Eric Felten over at Real Clear Investigations has written a piece that provides a clear insight into the mindsets and attitudes of those who were running theFBI and DOJ departments during the Obama administration.
AG Barr has started to investigate spying. However, as Felten points out, spying is just one of possible multiple violations of investigative rules and ethics committed by agents, lawyers, managers, and officials at the FBI and the DOJ.
For three years (2016-2018), Bill Priestap was assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division, which meant he oversaw the FBI’s global counterintelligence efforts.
Felten takes a deep dive into the testimony that Priestap provided to Congress in a closed-door interview in the summer of 2018. Priestap’s testimony provides a “rare insight into the attitudes and thoughts of officials who launched the Russia probe and the probe of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.”
Right away one thing was clear. The censors at the FBI and DOJ did not want anyone to know where Bill Priestap was when he went overseas. Rep. Jim Jordan asked multiple questions regarding Priestap’s overseas trips (3 in all). The dates and locations were redacted from all of his testimony. Jordan was specific about the year and location but these were redacted. Why? What national security interests were at risk?
As it turns out Strzok and Page, the FBI lovers, provided the location in their text messages.
Strzok Text…May 4th
Strzok Text…May 9th
Priestap was in London during the time in question (early May 2016). It is quite probable that all three trips were to the same location. This was the same time the Papadopoulos affair was underway. As has come to light, George Papadopoulos was set up to be the fall guy in the Russia collusion scheme during this time frame. It was just coincidental that Priestap was in London at this time. Right.
When asked about the purpose of these trips, Priestap replied, “I went to meet with a foreign partner, foreign government partner.” Most likely this was British Intelligence. When Jordan inquired as to the specific purpose of these trips, Priestap stated, “I’m not at liberty to discuss that today.”
This is the standard response when confronted with a question that impinges on an ongoing investigation. So, most likely, at this point in time (June 2018), the Mueller shield was in place preventing a fuller airing of what Priestap was doing in London. Remember that one of the purposes of the Mueller investigation was to cover up the illegal origins of Operation Crossfire Hurricane.
Was London connected to the Russia collusion scheme? If it wasn’t, then when Jordan asked him specifically about a connection to that, Priestap could have put the issue to bed by saying “No.” He didn’t.
In other testimony the Democratic counsel wanted to eliminate the idea of the FBI “spying.” Before Priestap’s testimony was taken last summer, the efforts of Stefan Halper working undercover in London had been exposed. The Democrats wanted to show that, while the FBI used informants, only the ignorant and uninitiated would call them spies. The world spying had “bad connotations.”
Democratic staff counsel Valerie Shen asked, “Does the FBI use spies?” As assistant director for counterintelligence, Bill Priestap would be in a position to know.
This led to the following exchange.
Priestap: “What do you mean? I guess, what is your definition of a spy?”
Shen: “Good question, what is your definition of a spy?”
At this point Priestap’s FBI attorney conferred with his client.
Priestap: “I’ve not heard of nor have I referred to FBI personnel or the people we engage with as – meaning who are working in assistance to us – as spies. We do evidence and intelligence collection in furtherance of our investigations.”
Shen: “So in your experience the FBI doesn’t use the term ‘spy’ in any of its investigative techniques?”
Priestap assured her the word is never spoken by law-enforcement professionals – except, he said when referring to “foreign spies.” Apparently when foreigners do evidence collection and intelligence gathering, the FBI does refer to this as spying.
Shen: “But in terms of one of its own techniques, the FBI does not refer to one of its own techniques as spying?”
Priestap: “That is correct, yes.”
Shen: “With that definition in mind, would the FBI internally ever describe themselves as spying on American citizens?”
Priestap: “No.”
So there you have it. The FBI could not have spied on the Trump campaign because the term does not exist in the FBI’s lexicon even though the same activities, when undertaken by foreigners, are considered to be spying. What a clown show!
By the time Shen was finished with this line of questioning everyone in the room with Priestap (Democrat and Republican alike) were convinced that the FBI spied and, as it turned out, had spied on Trump’s people. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what Shen was trying to accomplish.
In another area of questioning Shen ventured into the FISA Court quagmire of the Carter Page warrant. At this point it had come out that the FBI and DOJ had used the unverified (per James Comey) Steele Dossier to help secure such a warrant. The Steele Dossier appears to have been paid for through the Perkins Coie law firm by the Clinton campaign.
Shen, the House Oversight Committee minority counsel, ignored accusations of bias and tried to get it on record that the FBI did not request warrants with unverified information.
Shen: “Mr. Priestap, are you aware of any instances of the FBI and DOJ ever using politically biased, unverified sources in order to obtain a FISA warrant?”
Priestap: “No.”
Shen: “Are you aware, of any instances where the FBI or DOJ did not present what constituted credible and sufficient evidence to justify a FISA warrant?”
Priestap: “If it’s not justified, the court doesn’t approve it. So, like, if we’re not meeting the standard required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the requests are turned down.”
Shen: “So, in other words, by definition, if you presented information and a FISA court approved it, that would constitute credible sufficient information?”
Priestap: “In my opinion, yes.”
Really? So Priestap is saying that if you can fool a FISA court judge, the information used in such an operation is rendered by definition “credible sufficient information.” What about the Woods procedures that are supposed to be followed when submitting a request for a warrant to the FISA Court? There is an extensive list of checkoffs that are supposed to be followed when requesting FISA warrants (Woods Procedures).
Just how deranged were the leaders of the FBI and the DOJ to think that whatever you can get past a judge is good enough? Of course, they never expected to have to answer such questions because Hillary Clinton was supposed to win the Presidency.
The real question about the Carter Page warrant is who was the real target, Carter Page, a person who had assisted the DOJ in breaking up a Russian spy ring in NYC in 2015, or Donald Trump?
Shen decided to get answers on the record that would show that PDJT was not the target.
Shen: “Are you aware of any FBI investigations motivated by political bias?”
Priestap: “I am not.”
Shen: “Are you aware of any Justice Department investigations motivated by political bias?”
Priestap: “No.”
Shen: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken to damage the Trump campaign at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
Priestap: “No.”
Shen: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken to personally target Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
Priestap: DID NOT ANSWER
Shen: “I’ll rephrase. Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI?”
Priestap’s lawyer, Mitch Ettinger: “I think you need to rephrase your question.”
Shen’s Democratic colleague Janet Kim: “Are you aware of any actions ever taken against Donald Trump at the highest levels of the Department of Justice or the FBI for the purpose of politically undercutting him?”
Priestap: “No.”
Keeping in mind that Priestap was under oath, Eric Felten notes:
What does all of this show us?
- It shows that the FBI and the DOJ targeted and took action against PDJT.
- We learned that, according to Priestap, a FISA judge’s approval of a warrant means by definition that the information underlying it is credible Woods Procedures be damned.
- It showed that the FBI did send at least one undercover (probably more) into the Trump campaign and that even the bureau would call this “spying” if it were done by foreign operatives. Were other campaigns infiltrated? Comey has stated on CNN that such activities “are normal.”
- We had the idea re-affirmed that there was little or no moral leadership or “inner strength of character” at the highest levels of the FBI and DOJ during the Obama administration.
Keep in mind that there is probably a lot more information out there waiting for declassification.
The storm has started
