abuse beyond our wildest dreams, given it is left to the good faith of those accessing/searching to regulate themselves without any potential oversight.

If this is the case, then Horowitz should tell us (as should have Collyer before him). If it is not, then Horowitz should describe the access/search history of the FISA application for Carter Page, as well as the 3 renewals.

He should describe the extent of the electronic surveillance on Page — text, cell, email, internet, GPS, financial and travel — then identify all those surveilled on the first and second hops, including specifically those affiliated with the Trump campaign or family, including Candidate Trump, both primary and general, President-elect Trump, and President Trump.

The meeting between President-elect Trump and Admiral Rogers had to have communicated actual NSA database surveillance, whether authorized by the FISA court or not, for Trump to react by moving his transition team from Trump Tower and for cabinet members in the intelligence community to urge the ouster of Rogers to President Obama in response. We just don’t know how much Rogers told Trump.

As head of the NSA, Rogers was in a position to monitor database access and search history even outside the confines of the audit, so theoretically he could have monitored every access/search conducted under the Page FISA application and renewals, and provided continuous updates to President Trump through their expiration. But if the small group knew he had that capacity, knew he was watching them, then why seek the renewals in the first place?

To cut through the intrigue, Horowitz should disclose whether the audit revealed electronic FISA database surveillance on candidates other than Trump. If the access/search history for the subcontractors reveals surveillance of Cruz or Rubio, in the same timeframe as Byrne was running Butina through their campaigns, then that is clearly political espionage, using “Russian influence or collusion” as a pretext.

If all of these issues are observable by a poor lurker from what Sundance has been addressing for the last 3 years, Horowitz should be able to see them from his investigation. If he does not address them, we have a whitewash.

During his short-lived media appearances former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne claims he had spoken to the DOJ April 5th, 2019, and again April 30th, 2019. Mr. Byrne stated he told the DOJ all of the information he was aware of during those two interviews covering approximately seven hours of questioning from officials in the Department of Justice.

During interviews Mr. Byrne highlighted the May 13th DOJ appointment of John Durhamto look into the origination of the Russia investigation events. Byrne surmised this was likely, at least in part, a direct result of his two DOJ sessions April 5th and 30th, 2019.

Ms. Maria Butina, a young Russian idealist, was caught up in the 2016 vast Russian conspiracy agenda and had strong connections to high powered Russian oligarchs.

Originally the purpose of Butina coming to the U.S. in 2015, as explained by Patrick Byrne, was for her to engage with influential Americans for political contacts that could provide geopolitical value to the oligarchs.

Former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne was seen as important to Ms. Butina due to his connections to the emerging financial structures of crypto-currency and block-chain. Mr. Byrne is a libertarian who believes in small government, and is somewhat of a disruptor in the business world. Ms. Butina wanted to introduce Byrne to her friends in Russia.

Alternative currency options to the U.S. dollar has been an ongoing effort of Russian interests for a while. Russia considers global trade attached to the dollar as geopolitical problem; and they have been working for years on alternative currencies for trade (and their own wealth) that can avoid U.S. sanctions and the reach of the U.S. treasury.

As a Russian national with specific Russian interests that are not in alignment with U.S. national interests, Maria Butina was defined by the U.S. intelligence community as an ‘agent of a foreign power’.

Butina’s status meant unrestricted monitoring by the U.S. intelligence community was entirely legal.  However, because of this ‘foreign agent’ status Ms. Butina could also be a valuable 2015/2016 FISA virus to infect anyone the U.S. intelligence apparatus would wish to target domestically for surveillance.  Keep this in mind….

“Political Espionage” – During the 2016 election season, Butina’s useful purpose appeared to be the reason the FBI in Washington DC enlisted Patrick Byrne as a handler, giving Butina specific instructions and introductions to Republican presidential candidates.

Once those candidates were contacted the FBI’s background surveillance transferred to the republican politicians, including persons in/around the Trump orbit.  Mr. Byrne stated several times that FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and persons working on his behalf, were the FBI officials directing the engagements.

Byrne claims he was asked to participate in an FBI intelligence operation and to introduce, and/or facilitate the introduction of, Ms. Butina to the campaigns of Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

In December of 2015 Mr. Byrne said he became suspicious of the FBI motives because he warned FBI officials of the potential that his efforts, his reputation and those who trust him, may result in Butina gaining entry into campaign confidences. The FBI agents told Mr. Byrne that was exactly the intent.

People high up in the FBI wanted Ms. Butina to gain deep access into the Trump campaign. Mr. Byrne became suspicious of a corrupt political motive, but didn’t say anything at the time.

In/around Feb or March 2016 Byrne was told to focus Ms. Butina’s attention to the campaign of Donald Trump and to diminish any attention toward Rubio or Cruz.

Later in June & July (2016), FBI agents requested Mr. Byrne to focus on developing a closer romantic relationship with Ms. Butina and to use his influence to target her to closer proximity with the Trump family and Trump campaign.

It was within these June and July 2016 engagements where FBI agents were apologetic about the requests and specifically mentioned their instructions were coming from three principle FBI officials Byrne described as “X, Y and Z”. Later Byrne identified FBI Director James Comey as “Z”.  Mr. Byrne said the specific instructions were coming to the agents from Special Agent Peter Strzok as he relayed the requests of those above him [X, Y and Z (Comey)].

This FBI contact structure highlights an arms-length operation; perhaps intentionally constructed to create plausible deniability for those above the directly instructing agents.

In essence, these rank-and-file FBI agents were asking Patrick Byrne to be a civilian handler of a Russian national, and instructing him to carry out a covert counterintelligence operation. The FBI agents were apologetic about asking a civilian to take on such a role.

Conducting FISA-702(16)(17) database searches and electronic surveillance on U.S. persons who would meet with Butina would be justifiable and legal.

Extended contact with any U.S. person could lead to a Title-1 surveillance warrant through the FISA court, similar to what happened with Carter Page.  However, even without the FISA warrant, 702 searches would be valid just from brief contact.

As we have shown FISA-702 (“16” to-from) and (“17” about) queries were off the charts during the time-frame of November 2015 through May 2016.  Per the FISA auditconducted by NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, after the flags noted by the database compliance officer, 85% of the search returns were unauthorized and unmasked.

The time-frames here seem too coincidental to be accidental. [Judge Collyer Report]  This was the same period when DC-based FBI officials were telling Patrick Byrne who they wanted him to introduce Ms. Butina to.

From the operational description of Mr. Patrick Byrne it would appear Ms. Butina was used by the FBI to “dirty-up” political targets, opening them up for surveillance.

The FBI/NSA database can be used in real time, or in historic mapping, to monitor people simply by entering their cell phone number and filtering the geolocation.   Additionally, texts, call logs, emails, personal data and sensitive electronic communication can all be reviewed by FBI officials using this FBI/NSA database.

Was what Patrick Byrne describes as “political espionage” the illicit and intentional use of an FBI counterintelligence operation to monitor the political campaign of the opposing party?

Maria Butina likely did have sketchy intentions from a U.S. strategic interest perspective; and monitoring her was perhaps justifiable.  However, specifically directing Butina on where to go and who to meet is another kettle-o-fish entirely.

That aspect could be why Mueller, Weissmann and the “dirty cops” within the DOJ and FBI, originally locked away Maria Butina in strict isolation and solitary confinement.

♦ In a Fox Business interview, Patrick Byrne described being offered a $1 billion bribe of sorts to stay quiet in 2018.  This piqued many curious questions; however, it is worth noting a bribe as described could come in a multitude of forms for a businessman who operates a massive corporation.

In 2018 Mr. Byrne’s company, Overstock, was also under an SEC investigation.

(LINK)

I’m sure it is just a coincidence, but FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok’s wife, Melissa Hodgman, happens to be the Assoc. Director of the SEC Enforcement Division, who happened to be leading the SEC investigation of Patrick Byrne’s company. [LINK]

So the wife of the FBI agent who was directing Patrick Byrne in the sketchy FBI operation targeting Donald Trump… just happens to open an investigation of Byrne shortly after the corrupt FBI operation containing her husband first hit the headlines in early 2018.

I wonder if the elimination of that SEC investigation was worth, oh, say $1 billion.

Huh, imagine that?

Coincidences.

Small world.

[LINK to SEC]

Ms. Butina pleaded guilty in December 2018 to one count of conspiring to act as a foreign agent and agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Maria Butina was also removed from harsh isolation in prison on May 9th, ten days after Mr. Byrne delivered his testimony to the DOJ. According to Byrne Ms. Butina was moved to a very different White Collar facility based on his information.

On October 25th, 2019, Ms. Butina was released from federal prison and immediately deported back to Russia.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Convicted Russian agent Maria Butina was released from a Florida prison on Friday after serving most of her 18-month sentence for conspiring to influence U.S. conservative activists and infiltrate a powerful gun rights group, and taken into custody by immigration officials to be deported to her native country. (read more)

~ Full Interview Here ~

Bill O’reilly had an extensive and semi-casual interview with President Trump a few days ago. Mr. O’Reilly released the full interview for Thanksgiving.  They cover a lot of ground.

O’Reilly is a decent interviewer, but doesn’t understand the complexity of the President Trump’s strategy in the geopolitical realm.  The underestimation is not an O’Reilly weakness; the apparatus of ‘media’ do not grasp the full context of the background work POTUS has put into a global trade reset.  The global reset is a massive and ongoing plan.

Specifically as it pertains to China, O’Reilly is stuck in the traditional financial perspective that no U.S. President could ever walk away from China; which is exactly what President Trump is doing. So at 19:00 of the video below, O’Reilly asks: “what’s holding up the China deal?”  To wit, President Trump pauses and matter-of-factually says:

….”ahhhhhh, ME!”

It’s a hilariously Trumpy moment. LISTEN:

On May 23rd, 2019, President Donald Trump gave U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr full authority to review and release all of the classified material hidden by the DOJ, FBI, State Department, CIA, FISA Court, and aggregate intelligence apparatus; 200 days ago.

It has been 200 days since President Trump empowered AG Bill Barr to release the original authorizing framework of the Mueller investigation which began on May 17, 2017. A Mueller investigation that concluded nine months ago, and yet we are not allowed to know what the authorizing 2017 framework was?…. Nor the 2nd DOJ scope memo of August 2nd, 2017?… Nor the 3rd DOJ scope memo of October 20th, 2017?….

The released Weissmann/Mueller report showed after the origination authorization in May 2017 there were two additional scope memos authorizing specific targeting of the Mueller probe. The second scope memo was August 2nd, 2017, OUTLINED HERE, and is an important part of the puzzle that helps explain the corrupt original purpose of the special counsel. [Now Confirmed Here]  Generally, the second scope memo (Aug ’17) authorized Robert Mueller to investigate the claims within the Steele Dossier.

The second scope memo came a month after the third renewal of the Carter Page FISA warrant.  We now know that FISA warrant was renewed using falsified documents by FBI Lawyer Kevin Clinesmith.  That means special counsel team requested the second expanded scope memo from Rosenstein in August after the DOJ was aware Kevin Clinesmith held political bias, and he along with four members of the original Crossfire Hurricane team were removed. (K Clinesmith, P Strzok, L Page, S Moyer and unknown).

The third scope memo was issued by Rod Rosenstein to Robert Mueller on October 20th, 2017. The transparent intent of the third expanded scope memo was to provide Weissmann and Mueller with ammunition and authority to investigate specific targets, for specific purposes.

One of those targets was General Michael Flynn’s son, Michael Flynn Jr.

As you review the highlighted portion below, found on pages 12 and 13 of the Weissmann report, read slowly and fully absorb the intent; the corruption is blood-boiling:

This third scope memo allowed Weissmann and Mueller to target tangentially related persons and entities bringing in Michael Cohen, Richard Gates, Roger Stone and Michael Flynn Jr. Additionally and strategically (you’ll see why), this memo established the authority to pursue “jointly undertaken activity“.

With Paul Manafort outlined as an investigative target in the original authorization and the first expanded scope memo (dossier expansion), the second scope memo authorizes further expansion to Manafort’s business partner Richard Gates and their joint businesses. This memo also permits the investigation of Trump’s lawyer Michael Cohen and all of his interests; and in ultimate weasel sunlight, DAG Rod Rosenstein authorizes Mueller to begin an investigation of their boss, Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Before getting to more targets, notice the underlined passage about starting with a lot of investigative material because the special counsel was picking up a Russian interference investigation that had been ongoing for “nearly 10 months.”

I would also note that our CTH research indicates all of the illegally extracted FISA-702(16)(17) database search results would be part of this pre-existing investigative file available immediately to Weissmann and Mueller. However, in order to use the search-query evidence, Weissmann and Mueller would need to backfill some alternate justification; or find another way to “rediscover” the preexisting results.  The Carter Page FISA renewal becomes inherently valuable… I digress

The four identified targets within the original July 2016 investigation, “Operation Crossfire Hurricane”, were George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort and Carter Page. (See HPSCI report):

General Flynn was under investigation from the outset in mid-2016. The fraudulent FBI counterintelligence operation, established by CIA Director John Brennan, had Flynn as one of the early targets when Brennan handed the originating electronic communication “EC” to FBI Director James Comey.

The investigation of General Flynn never stopped throughout 2016 and led to the second investigative issue of his phone call with Russian Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016:

Back to the Page #12 October 20th Scope Memo:

The first redaction listed under “personal privacy” is unconfirmed; however, the second related redaction is a specific person, Michael Flynn Jr.

In combination with the October timing, the addition of Flynn Jr to the target list relates to the ongoing 2016/2017 investigation of his father, General Michael Flynn, for: (1) possible conspiracy with a foreign government; (2) unregistered lobbying; (3) materially false statements and omissions on 2017 FARA documents; and (4) lying to the FBI.

This October 20th, 2017, request from Weissmann and Mueller aligns with the time-frame were special counsel team lawyers Brandon L. Van Grack and Zainab N. Ahmad were prosecuting Michael Flynn and attempting to force him into a guilty plea.

Getting Rosenstein to authorize adding Mike Flynn Jr. to the target list (scope memo) meant the special counsel could threaten General Flynn with the indictment of his son as a co-conspirator tied to the Turkish lobbying issue (which they did) if he doesn’t agree to a plea. Remember: “jointly undertaken activity“.

The October 20th, 2017, expanded scope memo authorized Mueller to start demanding records, phones, electronic devices and other evidence from Mike Flynn Jr, and provided the leverage Weissmann wanted. After all, Mike Flynn Jr. had a four month old baby.

The amount of twisted pressure from this corrupt team of prosecutors is sickening. A month later, General Flynn was signing a plea agreement:

The IG Report on James Comey Memos Outlined the Fraud of Mueller Probe Origination.

All of this information backstops the 19-page filing (full pdf below), where Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell walked through the history of the DOJ, FBI and intelligence apparatus weaponization against Mr. Flynn and lays out the background behind everything known to have happened in 2016, 2017 through today.

From the corrupt DOJ lawyers who were working with Fusion-GPS and Chris Steele, including Mr. Weissmann, Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Zainab Ahmad; to the 2015/2016 FISA database search abuses; to the CIA and FBI operation against Flynn including Nellie Ohr; to the schemes behind the use of DOJ official Bruce Ohr; to the corrupt construct of the special counsels office selections; to the specifics within the malicious conspiracy outlined by hiding FBI interview notes of Mike Flynn,… all of it…. is bolstered by the IG Horowitz report on how the FBI “small group” was manipulating the media, and hiding Comey memos.

Read:

.

The IG Report on James Comey’s memos clearly shows former DAG Rod Rosenstein working with the corrupt FBI and DOJ small group toward an objective of appointing their special counsel selection, Robert Mueller.

Today former DAG Rod Rosenstein sends an openly coded-message to AG Bill Barr, requesting that Barr stick with him and not highlight the extent of the DOJ and FBI corruption for the sake of their institutions.

Following the IG report draft review by the principals within the DOJ/FBI small group under investigation more leaks are submitted to the New York Times in an effort to get out ahead of the scheduled publication of the final report on December 9th.

One note before content review:  The highly structured obfuscation within how these leaks are being released, in combination with the lawyers representing the principals, explains why there was such a lengthy delay after the principal review phase.

Each principal can provide feedback for inclusion in the report; however, all feedback added to the report generates an IG rebuttal.  Keep this in mind because these leaks are the “feedback” and the leakers have no idea what the IG “rebuttal” will be.  The more the principals’ obfuscate and justify conduct to the IG in their feedback, the stronger the rebuttal to that feedback will be in the final report.

The New York Times latest narrative effort is intentionally obtuse with the word “spy”:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence that the F.B.I. attempted to place undercover agents or informants inside Donald J. Trump’s campaign in 2016 as agents investigated whether his associates conspired with Russia’s election interference operation, people familiar with a draft of the inspector general’s report said.

[…] The finding also contradicts some of the most inflammatory accusations hurled by Mr. Trump and his supporters, who alleged not only that F.B.I. officials spied on the Trump campaign but also at one point that former President Barack Obama had ordered Mr. Trump’s phones tapped.

[…] [FBI] agents had an informant, an academic named Stefan A. Halper, meet with Mr. Page and Mr. Papadopoulos while they were affiliated with the campaign.

[…] The F.B.I. did have an undercover agent who posed as Mr. Halper’s assistant during a London meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in August 2016.

But that’s not spying?  OK gotcha.

[…]  Mr. Horowitz will also undercut another claim by Trump allies — that the Russian intermediary who promised dirt to Mr. Papadopoulos, a Maltese professor named Joseph Mifsud, was an F.B.I. informant.

This obfuscation is really silly.  No-one has ever claimed Mifsud was an FBI informant. The concern has always been Mifsud was a western intelligence asset, perhaps CIA.

[…] The report is also expected to debunk another theory of Trump allies: that the F.B.I. relied on information to open the investigation from a British former spy, Christopher Steele, himself a onetime bureau informant who compiled a dossier of damaging, unverified information on Mr. Trump.

Another paragraph of nonsense.  No-one has alleged the Steele Dossier was used to open the FBI investigation in July 2016.  The technical origination of the FBI investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane came from the joint FBI/CIA operation into Papadopoulos on July 31st, 2016.  The questions have always been about what predicate the pre-July ’16 originating investigations into Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn and Manafort were based on.

What was the evidence of Russia’s interference in the election, known to the FBI, before July 2016?  And what was the evidence that connected the Trump campaign to that predicate claim?

[…] The inspector general will fault the F.B.I. for failing to tell the judges who approved the wiretap applications about potential problems with the dossier, the people familiar with the draft report said. F.B.I. agents have interviewed some of Mr. Steele’s sources and found that their information differed somewhat from his dossier.

Mr. Horowitz plans to say that the wiretap application, which referenced Mr. Papadopoulos, should have also included a statement he made to the undercover agent in London that could be seen as exculpatory or self-serving, the people familiar with the draft report said.  (read full article)

A ‘wired’ FBI “undercover agent” recorded an exculpatory statement from Papadopoulos, but no – they weren’t spying?  OK gotcha….  Oh, and the FBI just avoided the transcript of the ‘wired’ statement because it just didn’t fit their purposes.   But not political?  Uh-huh.

If this is the type of feedback the principals gave the IG to justify their endeavors, the rebuttal evidence will be even more interesting.

Thanks, but I’ll just wait for the actual report… AND the declassified supporting documentation that damn sure better be a part of the release !