Tag Archives: Durham Investigation

Clinton senior campaign team leaves cohort Sussmann holding the bag ahead of Durham trial

Aaron Kliegman
April 20, 2022 

Former top Hillary Clinton presidential campaign officials are leaving onetime Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to bear the brunt of the blame for orchestrating the now-debunked claim that Donald Trump and his associates colluded with the Russian government in the 2016 race, new court filings show.

Requests to intervene in the case were filed late Tuesday by the Clinton campaign, campaign chairman John Podesta, campaign manager Robby Mook, and law firm Perkins Coie, which represented the campaign.

In his prosecution of Sussmann on a charge of lying to the FBI, special counsel John Durham has been seeking certain documents that are being withheld by the campaign and Perkins Coie under claims of attorney-client privilege and work product protection.

“Hillary for America [HFA] respectfully moves this honorable court to intervene as an interested non-party to assert privilege claims over documents and information that the government seeks to compel,” the campaign wrote.

Mook, Podesta, and Perkins Coie all similarly cited attorney-client privilege in their filings seeking to block the release of communications concerning their research on alleged Trump-Russia ties.

“At all times relevant to the government’s pending motion to compel and continuing through August 2021, Perkins Coie served as general counsel to HFA,” Podesta testified. “HFA asserts its attorney-client privilege and the attorney-work-product protection with respect to all documents and information under the control of Perkins Coie or any of its consultants, including Fusion GPS. HFA is not waiving any of its privileges.”

Fusion GPS was the opposition research firm hired by Perkins Coie to help the Clinton campaign dig up dirt on Trump.

The new filings are expected to hurt Sussmann’s defense in his trial, scheduled to begin next month, with many key players connected to the Russia collusion hoax attempting to distance themselves from Durham’s probe — and thereby putting much of the onus on Sussmann.

Legal experts told Just the News that Clinton’s former team and its allies are attempting to prevent damaging evidence that could potentially implicate them in wrongdoing in the Trump-Russia saga from coming to light.

“In effect, they are making a bogus attorney client-privilege claim to hide evidence of all their wrongdoing,” said Kash Patel, former chief investigator of the Russia investigation under then-House Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Devin Nunes. “We knew it when I took their congressional depositions under oath. Now [Special Counsel] John Durham puts it all on display, and the world is finally paying attention.”

Patel noted that Sussmann is left in the position to take much of the blame for the Russia hoax.

Durham was appointed special counsel in October 2020 to investigate the origins of the FBI’s Trump-Russia collusion probe. He’s prosecuting Sussmann on a charge that the high-powered attorney, who was a partner at Perkins Coie, lied to the FBI at a September 2016 meeting in which he presented the agency with information insinuating concealed Trump-Russia links.

Sussman has pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Earlier this month, Durham said in a separate court filing that Sussmann texted an FBI official the night before the 2016 meeting saying, “I’m coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the bureau.”

Durham has called Sussmann’s claims that he was not meeting with the FBI on behalf of any clients a “lie,” hiding from the bureau that the Trump-Russia claims originally came from Clinton’s 2016 campaign and a tech executive linked to the campaign.

According to Durham, the tech executive, Rodney Joffe, aided the Clinton campaign by monitoring Trump’s internet activities and mining data “for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump” — and to create a “narrative” that Trump secretly communicated with the Kremlin. Joffe allegedly shared the information with Sussmann.

Sussmann’s defense has asked Durham to grant immunity to Joffe, so that he can testify about his interactions with Sussmann regarding the 2016 meeting. Durham has refused.

The Sussmann trial is part of a broader investigation by Durham, who alleges some of the dirt on Trump that the Clinton campaign shared with the government is false.

Much of the false Trump-Russia narrative was assembled after Perkins hired Fusion GPS, which went on to solicit former MI6 agent Christopher Steele to create the infamous and discredited Steele dossier, which contained several salacious and since-debunked claims about Trump.

Fusion GPS was also asked to disclose documents for the Sussmann trial and submitted a filing on Tuesday asserting attorney-client privilege in order to avoid complying.

“The documents the government seeks to compel were created as part of the work Fusion performed in support of Perkins’s legal representation of HFA and DNC [Democratic National Committee], which is protected by both work-product protection and the attorney-client privilege,” the filing read.

Fusion GPS also claimed in its motion that it was retained by then-Perkins Coie partner Marc Elias, a top DNC election attorney, not to find dirt on Trump but rather to help Perkins in the event that Trump filed lawsuits against the Clinton campaign, DNC, or their allies.

Elias had a “reasonable concern about Mr. Trump’s litigiousness given his numerous threats of and actual litigation against his critics,” Fusion said in its filing. “Indeed, that concern was prescient, with Mr. Trump having recently launched litigation seeking tens of millions of dollars against every interested party here.”

However, more than $1 million flowed from the Clinton campaign and DNC to Perkins, which hired Fusion, which in turn asked Steele to use his overseas contacts to dig up dirt on Trump. The DNC and Clinton campaign were fined by the Federal Election Commission last month for lying about how they used money to fund the Steele Dossier.

Fusion said in its Tuesday filing that the government hasn’t proved the documents it seeks are relevant to its narrow indictment of Sussmann for lying to the FBI. That claim doesn’t hold water, according to Patel, a former federal prosecutor.

In trying to get his charge dismissed by a federal court, “Sussmann said his lie was immaterial” to Durham’s probe,” explained Patel. “Durham is saying no, I have this info to say why this lie is material.”

The documents Durham is seeking, added Patel, will show materiality and are therefore relevant to the trial.

Mook, Podesta, Elias, the DNC, and Perkins Coie all didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Durham: Five Hillary Clinton Associates Are Taking the Fifth in Russia Hoax Prosecution

JOEL B. POLLAK
18 Apr 2022

Five associates of Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign are invoking their Fifth Amendment rights and refusing to cooperate with Special Counsel John H. Durham, according a filing in federal court revealed later Friday in Washington, DC.

The revelation emerged in a motion filed by Durham to oppose the efforts of defendant Michael Sussmann and the Clinton campaign to withhold some documents from evidence by asserting attorney-client privilege.

Sussmann is charged with lying to the FBI in 2016 when he informed the FBI about a fraudulent link between then-candidate Donald Trump and the Russian government via Alfa Bank. Sussmann allegedly presented himself as a concerned citizen, and hid the fact that he was working for the Clinton campaign.

In the filing, Durham noted that while one witness, identified as “Researcher-2,” was granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for testimony, “at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank-1 allegations invoked (or indicated their intent to invoke) their right against self-incrimination.”

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley noted in a commentary on the filing:

[Durham] is now moving to give immunity to a key witness while revealing that the claims made by the Clinton campaign were viewed by the CIA as “not technically plausible” and “user created.” He also revealed that at least five of the former Clinton campaign contractors/researchers have invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to cooperate in fear that they might incriminate themselves in criminal conduct.

Turley also noted that Durham’s filing “also detailed how the false Russian collusion claims related to Alfa Bank involved Clinton General Counsel Marc Elias and Christopher Steele.”

Steele is the former British spy who worked for opposition research firm Fusion GPS to produce the fraudulent Russia “dossier” that triggered government surveillance of the Trump campaign and the broader “Russia collusion” conspiracy theory.

Elias is a prominent election attorney for Democrats who arranged the funding for the “dossier” and went on to lead Democrats’ efforts to force the adoption of vote-by-mail in key battleground states in the 2020 presidential election.

Durham’s filing indicates that the government wishes to introduce evidence of communications between the “Clinton Campaign leadership” and “Campaign Lawyer-1,” who is widely presumed to be Elias, about the Alfa Bank hoax.

Judge Issues Crucial Ruling In Durham’s Case Against Clinton Campaign Lawyer

Jon Dougherty
March 11, 2022

A federal judge has rejected a bid by Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann to “strike” a “factual background” section of Special Counsel John Durham’s early February court filing.

Last month, Sussmann’s legal team filed a motion demanding that the court remove portions of the Feb. 11 filing that included the “Factual Background” section by claiming that it would “taint” a jury, Fox News reported Thursday evening.

“I’m not going to strike anything from the record,” noted U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Christopher Cooper during a status hearing. “Whatever effect the filing has had has already passed.”

The Epoch Times reported in February:

…Sussmann was representing the Clinton campaign when in 2016 he passed along information to an FBI counsel. His lawyers say the documents “raised national security concerns” while prosecutors describe them as purportedly detailing a covert channel between a Russian bank and the business of Donald Trump, Clinton’s rival at the time.

Sussmann was charged with lying to the FBI because he falsely told the counsel he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client despite presenting the information on behalf of the Clinton campaign, prosecutors say.

In a filing in February, Sussmann’s lawyers moved to dismiss the charge, claiming their client “did not make any false statement to the FBI” but even if he had, “the false statement alleged in the indictment is immaterial as a matter of law.”

“Allowing this case to go forward would risk criminalizing ordinary conduct, raise First Amendment concerns, dissuade honest citizens from coming forward with tips, and chill the advocacy of lawyers who interact with the government,” the filing stated.

Durham’s team responded by calling his claims “absurd” and asked the federal court in the District of Columbia to proceed.

“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant – a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer – chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote in his court filing.

“He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect,” Durham, who was appointed by former Attorney General William Barr to investigate the origins of the ‘Russiagate’ probe, noted.

“And far from being immaterial, they went on to say that ‘the defendant’s false statement was capable of influencing both the FBI’s decision to initiate an investigation and its subsequent conduct of that investigation,” the filing continued.

In its response to the Sussmann filing, Durham’s team noted: “The defendant’s false statement to the FBI General Counsel was plainly material because it misled the General Counsel about, among other things, the critical fact that the defendant was disseminating highly explosive allegations about a then-Presidential candidate on behalf of two specific clients, one of which was the opposing Presidential campaign.”

“The defendant’s efforts to mislead the FBI in this manner during the height of a Presidential election season plainly could have influenced the FBI’s decision-making in any number of ways,” Durham’s team continued.

If the case does go to trial, Durham will likely argue that the evidence proves the bureau could have done something prior to starting a full investigation into the matter, to include an assessment, and should have delayed making a decision until after the 2016 election or declined to have launched a probe at all.

Also in his filing, Durham suggested that were it not for Sussmann’s allegedly false statement to the FBI, the Russiagate probe of then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s campaign would never have happened.

“Had the defendant truthfully informed the FBI General Counsel that he was providing the information on behalf of one or more clients, as opposed to merely acting as a ‘good citizen,’ the FBI General Counsel and other FBI personnel might have asked a multitude of additional questions material to the case initiation process,” Durham told the court in a memo filed late last week.

“Given the temporal proximity to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the FBI also might have taken any number of different steps in initiating, delaying, or declining the initiation of this matter had it known at the time that the defendant was providing information on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a technology executive at a private company,” he added.

Durham Says Clinton Lawyer Engaged in a ‘Political Deceit’ When Giving Trump Dirt to FBI

John Solomon
 March 5th, 2022

Former Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann engaged in “political deceit” during his contacts with the FBI and deprived agents of critical information that could have influenced the course of the Russia probe, Special Counsel John Durham declared in a new filing asking a court not to dismiss his criminal case.

Sussmann recently asked the trial judge to dismiss a charge of lying to the FBI, arguing his alleged false statement to the FBI was not material to the case and was protected by the First Amendment. The lawyer is accused of lying to the FBI when he claimed he was not working on behalf of any clients when he delivered dirt on then-candidate Donald Trump to the FBI general counsel alleging the GOP nominee had a secret computer channel to the Kremlin.

In fact, FBI agents found no evidence that the computer channel existed, and Sussmann was in fact working on behalf of the Clinton campaign and a computer executive aligned with the campaign when he approached the FBI, his indictment last fall alleged.

Durham responded Friday with a sweeping rebuke of Sussmann’s conduct in 2016 and 2017, saying as a former Justice Deparyment lawyer he knew that giving false information to the FBI undercut the tenets of the legal system.

“Far from finding himself in the vulnerable position of an ordinary person whose speech is likely to be chilled, the defendant – a sophisticated and well-connected lawyer – chose to bring politically-charged allegations to the FBI’s chief legal officer at the height of an election season,” Durham wrote the judge.

“He then chose to lie about the clients who were behind those allegations. Using such rare access to the halls of power for the purposes of political deceit is hardly the type of speech that the Founders intended to protect,” he added. “The Court should therefore reject defendant’s invitation to expand the scope of the First Amendment to protect such conduct.”

You can read the full court filing here.

File: SussmannFiling.pdf

Durham also revealed that he plans to deliver testimony at trial from FBI and government witnesses that Sussmann’s false statement was material and relevant and could have influenced the course of the Russia collusion case.

“The expected testimony of multiple government witnesses will refute the defendant’s argument that the defendant’s false statement was immaterial,” Durham wrote. “As noted above, the government expects that current and former FBI employees will testify at trial that understanding the origins of data and information is relevant to the FBI in multiple ways, including to assess the reliability and motivations of the source.

“None of this is novel. An evaluation of a source can (and often does) influence the FBI’s decisions regarding its initial opening decisions and subsequent investigative steps. That alone is sufficient to establish materiality.”

You can read Sussmann’s indictment here.

File:  SussmannIndict.pdf

Fast Growing Number of Democrats Want Hillary Clinton Investigated for Her Role in Russiagate

Sophie Mann
February 14th, 2022

An increasing number of Democrats believe Hillary Clinton should be investigated by special counsel John Durham in connection with her alleged involvement in manufacturing ties between 2016 presidential rival Donald Trump and Russia, according to a recent survey.

The survey, by TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics, found 75% of respondents who follow the story think Clinton and her campaign advisers should be investigated for her role in so-called Russiagate, according to several news reports.

Among them, 66% are Democrats – a 20-point rise from last October when the same question was asked.

About the same percentage of independent voters agreed that Clinton should be probed, and 91% of Republicans said the same. 

The data was collected prior to last week’s bombshell report from Durham that the Clinton campaign hired a tech firm to “infiltrate” servers at Trump Tower to try to tie the future president to Russia.

The aim of the mission, according to Durham, was to try to tarnish Trump’s reputation by connecting him to the Russians.

Clinton’s campaign repeatedly alleged that Trump and his campaign were in secret, close communication with Russian players to try to influence the outcome of the presidential race, though none of those claims were ever proven. 

William Barr, a Trump administration attorney general, appointed Durham in December 2020 to act as a Justice Department special counsel investigating whether intelligence and law enforcement violated the law in probing the 2016 Trump campaign.

The Clinton campaign spying development is the latest revelation out of the special counsel investigation as it continues to probe the activities of former Perkins and Coie attorney Michael Sussman, who while at the Washington, D.C., firm was also law partners with Clinton campaign general counsel Mark Elias.

Sussman was indicted almost six months ago for allegedly lying to the FBI prior to the 2016 election about whether he was working for a client when he brought allegations to the bureau about Trump’s links to the major private Russian financial institution Alfa-Bank.

Sussman denied he was working for anyone, including the campaign. He was indicted by a federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2021 for allegedly making a false statement to the FBI on Sept. 19, 2016, regarding alleged communications between the Trump Organization and Russian Bank.

Sussman pleaded not guilty, but further investigation appear to have led Durham to more possible evidence that the Clinton campaign spied on the Trump campaign in its efforts to establish the Russia-hoax. 

The poll also indicated that Americans are looking to crack down on corruption within political families.

A little less than 70% of respondents said they believe President Biden’s son, Hunter Biden and the president’s brother, Jimmy Biden, be barred from participating in any business involving the Biden’s administration.

Those parameters include discussing policy proposal with the president or his aides and taking government jobs or contracts.

Hunter Biden is under federal investigation for potential tax fraud.

The U.S. Attorney for Delaware recently subpoenaed bank records pertaining to him, his uncle and some of their business associates. The younger Biden insists he has handled his affairs “legally and appropriately.” 

Durham Tells Court Members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Under Scrutiny

Martin Walsh
December 22, 2021

OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author’s opinion

Special Counsel John Durham’s team has informed a federal court that former members of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign are under scrutiny for their possible roles in spreading Trump-Russia collusion allegations.

“Durham’s team requested that a judge ‘inquire into a potential conflict of interest’ connected to the lawyers for British ex-spy Christopher Steele’s main anti-Trump dossier source, Igor Danchenko, pointing out that a separate lawyer at their firm ‘is currently representing the 2016 ‘Hillary for America’ presidential campaign, as well as multiple former employees of that campaign, in matters before the special counsel,’” Newsmax reported.

“Danchenko was charged with five counts of making false statements to the FBI. Durham’s indictment said Danchenko, a U.S.-based and Russian-born researcher, made these statements about the information he provided to Steele for his dossier, which the FBI relied upon when seeking authority for the secret surveillance of a former Trump campaign aide but which now has been discredited,” the report continued.

“The attorneys who took over as Danchenko’s lawyers this month told Judge Anthony Trenga of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia that Durham’s team was raising questions about Robert Trout, who is of counsel at their firm and previously represented Clinton campaign members, but insisted there is no conflict of interest,” the report continued.

Durham’s team said that there are 5 topics that may become relevant to Danchenko’s defense.

1. “The Clinton campaign’s knowledge or lack of knowledge concerning the veracity of information” in the Steele dossier;

2. “The Clinton campaign’s awareness or lack of awareness” of Danchenko’s “collection methods” for the dossier;

3. “Meetings or communications” between the Clinton campaign and Steele about Danchenko;

4. “The defendant’s knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the Clinton campaign’s role in” the dossier;

5. “The extent to which the Clinton campaign and/or its representatives directed, solicited, or controlled” Danchenko’s actions.

Durham noted that: “On each of these issues, the interests of the Clinton Campaign and the defendant might diverge. For example, the Clinton Campaign and the defendant each might have an incentive to shift blame and/or responsibility to the other party for any allegedly false information that was contained within the Company Reports and/or provided to the FBI.”

Investigative reporter John Solomon has a theory about who special counsel John Durham will go after next — the FBI.

During an interview on Fox News, Solomon and host Maria Bartiromo spoke about Durham’s investigation and what might be next.

Russian-born analyst Igor Danchenko — key source for the Steele dossier that alleged ties between the Donald Trump campaign and Russia — was arrested by federal agents as part of the Durham investigation.

Solomon explained that he believes Durham is dealing with “two buckets.”

In one “bucket,” there are the last two indictments against officials who were connected to Hillary Clinton and their plan to feed the FBI false information about Trump-Russia conspiracies.

Solomon said the other “bucket” focuses on the FBI and whether agents knowingly mislead the FISA court to obtain warrants to spy on members of Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Solomon also disputes former FBI counterintelligence chief Peter Strzok’s statement on MSNBC last week that the FBI never investigated the Trump campaign in 2016, as Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Mueller probe makes another indictment.

“There’s no doubt there is activity inside the grand jury right now aimed at looking at top-level officials of the FBI, and it’s based on this evidence. We all look at the fact that Denchenko was interviewed by the FBI on January 17, and disowned a lot of the things that were said to him,” he said.

SOURCE: https://conservativebrief.com/criminal-56817/

BREAKING: Meadows Signals Imminent Indictments in Durham Probe: ‘It’s Time for People to go to Jail’

 Gregg Re
July 19th, 2020

The Justice Department’s watchdog has identified critical errors in every FBI wiretap application.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows said Sunday that it’s “time for people to go to jail” as part of U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into FBI misconduct — prompting ex-Trump aide George Papadopoulos to sound a celebratory note on Twitter.

The comments came as Fox News learned this weekend that Jennifer Boone, a senior FBI official who oversaw the flawed probe into former Trump adviser Carter Page, has received a major promotion to lead a field office — and the bureau won’t say why.

Meadows, during his Sunday interview with Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” also previewed the Trump administration’s soon-to-be-released plans for reopening schools and implementing new economic stimulus measures. More details, Meadows said, would be coming this week.

However, Meadows’ comments on the Durham probe were among his most suggestive yet. They followed Attorney General Bill Barr’s comments to Fox News earlier this year that Durham’s findings have been “very troubling” and that familiar names are currently being probed.

“I think the American people are expecting indictments,” Meadows told anchor Maria Bartiromo. “I expect indictments based on the evidence I’ve seen. Lindsey Graham did a good job in getting that out. We know that they not only knew that there wasn’t a case, but they continued to investigate and spy.”

Internal FBI documents that emerged in April showed that Peter Strzok — the now-disgraced anti-Trump former head of FBI counterintelligence — ordered the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to remain open even after it was slated to be closed due to a lack of so-called “derogatory” information. Strzok pursued an investigation based on the Logan Act, a law never used in a successful prosecution and that was intended to prevent individuals from falsely representing the U.S. government abroad in a pre-telephone era.

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, testifies before a House Judiciary Committee joint hearing on "oversight of FBI and Department of Justice actions surrounding the 2016 election" on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 12, 2018. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok, testifies before a House Judiciary Committee joint hearing on “oversight of FBI and Department of Justice actions surrounding the 2016 election” on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, July 12, 2018. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) (Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

“And yes, I use the word spy on Trump campaign officials and actually even doing things when this president was sworn in,” Meadows continued. “And after that and doing in an inappropriate manner, you’re going to see a couple of other documents come out in the coming days that will suggest that not only was the campaign spied on, but the FBI did not act appropriately as they were investigating. It’s all starting to come unraveled. And I tell you, it’s time that people go to jail and people are indicted.”

The Justice Department’s (DOJ’s) watchdog has identified critical errors in every FBI wiretap application that it audited as part of the fallout from the bureau’s heavily flawed investigation into former Trump adviser Carter Page, who was surveilled during the campaign in part because of a largely discredited dossier funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

The FBI repeatedly accused Page of being a “foreign agent” in its warrant applications. Page has not been charged with any wrongdoing, and the DOJ has since admitted that its warrant applications lacked probable cause and should not have been sought.

Additionally, an ex-FBI lawyer in that case even falsified a CIA email submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in order to make Page’s communications with Russians appear nefarious, the DOJ inspector general found. The FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, was allegedly told by the CIA that Page had reported his Russian contacts and was essentially acting as an informant — only for Clinesmith to allegedly omit that exculpatory information in a surveillance warrant application that framed Page’s communications with Russians as a sign that he was a secret foreign agent.

Separately, Fox News has learned that senior FBI official Jennifer Boone, who the IG said was “at Headquarters overseeing” the Page investigation, received a promotion to head the bureau’s Baltimore field office last year. Boone was at the same level as Strzok in the FBI hierarchy.

The IG report indicates that Boone also handled outreach to Bruce Ohr, who was a key contact inside the Justice Department for ex-British spy Christopher Steele — the author of the now-discredited anti-Trump dossier produced by the research firm Fusion GPS as opposition research for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign. Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Fusion GPS at the time.

“Boone did not recall who ultimately decided to move forward with [Page FISA] Renewal Application No. 2, and available documents do not indicate,” the IG wrote.

IG REPORT CONTRADICTS EXPERTS’ REPEATED CLAIMS ON FISA PROCESS

Boone also “told us that [she] did not recall being advised that the information from the [Steele] Primary Sub-source significantly differed from the information in Steele’s reporting,” the IG added.

The FBI declined to comment specifically about Boone’s promotion when reached by Fox News this weekend.

“As I’m sure you know, Director [Christopher] Wray recently sat for an interview with your colleague Bret Baier where he talked about the corrective measures he has instituted in response to the FISA IG Report,” an FBI spokesperson told Fox News. “We won’t have a comment beyond what the director said to Mr. Baier.”

http://video.foxnews.com/v/6163110515001

Republicans have complained that Wray hasn’t responded to their requests to interview other key officials who oversaw aspects of the Page probe, including Joe Pietnka — who was scrubbed from the FBI website after Fox News inquired about him. Sources say Pientka received a major promotion that moved him from Virginia to a senior role in the San Francisco field office, and public records reviewed by Fox News confirm that Pientka has moved residences.

On Friday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee released newly declassified documents that they say “significantly undercut” the “reliability” of the infamous Steele dossier from the Russia probe, as well as the accuracy and reliability of the factual assertions in the FISA warrants against Page.

HOROWITZ REPORT SPOTLIGHTS ROLE OF LITTLE-KNOWN AGENT PIENTKA

The first document, which the committee said spanned 57 pages, is a summary of a three-day interview Steele’s primary sub-source. The document revealed that the dossier was “unsubstantiated and unreliable,” according to sources who reviewed it, and showed that the FBI was on notice of the dossier’s credibility problems, yet continued to seek further FISA warrant renewals for Page.

Moreover, the document demonstrated that the information Steele’s primary sub-source provided him was “second and third-hand information and rumors at best.”

FBI DOUBTED STEELE DOSSIER RELIABILITY, NEW DOCS SHOW

The document also revealed that Steele’s primary sub-source “disagreed with and was surprised by” how information he gave Steele was then conveyed by Steele in the dossier.

The documents were not the first evidence showing the FBI had reason to doubt the Steele dossier. It emerged in April that the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team investigating the Trump 2016 campaign received multiple indications that Steele was part of an elaborate “Russian disinformation campaign,” according to several declassified footnotes from the IG report.

The information flatly contradicted numerous media reports.

The FBI’s legal counsel has described the warrant to surveil Page as “essentially a single source FISA” wholly dependent on the dossier, which also made numerous other unsubstantiated claims about Russian hackers in a nonexistent consulate in Miami, Cohen’s purported trips to Prague, and lurid blackmail tapes. Special Counsel Robert Muller couldn’t find any evidence supporting those allegations.