I was a career federal auditor. I learned something early on in my career, and that was to determine how managers of an audited program would respond to the issue I had addressed in my finding.
I would then discuss their probable responses in the body of the finding – this way, program managers would not have the opportunity to infer that I was incorrect in my findings and conclusions and make me and my agency look stupid.
I hate to say it, but Rep. Devin Nunes, R-California, who released Friday a four-page memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI, would never have made it as an auditor.
He based his premise of the legitimacy and legality of a FISA warrant against a Trump campaign volunteer on one issue, the Christopher Steele dossier, and never addressed how that issue could be rebutted.
FISA applications are reported to be 50 to 60 pages long. Did the warrant spend all 50 to 60 pages talking about the dossier, or was there other information that was addressed?
Wouldn’t it be reasonable to be concerned about an American citizen who had been on the FBI’s radar in 2013 for passing on information to a known Russian spy, and was now serving as a foreign policy expert for a presidential campaign?
Furthermore, would it not be prudent for the FBI to be concerned when this individual visited Moscow in July 2016 to meet with high-level Russian officials and high-level executives of Russia’s oil industry? Why was he doing that while serving as a volunteer member of the Trump campaign’s foreign policy team?
Like I said at the beginning, Rep. Nunes would have made a terrible auditor. And to think, his salary is twice what mine would have been if I would have still been working.