The FBI's attempt to incriminate Trump and exonerate Hunter Biden

 Andrew McCarthy:

...

Ultimately, the bureau never had to pay the $1 million because neither Steele nor Danchenko could prove the dossier allegations. In fact, according to court filings, Durham’s investigation has concluded the so-called pee tape was a complete fabrication. Further, when the FBI finally got around to interviewing Danchenko, months after it first received Steele’s reporting, Danchenko debunked it as a screed of rumor and innuendo, much of it exaggerated and gussied up to look like professional intelligence analysis.

More to the point, though, that the FBI offered to pay such an exorbitant sum in hopes Steele’s anti-Trump claims could be backed up is proof positive that the bureau knew these claims were not verified.

That is key. The rules of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the Justice Department mandate the FBI must verify information before submitting it to the court in applying for surveillance warrants. Even though it could not prove the Steele allegations and had every reason to know they were exaggerated if not out-and-out false, the FBI relied on the Steele claims in sworn applications.

It gets worse. The FBI obtained FISC surveillance warrants to monitor former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in October 2016 and mid-January 2017, representing to the court that Trump appeared to be in a corrupt conspiracy with the Kremlin. Finally, in late January, the FBI interviewed Danchenko, who debunked Steele’s reporting. Nevertheless, even after speaking with Danchenko, the bureau continued relying on Steele’s allegations when — again under oath — it persuaded the court to extend the surveillance in April and June 2017.

Indeed, not only did the FBI fail to disclose to the Justice Department and the court that Danchenko had contradicted Steele’s claims. The bureau told the court it had interviewed Danchenko to “further corroborate” Steele’s reporting (which actually had not been corroborated). In so doing, the bureau elaborated, it found Danchenko to be “truthful and cooperative.”

Of course, what the FBI didn’t mention was that what Danchenko had been “truthful and cooperative” about was the fact that Steele’s claims were sheer nonsense. Thus, FISC judges were led to believe Danchenko had verified Steele’s reporting when the truth was just the opposite.

Under cross-examination Wednesday, Auten acknowledged Durham told him he was the subject of a criminal investigation. And after the Justice Department’s inspector general blasted the FBI’s performance in the Crossfire Hurricane probe, Director Christopher Wray referred Auten to the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility for an internal investigation and possible discipline.

Unbelievably, even with all that going on, the FBI brought Auten in during the run-up to the 2020 election to analyze derogatory information about Hunter Biden’s potentially corrupt overseas business dealings, which enriched the Biden family to the tune of millions of dollars.

Auten reportedly produced an analysis that pooh-poohed the disparaging Biden reporting as Russian disinformation. That claim, which appears to be baseless, was used by an FBI supervisor to undercut the criminal investigation of Hunter Biden and by former US intelligence officials to dismiss the New York Post’s reporting on Biden’s deeply disturbing laptop data.
...

It looks like some in the FBI have a political agenda that is inconsistent with the truth.  It also looks like top officials in the FBI are hamstrung by policies that keep them from firing those responsible for pushing their untruthful narratives.