The Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund research that resulted in a now-famous dossier containing allegations about President Trump's connections to Russia and possible coordination between his campaign and the Kremlin, people familiar with the matter said. 
 
 Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research. 
 
 After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 
 
 Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained the company in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Before that agreement, Fusion GPS's research into Trump was funded by an unknown Republican client during the GOP primary. 
 
 The Clinton campaign and the DNC, through the law firm, continued to fund Fusion GPS's research through the end of October 2016, days before Election Day. 
 
 Fusion GPS gave Steele's reports and other research documents to Elias, the people familiar with the matter said. It is unclear how or how much of that information was shared with the campaign and the DNC and who in those organizations was aware of the roles of Fusion GPS and Steele. One person close to the matter said the campaign and the DNC were not informed by the law firm of Fusion GPS's role. 
 
 
 
 Former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele compiled the dossier on President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia. (Victoria Jones/AP) 
 
 The dossier has become a lightning rod amid the intensifying investigations into the Trump campaign's possible connections to Russia. Some congressional Republican leaders have spent months trying to discredit Fusion GPS and Steele and tried to determine the identity of the Democrat or organization that paid for the dossier. 
 
 Trump tweeted as recently as Saturday that the Justice Department and FBI should "immediately release who paid for it." 
 
 Elias and Fusion GPS declined to comment on the arrangement. 
 
 A DNC spokeswoman said "[Chairman] Tom Perez and the new leadership of the DNC were not involved in any decision-making regarding Fusion GPS, nor were they aware that Perkins Coie was working with the organization. But let's be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened." 
 
 Brian Fallon, a former spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said he wasn't aware of the hiring during the campaign. 
 
 
 
 Marc E. Elias of Perkins Coie represented the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. (Matt McClain/The Washington Post) 
 
 "The first I learned of Christopher Steele or saw any dossier was after the election," Fallon said. "But if I had gotten handed it last fall, I would have had no problem passing it along and urging reporters to look into it. Opposition research happens on every campaign, and here you had probably the most shadowy guy ever running for president, and the FBI certainly has seen fit to look into it. I probably would have volunteered to go to Europe myself to try and verify if it would have helped get more of this out there before the election." 
 
 Some of the details are included in a Tuesday letter sent by Perkins Coie to a lawyer representing Fusion GPS, telling the research firm that it was released from a ­client-confidentiality obligation. The letter was prompted by a legal fight over a subpoena for Fusion GPS's bank records. 
 
 People involved in the matter said that they would not disclose the dollar amounts paid to Fusion GPS but that the campaign and the DNC shared the cost. 
 
 Steele previously worked in Russia for British intelligence. The dossier is a compilation of reports he prepared for Fusion GPS. The dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and that the Kremlin was engaged in an effort to assist his campaign for president. 
 
 U.S. intelligence agencies later released a public assessment asserting that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to aid Trump. The FBI has been investigating whether Trump associates helped the Russians in that effort. 
 
 [FBI once planned to pay former British spy who authored controversial Trump dossier] 
 
 Trump has adamantly denied the allegations in the dossier and has dismissed the FBI probe as a witch hunt. 
 
 Officials have said that the FBI has confirmed some of the information in the dossier. Other details, including the most sensational accusations, have not been verified and may never be. 
 
 Fusion GPS's work researching Trump began during the Republican presidential primaries, when the GOP donor paid for the firm to investigate the real estate magnate's background. 
 
 Fusion GPS did not start off looking at Trump's Russia ties but quickly realized that those relationships were extensive, according to the people familiar with the matter. 
 
 When the Republican donor stopped paying for the research, Elias, acting on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC, agreed to pay for the work to continue. The Democrats paid for research, including by Fusion GPS, because of concerns that little was known about Trump and his business interests, according to the people familiar with the matter. 
 
 Those people said that it is standard practice for political campaigns to use law firms to hire outside researchers to ensure their work is protected by attorney-client and work-product privileges. 
 
 The Clinton campaign paid Perkins Coie $5.6 million in legal fees from June 2015 to December 2016, according to campaign finance records, and the DNC paid the firm $3.6 million in "legal and compliance consulting'' since November 2015 — though it's impossible to tell from the filings how much of that work was for other legal matters and how much of it related to Fusion GPS. 
 
 At no point, the people said, did the Clinton campaign or the DNC direct Steele's activities. They described him as a Fusion GPS subcontractor. 
 
 Some of Steele's allegations began circulating in Washington in the summer of 2016 as the FBI launched its counterintelligence investigation into possible connections between Trump associates and the Kremlin. Around that time, Steele shared some of his findings with the FBI. 
 
 After the election, the FBI agreed to pay Steele to continue gathering intelligence about Trump and Russia, but the bureau pulled out of the arrangement after Steele was publicly identified in news reports. 
 
 The dossier was published by BuzzFeed News in January. Fusion GPS has said in court filings that it did not give BuzzFeed the documents. 
 
 Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that Steele was respected by the FBI and the State Department for earlier work he performed on a global corruption probe. 
 
 In early January, then-FBI Director James B. Comey presented a two-page summary of Steele's dossier to President Barack Obama and President-elect Trump. In May, Trump fired Comey, which led to the appointment of Robert S. Mueller III as special counsel investigating the Trump-Russia matter. 
 
 Congressional Republicans have tried to force Fusion GPS to identify the Democrat or group behind Steele's work, but the firm has said that it will not do so, citing confidentiality agreements with its clients. 
 
 Last week, Fusion GPS executives invoked their constitutional right not to answer questions from the House Intelligence Committee. The firm's founder, Glenn Simpson, had previously given a 10-hour interview to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
 
 Over objections from Democrats, the Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), subpoenaed Fusion GPS's bank records to try to identify the mystery client. 
 
 Fusion GPS has been fighting the release of its bank records. A judge on Tuesday extended a deadline for Fusion GPS's bank to respond to the subpoena until Friday while the company attempts to negotiate a resolution with Nunes. 
 
 Julie Tate contributed to this report. 
 
 Read more: 
 
 What the Trump dossier says — and what it doesn’t 
 
 Hillary Clinton’s disingenuous dossier outrage 
 
 Trump suggests FBI may have ‘paid for’ dossier alleging Russia ties ||||| FILE - In this March 21, 2016, file photo, attorney Marc Elias, one of several lawyers who appeared in the in the case of Wittman v. Personhuballah, stands on the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington.... (Associated Press) 
 
 FILE - In this March 21, 2016, file photo, attorney Marc Elias, one of several lawyers who appeared in the in the case of Wittman v. Personhuballah, stands on the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund a political... (Associated Press) 
 
 FILE - In this March 21, 2016, file photo, attorney Marc Elias, one of several lawyers who appeared in the in the case of Wittman v. Personhuballah, stands on the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund a political... (Associated Press) FILE - In this March 21, 2016, file photo, attorney Marc Elias, one of several lawyers who appeared in the in the case of Wittman v. Personhuballah, stands on the plaza of the Supreme Court in Washington.... (Associated Press) 
 
 WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee helped fund political research into President Donald Trump that ultimately produced a dossier of allegations about his ties to Russia, a person familiar with the matter said Tuesday night. 
 
 The revelation is likely to fuel complaints by Trump that the dossier, which the president has derided as "phony stuff," is a politically motivated collection of salacious claims. Yet the FBI has worked to corroborate the document, and in a sign of its ongoing relevance to investigators, special counsel Robert Mueller's team — which is probing potential coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign — weeks ago questioned the former British spy, Christopher Steele, who helped compile the claims in the dossier. 
 
 The dossier, which circulated in Washington last year and was turned over to the FBI for its review, contends that Russia was engaged in a longstanding effort to aid Trump and had amassed compromising information about him. Trump has repeatedly dismissed the document as false and in recent days has questioned on Twitter whether Democrats or the FBI had helped fund it. 
 
 Trump has also attacked the findings of the FBI, NSA and CIA that Russia waged a large-scale influence campaign to interfere in the election. The FBI and the CIA have said with high confidence that the effort was aimed at hurting Clinton's candidacy and helping Trump. The NSA found the same with "moderate" confidence. 
 
 The person familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential client matters, said the arrangement was brokered by Marc Elias, a lawyer for the campaign and the DNC, and his law firm of Perkins Coie. 
 
 The deal began in the spring of 2016, when the firm was approached by Fusion GPS, the political research firm behind the dossier, and lasted until right before Election Day, according to the person. When Fusion approached Elias, it had already been doing research work on Trump for a client during the GOP primary. The identity of the original client has not been revealed. 
 
 It's unclear what Fusion GPS had dug up by the time law firm hired them in April 2016. According to a copy of the dossier published by BuzzFeed this year, the earliest report from Steele dates to June 2016, two months later. It was not immediately known how much money Fusion received or how many others in the Clinton campaign or DNC were aware that the firm had been retained. 
 
 Elias did not immediately return an email seeking comment, and representatives of Fusion GPS declined to comment. The Washington Post first reported the arrangement. 
 
 Clinton campaign officials did not immediately comment, but in a statement, a DNC spokeswoman said chairman Tom Perez was not part of the decision-making and was unaware that Perkins Coie was working with Fusion GPS. 
 
 "But let's be clear, there is a serious federal investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia, and the American public deserves to know what happened," the statement said. 
 
 Former Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon said on Twitter that he regretted not knowing about Steele's hiring before the election, and that had he known, "I would have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him." 
 
 "I have no idea what Fusion or Steele were paid," he wrote in another tweet, "but if even a shred of that dossier ends up helping Mueller, it will prove money well spent." 
 
 According to a letter obtained by the AP Tuesday night, representatives of Fusion GPS reached out to the firm in early March 2016 to express interest in continuing research on Trump it had begun "for one or more other clients during the Republican primary contest." 
 
 At that time, the Clinton campaign was looking toward the general election and was pivoting attention to Trump, the emerging Republican front-runner. The person said Trump, by virtue of his extensive international business dealings, was seen as a natural target for complicated opposition research abroad. 
 
 Perkins Coie then engaged Fusion GPS in April 2016 "to perform a variety of research services during the 2016 election cycle," according to the letter. 
 
 The dossier created a political firestorm in January when it was revealed that then-FBI Director James Comey had alerted Trump to the existence of allegations about him and Russia. Since then, Trump has repeatedly attacked the document and Republicans in Congress have worked to discredit it, even issuing a subpoena that seeks to force the disclosure of Fusion GPS's bank records. 
 
 The letter, sent Tuesday by the general counsel of Perkins Coie to a lawyer for Fusion GPS, was intended to release the research firm from its obligation to keep confidential the identity of the law firm client. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Associated Press writers Chad Day and Ken Thomas contributed to this report. 
 
 ___ 
 
 Read the letter: http://apne.ws/UK0Ojir ||||| The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended Friday that the Justice Department investigate for possible criminal charges the author of the now-famous dossier alleging the Trump campaign coordinated with the Kremlin during the 2016 election. 
 
 The move by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) marks a major escalation in conservatives' challenges to the FBI's credibility as the agency investigates whether any Trump associates committed crimes. Another Republican, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), joined in the letter to the Justice Department. 
 
 Their letter makes what is called a criminal referral to the Justice Department, suggesting it investigate the dossier's author, former British spy Christopher Steele, for possibly lying to the FBI. It is a crime to lie to FBI agents about a material fact relevant to an ongoing investigation. 
 
 The letter says Steele may have lied to the FBI "regarding his distribution of information contained in the dossier." In response to a lawsuit filed in London, Steele has said he had off-the-record conversations with a handful of news organizations during that period, including The Washington Post. It was not immediately clear how conversations with reporters might be materially relevant to the investigation the FBI was conducting. 
 
 The move by Grassley and Graham was viewed skeptically by some Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, as well as experts in criminal law. 
 
 Steele's role has become a matter of increasingly heated debate, with the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill suggesting his reports were biased, since he was hired with money that ultimately came from the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. 
 
 [Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research leading to Trump dossier] 
 
 Steele's allegations — in addition to other information, including intelligence intercepts and an Australian diplomat's account of a conversation with a Trump adviser in a London wine bar — prompted the FBI to open a counterintelligence investigation into Trump associates in July 2016, according to current and former officials. The Australian warning was first reported by the New York Times. 
 
 That investigation has since expanded into a special-counsel probe by Robert S. Mueller III, whose work has led to indictments of two former Trump campaign officials, as well as guilty pleas and cooperation deals from two others. As the Russia probe has heated up, some Republicans have amplified their attacks on Steele's dossier, contending it was a weapon in a political smear campaign they claim was aided by the FBI. 
 
 Steele did not respond to a request for comment. But a lawyer for the consulting firm that hired him, Fusion GPS, had a strong reaction. 
 
 "After a year of investigations into Donald Trump's ties to Russia, the only person Republicans seek to accuse of wrongdoing is one who reported on these matters to law enforcement in the first place," the lawyer, Joshua A. Levy, said in a statement. "Publicizing a criminal referral based on classified information raises serious questions about whether this letter is nothing more than another attempt to discredit government sources, in the midst of an ongoing criminal investigation. We should all be skeptical in the extreme." 
 
 A veteran prosecutor, Peter Zeidenberg, said he had never heard of anything like the Grassley-Graham complaint and labeled it "nonsense" designed to detract from ongoing inquiries into Russian interference in the 2016 election. 
 
 "The FBI doesn't need any prompting from politicians to prosecute people who have lied to them," said Zeidenberg, a federal prosecutor for 17 years. While members of Congress make criminal referrals from time to time, they are usually related to independent congressional investigations, not to material already known to the FBI. "They should stay in their lane," Zeidenberg said of the Grassley-Graham effort. 
 
 Another former federal prosecutor, Justin Dillon, said it was too early to assume the letter was simply a political attack. "Given that we don't know what the basis for the referral is, it seems premature to simply assume it was partisan," Dillon said. "I do find it hard to believe that Grassley and Graham would just make this up out of whole cloth." 
 
 Grassley said in a statement Friday, "If we see what appears to be credible evidence of a violation that should be further investigated based on information from any source, public or non-public, we are going to formally notify the department." 
 
 The top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), said she and other Democrats had not been consulted about the request for a criminal inquiry. 
 
 "This referral is unfortunate," Feinstein said in a statement. "It's clearly another effort to deflect attention from what should be the committee's top priority: determining whether there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election and whether there was subsequent obstruction of justice." 
 
 One Republican aide familiar with Judiciary Committee operations said: "It's pretty clear that Grassley and Graham are interested in carrying water for the White House, but that is not reflective of the whole committee. There are members of Judiciary who are upset with Senator Grassley for carrying it so close to the vest." The aide asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. 
 
 Steele was a senior intelligence officer monitoring the Kremlin for Britain's intelligence service, MI6, before he left the agency and established a consulting firm, Orbis. In that role, he worked for a range of clients, including law firms and Fusion GPS. 
 
 The dossier is a compilation of reports he wrote for Fusion GPS between June and late October 2016, plus a final report in December, after the election. Among other things, the dossier alleged that the Russian government collected compromising information about Trump and that the Kremlin was engaged in an effort to assist his campaign for president. 
 
 U.S. intelligence agencies later released a public assessment asserting that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to aid Trump. The FBI has been investigating whether Trump associates helped the Russians in that effort. 
 
 Trump has vigorously denied the allegations in the dossier and has called the FBI probe a witch hunt. ||||| Exclusive: memo written by former journalist Cody Shearer independently sets out some of the allegations made by ex-spy Christopher Steele 
 
 The FBI inquiry into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 US presidential election has been given a second memo that independently set out some of the same allegations made in a dossier by Christopher Steele, the British former spy. 
 
 Play Video 1:03 Democrats criticize Trump over lack of Russian sanctions – video 
 
 The second memo was written by Cody Shearer, a controversial political activist and former journalist who was close to the Clinton White House in the 1990s. 
 
 Unlike Steele, Shearer does not have a background in espionage, and his memo was initially viewed with scepticism, not least because he had shared it with select media organisations before the election. 
 
 However, the Guardian has been told the FBI investigation is still assessing details in the “Shearer memo” and is pursuing intriguing leads. 
 
 One source with knowledge of the inquiry said the fact the FBI was still working on it suggested investigators had taken an aspect of it seriously. 
 
 It raises the possibility that parts of the Steele dossier, which has been derided by Trump’s supporters, may have been corroborated by Shearer’s research, or could still be. 
 
 The revelation comes at a moment when Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers have been seeking to cast doubt on the credibility of the Mueller inquiry and the motivation of the FBI in examining Russian collusion, including unproven allegations that investigators had a bias in favour of Hillary Clinton when the investigation was initially launched before November. 
 
 Republicans vote to release contentious memo attacking FBI over 2016 election Read more 
 
 Republicans on the House intelligence committee voted on Monday night to release a highly contentious memo, commissioned by the Republican chairman of the committee, Devin Nunes. The memo reportedly claims the FBI had an anti-Trump bias when it sought a warrant from the US foreign intelligence surveillance court to collect intelligence on Carter Page, an adviser to the Trump campaign. The Fisa court is a secret court that examines law enforcement requests to surveil Americans suspected of acting as foreign agents. 
 
 The Republican memo reportedly alleges that the FBI relied on the Steele dossier, which was partly paid for using Democratic funds, in seeking the Carter Page warrant, according to the New York Times. 
 
 Democrats have said that the Republican allegations are misleading and based on selective use of classified materials. Justice department officials have said the release of the document, because of the classified elements, would be “extraordinarily reckless”. 
 
 Trump now has five days to decide whether the Nunes document should become public. 
 
 The Shearer memo was provided to the FBI in October 2016. 
 
 It was handed to them by Steele – who had been given it by an American contact – after the FBI requested the former MI6 agent provide any documents or evidence that could be useful in its investigation, according to multiple sources. 
 
 The Guardian was told Steele warned the FBI he could not vouch for the veracity of the Shearer memo, but that he was providing a copy because it corresponded with what he had separately heard from his own independent sources. 
 
 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Robert Mueller, the former FBI director leading the investigation. Photograph: Joshua Roberts/Reuters 
 
 Among other things, both documents allege Donald Trump was compromised during a 2013 trip to Moscow that involved lewd acts in a five-star hotel. 
 
 The Shearer memo cites an unnamed source within Russia’s FSB, the state security service. The Guardian cannot verify any of the claims. 
 
 Shearer is a controversial figure in Washington. Conservative outlets have accused him of being part of a “hatchet man” and member of a “secret spy ring” and within Clinton’s orbit. There is no evidence that the Clinton campaign was aware of the Shearer memo. 
 
 But other people who know Shearer say he is not just a Democratic party hack and there is no evidence that his memo was ever sought by Clinton campaign officials. 
 
 Sources say that while he lacks the precision and polish of a seasoned former spy like Steele, Shearer has also been described as having a large network of sources around the world and the independent financial means to pursue leads. 
 
 The White House has vigorously denied allegations that the US president was ever compromised and has rejected claims that campaign officials ever conspired with the Kremlin before the 2016 election. 
 
 Steele’s dossier, his motives for writing it and his decision to share it remain controversial among Republicans. 
 
 He says he approached the FBI about concerns he had about links between Russia and the Trump campaign after he was commissioned to investigate the matter by a private investigative firm called Fusion GPS on behalf of the firm’s clients. 
 
 Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion GPS, told congressional investigators that Steele approached the FBI out of a sense of duty and concern for US national security. 
 
 Republican supporters of Trump have derided it as “fake news”. Chuck Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa and ally of Trump, has called for an investigation into Steele amid unspecified allegations about the former spy’s conduct. 
 
 Democrats have said the campaign against Steele is part of an effort to seek to discredit him in order to shift attention away from allegations about Trump and Russia. 
 
 Spokespeople for the FBI and the US special counsel leading the criminal investigation into the Trump campaign declined to comment. Shearer did not return emails and calls for comment. 
 
 A federal criminal investigation into the Trump campaign has so far resulted in four indictments. Two former Trump campaign officials, including Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser, have pleaded guilty to perjury and are cooperating with Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is leading the ongoing investigation. ||||| The Nunes memo is a document created by the staff of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that alleges the FBI abused its surveillance authority, particularly when it sought a secret court order to monitor a former Trump campaign adviser. The FBI and the Justice Department had lobbied strenuously against its release. On Wednesday, the FBI had said it was “gravely concerned” that key facts were missing from the memo. President approves release of GOP memo criticizing FBI surveillance 
 
 THE WHITE HOUSE 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 February 2, 2018 
 
 The Honorable Devin Nunes 
 
 Chairman, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
 
 United States Capitol 
 
 Washington, DC 20515 
 
 Dear Mr. Chairman: 
 
 On January 29, 2018, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (hereinafter ?the 
 
 Committee?) voted to disclose publicly a memorandum containing classi?ed information 
 
 provided to the Committee in connection with its oversight activities (the ?Memorandum,? 
 
 which is attached to this letter). As provided by clause 11(g) of Rule of the House of 
 
 Representatives, the Committee has forwarded this Memorandum to the President based on its 
 
 determination that the release of the Memorandum would serve the public interest. 
 
 The Constitution vests the President with the authority to protect national security secrets from it 
 
 disclosure. As the Supreme Court has recognized, it is the President?s responsibility to classify, 
 
 declassify, and control access to information bearing on our intelligence sources and methods 
 
 and national defense. See, Dep of Navy v. Egan, 484 US. 518, 527 (1988). In order to 
 
 facilitate appropriate congressional oversight, the Executive Branch may entrust classi?ed 
 
 information to the appropriate committees of Congress, as it has done in connection with the 
 
 Committee?s oversight activities here. The Executive Branch does so on the assumption that the 
 
 Committee will responsibly protect such classi?ed information, consistent with the laws of the 
 
 United States. 
 
 The Committee has now determined that the release of the Memorandum would be appropriate. 
 
 The Executive Branch, across Administrations of both parties, has worked to accommodate 
 
 congressional requests to declassify speci?c materials in the public interest.1 However, public 
 
 release of classi?ed information by unilateral action of the Legislative Branch is extremely rare 
 
 and raises signi?cant separation of powers concerns. Accordingly, the Committee?s request to 
 
 release the Memorandum is interpreted as a request for declassi?cation pursuant to the 
 
 President?s authority. 
 
 The President understands that the protection of our national security represents his highest 
 
 obligation. Accordingly, he has directed lawyers and national security staff to assess the 
 
 1 See, e. S. Rept. 114?8 at 12 (Administration of Barack Obama) (?On April 3, 2014 . . . the Committee agreed to 
 
 send the revised Findings and Conclusions, and the updated Executive Summary of the Committee Study, to the 
 
 President for declassi?cation and public release?); H. Rept. 107-792 (Administration of George W. Bush) (similar); 
 
 E.O. 12812 (Administration of George H.W. Bush) (noting Senate resolution requesting that President provide for 
 
 declassi?cation of certain information Via Executive Order). 
 
 declassi?cation request, consistent with established standards governing the handling of 
 
 classi?ed information, including those under Section 3.1(d) of Executive Order 13526. Those 
 
 standards permit declassi?cation when the public interest in disclosure outweighs any need to 
 
 protect the information. The White House review process also included input from the Of?ce of 
 
 the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Justice. Consistent with this review 
 
 and these standards, the President has determined that declassification of the Memorandum is 
 
 appropriate. 
 
 Based on this assessment and in light of the signi?cant public interest in the memorandum, the 
 
 President has authorized the declassi?cation of the Memorandum. To be clear, the 
 
 Memorandum re?ects the judgments of its congressional authors. The President understands 
 
 that oversight concerning matters related to the Memorandum may be continuing. Though the 
 
 circumstances leading to the declassi?cation through this process are extraordinary, the 
 
 Executive Branch stands ready to work with Congress to accommodate oversight requests 
 
 consistent with applicable standards and processes, including the need to protect intelligence 
 
 sources and methods. 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 Donald F. McGahn II 
 
 Counsel to the President 
 
 cc: The Honorable Paul Ryan 
 
 Speaker of the House of Representatives 
 
 The Honorable Adam Schiff 
 
 Ranking Member, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
 
 ssnua 
 
 DeclasSi?ed by order of the President 
 
 February 2, 2018 
 
 January 18, 2018 
 
 To: HPSCI Majority Members 
 
 From: HPSCI Majority Staff 
 
 Subject: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses at the Department of Justice and the 
 
 Federal Bureau of Investigation 
 
 Purpose 
 
 This memorandum provides Members an update on significant facts relating to the 
 
 Committee?s ongoing investigation into the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of 
 
 Investigation (FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (F ISA) during the 
 
 2016 presidential election cycle. Our ?ndings, which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with 
 
 the legitimacy and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign Intelligence 
 
 Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a troubling breakdown of legal processes established 
 
 to protect the American people from abuses related to the ISA process. 
 
 Investigation Update 
 
 - On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a ISA probable cause order 
 
 (up; under Title VII) authorizing electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a 
 
 US citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign. Consistent . 
 
 with requirements under FISA, the application had to be ?rst certi?ed by the Director or Deputy 
 
 Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney 
 
 General (DAG), or the Senate?con?rmed Assistant Attorney General for the National Security 
 
 Division. 
 
 The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting Carter Page and three FISA 
 
 renewals from the FISC. As required by statute (50 U.S.C. a FISA order on an 
 
 American citizen must be renewed by the ISC every 90 days and each renewal requires a 
 
 separate finding of probable cause. Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications 
 
 . in question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe signed one. 
 
 Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente, and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more 
 
 FISA applications on behalf of 
 
 Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence activity, FISA submissions (including 
 
 renewals) before the ISC are classified. As such, the public?s con?dence in the integrity of the 
 
 FISA process depends on the court?s ability to hold the government to the highest standard?? 
 
 particularly as it relates to surveillance of American citizens. However, the rigor in 
 
 protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by 90?day renewals of surveillance 
 
 orders, is necessarily dependent on the government?s production to the court of all material and 
 
 relevant facts. This should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA 
 
 PROPERTY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 TGIF-SEW 
 
 application that is known by the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at 
 
 least four independent opportunities before the FISC to accurately provide an accounting of the 
 
 relevant facts. However, our ?ndings indicate that, as described below, material and relevant 
 
 information was omitted. 
 
 1) 
 
 2) 
 
 The ?dossier?- compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the 
 
 Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an 
 
 essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who 
 
 was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law ?rm Perkins Coie 
 
 and research ?rm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump?s ties 
 
 to Russia. 
 
 a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any of the renewals, disclose or 
 
 reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or. any party/campaign in funding 
 
 Steele?s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then 
 
 known to senior and FBI of?cials. 
 
 b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for a named US. person, but 
 
 does not name Fusion GPS and principal Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a US. law 
 
 ?rm (Perkins Coie) representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOI at the, 
 
 time that political actors were involved with the Steele dossier). The application does 
 
 not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of?and paid by?wthe DNC and 
 
 Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the 
 
 same information. 
 
 The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo 
 
 News article by- Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page?s July 2016 trip to Moscow. 
 
 - This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information 
 
 leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses 
 
 that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News. Steele has admitted in 
 
 British court ?lings that he met with Yahoo Newly?and several other. outlets?in 
 
 September 2016 at the direction of Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele?s 
 
 initial media contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington DC. in 
 
 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was discussed." 
 
 a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI de?nes 
 
 as the most serious of violations?an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his 
 
 relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David 
 
 Corn Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed contacts with 
 
 Yahoo and other outlets' 1n September?before the Page application was submitted to 
 
 PROPERTY OF THE US. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 3) 
 
 4) 
 
 the FISC in October-but Steele improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about 
 
 those contacts. 
 
 b) Steele?s numerous encounters with the media violated the cardinal rule of source 
 
 handling?maintaining con?dentiality?and demonstrated that Steele had become a 
 
 less than reliable source for the FBI. 
 
 Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he maintained contact with DOJ via 
 
 then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce 0hr, a senior DOJ of?cial who worked 
 
 closely with Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly after the 
 
 election, the FBI began interviewing 0hr, documenting his communications with Steele. 
 
 For example, in September 2016, Steele admitted to 0hr his feelings against then- 
 
 candidate Trump when Steele said he ?was desperate that Donald Trump not get 
 
 elected and was passionate about him not, being president.? This clear evidence of . 
 
 Steele? bias was recorded by Ohr at the time and subsequently in of?cial FBI ?les?but 
 
 not re?ected in any of the Page FISA applications. 
 
 a) During this same time period, Ohr?s wife was employed by Fusion GPS to assist in 
 
 the cultivation of opposition research on Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all 
 
 of his wife?s opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via 
 
 Fusion GPS. The Ohrs? relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was inexplicably 
 
 concealed from the FISC. . 
 
 According to the head of the counterintelligence division, Assistant Director Bill 
 
 Priestap, corroboration of the Steele dossier was in its ?infancy? at the time of the initial 
 
 Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source validation report conducted 
 
 by an independent unit within FBI assessed Steele?s reporting as only minimally 
 
 corroborated. Yet, in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect Trump 
 
 on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it was??according to his June 2017 
 
 and unveri?ed.? While the FISA application relied on Steele?s 
 
 past record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it ignored or concealed his 
 
 anti?Trump ?nancial and ideological motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director 
 
 McCabe testi?ed before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant 
 
 would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information. 
 
 r; .r 
 
 i. a: 
 
 3:4 ,af- .9.- 
 
 PROPERTY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 5) The Page FISA application also mentions information regarding fellow Trump campaign 
 
 advisor George Papadopoulos, but there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy 
 
 between Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening 
 
 of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. 
 
 Strzok was reassigned by the Special Counsel?s Office to FBI Human Resources for 
 
 improper text messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known relation to 
 
 Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear bias against Trump and in favor of 
 
 Clinton, Whom Strzok had also investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also re?ect 
 
 extensive discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the media, and 
 
 include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to discuss an ?insurance? policy against 
 
 President Trump?s election. 
 
 I 
 
 PROPERTY OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
– Funding for research included in the explosive dossier on President Trump's Russia connections came from none other than the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee, per reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times. A letter filed in court Tuesday details how research firm Fusion GPS began working in April 2016 for a law firm employed by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to gather damaging information on Trump. According to the letter, Fusion GPS had already been doing research on Trump on behalf of one of the Republican's primary opponents before it was hired by Perkins Coie, the firm of Clinton campaign lawyer Mark Elias. Trump has long slammed the dossier compiled by British ex-spy Christopher Steele as politically motivated "fake news." In a tweet last week, Trump wondered whether the FBI, the Democrats, Russia, or all three had funded it. He's now expected to repeat conspiracy allegations, though sources tell the Post and the Times that Clinton and DNC officials were unaware of the role of Fusion GPS. The AP reports the FBI has corroborated parts of the dossier, which alleges Russia worked to help the Trump campaign and amassed compromising information on him. Former Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted that if he'd known about Steele's role, he would "have volunteered to go to Europe and try to help him." He added that if the information compiled by Steele helps Robert Mueller's investigation, anything paid to him and Fusion GPS would be "money well spent."