seven in the first application and a total of 17 by the final renewal application. for example, the crossfire hurricane team obtained information from steele s primary sub source. in january 2017 that raised significant questions about the reliability of the steele reporting. this was particularly noteworthy because the fisa applications relied entirely on information from the primary subsource s reporting to support the allegation that page was coordinating with the russian government on 2016 u.s. presidential election activities. however, the fbi did not share this information with department lawyers, and it was, therefore, omitted from the last two renewal applications. all of the applications admitted information that the fbi obtained in august 2017 sorry august 2016 from another u.s. government agency
january 2017 when the guy who gave steele all the information disavows the dossier, not only they should have told the court they should have slowed down, do you think the second and third warrants had a legal basis after that point? you know, we don t reach that conclusion and i m not going to would you have submitted a warrant application as a lawyer? let me put it this way. i would not have submitted the one they put in. okay. no doubt about it. it had no business going in what i want you to know is in january 2017, the whole foundation for surveilling carter page collapses, exculpatory information is ignored, they lie to the court about what the interview was all about. is that a fair summary about january 2017 i ll they certainly misled it was misleading the the court. fair enough. in january, about six months later, when they find more
detailing its prior relationship with carter page including that carter page had been approved as an operational contact for that other agency from 2008 to 2013, that page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain russian intelligence officers and that an employee of that other agency assessed that carter page had been candid with them. the fbi never followed up on that information. as a result of these seven significant inaccuracies and omissions, relevant information was not shared with and consequently considered by department lawyers and the fisa court. the fisa applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case. we also found basic fundamental and serious errors during the completion of the fbi s factual
thank you. as i sit here, i m only going to speak to what s in our report. okay. go ahead. as i mentioned in my statement, the comment was mr. papadopoulos made a suggestion that there had been a suggestion to the trump campaign that the russian government could provide information that would be damaging to candidate clinton and then president obama. your report saying you didn t find documentary evidence of improper motivation played a role. that s correct. you didn t find a deep state conspiracy against candidate or president trump. as to the opening, we found no bias, no testimonial evidence on that. no rags nate neal for a deep
exculpatory information. absolutely. they did not. they did not. why? that s the question i can t specifically answer for you. can you say it wasn t because of political bias? on decisions regarding those fisa matters, i do not know their state of mind at this point. fair enough. we re talking about actions now. i m trying to figure out what would motivate people. do you think comey and mccabe should have known? that s a challenging question as we explain in the report, there were multiple brief innings up the chain including to the director and deputy director. we don t have a clear record of what precisely they were told. you know, as information flows up stream would you be surprised if it didn t make it up the system? i m not going to surprise. did struck know? mr. struck transitions off on