The original Woods file on Trump’s former campaign advisor Carter Page mysteriously disappeared more than two years ago.
The “Woods Procedures” were designed to protect American citizens to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring abuses where the FBI presented inaccurate information to the FISC.
At the time, the Woods procedure was overseen by FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka and former FBI Counter-intel chief Peter Strzok — the same FBI agents who ambushed General Mike Flynn in January of 2017.
According to sources who spoke to investigative reporter Sara Carter, the ‘missing’ documents had to be recreated by the FBI and Mueller’s team in 2018.
TRENDING: WARNING: Democrat Data Firm Says Trump Landslide Likely on Election Day – But will Be Flipped to Biden by Mail-In Votes Emerging a Week After Election
Moreover, during Pientka’s numerous interviews with investigators from the DOJ’s Inspector General’s office, who likely have worked for both Michael Horowitz and Connecticut prosecutor John Durham – the fact that it was a recreated Wood’s file was never disclosed.
In fact, it had been missing for an unknown period of time, possibly up to two years and officials did not become aware it had disappeared until last week during a closed-door Senate Intelligence Committee hearing.
Pientka attended the closed-door hearing, along with other FBI officials, according to sources familiar with the proceedings.
“The real story here is how does the FBI, Special Counsel’s Office and Inspector General figure out if the Wood’s file went missing through malice or through incompetence,” said a source with knowledge if the circumstances.
Pientka has so far been cleared by the Justice Department and not charged with any wrongdoing. According to sources, he has been speaking and cooperating with Justice Department officials and members of Congress. He still maintains active employment with the FBI, unlike Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and former Assistant Director Bill Priestap, among others.
“The real story here is how does the FBI, Special Counsel’s Office and Inspector General figure out if the Wood’s file went missing through malice or though incompetence,” the source added. “Either answer doesn’t reflect well on this investigation.”
Earlier this year, The Gateway Pundit reported Comey’s Crossfire Hurricane team inserted blank pieces of paper into an FBI file used to document support for the FISA warrants on Carter Page which was cited in a barely-noticed footnote in Horowitz’s report.
According to the footnote in Horowitz’ report, the “placeholders” did not meet the Woods requirements.
“The Woods File for Renewal Application No. 2 contains a piece of paper that states “Strat Plan” and another piece of paper that states “New 302,” “Feb Article,” and “March Article.” The case agent who compiled the Woods File for this application told us that these pieces of paper were “placeholders” he inserted into the file to indicate to the SSA reviewer that a supporting document existed, but that a copy of it was not placed into the file.” The footnote on page 420 of Horowitz’s report referring to the second Carter Page FISA renewal stated.
“We do not believe these placeholders met the Woods requirements because the descriptions of the referenced documents were vague and it was not clear to us why the actual documents could not have been included in the Woods File. We also observed that there was no notation of other record indicating that the agent and supervisor performing the factual accuracy review in fact examined the documents identified by the placeholders.”
Another blank “placeholder” was inserted into the FBI file on the 3rd FISA renewal application, once again violating the Woods Procedures.
“Similar to the Woods File for Renewal Application No. 2, the file for Renewal Application 3 contains a “placeholder” piece of paper that states “Strat Plan,” indicating to the SSA reviewer that a supporting document existed for the factual assertion, but that it was not placed into the Woods File. For the reasons noted above, we do not believe this placeholder met the Woods requirements.” a footnote on page 422 of Horowitz’s report stated.
