The Columbus Dispatch

Justice Department should look at second memo

- MARC THIESSEN Marc A. Thiessen writes a weekly column for The Washington Post. He is the former chief speechwrit­er for President George W. Bush. syndicatio­n@washpost.com

After House Intelligen­ce Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., sent his memo laying out potential abuses of the FISA process by the FBI to the White House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., demanded that he be removed as chairman. Nunes was “deliberate­ly dishonest” in pushing to release a “bogus memo,” Pelosi declared, and had “disgraced the House Intelligen­ce Committee” with his “partisan effort to distort intelligen­ce.”

But Democrats can’t so easily dismiss the far more detailed declassifi­ed criminal referral written by two respected Republican senators — Charles Grassley of Iowa and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — which confirms the claims raised in the Nunes memo. The Grassley-Graham memo has been all but ignored since its release, but it deserves attention from everyone — and answers from the Justice Department.

If you’re concerned about Russia meddling in our election, as every American should be, then you should be deeply concerned about unverified allegation­s by Russian government officials, passed on to the FBI by a paid partisan of one candidate, leading to a warrant to spy on an American citizen associated with the other campaign.

According to Grassley and Graham, that is precisely what happened. The FBI “relied heavily” on the Steele dossier to obtain warrants for surveillan­ce of Carter Page, a marginal former Trump campaign adviser, the senators write. Moreover, they say, the FBI did not have “meaningful corroborat­ion” of Steele’s claims when it submitted its applicatio­n to the Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Act court. “The bulk of the applicatio­n consists of allegation­s against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in the Steele dossier. The applicatio­n appears to contain no additional informatio­n corroborat­ing the dossier allegation­s against Mr. Page” except for “a news article that appears to be sourced to Mr. Steele’s dossier as well.”

In other words, Steele’s work was virtually the sole source of informatio­n the FBI relied upon to obtain a warrant to spy on a U.S. citizen. Without it, there would likely have been no surveillan­ce approved.

The senators further confirm that the FBI did not, in fact, tell the court the full provenance of the dossier, writing, “The applicatio­n failed to disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson’s ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the DNC.” (Glenn Simpson is co-founder of the firm that hired Steele.) They also failed to tell the court that an FBI official, Bruce Ohr (whose wife worked for Fusion GPS on the Russia project), had warned the bureau that “Steele was ‘desperate’ to see that Mr. Trump was not elected” even though this informatio­n was relevant “to his credibilit­y and his stated political motive.” Grassley and Graham conclude that “it appears the FBI relied on admittedly uncorrobor­ated informatio­n, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton’s presidenti­al campaign, in order to conduct surveillan­ce of an associate of the opposing presidenti­al candidate.”

The senators note the FBI used the dossier because Steele was “considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau.” But in October 2016, the FBI suspended its relationsh­ip with Steele after it learned he had disclosed dossier informatio­n to the press and after he lied to the FBI about it. Yet the FBI continued to rely on the dossier for renewals of the FISA warrant. Worse, the senators write, “the FBI did not subsequent­ly disclose to the (court) this evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele had lied to the FBI.”

None of these ugly details exonerate Trump or undercut the Mueller investigat­ion. Nor was that the purpose.

But if the FBI made representa­tions before the court that were in error, then the American people have a right to know. And if a paid advocate of one presidenti­al candidate persuaded the FBI to conduct surveillan­ce on a member of the other candidate’s campaign team, Congress has an obligation to investigat­e.

As for Democrats, are Grassley and Graham’s claims “bogus” and “dishonest”? I think not. They have raised serious questions that should trouble all Americans, no matter their political party.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States