This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Former House Intelligence Committee chief Rep. Devin Nunes, retired from Congress, says the evidence now is revealing that the FBI was running a “bounty program” in its efforts to undermine President Trump.
The evidence is being revealed at special counsel John Durham’s trial for Igor Danchenko, who is accused of lying to the FBI.
The comments came in an interview with John Solomon of Just the News.
The revelations so far in the trial for the “sub-source” thought to be the source for many of the wildly false claims that former British agent Christopher Steele compiled for his now-debunked “Dossier” have included that the FBI offered a $1 million bounty for proof that those claims were true.
That dossier was used by the FBI, even though it was known to be unverified, as “evidence” in court documents seeking permission for the FBI to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016.
The dossier was assembled under the funding of the Hillary Clinton campaign, which used its own Russian sources to make up claims that Trump’s campaign was, in fact, colluding with Russia.
It’s long since been debunked, including by the special counsel investigation by Robert Mueller and his staff of mostly leftist lawyers.
Durham’s trial evidence being presented in the Danchenko case prompted Solomon to explain that the special counsel “has turned the Russian researcher’s trial in the U.S. District courtroom in Alexandria, Va., into an expose of stunning FBI failures and omissions in its now-infamous pursuit of Donald Trump for crimes that turned out to be nonexistent.”
“While the Hillary Clinton-spawned Russian collusion narrative has been the subject of a half dozen exhaustive investigations in the House, Senate, and Justice Department, Durham has managed to use his third and widely assumed last trial to drop bombshell after bombshell that other inquiries failed to uncover. Even the most versed in the case have been stunned.”
Nunes told Solomon even though he’d subpoenaed the FBI to investigate its agenda against Trump, he’d never been told of the $1 million offer.
“It’s just so confusing to me as to why these FBI and DOJ characters and some of the Clinton cabal have not been brought up on a conspiracy charge because clearly, they were conspiring to defraud the United States government to lie and mislead Congress,” Nunes told Just the News.
He continued, “I hate to say this, but like a new shoe drops every day. And it’s like every day we find out something new. And I mean, look, I don’t know how you describe this $1 million payment or potential payment to Steele as anything other than what it is. It was a bounty program to get Donald Trump.”
The report explains that Danchenko was known as “someone who had both lied to FBI agents and had troubling ties to Russian intelligence.”
But Durham revealed how the FBI – anyway – hired him as a paid source for three years.
Then FBI senior analyst Brian Auten confirmed to Durham during the trial the FBI was unable to confirm “a single fact” in the Steele dossier, “but nonetheless grabbed some of its most sensational claims about Trump and stuck them into a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant marked ‘verified’ that authorized spying on the Trump campaign and former adviser Carter Page.”
Auten also confirmed Steele was unable to grab that $1 million bounty because he could not provide verification for anything in his dossier.
Solomon reported that Kevin Brock, retired FBI chief of intelligence, confirmed the offer of $1 million was outside ordinary boundaries.
“The Crossfire Hurricane investigative team, managed by James Comey’s headquarters executives, offered a truly outrageous sum of money to Christopher Steele as an ‘incentive’ to corroborate his own information,” Brock told Just the News. “Paying money to incentivize a source risks a corrupt outcome. Paying a lot of money risks a lot of corruption. Incentive payments are not normal FBI policy. ”
He explained, “If uncorroborated information is going to be used like this, FBI policy explicitly requires the swearing agent to clearly state that it is not known if the information is accurate or not. This wasn’t done, and it can’t be considered a mere oversight. Too many eyes all the way up the chain were laid on this affidavit. We’re left with the disappointing conclusion that it was omitted on purpose.”
Even former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, who has tried to give the bureau the benefit of the doubt and assume the FBI’s failings were mistakes, not corruption, now has written in a New York Post column, “The trial is highlighting the FBI’s shocking malfeasance in the Trump-Russia ‘collusion’ probe.”
“The FBI has been traditionally successful because of a simple formula: uncover facts that lead to evidence that determines an outcome,” Brock told Just the News. “Crossfire Hurricane was a debacle because it started with the desired outcome and tried to create facts to fit that outcome. Durham is methodically revealing just how desperate the politically biased Crossfire Hurricane team was.”