Horowitz Report Finds Problems with FISA Applications

Of the 29 applications reviewed, 25 had faults.

The Justice Department Inspector General said he does “not have confidence” in the FBI’s FISA application process. An audit found the Bureau was not sufficiently transparent with the court in 29 applications between 2014 and 2019, all of which were fraught with problems.

In a report released this week, he said that of the 29 applications—all of which involved U.S. citizens—that were extracted from eight FBI field offices of varying sizes, the FBI could not find files for four of the applications, while the other 25 all had “apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.”

“While our review of these issues and follow-up with case agents is still ongoing—and we have not made materiality judgments for these or other errors or concerns we identified—at this time we have identified an average of about 20 issues per application reviewed, with a high of approximately 65 issues in one application and less than 5 issues in another application,” the report reveals.

The Office of the Inspector General concluded by recommending that the FBI “systematically and regularly examine the results of past and future accuracy reviews to identify patterns or trends in identified errors.” They need also to double check that the appropriate files exist for every FISA application submitted to the FISA court in all pending investigations.

President Trump has been critical of the FBI’s FISA processes and abuses it allowed during the surveillance of his 2016 campaign. Jim Jordan, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, has demanded the panel hold a hearing with the Inspector General about the FBI abuses on FISA applications.

As the Lord Leads, Pray with Us…

  • For Inspector General Horowitz and the work he has done to shine a bright light on inssues in America’s top law enforcement agency.
  • That the FBI would do what is necessary in response.
  • For the truth, as God sees it, would be revealed.

Sources: National Review, Washington Times


Back to top