The investigation was not tainted by political bias and was adequately predicated, the report found.
The release on Monday of a long-awaited watchdog report threw plenty of bones to partisans on both sides of the aisle. While the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz, ripped the FBI‘s handling of applications for surveillance warrants on members of the Trump campaign, he also determined that the yearslong investigation into whether President Donald Trump or members of his 2016 campaign colluded with Russia to interfere in his election had not been tainted by political bias and was adequately predicated.
It also debunked a number of conspiracy theories advanced by the president or his allies over the last several years. Here are some of the top claims refuted by Horowitz‘s report.
The Steele dossier didn’t play a role in opening the Russia probe
While Steele’s reporting for what became the dossier began prior to the opening of the Russia probe, Horowitz found that the team of investigators at the FBI “did not become aware of Steele‘s election reporting” until weeks after the investigation had already begun, concluding that the dossier “played no role” in the probe being opened.
Neither did Lisa Page or Peter Strzok
Obama never wiretapped Trump Tower
The FBI didn’t implant spies in Trump’s campaign
Joseph Mifsud was never an FBI informant
Horowitz reiterated in his report that the Russia investigation was first opened after Papadopoulos boasted about the revelation to an Australian diplomat, prompting Australian officials to alert their U.S. counterparts.
Papadopoulos has since claimed, without evidence, that Mifsud was actually an intelligence asset sent to entrap the Trump campaign, a suggestion shot down in Horowitz‘s report.
“The FBI‘s Delta files contain no evidence that Mifsud has ever acted as an FBI CHS and none of the witnesses we interviewed or documents we reviewed had any information to support such an allegation,“ the report reads.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.