Finessing the Inspector General’s report

Scott has provided a link to the Inspector General’s Report of the Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation. Scott has also quoted the full statement of Attorney General Barr regarding that report.

I think the key sentence in Barr’s statement is this:

The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.

(Emphasis added)

I take this to mean that Barr disagrees with the Inspector General’s conclusion that the suspicions asserted as reason to launch the investigation of Trump’s campaign were sufficient to justify the launch.

The other key statement is the one flagged by Scott — that of John Durham, who is conducting the criminal investigation into the Crossfire Hurricane Investigation:

[O]ur 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.

(Emphasis added)

To the extent that Durham is able to rely on evidence that Horowitz didn’t review to support the view that the investigation of the Trump campaign lacked sufficient predication for the way the case was opened, Durham and Barr will finesse the Horowitz report’s finding to the contrary.

Responses