Margot Cleveland With More FBI Misconduct

I hope I’ve made it clear why I’m just not much interested in the Danchenko trial. IMO, Danchenko should be a witness rather than a defendant, and the defendants should be the FBI and DoJ personnel who were involved in ginning up all aspects of the Russia Hoax—Crossfire Hurricane, the FISAs, and the Mueller Witchhunt.

Today Margot Cleveland reports that Durham has brought out, through the testimony of FBI analyst Brian Auten, facts that we also knew long ago from the OIG’s FISA report. Those facts show the FBI and DoJ deliberately misleading a ridiculously gullible FISA court. The question is: Why has Durham not indicted those responsible for this?

Here’s the short version of what Cleveland reports:

Why The FBI’s Last-Minute Change To A FISA Application Is Worse Than Using Unverified Steele Dossier

Don’t ask me to explain the title, since it all works together. Anyway.

… the Crossfire Hurricane team’s last-minute amendment to the FISA application … misleadingly framed Steele’s source network as one established during his time as an MI6 agent, ... 

… Steele would later confirm for the inspector general that his source network did not involve sources from his time with MI6, …, we now know that the Crossfire Hurricane team either knew Steele’s source network was not connected to British intelligence or knew that it could not, in good faith, make that representation to the FISA court. 

... 

In discussing the process the FBI undertook to obtain the first FISA warrant on Page, the OIG explained that the day before the FISA court granted the surveillance order, the government submitted a “read copy” of the FISA application to the FISA court’s legal adviser for a preliminary assessment of any issues. The FISA court’s legal adviser asked the attorney working with the FBI on the application “how it was that Steele had a network of subsources?” 

The government lawyer “provided additional information to him regarding Steele’s past employment history,” the OIG report explained; that response implied Steele’s source network came from his time with MI6. Significantly, the FISA court’s legal adviser then indicated the additional detail of Steele’s prior work with British intelligence should be included in the official FISA application to the court. 

“That the legal advisor not only raised the question about Steele’s access to a network of sources, but then insisted that the FISA application be updated to include information concerning Steele’s prior government position, shows the FISA court placed great significance on Steele’s previous British intelligence work for purposes of assessing the reliability of his source network.” And with that misleading information added, the next day, Oct. 21, 2016, the FISA court issued the first of four orders authorizing the surveillance of Page’s phone and email accounts.

Given the importance the legal adviser placed on understanding Steele’s source network, it seems unlikely the FISA court would have authorized the surveillance of Page had the FBI either acknowledged that Steele’s source network came from his private work with Orbis or conceded that Steele had refused to reveal his sources.

Please understand. Presuming that during his MI6 day Steele really did have sources of value with the type of access that is presumed in his “dossier”, MI6 would have wanted to continue using those sources. My assumption is that, whatever other use MI6 might make of Steele in his retired capacity, they would be very leery of allowing Steele to maintain contact with such sources in an unrestricted way or to use them for his personal business benefit. Too much could go wrong and the whole situation could lapse into ridiculous insecurity for the sources.

The FBI agents preparing the FISA application knew that. They knew that Steele’s past employment and any sources he may have developed as an MI6 employee were strictly not relevant to the FISA matter before the court. The only relevance that might have would be to establish Steele’s presumed expertise in developing and handling sources—but that could only be corroborated by a review of his employment file. After all, simply assuming Steele’s expertise based on the bare fact of his past employment is pretty foolish. Especially in light of the fact that the FBI was paying Steele for what amounted to his say-so—unverifiable information.

Of course, this whole episode raises once again the issue of MI6 involvement in the Russia Hoax. We know for a fact—it was published in the Daily Telegraph—that Steele remained in contact throughout this period with the top levels of MI6 and even consulted with them regarding the Russia Hoax.

The bottom line: This trial still looks like a coverup.