Mr. President, tear down the wall hiding those FISA abuses

By John Solomon
Opinion Contributor

Every president faces moments where the risks and rewards are uncertain. Perhaps public sentiments are fuzzy, advisers are risk-adverse, or the enemy seems poised to pounce.

In those moments, a president is left to rely on gut instinct. 

Ronald Reagan did it at the Berlin Wall. Bill ClintonWilliam (Bill) Jefferson ClintonPrince Andrew says he regrets staying with Jeffrey Epstein Now for your moment of Zen from the Trump impeachment hearings The Hill's Morning Report — Public impeachment drama resumes today MORE did it with the Rose Garden handshake between the PLO’s Yasser Arafat and Israel’s Yitzhak Rabin. And George W. Bush did it when he grabbed the bullhorn and mounted the smoking pile of rubble at Ground Zero.

Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpGOP divided over impeachment trial strategy Official testifies that Bolton had 'one-on-one meeting' with Trump over Ukraine aid Louisiana governor wins re-election MORE faces such a decision: whether to declassify the documents showing what the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) really did to start and then sustain the Russia collusion investigation two years ago.

The president’s instinct, as he told me in an Oval Office interview last week, is to side with transparency and release documents he admits he has not been allowed to read. 

Some of his Justice Department advisers are dead-set against a release. And so, too, are a couple of allies — Britain and Australia, to be specific — who seem to fear what the documents might say about them.

When the Russia scandal started, it was fairly certain that Moscow had engaged in a digitally centered counterintelligence operation — particularly hacking and psy-ops through Facebook ads — to influence the 2016 election. 

The prevailing question was whether Trump and his campaign conspired to help them ensure victory over Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonGOP divided over impeachment trial strategy 'Too Far Left' hashtag trends on Twitter Resistance or unhinged behavior? Partisan hatred reaches Trump's family MORE. At the time, the lame-duck Obama administration’s intelligence community assured the public there was good reason to investigate.

Now, two years and millions of dollars later, we know the core evidence that drove the collusion investigation was a piece of uncorroborated political opposition research written by a Trump-hating British ex-spy whose employer was paid by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party to harm Trump’s election prospects. 

We also know the FBI agent and lawyer who drove the probe were Trump-haters too, who contemplated using the powers of their jobs to “stop” the Republican nominee and discussed an “insurance” policy to ensure such an outcome.

And, most importantly, those FBI employees acknowledged to Congress recently that, after nine months of using the intelligence community’s most potent tools, they couldn’t prove any collusion.

Finally, we know multiple FBI and DOJ officials — disgraced FBI Director James ComeyJames Brien ComeyChris Wallace on Yovanovitch testimony: 'If you're not moved, you don't have a pulse' Day one impeachment hearings draw 13.1M viewers, down 32 percent from Comey hearings There are poor ideas, bad ones and Facebook's Libra MORE and his fired deputy, Andrew McCabeAndrew George McCabeThe curious timeline for taking down Trump Federal prosecutors interviewed multiple FBI officials for Russia probe review: report Brendan Gleeson lands Trump role in CBS miniseries based on Comey memoir MORE, among them — engaged in media leaks to create a collusion narrative that exceeded the actual evidence. Some did so because they wanted to get a special prosecutor to extend the probe.

So far, that prosecutor, Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSpeier says impeachment inquiry shows 'very strong case of bribery' by Trump Gowdy: I '100 percent' still believe public congressional hearings are 'a circus' Comey: Mueller 'didn't succeed in his mission because there was inadequate transparency' MORE, has secured just one prison sentence for a person whose conduct directly involved the Trump campaign. George PapadopoulosGeorge Demetrios PapadopoulosCalifornia governor sets special election to replace Katie Hill Trump bemoans 'double standard' in Stone conviction The Hill's Campaign Report: Red-state governors races pose test for Trump MORE got a whopping 14 days in jail for lying in a case that offered no proof of collusion.

Mueller’s most impressive conviction so far — that of former Trump campaign chairman Paul ManafortPaul John ManafortGates sentencing set for next month Yovanovitch says John Solomon's columns were used to push false allegations Trump bemoans 'double standard' in Stone conviction MORE — had nothing to do with the election and involved old lobbying crimes that the FBI knew about since 2014.

And Mueller’s most convincing indictments — those of the Russians who stole Clinton’s emails and used Facebook for psy ops — go out of their way to say no Americans were willingly involved.

The House Intelligence Committee also has reported it found no Trump-Russia collusion after an exhaustive search.

Thus, today’s prevailing question is far less about a still unproven alliance between Moscow and Trump. Rather, it is whether Trump-hating bureaucrats inside the U.S. intelligence community abused their position to mislead the nation’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court in an effort to negate Trump’s election victory. 

As one senator who has read most of the classified documents told me last week, “the real question we must now answer is did U.S. intel conspire with a foreign spy, a Democratic campaign and a few foreign allies to attempt a soft coup against the man Americans chose as president?”

That’s a little provocative, but the question of FISA abuses is real.

So, Mr. President, as you weigh whether to go with your gut instinct or trust those allies and bureaucrats with heartburn, consider these facts.

House Speaker Paul RyanPaul Davis Ryan Retirees should say 'no thanks' to Romney's Social Security plan California Governor Newsom and family dress as 2020 Democrats for Halloween DC's liaison to rock 'n' roll MORE (R-Wis.) — a member of Congress’s “Gang of Eight” that was briefed more than anyone else about the inadequacies of the Russia evidence — believes you should declassify. His office told me so today.

"Upon redaction of sources and methods, the speaker supports the president’s decision to declassify the documents to bring about more transparency regarding potential FISA abuses," he said.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), long a respected voice inside your party on issues of law enforcement and security, promises the documents will prove that the FBI and DOJ committed a fraud upon the FISA court.

“I urge the president to release them. I believe what it will show is that the FBI and the DOJ held back important information from the FISA court and that some of the information they gave turned out to be misleading,” King told Hill.TV’s Alison Spann. He added that “there is nothing there that would really hurt any foreign government.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin NunesDevin Gerald NunesFive takeaways from ex-ambassador's dramatic testimony White House releases rough transcript of early Trump-Ukraine call minutes before impeachment hearing Live coverage: Ex-Ukraine ambassador testifies in public impeachment hearing MORE (R-Calif.) insists the documents will prove the FBI and the DOJ signed applications for FISA warrants to surveil the Trump campaign that omitted essential derogatory information about the sources and exculpatory information about the accused.

Rep. Trey GowdyHarold (Trey) Watson GowdyFive landmark moments of testimony to Congress Conway spars with Wallace on whether White House will cooperate with impeachment inquiry after formal vote Gowdy: I '100 percent' still believe public congressional hearings are 'a circus' MORE (R-S.C.), a lawmaker whom the president’s party has entrusted with high-profile investigations in the past and who has read much of the classified evidence present, goes further. He not only advocates releasing the documents, he provocatively suggests it may raise questions about former CIA Director John BrennanJohn Owen BrennanTrump bemoans 'double standard' in Stone conviction The curious timeline for taking down Trump Brennan: Russian election interference 'changed the mind of at least one voter' MORE’s conduct.

Reps. Mark MeadowsMark Randall MeadowsDemocrats seize on new evidence in first public impeachment hearing House Republicans call impeachment hearing 'boring,' dismiss Taylor testimony as hearsay Key takeaways from first public impeachment hearing MORE (R-N.C.) and Jim JordanJames (Jim) Daniel JordanSix memorable moments from Ex-Ukraine ambassador Yovanovitch's public testimony Democrats say Trump tweet is 'witness intimidation,' fuels impeachment push Live coverage: Ex-Ukraine ambassador testifies in public impeachment hearing MORE (R-Ohio), two more Republicans who are deep into the evidence, are certain that the evidence will prove the FBI used its “crushing” investigative powers just to further flimsy political opposition research.

Such revelations from political leaders in the know should be weighed against the protestations of those intelligence bureaucrats who argue against the release. It is reasonable to wonder if they have more to lose in reputation than in sources and methods.

Likewise, the Democrats who once cheered every media story that leaked classified and sensitive law enforcement information that built a narrative of collusion now have an allergy to the continued release of such information. Such hypocrisy must further weigh into a declassification decision.

Finally, there are those two nervous allies, Australia and Great Britain. Their continued collaboration undoubtedly remains important to the United States. But, in this case, the American public deserves to know why two foreign countries — no matter how friendly or well intentioned — were involved in an American domestic matter such as a democratic election.

Furthermore, why would the FBI need their assistance if, as it represented to a federal court, the FISA evidence was corroborated and reliable?

A political opposition dossier bought by an opponent, submitted as evidence against a presidential candidate, hardly qualifies as credible on its own — and even less so when FBI agents, nine months later, have been unable to prove its allegation.

Sometimes, the American interest in resolving a domestic question as important as the integrity of our law enforcement and intelligence outweighs an ally’s discomfort. 

Right now, the opposition to declassification feels more like a political Berlin Wall than legitimate national security risk. I say, tear it down.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists’ misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill’s executive vice president for video.