
Four FBI wiretap applications targeting a Trump campaign volunteer were more inaccurate than previously known based on subsequent investigative information, an analysis shows.
The FBI applications to federal judges under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) are a central focus of the Justice Department’s special review of how the Obama administration started its probe into the Donald Trump campaign.
Obtaining four surveillance warrants on Carter Page from October 2016 to September 2017 was one of the FBI’s most aggressive steps to try to prove that Trump associates conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the 2016 election. The FBI asserted that Mr. Page was a foreign agent for Russia and helped it interfere in the election.
In the end, special counsel Robert Mueller’s March report said that his 22-month investigation didn’t find any such conspiracy. He essentially cleared Mr. Page.
The FISA warrants first came to public light in July 2018, when the FBI reluctantly declassified 412 pages of four highly redacted applications signed by senior FBI and Justice Department officials.
At the time they were released, Republicans leveled two main complaints: dubious corroboration of allegations against Mr. Page and the FBI’s use of Democratic Party opposition research, known as the dossier, to justify spying on the Trump campaign.
President Trump approved the release based on efforts by Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican and then-chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Nunes’ principal complaint was that agents relied on the 35-page dossier compiled by ex-British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who was paid with funds from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party.
What is known more fully today about the FISA applications’ accuracy comes from three main sources: a formal investigation by congressional Republicans into FBI actions, the Mueller report and court filings by Mr. Steele in London. He is being sued by Russians named in his infamous dossier.