Bernie/Biden Clash On Social Security Masks Real Differences

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In an opinion piece by Paul Krugman, published by the New York Times on January 21, 2020, Krugman writes, “The Sanders campaign has flat-out lied about things Biden said in 2018 about Social Security… The last thing we need is another president who demonizes and lies about anyone who disagrees with him, and can’t admit ever being wrong.”

That is pretty damning. What did Sanders or his team actually do?

Krugman writes that the Sanders campaign promoted a doctored video clip that distorted Biden’s record on Social Security. He repeated a quote from another N.Y Times article from January 18th (and updated Jan. 21st) by Katie Glueck’s that said:

“There is a little doctored video going around,” Mr. Biden said, adding that it was “put out by one of Bernie’s people.”

But Glueck also wrote:

“Former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Saturday accused Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign of distorting his record on Social Security, claiming without evidence that Mr. Sanders’ team was promoting a “doctored” video…” [emphasis mine].

In fact, the video clip linked to Krugman’s article is an unedited segment of an interview from January 7th between Senator Sanders and Anderson Cooper. While listing differences between Biden and himself, Sanders said:

“You know, Biden has been on the floor of the Senate talking about the need to cut Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid.”

That’s it! Sanders didn’t say exactly what Biden said or when he said it. Krugman’s comments about a doctored video, therefore, appear to convict him of the same false accusation that he accuses Senator Sanders of committing.

But in fairness to the truth, the released Sanders’ campaign materials Krugman refers to did make some misleading claims. As pointed out in the PolitiFact article linked to the Krugman article, item #1 on the Sanders campaign document said:

“BIDEN’S BRAGGED OF TRYING TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE”

So, from where did this accusation come? It came from the Congressional Record of the U.S. Senate, as did another article on the subject in the Intercept written by Ryan Grim on January 13, 2020. The lead sentence of Grim’s article reads:

“AS EARLY AS 1984 and as recently as 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden called for cuts to Social Security in the name of saving the program and balancing the federal budget.”

Grim then cites this excerpt is from the Senate Congressional Record just fifteen-years ago:

“When I argued that we should freeze Federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the Government.”

In this case, it is Ryan Grim who distorted Biden’s record by taking it out of context. Biden was arguing that the budget sequestration under discussion should include all areas of the federal budget and not exclude the very popular and vital entitlement programs. In this same Congressional Record transcript, then-Senator Biden went on to say Social Security, “…is arguably the most important and most depended-upon program in the Federal Government.”

Joe Biden suggested taking Social Security off of the Federal Budget. He wanted to protect the billions of dollars in surpluses it generated each year back then, surpluses that Congress spent every year to cover deficits in other areas of the budget.

What this manufactured controversy misses, however, it the very significant point that the thrust of this and so many of Biden’s speeches always center on the middle-class. Biden has rarely ever focused on 45% of all Americans who live below middle-class economic standards. 

This is the real distinction.  Joe Biden is interested in maintaining stability in America by growing and sustaining the middle-class. Bernie Sanders, for his entire career, wants to bring hope and relieve the structural economic burdens of every American family living in or below the middle-class. It is this focus and message that is beginning to resonate in places around America where Biden's message just doesn't carry. It is this focus on economic inclusion for all segments of society that scares the heck out of the wealthy elites.

Here is one example of Biden's middle-class messaging. In his 2018 speech at the Brookings Institute, also cited in the same PolitiFact article to which Krugman linked his opinion, Biden said, “Folks, we’re here today for a simple reason: to talk about the middle class.” 

 He later goes on to describe the plight of a factory worker to make his point:

“Folks in the middle class are in trouble. It’s not just their perception. They are in trouble. Now it’s all about taking care of the folks at the top… take that guy working on the assembly line making 51 grand. We don’t talk about him anymore, by the way, if you notice politically. Not you, we in politics don’t. And his wife is a hostess at a nice restaurant, she’s making 28 [grand]. So they’re making almost 80 grand and they’ve got 2 or 3 kids, and they can’t make it if they live in Washington or New York or San Francisco.”

No one can seriously argue that the middle-class is in trouble in "high living" places like San Francisco and New York City, but how does this limited message resonate with half of all Americans in far-flung places who make way less than $80,000 per year. Wouldn't they love to have the financial problems of these middle-class families? What they get instead is a conspiracy of silence from politicians in both parties who are beholden to the donor class. These are many of the same families that responded to Donald Trump in the 2016 campaign. He spoke directly to them and they love him for that.

The real question before us now is which Democratic candidate for President has the message and credibility to take back that momentum?  Who has the spark to inspire the working poor to turn out and vote for the Democrat? It isn't the loyal base who needs to be motivated. They will "vote blue no matter who"(if we can believe that). It is the great mass of inactive voters we have been ignored for decades who will sweep Donald Trump and his Republican sycophants out of office if we offer them real change. 

------------------------------------

This reads as a companion article to one I wrote on the differences between Senator Elizabeth Warren, who I admire, and Senator Bernie Sanders, who I support at this time. In the Studebaker article I linked to that post the differences between Biden, Warren, and Sanders are discussed. That post and two important articles can be accessed here: 

https://aseyeseesit.blogspot.com/2019/08/differences-between-warren-and-sanders.html

HOW TO UNDERSTAND TRUMP RALLY-GOERS

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

Very low information voters who have avoided politics their whole life, who maybe never voted before 2016 or paid any attention to who was running, have found in DONALD TRUMP a politician who loves them unconditionally. He embraces them. He doesn’t care that they don’t know much. He is rich and powerful and he is going to take care of them.

Donald Trump talks to his fans like no other politician before. He doesn’t talk down to them or try to teach them stuff they don’t care to hear. He says amazing and unexpected things, things that thrill them and excite them. He makes them feel politically alive for the first time in their life. He doesn’t have to be accurate or truthful because they get what he is saying and they can read between the lines. No dog whistles required!

Donald Trump has turned politics into this incredibly entertaining blood sport and his fans love it. They have taken political sides for the first time. They are standing up against the old guards of both political parties who have ignored them in the past. They are standing up for their race, their religion and their traditional values. They only support the Republicans today because the GOP itself has gotten fully on board with their champion, and THEIR GUY IS GOING TO WIN because he does what he says and keeps his promises. He has made America Great Again.

This is what we are up against. No amount of facts or logic can dislodge Trump's loyal followers. The only hope we have of defeating Donald Trump is to overwhelm them at the polls. We need to put up the most exciting candidates up and down the line. We need candidates who best speaks to the greatest number of ELIGIBLE voters, not just Democrats or likely voters. We need to reach into the giant pool of those folks who don't normally come out to vote and get them as excited about our vision for America's future as Trump's supporters are for his outsized personality.

_________________________________________

Also see full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v4ZWM2Q1jM

A Reaffirmation of Faith in Our Republic

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

This five-minute video message of actor Matthew Cooke, below, is worth a listen. It is a reaffirmation of faith in our republic at a time when it is most threatened and vulnerable. It articulates our founding principles, which contrasts sharply with current Republican behavior in Congress.

I try not to refer to Republicans as a "party" anymore because, despite any philosophical differences, political parties always maintain their fidelity to the nation's constitution. That isn't true of Congressional Republicans. Under Mitch McConnell, Republicans in Congress are more of a political movement to replace democracy with a plutocratic autocracy, a single "party" system that mostly represents a small but wealthy minority. So, it is time for each of us to stand up in unity to depose those for whom democracy, with its equitable distribution of power, is an obstacle to their corrupt designs.

History of Wages in America

By Brian T. Lynch, MSW

A conservative friend of mine was astonished to learn that a couple with two children in his town would need an income of $57,000 per year to live there. “I'm a CPA and I've had partners who didn't make $57,000 some years,” he said.


That sounds about right, yet we have come to the point where a living wage, defined as the minimum hourly income necessary for a worker to afford basic needs, is close to the U.S. median family income. Nearly half of the US workforce is unable to meet all of their family's basic needs without some assistance from relatives or the government.

"Everyone" can't be above average,” he protested. “If we set the poverty line or living wage standards above the average American income, the government could NEVER provide [enough for the poor].”
First, living wage standards are not set by the government. They are set by the market place where people spend their wages on the goods and services they need. Living wages are calculated based on the cost of food, shelter, clothing, medical care, transportation, and other necessities for living. These essential requirements have a free market price tag that varies from place to place. The poverty line, on the other hand, is an arbitrary federal government measure used to determine who may be eligible for government financial subsidy, among other uses. It is a single value that does not take local economies into account.

Second, his response assumes that it is the government’s role to subsidize America’s workforce. On the contrary, it is, and ought to be, the responsibility of employers and business owners to maintain strong communities and a stable, well-compensated workforce. When families can no longer afford to meet their basic needs in a given location they either migrate to places where their prospects are better or they devolve to survive and the social order breaks down. Either way, businesses suffer when this happens. Ultimately, commerce and markets cannot exist without solid communities and a stable, healthy workforce. When businesses shirk their responsibility to properly compensate employees, governments step in to help stabilize the workforce. This amounts to a hidden business tax subsidy.

Local communities are the medium from which businesses are created and through which commerce thrives. When most businesses were locally owned this truth was self-evident. Local employers took pride in the standard of living they provided their employees. Business owners were community-minded and proud of the beneficial impact they had in their home towns. Conservative Republican values were once rooted in the welfare of local economies.

As businesses became more regional and less dependent on local economies, pressure from organized labor unions helped maintain a reasonable standard of living for the workforce. This helped to keep local economies strong, which was ultimately good for business. With the rise of national and global corporations, however, the connection between corporate wellbeing and local community wellbeing has broken down. Large corporations are able to exploit local economies and then move on to new locations when a local economy falters. Large corporations have the power to control politicians, overcome unions and raise profits by lowering labor costs. Because of reduced reliance on local economies for their success, global companies enjoy an autonomy that didn’t exist before. This has given rise to self-serving corporate cultures and free-market philosophies centered around profits over people. The expansion of the welfare state to bridge the growing gap between lowered wages and rising prices has helped ease the conscience of business owners and investors during the transition to this new corporate culture.

But the really big point missing here is that median wages have fallen too low in America. The big story, from all which public discourse on the economy seems designed to distract us, is that American workers need a raise. Incomes have declined substantially relative to the costs of basic goods and services. This decline in American wages is neither accidental, nor inevitable. The flattening of American wages was done by design at a specific time in our history. The graph below shows that the decline in wages corresponds with the decoupling of worker compensation from the rise of hourly productivity. [see also http://bit.ly/IKDFup]

Based on this graph it is obvious that the rise in hourly compensation dramatically diverged from the rise in productivity per hour in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Hourly compensation has barely risen since then. This decoupling of wages from productivity coincides with the establishment of industry trade organizations, the creation of extensive business lobbies and a nearly inverse decline in the membership and influence of labor unions. It shifted compensation for growing productivity to top corporate management and wealthy investors. This shift, coupled with dramatic income tax cuts for the rich in 1980 and 1985 are the root cause of the large income inequality today.

While productivity rates increased 250% since World War II, hourly compensation only increased by 130% nearly all of which occurred before 1977. (The tiny increase around 2007 may reflect the increase in the federal minimum wage that year.) If wages had kept pace with worker productivity since 1977 the median income in America today would be more like $100,000 per year. Extra consumer spending capacity would put upward pressure on prices if that happened, but the relationship between discretionary income and consumer prices is neither linear or direct. In other words, the price of goods and services might be higher, but not in proportion to the increased income.


As mentioned earlier, when families can no longer afford to meet their basic needs in a given location they often move to places where the economy is better. This weakens the local economy when they move out because there are fewer people supporting local commerce. It may weaken the local economies into which they relocate by flooding the labor pool (which drives down wages), increasing housing costs and burdening local social services. Making sure working families can meet their basic needs is not just the right thing to do, a stable labor pool is critical to local economies. That’s why government programs to financially supplement the labor pool, especially during economic downturns, are so essential. When businesses fail to pay employees enough that they are financially self-sufficient, government programs step in to help with housing costs, food stamps, medical costs, etc.


For the past 40 years wage growth has been nearly flat. Consider the impact this has on government spending and government revenues. Each year the cost of food, housing, and other basic necessities rises. This means that living wage rates rise faster than our actual earnings. When worker compensation remains flat, income tax revenue remains flat as well. At the same time, the number of families in need of government financial assistance grows.

Think about how much more federal revenue there would be if the median family income today was $100,000 per year instead of nearly half that amount. Imagine how much less the government would have to spend shoring up low wage workers. If wages had continued to rise on par with productivity over the past 40 years our median income would far exceed current living wage levels.


The case for a living wage has been around for a long time. In 1891 Pope Leo XIII first described a living wage in terms that could be generalized and applied in nations throughout the world. He said, "Wealthy owners of the means of production and employers must never forget that both divine and human law forbid them to squeeze the poor and wretched for the sake of gain or to profit from the helplessness of others."

Even Adam Smith was a supporter of living wages. He viewed them as a way to achieve economic growth and equity. In his Wealth of Nations, Smith recognized that the rising real wages lead to the "improvement in the circumstances of the lower ranks of people" was an advantage to society. According to Smith, the government should align the interests of those pursuing profits with the interests of the labor force in order to grow the nation’s economy. Smith argued that high wages lead to higher productivity and overall growth. In this way, he linked higher wages with increased productivity. For much of our history, this alignment has been evident.


Below is a graph prepared by the Secretary of Public Welfare for the State of Pennsylvania. It was designed to show how government financial aid is uneven along the earned income continuum producing illogical "welfare cliffs". However, the graph also reveals the great extent to which working families need government assistance to bridge the gap between what they make and what they need. The entire area to the left of earned income represents the gap between living wage compensation and what families actually earn.

Some examples here might be useful. First, consider a case where a Pennsylvania company hires a single mom and pays her the federal minimum wage, $7.25 per hour. Working 40 hours per week, 52 weeks per year, she would gross approximate $15,000 per year. Subtract income taxes and payroll taxes and she would clear about $13,000 per year. Using the Welfare Benefits and Wages graph above we see she would require an additional $42,000 per year in government subsidy to meet her family's basic needs.

The only reason her employer can pay her minimum wage and count on her coming to work every day is that so much tax money is spent to supplement her wages. If there were no aid to the working poor her employer would have little choice but to pay this woman a living wage. In this sense, all government aid to the working poor is really a hidden tax break for businesses.

For another example, consider a family of four living in Harrisburg, PA, making a living wage. Using the Living Wage Calculator we find that the living wage in Harrisburg is approximately $51,000 per year. This corresponds to about $24 per hour (more than 3 times the minimum wage). Subtract payroll and income taxes from the living wage and this family's net income is around $38,000 per year. Using the PA Welfare Benefits and Wages graph above it appears that this family might still need some assistance paying for child care if both parents worked, and possibly for health care as well. However, if increases in hourly compensation had kept pace with hourly productivity over the last forty years this same family would be earning more than $100,000 per year. They would be contributing to state and federal revenue rather than being a drain on tax revenue.

If wages had doubled since 1977 (productivity rose 1.5 times) median family wages would be closer to $48 per hour and as many as 50 million American's who now receive subsidy would instead be contributing to federal revenues. It is about time we began pressing the case for passing a living wage law.

Below you will find a living wage calculator. Developed by Dr. Amy K. Glasmeier and Pennsylvania State University, the calculator estimates the hourly wages a person needs to meet their basic human needs. The calculator estimates living wages for each state or county, and many municipalities, in the United States. Check out what a living wage looks like near you.
____________________________________________________

Introduction to the Living Wage Calculator
http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/

In many American communities, families working in low-wage jobs make insufficient income to live locally given the local cost of living. Recently, in a number of high-cost communities, community organizers and citizens have successfully argued that the prevailing wage offered by the public sector and key businesses should reflect a wage rate required to meet minimum standards of living. Therefore we have developed a living wage calculator to estimate the cost of living in your community or region. The calculator lists typical expenses, the living wage and typical wages for the selected location.

Wealth Inequality has Always Been Un-American

by Brian T. Lynch, MSW

In an Intelligencer article entitled, “AOC Thinks Concentrated Wealth Is Incompatible with Democracy. So Did Our Founders,” Eric Levitz writes, “ [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez’s second argument against the existence of billionaires — that concentrated wealth is incompatible with genuine democracy — was something close to conventional wisdom among the founders. Levitz goes on to write:

“The notion that political freedom has a material basis did not originate with Karl Marx and the creed of Communism; it was a core idea of the 17th-century British political theorist James Harrington, and his formulation of classical republicanism. A man who does not own the means of his own reproduction can never exercise political freedom, Harrington argued, because “the man that cannot live upon his own must be servant.” Likewise, the man of immense wealth — whose fortune consigns great masses of men to servitude — is inevitably a kind of tyrant. After all, 'where there is inequality of estates, there must be inequality of power, and where there is inequality of power, there can be no commonwealth.'”

Having seen the ravages of extreme property-based wealth inequality in England, Thomas Jefferson was concerned that measures needed to be taken to prevent such inequality in America. Among his ideas, he wrote:

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.”

The vast concentrations of private wealth we see today is incomparable with a democratic society - and our founding fathers knew it. Regardless of if they were for or against democracy as a form of government, there was agreement that this nation needed to guard against the extreme accumulation of property in the hands of a few.

While Jefferson and the founding fathers understood this, they nevertheless adopted a Constitution which only permitted a flat tax (Art. 1, Sec. 9, 4th paragraph). It wasn't until the Sixteenth Amendment was adopted in 1913 that the idea of a progressive income tax became possible.

The progressive income tax of 1913, as it was originally designed, did exactly what Thomas Jefferson had suggested. It was not intended that wage earners would be taxed at all. The bottom tax bracket began with incomes over $100,000 in today’s inflation-adjusted dollars and many higher marginal tax brackets climbed upwards from there. The one reason most wage earners ended up paying income taxes is that the 1913 law was not indexed to inflation. Just like the alternative minimum tax today, the progressive income tax crept down the income scale over time as wages were adjusted upward for inflation and productivity growth.

Up until World War II the top marginal income tax rate was over 90%. It was set that high to help prevent the unchecked accumulation of private wealth for the sake of maintaining a functioning democracy. President John Kennedy scaled back the top tax bracket to 70%, but it was Ronald Reagan who destroyed the whole purpose of the progressive taxes by cutting the top rate to less than it is now. At the same time, he adjusted the bottom rate to increase income taxes paid by lowest-paid workers. These changes, along with a law to tax capital gains at 1/2 the rate of wage income, set-in-motion one of the main conditions that would result in the creation of today’s billionaire class.

The other changes that allowed for the current unchecked accumulation of vast amounts of private wealth were the rise in the mid-1970s of organized capital in the form of political associations and PACS, (Political Action Committees) bent on killing unions and electing pro-business politicians. To this end the practice of sharing growth in the hourly gross domestic product (GDP) with workers in the form of productivity wages ended. Since then the US economy has nearly tripled but nearly all of that new wealth has gone to the wealthiest owners of capital. Wage growth, adjusted for inflation, has been nearly flat since 1975.

The irony here is that if productivity wages had been allowed to keep pace with America’s growing wealth (hourly GDP), the average family of four today would be making over $100,000 per year, the point beyond which they might have had to start paying income taxes if the original 1913 progressive tax law had been indexed to inflation.

Outline of OIG Investigation into FBI Conduct in Crossfire Hurricane Investigation

The DOJ Office of the Inspector General Report :

Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation A Short Outline of the Executive Summary

(prepared by Brian T. Lynch, MSW)

1.      “… the FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane on July 31, 2016, just days after its receipt of information from a Friendly Foreign Government

a.     Papadopoulos "suggested the Trump team had received some kind of suggestion from Russia that it could assist ... with the anonymous release of information ... damaging to Mrs. Clinton

b.     The FBI… (EC) open[ed] the Crossfire Hurricane investigation state[ing] that…  "this investigation is being opened to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign are witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia."

c.     [The OIG] did not find information … indicating that any information other than the FFG information was relied upon to predicate the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

d.     FBI officials involved … had reason to believe that Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures … in July 2016, and were aware of … Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections.

e.     [The FBI] did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.

2.     The FBI assembled a …team of special agents, analysts, and supervisory special agents …[to] conducted an initial analysis of links between Trump campaign members and Russia. Based upon this …analysis, the Crossfire Hurricane team [as they were known] opened individual cases in August 2016 on four U.S. persons - Papadopoulos, Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn- all of whom were affiliated with the Trump campaign at the time the cases were opened.

3.     Crossfire Hurricane was opened as a Full Investigation and all of the senior FBI officials who participated in discussions about whether to open a case told [The OIG] the information warranted opening it…. [T]he combination of the FFG [foreign friendly government] information and the FBI 's ongoing cyber intrusion investigation of the July 2016 hacks of the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) emails, created a counter-intelligence concern that the FBI was "obligated" to investigate. 

4.     Additionally, …[the OIG] concluded that the FFG information, provided by a government the [U.S.] Intelligence Community (USIC) deems trustworthy, and describing a first-hand account from an FFG employee of a conversation with Papadopoulos, was sufficient to predicate the investigation. This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring.

5.      [The OIG] also sought to determine whether there was evidence that political bias or other improper considerations affected decision making in Crossfire Hurricane, including the decision to open the investigation … General Counsel, and a FBI Deputy General Counsel. We concluded that …the investigation was in compliance with Department and FBI policies, and [the OIG] did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced [the] decision.

6.     The Crossfire Hurricane investigation was properly designated as a "sensitive investigative matter," or SIM, by the FBI because it involved the activities of a domestic political organization or individuals prominent in such an organization …We concluded that the FBI satisfied the DIOG's approval and notification requirements for SIMs.

7.      

8.     The AG [and DIOG] Guidelines require that the " least intrusive" means or method be "considered" when selecting investigative techniques … Each of [the initial steps] authorized under the DIOG was a less intrusive investigative technique.

9.     Thereafter, the Crossfire Hurricane team used more intrusive techniques …[The OIG] determined that the CHS operations conducted during Crossfire Hurricane received the necessary FBI approvals.

10.  [The OIG] found it concerning that [DOJ] and FBI policy [do] not require the FBI to consult with any Department official in advance of conducting CHS operations involving advisors to a major party candidate's presidential campaign …and [The OIG]  include[ed] a recommendation to address this issue.

11.  At the request of the FBI, the Department filed four applications with the FISC seeking FISA authority. targeting Carter Page. The first application on October I , 2016, and three renewal applications on January, April, and June , 2017.

a.     … the Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting…played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA order.

b.     …the same day that the Crossfire Hurricane team first received Steele's election reporting, the team contacted FBI OGC again about seeking a FISA order for Page and specifically focused on Steele's reporting in drafting the FISA request.

c.     Although the team also was interested in seeking FISA surveillance targeting Papadopoulos, the FBI OGC attorneys were not supportive. FBI and NSD officials told [the OIG] that the Crossfire Hurricane team ultimately did not seek FISA surveillance of Papadopoulos, and…no information indicat[ed] that the team requested or seriously considered FISA surveillance of Manafort or Flynn.

d.     [The OIG] did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the FBI's decision to seek FISA authority on Carter Page.

e.     However, as we explain below, the Department decision makers who supported and approved the application were not given all relevant information.

f.      [The OIG] found that the FBI did not have information corroborating the specific allegations against Carter Page in Steele's reporting when it relied upon his reports in the first FISA application or subsequent renewal applications.

g.     However, absent corroboration for the factual assertions in the election reporting, it was particularly important for the FISA applications to articulate the FBI's knowledge of Steele's background and its assessment of his reliability.

h.     [The OIG] review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate."

i.      [The OIG] identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed. [This included] the following seven significant inaccuracies and omissions:

                                               i.     Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page…

                                             ii.     Included a source characterization statement asserting that Steele's prior reporting had been "corroborated and used in criminal proceedings,"

                                            iii.     Omitted information relevant to the reliability of Person 1, a key Steele sub-source

                                            iv.     Asserted [incorrectly] that the FBI had assessed that Steele did not directly provide to the press information in the September 23 Yahoo News article based on the premise that Steele had told the FBI that he only shared his election-related research with the FBI and Fusion GPS…

                                              v.     Omitted Papadopoulos's consensually monitored statements…in September 2016 denying that anyone associated with the Trump campaign was collaborating with Russia or with outside groups like Wikileaks in the release of emails

                                            vi.     Omitted Page's consensually monitored statements…that Page had "literally never met" or "said one word to" Paul Manafort and that Manafort had not responded to any of Page's emails…

                                           vii.     Included Page's consensually monitored statements…that the FBI believed supported its theory that Page was an agent of Russia but omitted other statements Page made that were inconsistent with its theory, including denying having met with Sechin and Divyekin, or even knowing who Divyekin was…

j.      Further, as we discuss later, we identified 10 additional significant errors in the renewal applications.

k.     [The OIG] found that the team had speculated that Steele's prior reporting had been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings without clearing the representation with Steele's handling agent, as required

l.      [The OIG] concluded that these failures created the inaccurate impression in the applications that at least some of Steele's past reporting had been deemed sufficiently reliable by prosecutors to use in court, and that more of his information had been corroborated than was actually the case.

m.   [The OIG] found no evidence that the 0I Attorney, NSD supervisors, ODAG officials, or Yates were made aware of these issues…

n.     Although [the OIG] found no evidence that [James] Comey had been made aware of these issues at the time he certified the [FISA] application…multiple factors made it difficult [to] determine the extent of FBI leadership's knowledge as to each fact…in the FISA applications. These factors included…limited recollections, the inability to question Comey or refresh his recollection with relevant, classified documentation because of his lack of a security clearance, and the absence of meeting minutes that would show the specific details shared with Comey and [Andrew] McCabe during briefings.

12.  the FBI closed Steele as a CHS for cause in November 2016. However…despite having been closed for cause, the Crossfire Hurricane team continued to obtain information from Steele through [a Department Attorney, Bruce] Ohr, who met with the FBI on 13 occasions to pass along information he had been provided by Steele.

a.     …the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) expressed concern about the lack of vetting for the Steele election reporting and asserted it did not merit inclusion in the body of the [Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) report.

b.     …the FBI, including Comey and McCabe, sought to include the reporting in the ICA. Limited information from the Steele reporting ultimately was presented in an appendix to the ICA.

c.     …the FBI's Validation Management Unit (VMU) completed a human source validation review of Steele in early 2017. The VMU review found that Steele's past criminal reporting was "minimally corroborated," and included this finding in its report that was provided to the Crossfire Hurricane team.

d.     The VMU review also did not identify any corroboration for Steele's election reporting among the information that the Crossfire Hurricane team had collected. However, the VMU did not include this finding in its written validation report …and therefore members of the Crossfire Hurricane team and FBI executives were unaware of it.

e.     [The OIC] further determined that the Crossfire Hurricane team was unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations regarding Carter Page contained in the Steele’s election reporting which the FBI relied on in the FISA applications.

13.  …the FBI filed three renewal applications with the FISC… In addition to repeating the seven significant errors contained in the first FISA application…[the OIG] identified 10 additional significant errors in the three renewal applications…[each outlined in the report]

a.     Among the most serious of the 10 additional errors we found in the renewal applications was the FBI's failure to advise OI or the court of the inconsistences… between Steele and his Primary Sub-source on the reporting relied upon in the FISA applications.

b.     FBI also failed to share other inconsistencies with OI, including the Primary Sub-source's account of the alleged meeting between Page and Sechin in Steele's Report 94 and his/her descriptions of the source network.

14.  [The OIG] concluded that the failures described [in their] report represent serious performance failures by the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications. These failures prevented OI from fully performing its gatekeeper function and deprived the decision makers the opportunity to make fully informed decisions… this was a failure of not only the operational team, but also of the managers and supervisors, including senior officials, in the chain of command.

15.  [The OIG] did not identify a specific Department policy prohibiting [Department attorney Bruce] Ohr from [having multiple meetings] with [Christopher] Steele, [Glenn] Simpson [the owner of Fusion GPS], or the State Department and providing the information he learned from those meetings to the FBI…[However the OIG] concluded that Ohr committed consequential errors in judgment by ( 1) failing to advise his direct supervisors or the DAG that he was communicating with Steele and Simpson and then requesting meetings with the FBI's Deputy Director and Crossfire Hurricane team on matters that were outside of his areas of responsibility, and (2) making _himself a witness in the investigation by meeting with Steele and providing Steele's information to the FBI.

16.  The FBI's CHS Policy Guide (CHSPG) provides… [that] a handling agent must not initiate contact with or respond to contacts from a former CHS who has been closed for cause absent exceptional circumstances that are approved by an SSA. [The OIG] concluded that the repeated contacts with Steele should have triggered the CHS policy requiring that such contacts occur only after an SSA determines that exceptional circumstances exist…[and that]… 13 different meetings [between Steele and] Ohr over a period of months…created a relationship by proxy that should have triggered…a supervisory decision about whether to reopen Steele as a CHS or discontinue accepting information indirectly from him through Ohr.

17.  …the Crossfire Hurricane team tasked several CHSs, which resulted in multiple interactions with Carter Page and George Papadopoulos, both before and after they were affiliated with the Trump campaign, and one with a high-level Trump campaign official who was not a subject of the investigation. All of these CHS interactions were consensually monitored and recorded by the FBI…[the OIG] found no evidence that the FBI used CHSs or UCEs to interact with members of the Trump campaign prior to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation…[and] found no evidence that the FBI placed any CHSs or UCEs within the Trump campaign or tasked any CHSs or UCEs to report on the Trump campaign. [The OIG] also found no documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivations influenced the FBI's decision to use CHSs or UCEs to interact with Trump campaign officials in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

18.  While [the OIG] concluded that the investigative activities undertaken by the Crossfire Hurricane team involving CHSs and UCEs complied with applicable Department and FBI policies…in certain circumstances Department and FBI policies do not provide sufficient oversight and accountability for investigative activities that have the potential to gather sensitive information involving protected First Amendment activity, and therefore [the OIG] include[d] recommendations to address these issues.