U ~ ~ , . , r El''}
'.J J
SUP ~t!;t,L LI EJ!C E
• • ":'..: • •)1 I,

q. .

UNITED STATES
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
WASHINGTON, D.C.

IN RE ORDERS AND RECORDS OF THIS
COURT RELATED TO THE
SURVEILLANCE OF CARTER PAGE

• ~1~ ... 1t~v:

2D 18 FEB / 4 PH 2: I 3
LEEANN FLYNN HALL
CLERK OF COURT

No. Misc. 18-01

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC RELEASE OF ADDmONAL
DECLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND DEVELOPMENTS FURTHER SUPPORTING
PUBLICATION OF THE CARTER PAGE SURVEILLANCE RECORDS

On February 6, 2018, Adam Goldman, Charlie Savage and The New York Times
Company ("Movants") moved this Court to order publication of its records relating to the
surveillance of Carter Page. 1 Movants now respectfully submit this supplemental notice to bring
to the Court's attention two subsequent developments that have a direct bearing upon their
pending motion and the public's interest in disclosure of these materials.
First, on the same day Movants filed their motion, Republican Senators Chuck Grassley
and Lindsey Graham, with the approval of the FBI, made public a less-redacted version of a
criminal referral (''the Grassley-Graham Memo") related to the Page wiretapping applications. It
contains additional facts about the applications that the executive branch has chosen to
declassify. The Grassley-Graham Memo also contains certain characterizations about the Page
application materials that are disputed by other members of Congress who have access to the
applications.

1 The

COURT

pending motion seeks all orders relating to surveillance of Carter Page together
with the application materials and renewal application materials, with only such limited
redactions as may be essential to preserve information that remains properly classified. By way
of clarification, the warrant application materials sought by Movants include all related records,
including but not limited to the transcripts of any hearings before this Court relating to the
applications for surveillance of Carter Page.

 Second, on February 9, 2018, President Trump refused to declassify a memorandum (the
"Rebuttal Memo") prepared by Democratic members of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence (''HPSCI"). The Rebuttal Memo has been described as disputing certain claimed
facts and characterizations of the applications for the surveillance orders portrayed in a
memorandum authored under the direction of the HPSCI Chainnan, Republican Senator Devin
Nunes (the "Nunes Memo").
Each of these developments provides further grounds for this Court to order publication
of the Page surveillance orders and application materials under Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court ("FISC") Rule 62. The Grassley-Graham memo reveals previously classified infonnation
about the Page application materials, further eliminating the need to keep the application records
secret in their entirety. And the release of the less-redacted Grassley-Graham memo, coupled
with comments by Senator Dianne Feinstein and President Trump's refusal to declassify the
Rebuttal Memo, further heightens the public interest in the underlying records themselves. The
public has a vital and immediate interest in knowing whether the executive branch deliberately
misled the PISA Court to carry out unjustified surveillance of Carter Page in a scheme that was
"worse than Watergate," as some public officials have claimed,2 or whether there were no abuses
of the system, as other officials respond. 3

See, e.g., Representative Steve King (@SteveKinglA), Twitter (Jan. 20, 2018, 6:07
p.m.), https://twitter.com/stevekingia/status/954898277723443200.
2

See, e.g., Emily Tillett, Rep. Adam Schiff: FBI Followed "Correct Procedures" On
Carter Page Warrant, CBS News: Face the Nation (Feb. 11, 2018), https://www.cbsnews.com/
news/adam-schiff-fbi-followed-proper-procedures-on-carter-page-warrant/.
3

2

 I.

Disclosure Of Additional Disputed Claims About The Basis For The Carter Page
Surveillance Orders Further Warrants Publication of This Court's Records
On January 4, 2018, Senator Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

and Senator Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime and
Terrorism, referred Christopher Steele to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein for investigation of potential violations of a federal statute that bars
lying to federal agents, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. See Second Langford Deel. Ex. A. Steele is a retired
British intelligence agent and the author of the so-called "Steele Dossier," which compiles
unverified allegations by Steele's sources about links between Russia and President Donald
Trump and his associates. As declassified in the Nunes Memo, information Steele provided to
the F.B.I. was included in the applications for surveillance of Page. Deel. of John Langford
("First Langford Deel.") Ex. A at 5, In re Orders and Records of This Court Related to the

Surveillance ofCarter Page, No. Misc. 18-01 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. Feb. 6, 2018).
In support of their criminal referral, Senators Grassley and Graham attached the
Grassley-Graham Memo, an 8-page memorandum describing and analyzing information in the
Page warrant application materials submitted to this Court. Second Langford Deel. Ex. A.
Because both the existence of the Page orders and their contents were classified at the time of the
criminal referral, portions of the Grassley-Graham Memo were classified and redacted when the
referral was first announced.4
Upon release of the Nunes Memo, however, Senator Grassley wrote to Wray and
Rosenstein to "formally demand a Mandatory Declassification Review" of the Grassley-Graham

4

See Letter from Sen. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Sen. Judiciary Comm., to Christopher
A. Wray, Dir. Fed. Bureau oflnvestigation, & Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Att'y Gen. (Feb.
2, 2018), available at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/after-house-gopmemo-tbi-oks-release-unclassified-steele-referral.
3

 Memo. 5 On February 6, 2018, with the approval of the executive branch, the senators released a
less-redacted version of the Grassley-Graham Memo disclosing additional facts about the Page
warrant applications.
Like the Nunes Memo, the Grassley-Graham Memo focuses on the use of information
from Steele in the Page application materials. See generally Second Langford Deel. Ex. A. But
the portrayal of the facts undergirding their respective arguments for why such inclusion was
questionable differ in certain key respects.
For example, the Nunes Memo stresses that the Page application materials did not
disclose to the Court that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
funded Steele's research. The Nunes Memo suggests that the judges who reviewed the
applications containing this material were misled because they did not know the information had
a politically motivated, rather than neutral, origin as they evaluated the material's credibility.
First Langford Deel. Ex. A at 5. As a preliminary matter, when the Nunes Memo was made
public, Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat on the HPSCI, cited this as one of
several "serious mischaracterizations" of the Page application materials, saying: ''The Majority
suggests that the FBI failed to alert the court as to Mr. Steele's potential political motivations or
the political motivations of those who hired him, but this is not accurate." Second Langford
Deel. Ex.Bat 3. That same day, another Democrat on the HPSCI, Representative Eric
Swalwell, told CNN that "it was disclosed to the FISA court that part of the evidence was from a

5

Letter from Sen. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Sen. Judiciary Comm., to Christopher A.
Wray, Dir. Fed. Bureau oflnvestigation, & Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Att'y Gen. (Feb. 2,
2018), available at https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/after-house-gop-memofbi-oks-release-unclassified-steele-referral.
4

 politically motivated source.''6 Asked ifSwalwell's claim was true later that day in a Fox News
interview, Representative Nunes said: "No. These guys tell so many lies you can't keep track of
them."7 (Three days later, however, pressed again in another Fox News interview about reports.
that a footnote in the PISA application did alert judges that the Steele Dossier had political
origins, Representative Nunes, without explicitly confirming that the FBI had notified the court
of that context after all, portrayed "a footnote saying that something might be political" as
insufficient. 8)
While the Grassley-Graham Memo also stresses that this Court was not specifically told
that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign were Steele's clients, it
appears to confirm that this Court was told that Steele's research was politically funded. The
Grassley-Graham Memo states that ''the FBI noted to a vaguely limited extent the political
origins of the dossier," followed by a redaction related to the law firm that hired Fusion GPS,
which in tum had hired Steele. Second Langford Deel. Ex. A at 5. In light of what has already
been made public, unsealing and disclosing the portions of the Page application materials that
discuss what, exactly, the Court was told about the motivation for Steele's research would cause
no conceivable harm to national security, but would bring clarity to a significant factual dispute.
The Grassley-Graham Memo also has now made public more information about the PISA
application materials' inclusion of a Yahoo News article about Carter Page, while simultaneously

6

Tim Hains, Rep. Swalwell: Nunes Memo Misquotes McCabe's Statement About Steele
Dossier/FISA Warrant, RealClear Politics (Feb. 2, 2018), https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
video/2018/02/02/rep_swalwell_nunes_memo_misquotes_mccabes_statement_about_steele_dos
sierfisa_warrant.html.
7 See Fox News, Nunes Addresses the Release ofthe Memo and the Fallout (Feb. 2, 2018),
available at https://www .youtube.com/watch?v=R9h 1Lw-uQpM.
8 See Fox News, Devin Nunes Full One on One Interview with Fox and Friends (Feb. 5.
2018), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl-lkTXAP7UbU.
5

 adding to the factual cloud around it. The Nunes Memo claims this article was improperly used
by the FBI as corroboration of Steele's information, even though (as Steele later disclosed in a
spring 2017 court filing in London), Steele was apparently a source for the article. First Langford
Deel. Ex. A at 5-6. Notably, Schiff had deemed the claim that the FISA application used this
article for the purpose of corroboration as another "serious· mischaracterization[]" in the Nunes
Memo. Second Langford Deel. Ex. B at 3-4. Even though the Grassley-Graham Memo focuses
on this article with a skeptical eye, its critique is not that the FBI application purportedly used it
as corroboration.
The Grassley-Graham Memo instead focuses on a newly declassified quotation from the
FISA application in which the FBI said it "does not believe" that Mr. Steele "directly" gave his
information about Mr. Page to the news outlet, a belief that the subsequent London court filing
showed was apparently mistaken. Second Langford Deel. Ex. A at 6. The Grassley-Graham
Memo presents this discrepancy as evidence that Mr. Steele lied to the FBI about his contacts
with reporters, calling into question the FBI' s assurance to the FISA Court that he had a record
of providing credible information. See id But the suggestion that Mr. Steele lied has been
disputed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, who as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary
Committee also had access to the underlying FISA warrant application materials. In response to
the release of the less-redacted version of the Grassley-Graham Memo, Senator Feinstein noted
that the Memo "fails to identify when, if ever, Mr. Steele was asked about and provided a
materially false statement about his press contacts." Second Langford Deel. Ex. C at 2.
The release of the underlying FISA application materials would help clear up ( 1) whether
the Yahoo News article was presented to the FISA Court for the purpose of corroboration, or for
some other purpose that would make its underlying sourcing less material, and (2) whether the

6

 FBI told the FISA Court that in its October 1 meeting with Steele, he was asked about his
contacts with reporters and affirmatively said he had not had any despite having provided
information about Page to Yahoo News the previous month - or whether the FBI instead jumped
to an erroneous assumption on its own, without any act by Steele that undermined his credibility.
Further, release of the less redacted Grassley-Graham Memo implicates an even more
significant factual dispute: the relative volume and significance of the Steele information vis-Avis unrelated evidence included in the applications put before this Court. The Nunes Memo
focuses almost exclusively on the Steele information, which it portrays as "essential" to the
initial application, while noting that the application also references George Papadopoulos. First
Langford Deel. Ex. A at 5. The Grassley-Graham Memo also focuses almost exclusively on the
Steele information, and states that the initial application was "largely based" on it. Second
Langford Deel. Ex. A at 4. Democrats who have reviewed the application materials, however,
have suggested that the Court was told many other things about Page specifically and Russia's
actions in general, and therefore the Memos' emphasis on Steele is misleading. See, e.g., Second
Langford Deel. Ex. B at 3-4. Even if not every such detail can be revealed, release of redacted
versions of the Page application materials would help demonstrate the relative volume of the
Steele information to other material put before the Court.
These ongoing disputes over the facts surrounding the issuance of orders to surveil Carter
Page are not some minor partisan squabble. They lie at the center of a highly consequential
debate over the basis, motivation and propriety of the origins of the ongoing investigation into
Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election and links to the Trump presidential
campaign, a probe which is now led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If, as Republicans
allege, the FBI presented false information to the Court in order to surveil a Presidential

7

 campaign, that would be a matter of overriding public concern. At a minimum, this dispute
raises important questions about the effectiveness of the FISA Court's oversight and protections
for citizen's Fourth Amendment rights. The public interest in laying bare the true facts-facts
that can largely be determined from publication of this Court's records-is only intensified by
the apparent contradictions between the Nunes Memo and the Grassley-Graham Memo, and the
claims of omission and misrepresentation being advanced by Democrats who have seen the
underlying application materials. Publication of the application materials and orders is clearly in
the pubJic interest.
In addition, the public dissemination via the Grassley-Graham Memo of additionaJ, nowdeclassified details about the contents of the Page application material further warrants
publication of this Court's orders and the application materials themselves. Between the Nunes
Memo and the Grassley-Graham Memo, the public knows (1) the date when DOJ and FBI first
applied for and received a warrant from this Court authorizing electronic surveillance of Carter
Page; (2) at least some of the grounds on which the government sought the warrant, including
verbatim quotes from the initial application; (3) the months when DOJ and FBI requested and
received extensions from this Court to continue its surveillance of Carter Page; (4) at least some
of the grounds on which the government sought those extensions, including verbatim quotes
from those requests; and (5) the identities of the senior government officials who signed off on
the appJications. First Langford Deel. Ex. A at 4-7; Second Langford Deel. Ex. A at 3-10.
In this context, there is no longer a proper justification for this Court to maintain its Page
orders and all related warrant application materials entirely under seal. Only with disclosure will
the pubJic be able to assess the competing narratives and allegations of wrongdoing, including
claims that this Court was misled by the Department of Justice. See, e.g., Langford Deel. Ex. A

8

 at 3-10. Moreover, given the extent of information about those orders and applications made
public by the President, the Nunes Memo, the Grassley-Graham Memo, and the FBI, release of
the orders and materials with appropriate redactions should now be entirely feasible. See In re

Orders ofthis Court Interpreting Sec. 215 ofthe Patriot Act, No. MISC. 13-02, 2013 WL
5460064, at *8 (Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. Sept. 13, 2013).9
II.

The President's Refusal To Declassify The Democrats' Rebuttal Memo Also
Magnifies The Public Interest In Publication Of This Court's Records
In response to the Nunes Memo, Democratic members of the HPSCI prepared a Rebuttal

Memo that reportedly disputes key factual characterizations in the Nunes Memo. to On February
5, 2018, the HPSCI voted unanimously to invoke House Rule X-the same process used to
initiate the publication ofthe Nunes Memo-and publish the Rebuttal Memo.ti Under Rule X,
the Preside~t had five days to object to the Rebuttal Memo's disclosure. On February 9, 2018,
despite having cleared the release of the Nunes Memo, President Trump refused to declassify the
Rebuttal Memo and objected to its release, citing concerns of the Department of Justice.
Langford Deel. Ex. C. The President encouraged the HSPCI to propose publication of a revised
version of the Rebuttal Memo with many facts removed to address the Department of Justice's
concerns. Id

9

In addition, neither the existence of the Page orders and warrant applications nor
information in the warrant applications detailed in the Nunes Memo and the Grassley-Graham
Memo can properly remain classified. See Exec. Order 13,526, 75 Fed. Reg. 707, § l .2(a)(3);
Wolf v. C.LA., 473 F.3d 370, 378 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
10 Nicholas Fandos, Committee Votes to Release Democratic Rebuttal to G. O.P. Russia
Memo, N.Y. Times (Feb. 5 2018), https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/us/politics/democraticmemo-adam-schiff-trump.html.
II Id
9

 This refusal to disclose the Democratic rebuttal has set off another round of controversy,
with accusations and counter-accusations about what actually occurred when the Page warrants
were requested and obtained. 12 Disclosure of this Court's orders and warrant application
materials, including hearing transcripts, is now even more critical to inform the public debate and
assure the public of the integrity of this Court's decisions. See Mot. at 8-11 ; In re Orders ofthis

Court Interpreting Sec. 215 ofthe Patriot Act, No. Misc. 13-02, 2013 WL 5460064, at *7
(Foreign Intel. Surv. Ct. Sept. 13, 2013). As Movants explained, publication would also assist
legislators by enabling them to "representO their constituents and discharge[e] their legislative
responsibilities." In re Orders ofthis Court Interpreting Sec. 215 ofthe Patriot Act, 2013 WL
5460064, at *7. 13
This controversy is a matter of obvious and legitimate public concern, involving
accusations of abuse of power by high government officials. It is difficult to imagine a situation
where the public interest could more clearly be served by publication of a specific warrant
application under Rule 62.
CONCLUSION

For these reasons and the reasons presented in their initial motion papers, Movants
respectfully request this Court to direct publication of its orders authorizing the electronic

12

See, e.g., Steven Nelson, Adam Schiff: Trump Didn't Release Democratic Memo
Because Court Citations Undermine 'Vindication', Wash. Examiner (Feb. 11, 2018),
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/adam-schiff-trump-didnt-release-democratic-memobecause-court-citations-undermine-vindication/article/2648769; Alex Ward, Trump Decides Not
to Release the Schiff Memo, Vox (Feb. 9, 2018), https://www.vox.com/2018/2/9/16991324/
trump-schiff-memo-nunes-mcgahn.
13

Cf. Br. of Amici Curiae U.S. Representatives Amash et al., Jn re Orders ofthis Court
Interpreting Sec. 215 ofthe Patriot Act, 2013 WL 5460064 (June 28, 2013) (explaining that open
debate and Congress's ability to inform the public freely and without restriction is critical to our
democratic system and maintaining confidence in the government), available at
http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Misc%2013-02%20Brief-l.pdf.
IO

 surveillance of Carter Page, together with the government's initial warrant application and
subsequent renewal applications and any related hearing transcripts, with only those limited
redactions necessary to maintain the secrecy of still-non-public information the disclosure of
which could reasonably be expected to harm the national security.
Dated: February 13, 2018
By: /s/ John Langford
John Langford
Hannah Bloch-Wehba

David E. Mccraw
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone:212-556-4031
Fax:212-556-1009

MEDIA FREEDOM & INFORMATION
ACCESS CLINIC
ABRAMS INSTITUTE

Yale Law School 14
P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520
Phone: (203) 436-5831
Email: john.langford@ylsclinics.org

Christina Koningisor
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY

Legal Department
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 556-1985
Fax: (212) 556-4634
Email: christina.koningisor@nytimes.com

David A. Schulz
MEDIA FREEDOM & INFORMATION
ACCESS CLINIC
ABRAMS INSTITUTE

1675 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 850-6103
Email: schulzd@ballardspahr.com

14

This motion has been prepared in part by a clinic associated with the Abrams Institute
for Freedom of Expression and the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, but does not
purport to present the school's institutional views, if any.
11

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, John Langford, certify that on this day, February 13th, 2018, a copy of the foregoing
brief was served on the following persons by the methods indicated:
By email and overnight UPS delivery:
Debra M. Guerrero-Randall
Litigation Security Group
U.S. Department of Justice
2 Constitution Square
145 N Street, N.E.
Suite 2W-115
Washington, DC 20530
Debra.Guerrero-Randall@usdoj.gov
By overnight UPS delivery:
Jeffery Sessions
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
National Security Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
Edward O'Callaghan
Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security
U.S. Department of Justice
National Security Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530

Isl John Langford
John Langford
MEDIA FREEDOM & INFORMATION

ACCESS CLINIC
ABRAMS INSTITUTE

Yale Law School
P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520
Phone: (203) 436-5831
Email: john.langford@ylsclinics.org

 UNITED STATES
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT
WASHING TON, D.C.

IN RE ORDERS AND RECORDS OF THIS
COURT RELATED TO THE
SURVEILLANCE OF CARTER PAGE

No. Misc. 18-01

SECOND DECLARATION OF JOHN LANGFORD

1.

I am a supervising attorney at the Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic

("MFIA Clinic"), which represents Movants Adam Goldman, Charlie Savage, and The New
York Times Company in this motion.
2.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in New York.

3.

I submit this declaration in support of Movants' motion for publication of court

records.
4.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the following publicly

available criminal referral and cover letter: Memorandum from Charles E. Grassley, Chairman,
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judjciary, & Lindsey 0. Graham, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Crime and Terrorism, U.S. Senate Committee on theJudiciary, to Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein,
Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, & Hon. Christopher A. Wray, Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation (Jan. 4, 2018), available at https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/
imo/media/doc/2018-0206%20CEG%20LG%20to%20DOJ%20FBI%20(Unclassified%20Steele
%20Referral).pdf.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit Bis a true and correct copy of the following publicly
available press release: House Intelligence Committee Minority Response to Release of

 Chairman Nunes' Misleading Memo, U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select
Committee On Intelligence: Democrats (Feb. 2, 2018), https://democrats-intelligence.house.govl
news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentlD=350.
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the following publicly

available news release: Dianne Feinstein, Analysis Refutes Criminal Referral of Christopher

Steel, U.S. Senate, Feb. 9, 2018, available at https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publicl_cachel
filesl019109710d10-8885-4c05-9deed587fe0b7c0d/4E7F2E9D9626E9A02A76AC28640
DOAO l .steele-criminal-referral-analysis. pdf.

*****
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 13th day of February, 2018, in New Haven, Connecticut.
By: Isl John Langford
John Langford

 EXHIBIT A

,'

..

\

~••

'~-

,

·'

,~

,.. :

,l •

'. .

: :.

~

..... • ••

~!.--1,••·
~\··,~~

..

..

.... .

... • .. ~ J '..'. :
.':·•1_J411l

\

~

··_. . . . . -:': ...

',. .•••

.........

~ ~

'",~.

...

' •

__ ,

<._.._ ..

' · ', • . . . ,

··'"''

: ...'

.:.: :

~~

"'

; ·,

--~

-:.-·:.

', '\ ....
I

•

. .:. .

< •,'

..;.. ••

l

.. ..

~!~·:~- ~
·

'". '
•

I'

.. ..
•

~·

'., ~;
.. 1..,._ ~·

•.• .. _,, ,.'.

~ •.

:--.·.

•.:.

' .... : ., -~ .'..>• _.:.

,1:.,.. -,.,,-.,.

., ·.·, .

,..
;..

..

-· ~

•

, '

<. ~

•

llnitcd Starrs Senate

; .....

''·•

January 4, 2018
VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein
Deputy Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530

The Honorable Christopher A. Wray
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation
935 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20535

Dear Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Director Wray:
Attached please find a classified memorandum related to certain communications between
Christopher Steele and multiple U.S. news outlets regarding the so-called "Trump dossier" that Mr.
Steele compiled on behalf of Fusion GPS for the Clinton Campaign and the Democratic National
Committee and also provided to the FBI.
Based on the information contained therein, we are respectfully referring Mr. Steele to you for
investigation of potential violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, for statements the Committee has reason to
believe Mr. Steele made regarding his distribution of information contained in the dossier.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter. If you have any questions,
please contact Patrick Davis or Delisa Lay of Chairman Orassley's staff at (202) 224-5225.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary

Enclosure: As stated.

~-~~.tJ----Chairman
Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism
Committee on the Judiciary

 Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein and Director Wray
January 4, 2018
Page2 of2

cc:

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary

The Honorable Richard Burr
Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The Honorable Mark Warner
Vice Chairman
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
The Honorable Devin Nunes
Chairman
House Pennanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The Honorable Adam Schiff
Ranking Member
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

 MEMORANDUM
(U)

FROM:

Charles E. Grassley, Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary
Lindsey 0. Graham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism,
U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary

TO:

The Honorable Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice
The Honomble Christopher A. Wray, Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation

RE:

Referral of Christopher Steele for Potential Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001

(U) As you know, fonner British Intelligence Officer Christopher Steele was hired by the
private firm Fusion OPS in June 2016 to gather information about "links between Russia and
[then-presidential candidate] Donald Trump." 1 Pursuant to that business arrangement,' Mr. Steele
prepared a series· of documents styled as intelligence reports, some of which were later compiled
into a "dossier" and published by BuzzFeed in January 2017. 2 On the fkce of the dossier, it
appears that Mr. Steele gath.eled much ofhis information from Russian govemment sources
inside Russia.3 According to the law firm Perkins Coie, Mr. Steele's dossier-related effons were
funded through Fusion GPS by that law firm on behalf of the Democratic National Committee

and the Clinton Campaign.4
(U) In response to reporting by the Washington Post about Mr. Steele's relationship with

the FBI relating to this partisan dossier project, the Judiciary Committee began raising a series of
questions to the FBI and the Justice Department about these matters as part of the Committee's
constitutional ovemight responsibilities.5
{U) The FBI has since provided the Committee access to classified documents relevant to
the FBI's relationship with Mr. Steele and whether the FBI relied on his dossier work. As
explained in greater detail below, when information in those classified documents is evaluated in
light of sworn statements by Mr. Steele in British litigation, it appears that either Mr. Steele lied.
to the FBI or the British court, or that the clmmfied documents reviewed by the Committee

contain materially false statements.

i (U) Defence, Gul!arsv et Al v. Orbls Butlnua lnt11lllgence Limited and Clzrlstobpher Steele, Claim No.
HQ17D00413, Queen's Bench(Apr. 4, 2017), para. 9 [Herelnafter"SteeleStatement I"] [AUachmentA].
2(U) Id at para. 10; Ken Bensinger, Miriam Elder, and Mmk Schoo&, These Reports A.Hoge 2hanp Haa Dsep 77a
to Russia, BuzzFBED (Jan. 10, 2017).

3(U)/d
'(U) Adam Bntous, Devlin Barrett mid Rosalind S. Heklerman, Clinton Campaign, DNC Paid/or Raearoh that Led
to Ruala DosalBI', nm WASHINGTON POST (Oct. 24, 2017).
s (U) Tom Hamburger and Rosalind S. Helclemum. FBI Ones PlanMd to Pay Former Brltlah -"1 who AuthoNd
Controver1lal »ump Doaslw, nm WASHINGTONPosT (Feb. 28, 2017).

1

,.

 (U) In response to the Committee's inquiries, the Chairman and Ranking Member
received a bri~g on March 15, 2017, from then..Director James B. Comey, Jr.

That briefing addi'essed the Russia investigation, the FBI's relationship with Mr.
Steele, and the FBPs reliance on Mr. Steele's dossier Jn two applications it filed for surveillance
under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Then, on March 17, 2017, the Chairman
and Ranking Member were provided; copies of the two relevant PISA applications, which
requested authority to conduct surveillance of Carter Page. Both relied heavily on Mr. Steele's .
dossier claims, and both applications were granted by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (FISC). In December of2017, the Chairman. Ranking Member, and Subeommittee
Chainnan Graham were allowed to review a total of four FISA applications relying on the
dossier to seek surveillance of Mr. Carter Page, as well as numerous other FBI documents
relating to Mr. Steele.
~the March 2017 briefing with then-Director Comey, he $led

that-

(U) Similarly, in June 2017, mrmer FBI Director Comey testified publicly before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that he had brided President-Elect Trump on the
dossier allegations in January 2017, which.Mr. Comey described as "salacious" and
"unverified." 6
~asked at the March 2017 briefing why the FBI relied on the dossier in~

PISA applications absent meaningful corroboration-and in light of the highly political motives
surrounding its creation-then..Director Comey stated that the FBI included the dossier
allegations about Carter Page in the PISA applications because Mr. Steele himself was
considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau.
-Indeed, the documents we have reviewed show that the FBI took important
investigative steps largely based on Mr. Steele's information-and relying heavily on his
credibility. Specifically, on October 21, 2016, the FBI filed its first warrant application under
PISA for Carter Page.
The bulk of the application consists
of allegations against Page that were disclosed to the FBI by Mr. Steele and are also outlined in
the Steele dossier. The application appears to contain no additional information corroborating
the dossier allegations against Mr. Page, although it does cite to a news article that appears to be
sourced to Mr. Steele's dossier as well.

6 (U)

Statement ofJamcs 8. Camey, Jr., Hearing ofthe U.S. Sen. Select Comm. on Intelligence (JUD8 8, 2017).

2

 The FBI discussed the reliability of this unverified information provided by Mr.
Steele in footnotes 8 and 18 of the PISA warrant application. First, the FBI noted to a vaguely
limited extent the political origins of the dossier. In footnote 8 the FBI stated that the dossier
information was compiled pursuant to the direction of a law firm who had hired an "identified
U.S. person"-now known as Glenn Simpson of Fusion GP

The application fi.iled to
disclose that the identities of Mr. Simpson's ultimate clients were the Clinton campaign and the
DNC.
- T h e FBI stated to the FISC that "based on [Steele's] previous reporting history
with the FBI, whereby [Steele] provided reliable information to the FBI, the FBI believes
[Steele's] reporting to be credible." In short, it appears the FBI relied on admittedly
uncorroborated infonnation, funded by and obtained for Secretary Clinton's presidential
campaign, in order to conduct surveillance of an associate of the opposing presidential candidate.
It did so based on Mr. Steele's personal credibility and presumably having faith in his process of
obtaining the information.
(U) But there is substantial evidence suggesting that Mr. Steele materially misled the FQI
about a key aspect of his dossier efforts, one which bears on his credibility.

- Y e t the FISA applications note the existence of a news article dated September
23, 2016, which in particular contained some of the same dossier information about Mr. Page
compiled by Mr. Steele and on which the FBI relied in its application. While not explicitly
stated, this is presumably the article by Michael Isikoffof Yahoo News, titled "U.S. Intel
Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Adviser and Kremlin."
the

application attempts to·explain away the inconsistency between Mr. Steele's assertion to the FBI
and the existence of the article, apparently to shield Mr. Steele,s credibility on which it still
relied for the renewal request. 1he application to the FISC said: "Given .that the information
contained in the September 23rd news article generally matches the information about Page that
[S~eele] discovered doing his/her research,-·

" - T h e FBI bas :fidled to provide the Committee the 1023s docmneiltfng all ofMr. Steele's statements to the
FBI, so the Committee is relying on 1he accuracy ofthe PBrs representation to 1he FISC regarding those statements.

3

 The FBI does not believe that [Steele] directly provided this ·
informa1ion to the press (emphasis added).
0

In footnote 9 o~ its January 2017 application to renew the PISA warrant· for Mr.
Page, the FBI again addressed Mr. Steele's credibility. At that time, the FBI noted that it had
suspended its relationship with Mr. Steele in October 2016 because of Steele's "unauthorized
disclosure of infbrmation to the press." The FBI relayed that Steele had been bothered by the
FBI's notification to Congress in October 2016 about the reopening of the Clinton investigation,
and as a result "[Steele] independently and against the prior admonishment from the FBI to
speak only with the FBI.on this matter, released the reporting discussed herein [dossier
allegations against Page] to an identified news organization." However, the FBI continued to
cite to Mr. Steele's past work as evidence of his reliability, and stated that "the incident that led
to the FBI suspending its relationship with [Mr. Steele] occurred after [Mr. Steele] provided" the
· FBI with the dossier information descnDed in the application. The FBI further asserted in
footnote 19 that it did not ~elieve that Steele directly gave information to Yahoo News that
"published the September 23 News Article."

So, as documented in the PISA renewals, the FBI s1ill seemed to believed Mr.
Steele's earlier claim that he had only provided the dossier information to the FBI and Pusionand not to the media-prior to his October media contact~ resulted in the FBI suspending the
relationship. Accordingly, the FBI still deemed the information he provided prior to the October
disclosure to be reliable. After all, the FBI already believed Mr. Steele was reliable, he had.
previously told the FBI he had not shared the information with the press - and lying to the FBI is
a crime. In defending Mr. Steele's credll>ility to the F~C, the FBI had posited an innocuous
explanatio~ for the September 23 article, based on the assumption that Mr. Steele had told the ·
FBI the truth about his press contacts. The FBI then vouched for him twice more, using the same
rationale, in subsequent renewal applications filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court in April and June 2017.
(U) However, public reports, court filings, and information obtained by the Committee
during witness interviews in the course of its ongoing investigation indicate that Mr. Steele not
only provided dossier infonnation to the FBI, bµt also to numerous media organiz.ations prior to
the end of his relationship with the FBI in October 2016.8
(U) In Steele's swom court filings in litigation in London, he admitted that he "gave off
the record briefings to a small nmnber ofjournalists about the pre-election memoranda [I.e., the
dossier] in late summer/autumn 2016."9 In another swom filing in that case, Mr. S~lefurther
• (U) See Steele Statement I; Defendants' Response to Claimants' Request ~r Further Information Pursuant to CPR

Part 11. G1lbarfN et. Al"· Otbls Bmlness Intelligence Limited and Chratophel' Steele, Claim No. HQ17D00413,
Queen's Bench (May 18, 2017), (Hereinafter "Steele Statement2"] (Attachment B]; Tom Hamburger and Rosalind
S. HeldenuaDt FBI Once Planned to Pay Former British .spy who Authored Controveralal 'lnlmp DOlaler, Tim
WASHINOTON POST (Feb. 28, 2017); Simpson Transcript, on Pile with Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary.
9 (U) Steele Statement 1 at para. 32.

4

 stated th8tjoumalists from "the New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New
Yorker, and CNN" were "briefed at the end of September 2016 by iSteeieJ and Fusion at
Fusion's insiruction."10 The filing further states that Mr. Steele "subsequently participated in
further meetings at Fusion,s instruction with Fusion and the New York Tunes, the Washington
Post, and Yahoo News, which took place mid-October 2016."11 According to these court filings,
"[t]he briefings involved the disclosure of limited intelligence regarding indications of Russian
interference in the US election process and the possible co-ordination of members of Trwnp's
campaign.team and Russian government officials."12 In his interview with the Committee,
Olenn Simpson of Fusion OPS confirmed this account by Mr. Steele and his company as tiled in
the British court. 13
The first of these filings was publicly reported in the U.S. m~ in April of
2017, yet the FBI did not subsequently disclose to the FISC this evidence suggesting that Mr.
Steele had lied to the FBI. Instead the application still relied primarily on his credibility prior to
the October media incident.

The FBI received similar information from a Justice Department
official, Bruce Ohr, who maintained contacts with Mr. Simpson and Mr. Steele about their
dossier work, and ~se wife also worked for Fusion GPS on the Russia proJect.

He also noted in the
same interview that Mr. Steele was "desperate" to see that Mr. Tramp was not elected
president 16 None of the infurmation provided by Mr. Ohr in his interviews with the FBI was
included in the FISA renewal applications, despite its relevance to whether Mr. Steele had lied to
~ FBI about his oontacts with the media as well as its broader relevance to his credibility and
his stated political motive.

(U) Steele Statement2 atpara. 18. (emphasis added).
u
Id. The filing also apparently described tho media contact that resulted in tho FBI's suspension ofits
relationabfp with Mr. Steele, stating: "Jn addition, and again at Pusion•s instruction, in late October 2016 d:te Second'
Defendant briefed a journalist fi:om. Mother Jones by Skype."
12 (U)ld.
.
13 M Simpson Tnmscript, On Pile with the Sen. Comm. on tho Judiciary at 205..()7.
10

14
is
1&

Ohr FD-302 (Nov. 22, 2016).
-OhrPD-302(Dec:.12,2016).
Ohr FD-302 (Nov. 22. 2016).

s .

 -Whether Mr. Steele lied to the FBI about his media contacts is reteVant for at
least two reasons. First, it is relevant to his credibility as a source, particularly given the lack of
corroboration for his claims,, at least at the time they were included in the FISA applicdations.
Second, it is relevant to the reliability of his information-gathering efforts.
(U) Mr. Steele conducted his work for Fusion OPS compiling the ''pre--election
memoranda" "[b]etween June and early November 2016."17 Jn the British litigation, Mr. Steele
acknowledged brlefingjournalists about the dossier memoranda "in late summer/autumn
2016."18 Unsurprisingly, during the summer of2016, reports of at least some of the dossier
allegations began circulating among reporters and people involved in Rwmian issues.19 Mr.
Steele also admitted in the British litigation to briefing journalists from the Washington Post,
Yahoo News, the New Yorker, and CNN in September of2016.20 Simply put, the more people
who contemporaneously knew that Mr. Steele was compiling his dossier, the more likely it was
wlnerable to manipulation. In fiict, in the British litigation, which involves a post-election
dossier memorandum, Mr. Steele admitted that he received and included in it unsollclted--and
unverified-allegations.21 That filing implies that he-similarly received unsolicited intelligence
on these matters prior to the election as well, stating that Mr. Steele "continued to receive
·unaollclted lntelllgence on the matters covered by the pro-election memoranda after the US
Presidential election."22

-(U) One memorandum by Mr. Steele that was not published by Buzzfeed is dated October
19, 2016. The report alleges
, as well as
Mr. Steele's memorandum states that his compmy ''received this report from II
US State Department,'• that the report was the second in a series, and that the report was
information that came from a foreign sub-source who "ism touch w i t h - , a contact
o - a friend of the Clintons, who passed· it
It is troubling enough
that the Clinton Campaign funded Mr. Steele's work, but that these Clinton associates were
contemporaneously feeding Mr. Steele allegations raises additional concerns about bis
credibility.

to-."

11 (U} Steele Statement I at para. 9.
18 (U) Steele Statement 1 at para. 32

'' (U) Ahkmetsbln Transcript, On Filo with the Sen. Comm. on the Judiciary (Mr. Ahkmetshin Informed the
Commftteo that he began hearing fi'omjoumallsts about the dossier before It was published, and thought it was the
summer of2016).
:ro (U) Steele Statement 2 at para. 18 (emphasis added).
21 (U) Steele Statement 1 at para. 18 and 20c.
22 (U) Id.; sea Steele Statement 2 at 4 ("Such intelligence was not acdvely sought, It was merely received.")

6

 Simply put, Mr. Steele told the :fBI he had not shared the Carter Page dossier
information beyond his client and the FBI. The Department repeated that claim to the FISC. Yet
Mr. Steele acknowledged in swom filings that he did brief Yahoo News and other media
organimtions about the dossier around the time of the publicati~n of the Yahoo News article that
seems to be based on the dossier.
(U) On September 23, 2016, Yahoo News published its ardcle entided "U.S. Intel ·
Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Adviser and Kremlin."11 That article descnDed claims
about meetings between Carter Page and Russians, including Igor Sechin. Mr. Sechin is
descn"bed in the article as "a longtime Putin associate and former Russ~ deputy prime minister"
und~r sanction by the Treasury Department in response to Russia's actions in the Ukraine.24 The
article attributes the information to "a well-plaoed Westem intelligence source," who reportedly
said that "[a]t their alleged mee1ing, Sechin raised the issue of the lifting of sanctions with
Page."2' This information also appears in multiple 11memoranda" that make up the dossier.26
(U) In sum, around the same time Yahoo News published its article containing dossier
information about Carter Page, Mr. Steele and Fusion OPS had briefed Yahoo News and other
news outlets about information contained in the dossier.

These filcts appear to directly contradict the FBl's assertions in its initial
application for the Page PISA warrant, as well as subsequent renewal applications. The FBI
repeatedly represented to the court that :M'r. Steele told the FBI he did not have unauthorized
contacts with the press about the dossier prior to October 2016. The FISA applications make
these claims specifically in the conteXt of the September 2016 Yahoo News article. But Mr.
Steele has admitted-publicly before a court of law-that he did have such contacts with the
press at this'time, and his fonner business partner Mr. Simpson has con.finned it to the
Committee. Thus, the FISA applications are either materia11y false in claiming that Mr. Steele
said he did not provide dossier information to the press prior to Octob_er 2016, or Mr. Steele
made materially false statements to the FBI when he claimed he only provided the dossier
infonnation to his business partner and the FBI.
In this case, Mr. Steele's apparent deception seems to have posed significant,
material consequences on the FBI's investigative decisions and representations to the court. Mr.
Steele's information formed a significant portion of the FBI's warrant application, and the PISA
application relied more heavily on Steele's credibility than on any independent verification·or
corroboration for his claims. Thus the basis for the warrant authorizing surveillance on a U.S.
citizen rests largely on Mr. Steele's cmboility. The Department of Justice has a responsibility to
23

(U) Michael Isfkoff, U.S. Intel Officials Probe Ties Between 'lhnnp .A.dvlser and Kremlin, YAHOO NBWs (Sept. 23,

2016).
24(U)Jd.
25 (U)Jd.
26 (U) Bensinger et. al, BUZZFBBD.

7

.

:;

 determine whether Mr. Steele provided false infonnation to the FBI and whether the FBl's
representations to the court were in error.
(U) Accordingly, we are referring Christopher Steele to the Department of Justice for
investigation of potential violation(s) of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

8

 EXHIBIT 

Q

MENU

HOME NEWS

Press

Re~eases

0

SHARE

House Intelligence Committee Minority Response to Release of Chairman
Nunes' Misleading Memo
Washington, February 2, 2018 I o comments
Washington, DC - Today, the Minority of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
responded to the release of HPSCI Chairman Nunes' memo:
"Chairman Nunes' decision, supported by House Speaker Ryan and Republican Members of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to publicly release misleading allegations
against the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation is a shameful effort to
discredit these institutions, undermine the Special Counsel's ongoing investigation, and undercut
congressional probes. Furthermore, their refusal to allow release of a comprehensive response
memorandum prepared by Committee Democrats is a transparent effort to suppress the full
truth.
"As the DOJ emphasized to Chairman Nunes, the decision to employ an obscure and never
before used House rule to release classified information without DOJ and FBI vetting was
'extraordinarily reckless.' The selective release and politicization of classified information sets a
terrible precedent and will do long-term damage to the Intelligence Community and our law
enforcement agencies. If potential intelligence sources know that their identities might be
compromised when political winds arise, those sources of vital information will simply dry up, at
great cost to our national security.

 "The Republican document mischaracterizes highly sensitive classified information that few
Members of Congress have seen, and which Chairman Nunes himself chose not to review. It fails
to provide vital context and information contained in DOJ's FISA application and renewals, and
ignores why and how the FBI initiated, and the Special Counsel has continued, its
counterintelligence investigation into Russia's election interference and links to the Trump
campaign. The sole purpose of the Republican document is to circle the wagons around the
White House and insulate the President. Tellingly, when asked whether the Republican staff who
wrote the memo had coordinated its drafting with the White House, the Chairman refused to
answer.
''The premise of the Nunes memo is that the FBI and DOJ corruptly sought a FISA warrant on a
former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser, Carter Page, and deliberately misled the court as
part of a systematic abuse of the FISA process. As the Minority memo makes clear, none of this is
true. The FBI had good reason to be concerned about Carter Page and would have been derelict
in its responsibility to protect the country had it not sought a FISA warrant.
"In order to understand the context in which the FBI sought a FISA warrant for Carter Page, it is
necessary to understand how the investigation began, what other information the FBI had about
Russia's efforts to interfere with our election, and what the FBI knew about Carter Page prior to
making application to the court - including Carter Page's previous interactions with Russian
intelligence operatives. This is set out in the Democratic response which the GOP so far refuses to
make public.
"The authors of the GOP memo would like the country to believe that the investigation began
with Christopher Steele and the dossier, and if they can just discredit Mr. Steele, they can make
the whole investigation go away regardless of the Russians' interference in our election or the
role of the Trump campaign in that interference. This ignores the inconvenient fact that the
investigation did not begin with, or arise from Christopher Steele or the dossier, and that the
investigation would persist on the basis of wholly independent evidence had Christopher Steele
never entered the picture.
''The DOJ appropriately provided the court with a comprehensive explanation of Russia's election
interference, including evidence that Russian agents courted another Trump campaign foreign
policy adviser, George Papadopoulos. As we know from Papadopoulos' guilty plea, Russian agents
disclosed to Papadopoulos their possession of stolen Clinton emails and interest in a relationship
with the campaign. In claiming that there is 'no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy
between Page and Papadopoulos,' the Majority deliberately misstates the reason why DOJ
specifically explained Russia's role in courting Papadopoulos and the context in which to evaluate
Russian approaches to Page.
''The Majority suggests that the FBI failed to alert the court as to Mr. Steele's potential political
motivations or the political motivations of those who hired him, but this is not accurate. The GOP
memo also claims that a Yahoo News article was used to corroborate Steele, but this is not at all

 why the article was referenced. These are but a few of the serious mischaracterizations of the
FISA application. There are many more set out in the Democratic response, which we will again
be seeking a vote to release publicly on Monday, February 5th. Unlike Committee Republicans,
however, we will ask the relevant agencies to propose any necessary redactions to protect any
sources and methods not already disclosed by Chairman Nunes' document.
"It is telling that Chairman Nunes put out this memo without bothering to read the underlying
materials, and that he ordered changes to the document without informing his own committee
members. It is a terrible lapse in leadership that Speaker Ryan failed to intervene and prevent the
abuse of classified materials in this way. It is tragic, if all too predictable, that this President would
allow the release of the memo despite FBI and DOJ's expressions of 'grave concerns about
material omissions of fact that fundamentally impact the [Republicans1 memo's accuracy'. But
most destructive of all may be the announcement by Chairman Nunes that he has placed the FBI
and DOJ under investigation, impugning and impairing the work of the dedicated professionals
trying to keep our country safe."
The memo and letter from the White House can be found here.

69 Comments

: Add

Sort by Oldest

a comment...
..~.·

· ------·--.11------

 EXHIBIT 

UNITEU STATES SE~ATE

i)-N_E_W_S._RE_L_EA_S_E

For Immediate Release
February 9, 2018

Analysis Refutes Criminal Referral of
Christopher Steele
Washington-Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein
(D-Calif.) today released a minority view analysis on behalf of all Judiciary Committee
Democrats of the Christopher Steele criminal referral sent last month by Senators Chuck
Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). A classified memo that accompanied
the criminal referral was declassified this week.
"The criminal referral of Christopher Steele has nothing to do with
accountability," Feinstein said. "Clearly its goals included undermining the FBI and
Special Counsel Mueller's investigation, attacking Christopher Steele and deflecting
attention from collusion and obstruction of justice investigations."
"Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted. Unfortunately,
the claims in the criminal referral rely on classified information, so it's difficult to
fully repudiate them here. However, as much as possible using unclassified
information, the following points lay out the flaws in the criminal referral."

The following analysis rebuts a series of claims in the Grassley-Graham criminal
referral:
1. The criminal referral is not based on any allegation that Steele lied or
misrepresented facts about Carter Page or what is included in the Steele dossier.
In fact, neither provide any evidence that any of the information in Steele's dossier is

wrong. Instead, the referral is limited to a single baseless allegation: that Steele lied
about his contacts with the press.
2. The criminal referral omits key facts. The Department of Justice has provided
documents regarding its interactions with Mr. Steele to the Judiciary Committee both
before and after the criminal referral was made. Despite this, the Majority did not
modify the criminal referral and pressed forward with its original claims, which do
not take into account the additional information provided after the initial January 4
referral.
Instead of providing a comprehensive analysis, the criminal referral selectively
focuses on some facts while omitting others.

 For example, the criminal referral includes incomplete and misleading allegations
regarding an October 19, 2016, report that Mr. Steele received from a "friend of the
Clintons."1
The criminal referral alleges that Mr. Steele was using this additional reporting from
"the Clinton friend" as the basis for his own work - implying there was no
independent investigative work done by Steele. The criminal referral fails to address
the fact that 14 of the 17 memos in the Steele dossier published by Buzzfeed were
created by Mr. Steele before this October 19 report. It would have been impossible
for Mr. Steele to include information that he received in an October 19 report from "a
friend of the Clintons" in his 14 earlier reports, which date back to June 20, 2016.
3. The criminal referral fails to make a case that Christopher Steele lied to the FBI.
The referral states that "it appears that either Mr. Steele lied to the FBI or the British
court, or that the classified documents reviewed by the Committee contain materially
false statements."2 These allegations are made regarding Mr. Steele's interactions
with the press and whether he lied about those interactions to the FBI.

18 U.S.C. § I 001, the legal authority cited by the criminal referral, provides that:
"[W]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" shall
be punished accordingly.
•

Importantly. the criminal referral fails to identify when. if ever. Mr. Steele
was asked about and provided a materially false statement about his press
contacts.

•

Tellingly, it also fails to explain any circumstances which would have
reguired Mr. Steele to seek the FBI's permission to speak to the press or to
disclose if he had done so.

Rather, the criminal referral cites occasions where Mr. Steele spoke to the press at the
end of September 2016. Specifically, it focuses on a Yahoo News article written by
Michael lsikoff.
IfMr. Steele had been asked by the FBI about his contacts with Mr. Isikoff for this
September article, and if he had spoken with this reporter, then he should have
disclosed that fact. 3 But the criminal referral provides no evidence that Steele was
ever asked about the Isikoff article. or if asked that he lied.
1 Memorandum from Hon. Charles E. Grassley and Hon. Lindsey 0. Graham to Hon. Rod J. Rosenstein, Deputy Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice, Jan. 4, 2018, at 6 (hereinafter "Grassley/Graham Memo").
2 Grassley/Graham Memo, at 1.
3 United States v. Worthington, 822 F.2d 315, 310 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 944 (1987) (A false or fictitious
statement or representation is an assertion that is untrue when made or when used, and that is known by the person making
it to be untrue); see also United States v. Anderson, 519 F.2d 455 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 980 (1978); United
States v. Race, 632 F.2d 1114 (4th Cir. 1980) (If a defendant's statement, or the government's question requiring an

 It is also important to note, that in October 2016, the FBI learned that Mr. Steele had
disclosed "his relationship with the FBI" to a reporter, David Com.4 Because of this,
the FBI then suspended its relationship with Mr. Steele and informed the FISA court
of these developments in its renewal requests. 5
•

The FBI made clear, however, that it still considered Steele's reporting to be
reliable regardless of his contacts with the press.6

•

The FISA court granted three renewals after having been informed of Steele's
contacts with the press.7

4. Christopher Steele is a respected and reliable expert on Russia. He served more

than 20 years as an intelligence officer with the British intelligence service MI6, and
worked in Moscow under diplomatic cover from 1990 to 1993.8 Mr. Steele has a
history of providing useful information that has assisted law enforcement in criminal
investigations.
For example, in 2010, Mr. Steele gave information to the FBI that led to indictments
of several officials from the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA)
and the termination of the organization's president, Sepp Blatter.9 Citing U.S.
officials, Reuters noted that Steele's work on the FIFA matter "lent credence to his
reporting on Trump's entanglements in Russia." 10
Reports also indicate that between 2013 and 2016, Steele collaborated successfully
with the FBI's Eurasian Joint Organized Crime Squad on Russia- and Ukraine-related
matters. 11 According to the Washington Post, "Steele was known for the quality of his
past work and for the knowledge he had developed over nearly 20 years working on
Russia-related issues for British intelligence."12
5. Mr. Steele came forward voluntarily out of concern for U.S. national security. In

early July 2016, Mr. Steele shared with the FBI what he viewed as alarming
information about Russian interference in the 2016 election and a potentially
compromised candidate. 13

answer, is ambiguous, it is incumbent on the government to negate any reasonable interpretation that could make the
defendant's statement factually correct).
4Memorandum from HPSCI Majority Staff to HPSCI Majority Members, "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at
the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Jan. 18, 2018, at 2 (hereinafter ''Nunes Memo").
s Nunes Memo, Jan. 18, 2018, at 2-3; Grassley/Graham Memo, at 4.
6 Grassley/Graham Memo, at 4.
1 Grassley/Graham Memo, at 4; Nunes Memo, Jan. 18, 2018, at 1.
8 Vanity Fair, "How Ex-Spy Christopher Steele Compiled His Explosive Trump-Russia Dossier," Apr. 2017; see also The
Guardian, uHow Trump walked into Putin's web," Nov. 15, 2017.
9 Washington Post, "The British spy behind the Trump dossier helped the FBI bust FIFA," Jan. 13, 2017.
10 Reuters, "Fonner MI6 spy known to U.S. agencies is author of reports on Trump in Russia," Jan. 12, 2017.
11 Business Insider, "Congressional and FBI investigators are homing in on the Trump-Russia dossier,'' Oct. 5, 2017.
12 Washington Post, "FBI once planned to pay fonner British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier," Feb. 28,
2017.
13 Senate Judiciary Committee Interview of Glenn Simpson, Aug. 22, 2017, at 159, 164-65, 167.

 Specifically, Mr. Simpson testified under oath to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence that Mr. Steele said, "I'm a former intelligence officer, and
we 're your closest ally. You know, I have obligations, professional obligations. If
there's a national security emergency or possible national security issue, I should
report it." ... "And I [Simpson] said: 'So you're telling me that you think this is
serious enough that it needs to be reported to law enforcement, and that you're
confident enough in your sources, it's your professional judgment and your
professional obligation, that you should report this to the FBI?' And he [Steele] said,
'Yes."' 14
6. The criminal referral contains no new information. All the information in the
criminal referral was already available to the FBI and the Department of Justice.
•

In fact, the referral relies on publicly available information and information that
was provided to Congress from DOJ and the FBI.

7. The facts about Carter Page are not disputed. As has been widely reported, the
FBI was aware of Page's extensive connections to Russia several years before he
joined the Trump campaign. In fact, the FBI determined in 2013 that Russian
intelligence operatives had been attempting to recruit him and warned Mr. Page about
this. 15 That same year, Mr. Page reportedly described himself as an "informal advisor
to the staff of the Kremlin." 16 Page continued to cultivate Russian investments and
business 17 - something that the FBI believed could be used by Russia to cultivate him
as a source. 18
On March 21, 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump named Page to his foreign policy
team. 19 In July 2016, and with the approval of Campaign Manager Corey
Lewandowski, Mr. Page traveled to Moscow to speak at the New Economic School.20
During his trip, Mr. Page emailed the Trump campaign about "some incredible
insights and outreach I've received from a few Russian legislators and senior
members of the Presidential Administration here." 21
That same month, Mr. Steele reported that Russia and the Trump campaign "had a
mutual interest in defeating Democratic presidential candidate HILLARY CLINTON,
whom President PUTIN apparently both hated and feared." Mr. Steele reported that
Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort was using "foreign policy advisor, Carter
PAGE, and others as intermediaries" between the campaign and Russia and that Mr.

14

HPSCI Interview of Glenn Simpson, Nov. 14, 2017, at 60-61.
New York Times, "Russian Spies Tried to Recruit Carter Page Before He Advised Trump," Apr. 4, 2017.
16 Time, "Carter Page Touted Kremlin Contacts in 2013 Letter," Feb. 4, 2018.
17 Bloomberg, "Trump's New Russia Adviser Has Deep Ties to Kremlin's Gazprom," Mar. 30, 2016.
18 Complaint at 13, U.S. v. Evgeny Buryakov, CA No. 15-cr-00073 (filed Jan. 23, 2015).
19 Washington Post, "A transcript of Donald Trump's meeting with the Washington Post editorial board," Mar. 21, 2016.
20 HPSCI Interview of Carter Page, Nov. 2, 2017, at 19; see also Politico, "Trump campaign approved adviser's trip to
Moscow," Mar. 7, 2017.
21 HP SCI Interview of Carter Page, Nov. 2, 2017, at 40.
15

 Page had meetings with Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin and Presidential Administration
official Igor Divyekin. 22
During his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Mr. Page denied
meeting with Mr. Sechin or Mr. Divyekin. He did admit, however, that he met with
Russia's Deputy Prime Minister, Arkady Dvorkovich.23 He also admitted meeting
with Andrey Baranov-a close associate of Mr. Sechin.24 And, in December 2016,
after the election, Mr. Page went back to Moscow and again met with high-ranking
Russian officials, including Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich and Rosneft
executive Andrey Baranov.25
None of these facts are disputed in the Grassley-Graham criminal referral.
CONCLUSION

In June 2016, Mr. Steele began uncovering information indicating that Russia was
interfering in the U.S. presidential election, and that the Trump campaign might be
assisting Russia in its efforts.26 Under any circwnstances, the right thing to do would
be to go to law enforcement and tum over this information. And that is exactly what
Mr. Steele did.
Steele's reporting was deemed reliable by the FBI. The FISA court granted three
renewals of the FISA warrant on Carter Page after learning of Mr. Steele's contacts
with the press, a fact that did not cause the FBI to question the reliability of his
underlying reporting.
The President's decision to declassify and release the Nunes memo has confirmed
that the Russia investigation started because of another Trump campaign foreign
policy advisor - George Papadopoulos - who was told in April that Russia had "dirt"
on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.27 Unlike Mr. Steele, Mr. Papadopoulos
did not affirmatively share what he had learned with the FBI.
This Committee should dedicate its resources and attention to getting to the bottom of
exactly what Russia did during the 2016 election and who was involved - not
attacking voluntary sources and the nation's leading law enforcement agencies.
###

Company Intelligence Reports, 2016/094 and 2016/095, July 2016; Senate Judiciary Committee Interview of Glenn
Simpson, at 235-36.
23 HPSCI Interview of Carter Page, Nov. 2, 2017, at 12.
24 Id. at 105.
22

25

26
27

/datJ19.
Company Intelligence Reports, June 20, 2016 through Dec. 13, 2016.

Nunes Memo, Jan. 18, 2018, at 4.