In an op-ed for The Hill published Tuesday, George Washington University’s chair of public interest law Jonathan Turley explains how the widespread reporting by the media downplaying the significance of the Justice Department inspector general’s report on the origins of the Russian probe egregiously ignores the report’s “damaging and unsettling” findings about the actions of the FBI in its investigation of Trump and his associates.
Turley — a self-described long-time Democrat voter who was invited to testify in the impeachment hearings as an expert Republican witness during the impeachment hearings last week — begins his analysis of IG Michael Horowitz’s report by noting that if you’ve only tuned into most mainstream media outlets, you have likely concluded “that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump.”
While Horowitz did say the FBI’s initial decision to investigate was “within the discretionary standard of the Justice Department,” writes Turley, that finding isn’t nearly as significant as the media has attempted to portray it to be because the “standard for the predication of an investigation is low, simply requiring ‘articulable facts.'” All Horowitz said is that, since the discretionary standard is so low, “he cannot say it was inappropriate to start,” writes Turley.
Noting that United States Attorney John Durham, who is conducting a parallel but more comprehensive investigation into the Russia probe origins, took the “unusual step” to announce in response to the release of the report Monday that he disagrees with that conclusion, as has Attorney General William Barr.
“I have the utmost respect for the mission of the Office of Inspector General and the comprehensive work that went into the report prepared by Mr. Horowitz and his staff,” Durham said in a statement issued Monday. “However, our investigation is not limited to developing information from within component parts of the Justice Department. Our investigation has included developing information from other persons and entities, both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. Based on the evidence collected to date, and while our investigation is ongoing, last month we advised the Inspector General that we do not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”
Turley suggests that he agrees with Durham and Barr, then moves on to the larger issue: all the “highly damaging and unsettling” findings that filled the hundreds of pages of Horowitz’s report. The report details “a litany of false and even falsified representations used to continue the secret investigation targeting the Trump campaign and its associates,” Turley stresses.
The media’s attempt to focus on Horowitz saying the initial decision to initiate an investigation meets the low discretionary standard is “akin to reviewing the Titanic and saying that the captain was not unreasonable in starting the voyage,” he writes.
Once the investigation into potential Trump-Russia ties began, Turley writes, the FBI quickly made a series of appalling mistakes that should trouble all of us.
“Horowitz says that investigative icebergs appeared rather early on, and the Justice Department not only failed to report that to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court but removed evidence that its investigation was on a collision course with the facts,” he writes.
“From the outset, the Justice Department failed to interview several key individuals or vet critical information and sources in the Steele dossier,” Turley explains. “Justice Department officials insisted to Horowitz that they choose not to interview campaign officials because they were unsure if the campaign was compromised and did not want to tip off the Russians. However, the inspector general report says the Russians were directly told about the allegations repeatedly by then CIA Director John Brennan and, ultimately, President Obama.”
“So the Russians were informed, but no one contacted the Trump campaign so as not to inform the Russians?” Turley underscores. “Meanwhile, the allegations quickly fell apart. Horowitz details how all of the evidence proved exculpatory of any collusion or conspiracy with the Russians.” (Read Turley’s full analysis here.)