'Serious Performance Failures,' But No Anti-Trump Bias: Read the DOJ Watchdog's Report
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page," Inspector General Michael Horowitz's report stated.
December 09, 2019 at 01:23 PM
5 minute read
Updated at 5:29 p.m.
The U.S. Justice Department's inspector general released a long-anticipated report Monday scrutinizing the roots of the Russia investigation, concluding that while the FBI was justified in opening a probe into whether anyone tied to the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin, there were "serious performance failures" in obtaining surveillance warrants against a former Trump aide.
The department's inspector general, Michael Horowitz, spent more than a year scrutinizing the early steps of the Russia investigation, a probe Trump and his allies have derided repeatedly as a "hoax" and "witch hunt."
The 434-page report identified missteps in the beginnings of the investigation, including evidence that an FBI lawyer altered an email related to the surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. Horowitz said his office identified 17 "significant errors or other omissions" in surveillance applications targeting Page. The numerous missteps, Horowitz added, "raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command's management and supervision" of the process for obtaining warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.
But that evidence did not change the inspector general's conclusion that the Russia investigation was opened on proper legal footing and not out of an anti-Trump bias.
"We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page," the report stated.
U.S. Attorney General William Barr disputed the inspector general's finding that the investigation was justified, ripping what he described as the FBI's "rush to obtain and maintain FISA surveillance" of Trump campaign officials.
"The inspector general's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken. It is also clear that, from its inception, the evidence produced by the investigation was consistently exculpatory," Barr said. "Nevertheless, the investigation and surveillance was pushed forward for the duration of the campaign and deep into President Trump's administration."
Barr's skepticism of the findings could fuel criticism that he too often sides with Trump, who has spent his presidency denouncing members of the law enforcement and intelligence communities. Previously, Barr faced scrutiny over his handling of the release of the special counsel's report and, more recently, over a speech a conservative legal group in which he defended Trump's use of executive authority.
Trump lashed out at the report's findings, saying that the revealed "an overthrow of government."
"This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow and a lot of people were in on it and they got caught, they got caught red-handed," he said Monday, even as the inspector general's report rejected conspiracy theories that have long swirled around the Russia investigation.
Horowitz's report detailed actions taken in 2016, before the Russia investigation was handed to Special Counsel Robert Mueller III.
In April, Mueller's team released a report summarizing the two-year investigation, which found no sufficient evidence to prove the Trump campaign conspired with Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential election. In his 448-page report, Mueller documented several instances his office reviewed as part of a parallel investigation into whether Trump sought to obstruct the Russia investigation. The special counsel declined to take a position on whether Trump attempted to obstruct the probe.
Mueller, like many of the members of the special counsel team, has since returned to private practice. He rejoined Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr as a partner in October.
The full inspector general's report is posted below:
||
Read more:
O'Melveny Snags Michael Dreeben, Former Longtime Deputy Solicitor General
This report was updated with additional comment about the inspector general's findings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Ed Sheeran Meets Led Zeppelin in the Second Circuit
- 2You Too Can Be a Programmer: How Generative AI Can Upskill Any E-Discovery Professional to Write Code
- 3Is Arbitration Working?
- 4New Battleground: Wall Street Law Firms Eye London Growth
- 5Standstill: Court Defers to Legislature on Texas Healthcare
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250