'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 All'Effective Remedy'?: DOJ Unveils Corrective Action Plan in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readMassachusetts Federal Judge F. Dennis Saylor to Take Senior Status
What Judicial Nominations Could Look Like Under a President Harris or Trump
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft and Pryor Cashman have entered appearances for Diageo Americas Supply d/b/a Ciroc Distilling Co. and Sony Songs, a division of Sony Music Publishing, respectively, in a pending lawsuit. The case was filed Sept. 10 in New York Southern District Court by the Bloom Firm and IP Legal Studio on behalf of Dawn Angelique Richard. The plaintiff, who performed as a member of producer Sean 'Diddy' Combs girl group Danity Kane and later his band, Diddy - Dirty Money, claims that she was financially exploited by Combs and subjected to inhumane working conditions. Among other violations, Richard claims that Combs required group members to remain at his residences and studios, deprived them of adequate food and sleep and forced them to rehearse for 36 to 48 hours without breaks. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla, is 1:24-cv-06848, Richard v. Combs et al.
Who Got The Work
Mathilda McGee-Tubb and Kevin M. McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, as well as Jesse W. Belcher-Timme of Doherty, Wallace, Pillsbury & Murphy, have stepped in to defend Peter Pan Bus Lines in a pending consumer class action. The suit, filed Sept. 4 in Massachusetts District Court by Hackett Feinberg PC and KalielGold PLLC, accuses the defendant of charging undisclosed 'junk fees' on top of ticket prices during checkout. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, is 3:24-cv-12277, Mulani et al v. Peter Pan Bus Lines, Inc.
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