Unverified intelligence from Australian diplomat led to Russia Collusion Lie
Controversial Role of Alexander Downer and an Australian diplomat raises concerns about foreign interference in 2016 US election
- Alexander Downer and “Australian Diplomat-I” revealed as key figures in triggering Trump-Russia investigation
- Controversial Role of Alexander Downer and Australian Diplomat-I raises concerns about foreign interference in 2016 US election
- Crossfire Hurricane investigators withheld crucial info, misled attorneys and FISC in Page FISA applications
- Special Counsel reveals confirmation bias in FBI's acceptance of unverified allegations in Crossfire Hurricane
- FBI discounted contrary evidence, ignored material info in Trump-Russia collusion narrative
- FBI Inspection Division Report: Investigators explained away evidence against Trump-Russia conspiracy theory
- Failure to question Crossfire Hurricane's foundation raises concerns of political manipulation within FBI
Thursday May 18, 2023 Former-High Commissioner Alexander Downer and a“Australian Diplomat-I” played a crucial role in triggering the investigation into alleged connections between the Trump campaign and Russian interference efforts during the 2016 elections.
The release of the long-awaited Durham Investigation highlights Australian Diplomat-I’s pivotal role in sparking the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, which gained significant attention and controversy in the political landscape.
Australian Diplomat-I’s meetings with former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos in London on three separate occasions in 2016 have come under scrutiny.
The revelation of highlights Australian Diplomat-I’s pivotal role in sparking the Crossfire Hurricane investigation raises questions about the extent of foreign interference with Donald Trump’s 2016 US presidential campaign.
Special Counsel Durham noted inconsistencies in the statements given by Australian Diplomat-I and former-High Commissioner Downer during their interviews in 2019.
According to Downer's statement, he mentioned that during his meeting with Papadopoulos, Papadopoulos made a direct statement along the lines of "the Russians have information." This implies that Papadopoulos explicitly referenced the Russians having information during the meeting with Downer.
Australian Diplomat-I’s statement suggests a different sequence of events. According to this diplomat, Papadopoulos made statements about the Russians, but these statements were made during a separate meeting with both diplomats. The implication is that Papadopoulos's statements about the Russians were made in a different context or setting, not during the meeting with Downer specifically.
Special Counsel Durham noted there was a discrepancy between the statements provided by Downer and Australian Diplomat-I regarding when and how Papadopoulos mentioned the Russians and their possession of information. Downer claims it was during his meeting, while Australian Diplomat-I indicates it was during a different meeting with both diplomats present.
The information about Papadopoulos's statements and the discrepancy in the accounts of Australian Diplomat-I and former-High Commissioner Downer are important to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation because they play a critical role in understanding the origins and circumstances surrounding the investigation into potential links between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
According to an FBI executive, the information provided by Papadopoulos was considered a significant factor in initiating the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. FBI Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson stated that it would have been negligent if the FBI had not opened the investigation. FBI General Counsel James Baker also expressed the view that a swift investigation is beneficial for oversight and accountability within the FBI and the Department of Justice.
During the OIG review, it was discovered that the National Security Division (NSD) officials were briefed multiple times about the investigation after its initiation in early August 2016.
It is acknowledged by FBI officials that the information regarding Papadopoulos did not originate from Australia's intelligence services, but rather from Alexander Downer and Australian Diplomat-I, who were previously unknown to the FBI personnel handling the information.
Some FBI officials justified the decision to open Crossfire Hurricane based on the belief that the information came from a “trusted partner”, and therefore, it was considered reliable.
While the Counterintelligence Division eventually sought information about Papadopoulos, the OIG review did not find any evidence that, at the time, the FBI assessed the actual reliability of the information provided by the diplomats.
Operation Crossfire
When Crossfire Hurricane was initiated, the FBI had the following pieces of information available only:
1. Publicly accessible information about Papadopoulos's involvement in the campaign as a volunteer foreign policy adviser.
2. Information provided by Australian diplomats, which they obtained from Papadopoulos.
3. Information suggesting Russia's potential interference in the election.
4. Trump's public statements concerning Russia.
5.Media reports that had not been fully verified about potential connections between Trump and Russian businessmen.
Importantly, apart from these sources, the FBI's Counterintelligence Division and Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not possess any intelligence or verified information regarding collusion between Trump or his campaign staff and the Russian government.
The FBI OGC Unit Chief, who provided guidance on various Crossfire Hurricane matters and approved the case as a Source-Identified Matter (SIM), stated that she had no knowledge of alleged ties between the Trump campaign and Russia prior to the investigation's initiation.
Special Counsel Durham states that the FBI took measures to maintain confidentiality of the investigation in its initial phases to prevent interference with the approaching election.
However, according to the subsequent Mueller investigation, Papadopoulos and the campaign officials he interacted with stated that they did not remember Papadopoulos sharing information about Russia possessing compromising material on candidate Clinton in the form of emails, or that Russia could aid the campaign by anonymously releasing information about Clinton.
The Mueller investigation did not discover any documentary evidence or communication records that would indicate Papadopoulos shared this information with the campaign.
The evidence reviewed by the Office indicates that there were internal discussions among FBI Headquarters executives, including the Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, regarding the decision to initiate Crossfire Hurricane.
These executives unanimously supported opening the investigation without considering anything less than a full investigation into the credibility and basis of Papadopoulos's statements.
The personnel involved in the decision stated that they followed the FBI's governing principles, which require an authorized purpose and an "articulable factual basis" indicating the potential occurrence of federal crimes or national security threats.
However, it appears that the measured approach outlined in the FBI guidelines was not followed in the case of Crossfire Hurricane. Instead, just three days after receiving analysed information from Australia, Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok authorised and approved the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, triggering a full counterintelligence investigation during a political campaign, before engaging in dialogue with Australia or the Intelligence Community, and without conducting a critical analysis of the information or assessing potential risks.
It is worth noting that Strzok's version of events contradicts the FBI's report of the interview conducted with Downer and Australian Diplomat-I, which does not mention Trump's news conference or the missing Clinton emails. Furthermore, Downer and Australian officials provided the Paragraph Five information to the U.S. Embassy one day before Trump's televised news conference.
Strzok declined to be interviewed by the Office on this matter.
As detailed in Section IV, the FBI swiftly initiated the Crossfire Hurricane investigation upon receiving unverified intelligence from Australia.
Deputy Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Peter Strzok opened the investigation under the direction of Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. It is worth noting that Strzok had displayed “clear animosity towards Trump”.
Surprisingly, the investigation was launched as a full-scale inquiry without ever speaking to the individuals who provided the information. Furthermore, the FBI neglected to conduct a thorough review of its intelligence databases, gather relevant intelligence from other U.S. intelligence agencies, interview key witnesses, or employ standard analytical tools typically used to evaluate raw intelligence.
If these steps had been taken, as discussed in Sections IV.A.3.b and c, the FBI would have discovered that their own experienced Russia analysts and other personnel at the CIA, NSA, and Department of State had no information implicating Trump's involvement with Russian officials.
Additionally, FBI records generated by Strzok in February and March 2017 revealed that the FBI had no evidence in its possession indicating any contact between members of the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence officials throughout the campaign.
This rapid and flawed handling of Crossfire Hurricane, based on raw and unverified intelligence, deviated significantly from the FBI's approach to previous cases involving potential foreign interference targeting the Clinton campaign during the election season.
Special Counsel Durham notes the speed of initiating Crossfire Hurricane was of sharp contrast to Strzok's decision-making in the case involving Anthony Weiner's laptop, where the FBI did not take action for over a month to review missing Clinton emails.
Special Counsel Durham noted that the immediate opening of Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation differs from the careful approach taken in the investigation of the Clinton Foundation and other matters.
On August 2, 2016, two days after opening Crossfire Hurricane, Strzok and Supervisory Special Agent-I met in London with the Alexander Downer and Australian Diplomat-I to assess and clarify exactly what had been said by Papadopoulos in May and provided to the U.S. government in July.
Prior to conducting an interview, Strzok and Supervisory Special Agent-1 sought the assistance of the FBI's Assistant Legal Attache in London (UK ALAT-1). UK ALAT-1 had responsibilities that involved collaborating and sharing information with the British Intelligence Service-I.
Recognizing the importance of sharing information related to potential Russian intelligence activity in the United Kingdom, UK ALAT-1 briefed the British intelligence service about Papadopoulos' allegations concerning Russian influence in the Trump campaign.
UK ALAT-1 assumed that the FBI's interview with the Australian diplomats was of exceptional importance based on the nature of the allegations and the urgency expressed by Strzok and Supervisory Special Agent-1. UK ALAT-1 also believed that the Crossfire Hurricane investigators likely possessed compelling facts beyond what he understood from Papadopoulos' claims.
During exchanges with UK ALAT-1, both Strzok and Supervisory Special Agent-1 expressed skepticism about the information and referred to the predication for the investigation as "thin." UK ALAT-1's British Intelligence Service-I counterparts shared similar skepticism about Papadopoulos' motivations and reliability.
They did not view the information attributed to Papadopoulos regarding the Russians and Trump as particularly valuable intelligence. In fact, they believed there must be additional information that the FBI was not disclosing. The predication for opening Crossfire Hurricane as a full investigation was discussed, and UK ALAT-1 noted the thinness of the available information.
In the fall of 2016, UK ALAT-1 watched the audio/visual recordings of CHS-1's meeting with Carter Page, which had a negative impact on the British Intelligence Service-I personnel due to the lack of evidence coming out of the conversation. This led to frustration among the British counterparts, and they were reluctant to provide further assistance. UK ALAT-1 observed that FBI executive management was determined to push forward with the investigation, and he played his role in facilitating its progress.
If the Crossfire Hurricane investigators had critically assessed the information from Papadopoulos by examining FBI holdings and making standard requests to other government agencies for information on Trump and Russian intelligence activities, they would have found no substantial evidence connecting the two.
Jonathan Moffa, the Chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Analysis Section, who had extensive experience and knowledge in counterespionage and Russian analysis, confirmed that he had not heard anything about Trump and Russia until the events began to be reported in July 2016.
Multiple individuals, including FBI Intelligence Analysts, DNI James Clapper, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, and CIA Director John Brennan, have stated that there was a lack of evidence or knowledge of any conspiracy or collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 election.
The FBI Intelligence Analyst, DNI James Clapper, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers, Undersecretary Victoria Nuland, CIA Director John Brennan, and Deputy Director David Cohen all stated that they had no evidence supporting the allegations of collusion. Special Counsel Mueller's report also concluded that the investigation did not establish coordination or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Special Counsel Durham concludes that shortly after opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, the FBI learned from Australian diplomats that there were reasons to be unsure about the information provided by Papadopoulos.
The FBI opened investigations into Papadopoulos, Carter Page, General Michael Flynn, and Paul Manafort, who were associated with the Trump campaign and had ties to Russia or a history of travel to Russia.
Additionally, the FBI received separate information about Trump's business contacts and ventures in Russia from a former FBI CHS who was contacted by an investigative firm hired by the DNC. This information was provided to the FBI through Michael Sussmann.
Before receiving the Steele Reports in mid-September 2016, the FBI conducted various investigative steps, including meeting with Australian officials, checking records and open source data, monitoring travel, obtaining records from other agencies and a foreign government, and using CHSs and UCEs (Undercover Employees) to engage with the subjects of the investigation. However, these investigative efforts did not result in the collection of any incriminating information.
Conclusions
The Australian diplomats told Crossfire Hurricane investigators that Papadopoulos never stated that he had any direct contact with the Russians nor did he provide any explicit information about an offer of assistance.
There was a complete lack of information from the Intelligence Community that corroborated the hypothesis upon which the Crossfire Hurricane investigation was predicated.
The FBI generally ignored the significant exculpatory information provided by Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, and Trump Senior Foreign Policy Advisor-! during recorded conversations with FBI CHSs.
The FBI failed to pursue investigative leads that were inconsistent with their theory of the case (e.g., Page's recorded denials of having any relationship with Paul Manafort, a fact about which there was available evidence).
The FBI failed to take Page up on the written offer he made to Director Corney to be interviewed about the allegations contained in Michael Isikoff s Yahoo 1 News article and instead opted to seek FISA surveillance of Page.
The FBI was willing to make use of the completely unvetted and uncorroborated Steele reporting in multiple FISA applications targeting a U.S. citizen, even after the Crossfire Hurricane investigators had determined that there were major conflicts between the reporting of Steele and his primary sub-source, Igor Danchenko - conflicts the FBI incredibly failed to resolve.
The Crossfire Hurricane investigators did not even ask Steele about his role in providing information to Michael Isikoff as contained in the September 23, 2016 Yahoo! News article - information that essentially accused Carter Page of colluding with the Russians. And thereafter the same investigators demonstrated a willingness to contort the plain language of the article to suggest it was not Steele but Steele's employers who had given the information to Isikoff.
The FBI ignored the fact that at no time before, during or after Crossfire Hurricane were investigators able to corroborate a single substantive allegation in the Steele dossier reporting.
There was a complete failure on the part of the FBI to even examine - never mind resolve - the serious counterespionage issues surrounding Steele's primary sub source, Igor Danchenko.
The FBI leadership essentially disregarded the Clinton Plan intelligence, which it received at almost the exact same time as the Australian Paragraph Five information. This was despite the fact that at precisely the same time as the Clinton Plan intelligence was received (i) the Clinton campaign made public statements tying the DNC computer hack to Russian attempts to help Trump get elected, (ii) the FBI was receiving the Clinton campaign-funded Steele Reports, and (iii) the Clinton campaign-funded Alfa Bank allegations were being prepared for delivery to the media and the FBI.
The Crossfire Hurricane investigators essentially ignored information they had received as early as October 2016 regarding Charles Dolan, a longtime Democratic operative with ties to the Clintons who also possessed significant ties to Russian
government figures who would appear in the Steele reporting, and never interviewed him.
The Crossfire Hurricane investigators provided only partial, and in some instances misleading, information to Department attorneys working on the Page FISA applications while withholding other highly relevant information from those attorneys and the FISC that might cast real doubt on their probable cause assertions.
Special Counsel Durham concludes the aforementioned information, whilst taking into account the perspective that favours the Crossfire Hurricane investigators, it appears “highly probable that confirmation bias was a major factor” in the FBI's acceptance of highly consequential allegations based on unverified information that did not undergo the rigorous analysis typically employed by the FBI and other intelligence community members.
“In short, it is the Office's assessment that the FBI discounted or wilfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia.
“Similarly, the FBI Inspection Division Report says that the investigators "repeatedly ignored or explained away evidence contrary to the theory the Trump campaign had conspired with Russia. It appeared that there was a pattern of assuming nefarious intent.
“An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes.
“Unfortunately, it did not.”