We were not all that surprised with the stunning rebuke the chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court leveled at the FBI on Tuesday over the misrepresentations contained in their applications to wiretap a member of the Trump campaign.
Citing the findings in the report of the Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Judge Rosemary Collier wrote in an opinion, “The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.”
This is serious stuff and will doubtless have really significant consequences for those involved. Representations to the FISA court contained sworn affidavits which suggest possible perjury prosecutions. But there is a broader issue as well.
When we read the Horowitz report, we realized that one does not have to take sides in the confrontation between Trump and the Democrats in the House of Representatives to accept that the president had reasonable grounds for his claims that there were political motives for the adverse way he said he and his presidential campaign were treated by the FBI.
Indeed, the Horowitz report found 17 significant improprieties which even Congressman Schiff has acknowledged were problematic – after earlier assuring everyone for months that no problems existed. True, Horowitz did not conclude that the irregularities were politically motivated as Trump charged. But nonetheless, therein lies an important tale.
It will be recalled that the report issued by Special Counsel Robert Mueller concluded that neither Trump nor his campaign “colluded” with the Russians in the 2016 campaign but that no finding was made as to whether Trump was guilty of “obstructing” his investigation. Democrats said the Report was not dispositive of those two issues. They insisted that despite not finding collusion or obstruction, sufficient evidence had been amassed, which Congress was free to pursue. Indeed, those sentiments were the backdrop to the current Trump impeachment proceedings.
Fast forward to the Horowitz inquiry. Horowitz’s assignment was to investigate how the FBI investigated Trump and his campaign. As noted, he found 17 problematic FBI actions which he said were “inexplicable” in that they were made by three separate teams of investigators. He said he could not make the leap as to whether anti-Trump politics, gross negligence or incompetence played a role because he uncovered no conclusive, objective evidence. But he did say that politics could be an explanation. Yet Congressional Democrats insisted that Horowitz’ demurral as to motive meant that a political one was ruled out. End of case.
So whether politics did or did not play a role, Trump could certainly conclude, as Horowitz conceded could be the case, that politics was in play.