Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that President Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia in 2016, but that’s not the end of the story.
Astute watchers of the Russia collusion delusion know that the Obama administration used thinly-sourced information and lame justifications for obtaining a warrant to spy on one-time Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The efforts that led to the spying (or surveilling, or eavesdropping, depending on which media outlet you’re reading) have been under investigation for the past year by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General, Michael Horowitz.
The results of the Horowitz investigation may be incredibly damaging for the Obama administration and anti-Trump pundits and politicians. We may now see left-wing media outlets turn their attention toward discrediting Horowitz and his report before it’s released. The opening salvo has already appeared in Politico.
In an article about the Horowitz probe, reporter Natasha Bertrand — a collusion truther — went to great lengths to claim the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that granted the warrant to spy on Page routinely accepts applications that aren’t verified.
“Former U.S. officials interviewed by the inspector general were skeptical about the quality of his probe,” Bertrand wrote. “They emphasized to Horowitz that information in a warrant application need not be wholly verified, as long as the reliability of the source of the information is disclosed to the court, which the FBI did in the Page FISA case with regard to Steele. But the inspector general seemed neither well-versed in the FISA process nor receptive to the explanations, the officials said.”
First, here we have anonymous, “former U.S. officials” expressing skepticism over the probe. Former officials could mean any administration, but if they’re from the Obama administration — which sought the warrant against Page — of course they would suggest Horowitz’s probe isn’t credible.
Just before this paragraph, Bertrand explained why Christopher Steele — the ex-British Intelligence official who created a “dossier” that alleged Russian collusion with the Trump 2016 campaign — was a reliable source. Steele had previously “helped” the FBI investigate corruption at FIFA, the international soccer league. But she acknowledged that Horowitz’s office “concluded that Steele inflated his worth to the bureau in that case, and did little more than introduce agents to a journalist who had obtained hacked documents, according to two people who were interviewed and briefed on the matter.”
More anonymous sources, of course. Bertrand’s main point in the article is that Horowitz’s probe will cast doubt on the Steele dossier — which has already been proven to be wholly unreliable based on Mueller’s report, which was released after the Politico article was published.
But she goes on to defend Steele’s involvement.
With the Mueller report destroying the media’s two-year Russia collusion narrative, expect the Inspector General’s report to condemn the people who created the narrative by spying on a U.S. citizen and political campaign. That’s going to hurt a lot of egos in the left-wing media, who continue to insist Trump is the bad guy and Democrats are the good guys.