FBI Lawyer Involved in Russia Probe Spared Jail Time; Role More Significant Than Previously Known

Kevin Clinesmith, a former FBI lawyer, finds himself at the center of a political storm, revealing more about his involvement in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation than was previously known. He had his hands in both the Hillary Clinton email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion probe, pleading guilty to altering a document to renew FISA authority for wiretapping Carter Page, a Trump campaign advisor. This case has resurfaced with newly declassified details showing Clinesmith’s pivotal role in obtaining a FISA warrant against Page, heavily relying on the infamous Steele dossier.

Clinesmith was a crucial conduit for former FBI lawyer Lisa Page and fired special agent Peter Strzok. They leaned on him throughout the now-debunked collusion narrative, making him a key player in the flawed investigation. His actions extended to the Mike Flynn inquiry and even involved going after former Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, broadening the scope of his involvement.

In addition to the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Clinesmith played a part in the FBI’s “Cross Wind” operation. This investigation targeted security expert Walid Phares, but it eventually led nowhere, with no charges or accusations of wrongdoing. Clinesmith’s manipulation of a CIA email in 2017 to misrepresent Carter Page’s relationship with the CIA is now part of the public record.

Judge James Boasberg, who has faced criticism for his rulings, gave Clinesmith what many see as a lenient sentence. Boasberg has been a controversial figure, especially with his previous decisions on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. His recent ruling against Trump’s deportation efforts further illustrates his contentious role in the judiciary.

Despite the calls for a harsher punishment, Boasberg opted to give Clinesmith probation and community service. Special Counsel John Durham, who oversaw the Trump-Russia investigation, argued that Clinesmith’s actions damaged the integrity of the FISA process. The leniency shown by Boasberg has sparked outrage among those who expected more severe consequences.

During Clinesmith’s sentencing, Boasberg expressed a certain understanding of Clinesmith’s situation. He suggested that Clinesmith might have believed in the truth of his actions, despite their outcome. This perspective didn’t sit well with Durham and his team, who emphasized the broader implications of Clinesmith’s deception.

Clinesmith’s actions contributed to the erosion of trust in the FBI and the FISA program, according to Durham. The judge, however, seemed to sympathize with Clinesmith’s national vilification, despite acknowledging the damage to the FISA court’s reputation. This leniency has raised questions about accountability within powerful institutions.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz previously exposed significant flaws in the FBI’s Russia collusion investigation. His findings highlighted 17 major errors and omissions related to the FISA warrants against Carter Page. The Steele dossier, central to the FISA application, was criticized for its unreliability and political motives.

FBI notes from a 2017 interview with Steele’s source, Igor Danchenko, revealed the sketchy foundations of the dossier. Danchenko admitted that much of the information was hearsay and even joked that some salacious claims were made in jest. This underlines the shaky grounds on which the entire investigation was built.

The special counsel found the FBI unable to corroborate any substantive claims from the Steele dossier. This failure reflects poorly on the initial motivations and procedures of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation. The newly declassified texts from Peter Strzok and Lisa Page offer further insight into the internal workings of the investigation.

In one exchange, Clinesmith and Lisa Page discussed the “Crossfire Dragon” FISA draft for Carter Page, eager to get it approved. These communications reveal a concerted effort within the FBI to push the warrant through, despite the questionable basis. Clinesmith’s involvement in these discussions further cements his role in the flawed investigation.

Both Clinesmith and Boasberg have been tight-lipped in response to these revelations. Requests for comments sent to their respective offices have gone unanswered. This silence leaves many questions about the accountability of those involved in such high-stakes investigations.

The case against Clinesmith and the handling by Boasberg continue to fuel debates about justice and fairness. Critics argue that political bias played a role in the decision-making process. As new details emerge, the public remains divided on the implications for the FBI and its future operations.

Conservative voices have been vocal about the perceived miscarriage of justice. They argue that the leniency shown to Clinesmith is indicative of a broader issue of accountability and bias in the system. This case remains a talking point in discussions about reform and oversight in federal investigations.