Instead, Durham’s approval and Barr’s decision to make it available to Congress ensure a public broadcast of portions of his investigation that President Donald Trump has publicly stated he hopes would lead to persecution of his political opponents and senior intelligence officials.
The newly released evidence, made available to Senate Republican investigators who were conducting a parallel review of the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe, was released on Wednesday by Barr, who wrote a two-page summary of the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation into Steeles Sub-source submitted which spanned from 2009 to 2011.
Although a letter von Barr and his two-page summary provide no indication of what the FBI did when it found that Steele relied on this sub-source. Senate Justice Committee chairman Lindsey Graham (RS.C.) accused the office of withholding the information from a federal court when it used the Steele dossier to obtain a surveillance warrant against a former Trump election worker in late 2016.
Barr and Durham’s disclosure to Graham came in response to the Senators’ request that the Justice Department release a footnote in last year’s report by Inspector General of the Justice Department Michael Horowitz identifying significant abuses and missteps in the FBI’s efforts to service the former Trump election workers monitor Carter were documented Page.
Horowitz learned that the FBI had identified Steele’s primary sub-source as the target of their previous counterintelligence investigation in December 2016 – a detail he included in a footnote to his report that remained secret until Wednesday.
Barr Approved the footnote and included it in a letter to Graham conducting a review of the FBI’s actions during the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible links between the Trump campaign and Russian activists.
The released footnote states that Steele’s primary sub-source “was the subject of an FBI counterintelligence investigation from 2009-2011 evaluating his documented contacts with suspected Russian intelligence officers.” However, it does not say what the FBI ultimately concluded about the sub-source publicly identified in the New York Times and other outlets.
Although Horowitz’s report found significant errors in the FBI’s requests for these warrants, which were granted and renewed four times, he made no judgment as to whether the FBI’s original request to monitor Page would otherwise have survived. But the Justice Department has since overturned two of the extensions based on its review.
So far, the Durham investigation has led to criminal charges. Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI attorney involved in the site surveillance motion, pleaded guilty last month of directing an email used in the Bureau’s representations to the court examining the motion.
Graham said Thursday’s revelation further underscores that the FBI may have withheld exonerating information from the court.
“To me, the FBI’s failure to inform the court that the primary sub-source was suspected of being a Russian agent is a violation of any duty law enforcement owes the justice system,” Graham said in a statement. The most amazing and worst revelation the committee has uncovered. “
According to the counterintelligence investigation summary prepared by Barr and the FBI, the primary sub-source was in contact with known Russian intelligence officers in 2006. The investigation of the primary sub-source was discontinued in 2011 and “remains closed for this day,” says the executive summary.