News

How a Trump Decision Revealed a GOP Memo's Shaky Foundation

Written by admin

News Analysis

How a Trump Decision Revealed a G.O.P. Memo’s Shaky Foundation

Image
President Trump claimed vindication in a series of tweets even though newly released documents undermined Republicans’ claims in a dispute over the wiretapping of a Trump campaign aide.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times

WASHINGTON — When President Trump declassified a memo by House Republicans in February that portrayed the surveillance of a former campaign adviser as scandalous, his motivation was clear: to give congressional allies and conservative commentators another avenue to paint the Justice Department’s investigation into Russian election interference as tainted from the start.

But this past weekend, Mr. Trump’s unprecedented decision, which he made over the objections of law enforcement and intelligence officials, had a consequence that revealed his gambit’s shaky foundation. The government released the court documents in which the F.B.I. made its case for conducting the surveillance — records that plainly demonstrated that key elements of Republicans’ claims about the bureau’s actions were misleading or false.

On Sunday Mr. Trump nevertheless sought to declare victory. In a series of early-morning tweets, he claimed without evidence that the newly disclosed files “confirm with little doubt that the Department of ‘Justice’ and FBI misled the courts” to win approval to start wiretapping the former adviser, Carter Page, shortly after he had left the campaign amid criticism of his ties to Russia.

“Looking more & more like the Trump Campaign for President was illegally being spied upon (surveillance) for the political gain of Crooked Hillary Clinton and the DNC,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to the Democratic National Committee.

Mr. Trump’s portrayal, which came as the administration is trying to repair the damage from his widely criticized meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, revived the claims put forward in February by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee. But in respect after respect, the newly disclosed documents instead corroborated rebuttals by Democrats on the panel who had seen the top-secret materials and accused Republicans of mischaracterizing them to protect the president.

The records again cast an unflattering light on Representative Devin Nunes, the committee’s chairman, who led the attack on the F.B.I. surveillance, though he admitted in February that he had not read the application documents. Mr. Nunes has taken repeated steps to try to bolster Mr. Trump and undercut the Russia investigation.

Image
Carter Page, a former foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign, has been under investigation for his ties to Russia.CreditMark Wilson/Getty Images

In his tweets, Mr. Trump left unmentioned the nature of the concerns the F.B.I. raised about Mr. Page in the court applications. The documents said that the bureau “believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitment by the Russian government,” that he had “established relationships with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligence officers,” and that he had been “collaborating and conspiring with the Russian government.”

Mr. Page has not been charged with a crime in the nearly two years since the initial wiretap application was filed in October 2016, near the end of the Obama administration. On CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Mr. Page dismissed the claims in the documents, saying, “I’ve never been an agent of a foreign power in any — by any stretch of the imagination.”

He also played down a letter he wrote in 2013 in which he described himself as “an informal adviser to the staff of the Kremlin,” saying he had merely “sat in on some meetings.”

Much of the dispute in February over the surveillance of Mr. Page centered on the fact that the F.B.I.’s court application included unverified information it had obtained from Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had been hired to research Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia by a firm that was in turn being financed by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign.

The application and several renewals, which continued into the Trump administration, contain many redacted pages, making it impossible to tell how many other sources of information the F.B.I. had. But the uncensored portion does also discuss a prior investigation into a Russian spy ring that tried to recruit Americans as assets in 2013. Mr. Page is known to have been one of its targets.

Still, information from Mr. Steele — who had provided credible intelligence to the United States government in the past — was clearly an important part of the application. The application cited claims he had gathered about purported meetings between Mr. Page and two Kremlin-linked Russians during a trip he took to Moscow in July 2016; Mr. Page has denied meeting with them, although he later contradicted his claims that he had not met any Russian government officials on that trip.

Image

Representative Devin Nunes, the Intelligence Committee’s chairman, has taken repeated steps to try to bolster Mr. Trump and undercut the Russia investigation.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times

One central issue was whether the F.B.I. gave the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court sufficient information about the funding of Mr. Steele’s research to understand that he had been commissioned to dig up information about Mr. Trump’s links to Russia by someone with a political motive, even though he had been a neutral source in the past.

The Republican memo issued in February said the F.B.I. had failed to “disclose or reference the role of the D.N.C., Clinton campaign or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior D.O.J. and F.B.I. officials.” But Democrats at the time contended that the court had been told that the research had politically motivated origins.

The application contains a page-length explanation that does alert the court that the person who commissioned Mr. Steele’s research was “likely looking for information to discredit” Mr. Trump’s campaign. It goes on to explain why, notwithstanding Mr. Steele’s “reason for conducting the research,” the F.B.I. believed it was credible.

Republicans had also faulted the application for not explicitly identifying Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee by name. But that criticism ignored the fact that law enforcement officials were following a general policy not to name Americans, even referring to Mr. Trump only as “Candidate #1” in renewal applications despite noting that he was now the president-elect and then the president.

David Kris, an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act who served in the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, dismissed the notion that the intelligence court judges had been misled.

“Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it,” he wrote on the blog Lawfare. “The F.B.I. gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility.”

Image

Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent, in London last year. The F.B.I. told a court he had been hired to research Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia by someone most likely looking for information to discredit the campaign.CreditVictoria Jones/Press Association, via Associated Press

Another issue in dispute was Republicans’ suggestion that a September 2016 Yahoo News article about Mr. Page’s ties to Russia was cited in the application as corroboration for Mr. Steele’s information even though it later emerged that he had been a source for that article. Democrats at the time said that was misleading because the purpose of including the article was instead to tell the court that Mr. Page had denied the allegations about his meetings in the July 2016 trip to Moscow.

The application dovetails with the Democrats’ account. The article is described in a section that discusses how the allegations about Mr. Page became public, prompting him to deny them but still leave the Trump campaign as it distanced itself from him. That section of the application is titled: “Page’s Denial of Cooperation With the Russian Government.”

The application materials also identify the four judges who approved the wiretap and its extensions; all are appointees of Republican presidents. And while much of the material is redacted, it shows that the number of pages included in each application grew significantly, suggesting that the government was likely adding new information, such as discussing the information it obtained from the wiretap, to justify its request to prolong the surveillance.

Asked whether Mr. Nunes wanted to comment on the release of the surveillance materials and the ways they appeared to contradict his February statements, a spokesman for the Intelligence Committee said in an email that he did not.

But Representative Adam B. Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee, said the documents affirmed that law enforcement officials had acted appropriately in obtaining the wiretap order in the face of “a profound counterintelligence threat” from Russia. He said the materials put the “conspiracy theories to rest,” while criticizing Mr. Trump’s decision to declassify their existence during a pending investigation.

“These national security considerations were cast aside by President Trump, whose decision to declassify the Nunes memo — which misrepresented and distorted these applications — over the fervent opposition of the Department of Justice, was nakedly political and self-interested, and designed to interfere with the special counsel’s investigation,” he said.

And Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, rejected Mr. Trump’s insinuation that the wiretapping of Mr. Page equated to surveillance of the campaign. “I don’t believe that them looking into Carter Page means they were spying on the campaign,” Mr. Rubio said on “State of the Union.”

“The only plot is to interfere in the election by the Russians,” he added.

Emily Cochrane contributed reporting from Washington, and Katie Rogers from Berkeley Heights, N.J.

A version of this article appears in print on of the New York edition with the headline: Party Defense Of President Built on Sand. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


Source link

About the author

admin

Leave a Comment