For almost two years we have advanced the theory that the ‘core lie’ of the Carter Page FISA applications was based on an intentionally bastardised version of Carter’s “prior relationship” to the FBI and/or the Intelligence Community at large. In short: a double-cross of one of their own. This ‘problem’, which was never even addressed within the Nunes Memo, is nevertheless now borne out by evidence in the Horowitz Report.
With respect Page’s assistance to the FBI in 2013-2016 in the Evgeny Buryakov case, it was always apparent that he was at minimum a cooperative witness for the prosecution, and at maximum an operational USIC asset, and in either event: unfairly and illegally targeted by the FBI in late 2016. After having his status as an operational contact to the CIA confirmed, and given the preponderance of all other evidence, Page’s identity now appears to be closer to the latter than the former. But that’s a story for another chapter…
The point to be taken, is that Page is not just a routine civilian that had his civil liberties abused, he was likely a lifelong asset working under non-official cover that had his cover intentionally, and irreparably blown, causing damage not just to Page, but to United States National Security at large.
We must pause to reflect that such activity is, unfortunately, not an aberration from the norm, but is a known, institutional problem for the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division and its NY subchapters specifically. As outlined in a 2002 Order by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court:
Beginning in March 2000, the government notified the Court that there had been disseminations of FISA information to criminal squads in the FBI’s New York field office, and to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Now York, without the required authorization…
The errors related to misstatements and omissions of material facts. Including: omissions of material facts from FBI FISA affidavits relating to a prior relationship between the FBI and a FISA target, and the interview of a FISA target by an assistant U.S. attorney.
The passage may as well be talking directly about the Page’s FISA case taking place 16 years later wherein the FBI omitted both Page’s “prior relationship” with the CIA and his extremely troubling remarks to SDNY prosecutors on March 2, 2016. But there is more:
In November of 2000, the Court held a special meeting to consider the troubling number of inaccurate FBI affidavits in so many FISA applications. After receiving a more detailed explanation from the Department of Justice about what went wrong, but not why, the Court decided not to accept inaccurate affidavits from FBI agents whether or not intentionally false.
One FBI agent was barred from appearing before the Court as a FISA affiant.
These incidents have been under investigation … to determine how …the misinformation found its way into the FISA applications and remained uncorrected for more than one year despite procedures to verify the accuracy of FISA pleadings.
Again, the parallels to Page’s case are uncanny. Not only did intentional misinformation remain in Page’s applications for an entire year, but the FISC has since ordered a review of all cases submitted by FBI attorney (Klinesmith). Further echoing November 2000, Horowitz has given us a 500 page “ detailed explanation from the Department of Justice about what went wrong, but not why.”
CORE ERROR MISSION CREEP
Now that we understand the patterns of deliberate, willful, and institutional misrepresentations by the counterintelligence division of the FBI with respect to known entities with “prior relationships”, we need to then review with strict attention the way that the FBI treats other suspected entities directly relevant to the FISA applications, like Joseph Mifsud and PERSON-1 aka Sergei Millian. A cursory review will find, that the FBI’s institutional lack of candor with respect to known entities with “prior relationships”, bleeds over even into Horowitz’s otherwise illuminating and ‘detailed’ report.
Horowitz examined an allegation from Papadopoulos that Joseph Mifsud was used to pass information to Papadopoulos in April 2016 as a set up, so that the FBI could predicate the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. In his findings, Horowitz reports that the FBI’s Delta files contain no evidence that Mifsud has ever acted as an “FBI CHS”, and none of the witnesses interviewed or documents reviewed had any information to support such an allegation.
The problem with this is, precisely as with Carter Page, Joseph Mifsud is believed to have ties to the Intelligence Community that extend to “other agencies” not limited to the FBI. Horowitz only reports what is evident in FBI’s jurisdiction. Additionally, precisely unlike with Carter Page, it is never stated if FBI ran a routine name trace to verify whether or not Mifsud had ties to “other agencies”. Cryptically, in footnote 464, the report states that with respect to Mifsud:
“The FBI also requested information on REDACTED FOR TWO SENTENCES.”
This may very well be a report that the FBI requested information on whether Mifsud had contacts with “other agencies”. The only problem is, unlike with Carter Page, this information is completely redacted, for reasons unknown.
The notion of FBI’s Small Team hiding knowledge Mifsud having a relationship with the CIA or other agencies is entirely within the range of possibilities, considering the FBI’s manipulation of similar information concerning Carter Page.
Further, the use of Mifsud to achieve predicate for an investigation by an agency outside of DOJ purview would explain the striking disagreement from both Barr & Durham regarding Horowitz’s findings that the FBI had adequate predication. If Horowitz is still being fed inaccurate or incomplete, or simply limited information, then an erroneous conclusion is exactly what we would expect.
Horowitz also examined allegations from Christopher Steele, his Primary Sub-source, and the Crossfire Hurricane team who had all assessed that Sources D&E of the Dossier was Sergei Millian. In his findings, Horowitz reports that similar to Carter Page, Sergei was “a person previously known to the FBI.” As luck would have it, Sergei was also, just like Page, the subject of an open FBI counterintelligence investigation at the time the initial FISA application was filed.
How exactly was Millian “previously known”? Unlike when Horowitz investigated allegations regarding Joseph Mifsud, it is nowhere stated whether the FBI’s Delta files contain evidence that Sergei Millian has ever acted as an “FBI CHS”. Horowitz also never states whether witnesses or documents reviewed had any information to support such an allegation. Its simply never stated.
Additionally, precisely unlike with Carter Page, it is also never stated if FBI ran a routine name trace to verify whether or not Millian had ties to “other agencies”. Again, the notion of FBI’s Small Team hiding knowledge Millian having a relationship with the CIA or other agencies is entirely within the range of possibilities, considering the FBI’s manipulation of similar information concerning Carter Page.
Carter Page and Sergei Millian share one additional unique similarity: the FBI’s reluctance to interview either person of interest. In addition to both being principals of the FISA, “previously known” by the FBI, and also under active FBI investigation in October 2016, Page and Millian would continue to hop the globe at will, unmolested by authorities at passport checkpoints for months.
The FBI seems to take absolutely no interest in interviewing either the FISA target or his (alleged) principal accuser, until at least March of 2017, and then only after Trump had already blew the whistle on a political spying operation headed by Obama. LINK The investigative team NEVER once interviewed Sergei Millian, despite having him easily within reach.
Less attention to the number of errors and more attention to the “core errors” of the FBI FISA construct is warranted. After securing proof that the “core lie” operant in the Carter Page FISA was a manipulation of known Intelligence Community assets, further scrutiny assessing exactly how the FBI Counterintelligence Division is representing these elements is warranted at all times. Name-trace information which arguably “breaks the case” in the Carter Page FISA is suspiciously absent from characterizations and questions surrounding both Joseph Mifsud and Sergei Millian in the Hororwitz Report.