“Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) wrote to Attorney General William Barr asking the Department of Justice (DOJ) to produce a number of documents related to information from Christopher Steele’s primary source who ultimately contradicted Steele’s reporting.
In DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s report on FISA abuse, Steele’s main source of information was identified as the “Primary Sub-source.” IG Horowitz’s report found that the FBI heavily relied upon this information to obtain FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page even though:
- the Primary Sub-source’s information substantially undercut Steele’s subsequent reporting; and
- the FBI interviewed the Primary Sub-source at least three times and internally deemed the individual to be “truthful and cooperative.”
Further, the FBI made it appear to the FISA court that the Primary Sub-source’s information corroborated Steele’s reporting and did not bring up credibility issues uncovered during the FBI’s interviews with the Primary Sub-source.
As the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to investigate FISA abuse, Graham requested DOJ produce the following documents:
1) All documents and communications related to the FBI’s interviews with the Primary Sub-source in January, March, and May 2017, including the “lengthy written summary” of the Primary Sub-source’s January 2017 interview memorialized by the Supervisory Intel Analyst and Case Agent 1 and the two-page Intelligence Memorandum circulated by the Supervisory Intel Analyst in late February 2017 to Bill Priestap and other Counterintelligence Division officials, discussing “aspects of the Primary Sub-source’s interview.”
2) The complete February 15, 2017, email exchange between Peter Strzok, Bill Priestap and others, in which Strzok stated that “recent interviews and investigation, however, reveal [Steele] may not be in a position to judge the reliability of his sub-source network.”
3) The complete March 31, 2017, email exchange between individuals identified in the OIG Report as the “OI Attorney” and the “OGC Attorney” regarding the second FISA Renewal Application and the Primary Sub-Source’s credibility.
4) The complete email exchange between the Supervisory Intel Analyst and the OGC Attorney in March 2017 referenced in Footnote 389 of the OIG Report.
5) The “analytical documents prepared by, or with the assistance of, the Supervisory Intel Analyst after the Primary Sub-source interview” that “identified inconsistencies between Steele and the Primary Sub-source regarding some of the information contained in Reports 94 and 95.”
The full text of Graham’s letter can be found HERE.