Barr and Durham Publicly Disagree With Horowitz Report on Russia Inquiry

WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr sharply criticized on Monday the F.B.I.’s decision to open the Russia investigation, undercutting a major finding in a long-awaited watchdog report and at the same time showing his willingness to act as President Trump’s vocal defender.

The report, by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, found that the F.B.I. had adequate reason in 2016 to open an investigation into the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia. Mr. Horowitz did not support Mr. Trump’s accusations that F.B.I. officials conspired to sabotage his campaign, but Mr. Barr highlighted other parts of the report that underscored his and the president’s shared view that investigators were nonetheless overly invasive in scrutinizing people associated with a presidential campaign.

“The inspector general’s report now makes clear that the F.B.I. 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,” Mr. Barr said in a statement.

John H. Durham, a federal prosecutor whom Mr. Barr appointed to run a separate criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, backed Mr. Barr’s findings in his own highly unusual statement. “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 F.B.I. case was opened,” Mr. Durham said.

Mr. Durham also noted that he had access to more information than Mr. Horowitz did, an apparent reference to Mr. Durham’s trips to meet with foreign intelligence officials overseas and to his examination of any role the C.I.A. played in how the F.B.I. confronted Russia’s election interference in 2016.

The statements from the Justice Department’s top official and one of his key investigators gave Mr. Trump’s supporters ammunition to dispute a major finding in the long-awaited report by Mr. Horowitz that was one of the report’s few bright spots for the F.B.I.

Mr. Horowitz said that the F.B.I. had sufficient evidence in July 2016 to lawfully open a full investigation into whether Trump campaign associates were wittingly or unwittingly helping Russia to interfere in the election. Called Crossfire Hurricane, the investigation focused on four Trump campaign associates, two of whom were already the subjects of continuing Justice Department investigations.

The F.B.I. opened the inquiry amid a rash of leaked emails that had been stolen from the Democratic National Committee, and days after receiving intelligence that a then-Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had told Australian diplomats that a Russian had intermediary had offered information that could damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Mr. Horowitz found that only the tip from the Australian government was officially used “to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation,” and that it was enough information to open the inquiry. His conclusion undercut accusations by the president and his allies that F.B.I. officials had carried out a politicized conspiracy to sabotage his campaign.

Mr. Horowitz also said that the F.B.I. followed all policies when it used informants to carry out that work; he did note that the bureau’s standards were very low and he initiated an audit of how it would handle applications to wiretap Americans citizens in the future.

Mr. Barr said in his statement that Australia, identified in the report only as a Friendly Foreign Government, had acted appropriately in sharing information with the United States.

“What was subsequently done with that information by the F.B.I. presents a separate question,” Mr. Barr said. Neither he nor Mr. Durham presented evidence to show why the inspector general’s conclusion was incorrect.

In criticizing the F.B.I., both Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Barr homed in on the fact that investigators continually omitted information from applications for a court order for a wiretap under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that could have undercut their argument that they had probable cause to monitor Mr. Page’s communications.

“F.B.I. officials misled the FISA court, omitted critical exculpatory facts from their filings, and suppressed or ignored information negating the reliability of their principal source,” Mr. Barr said. “The inspector general found the explanations given for these actions unsatisfactory.”

Mr. Horowitz chronicled 17 occasions when investigators omitted key information or conveyed erroneous information to the court. He declined to say whether the court would have denied the application had it had a more complete and accurate picture.

Mr. Horowitz recommended that the F.B.I. review the performance of every person involved in the wiretap effort.

Source link