In my last column about the “Impeachment Circus,” I made a statement that I think I should clarify. In that column, while discussing information sources, I stated, “I don’t care where the information comes from if it’s credible.” When I reread that sentence, it dawned on me that some readers might mis-understand my meaning and believe I was willing to rely solely on questionable information sources. Also, I think the issue of credible information sources is going to be in the national spotlight in the not too distant future.

Every day in this nation, thousands of investigations are initiated, conducted and successfully completed because of information initially received from criminal informants. It might seem counter intuitive to receive and then rely on information from criminals, so an explanation is necessary. I’ll try to explain with a simple, yet common example. Envision a scenario where a low-level offender is arrested for possession of narcotics. This offender has a significant arrest record and is on parole or probation. This most recent arrest will undoubtedly result in significant jail time for this particular offender. I don’t think it’s a big secret that chronic drug users are pretty street wise. Typically, these people know what’s going on and who’s doing what. Many are more than willing (even anxious!) to trade information on a different, and usually more serious crime, in exchange for leniency consideration on a pending charge against them. Seasoned investigators take full advantage of this sort of situation, so this is often where investigations begin or sometimes change focus. It’s kind of a “no brainer” for an investigator to trade possible leniency on a relatively minor crime for information on a significant crime such as homicide. Criminal informants often provide critical information that result in a successful investigation and prosecution. It’s critical to the outcome that the investigator handle the provided information properly.

The problem in the above scenario is assessing the credibility of the informant. It’s not uncommon for an offender to lie about his/her knowledge of a crime, hoping an investigator will bite and offer leniency before corroborating the information. In fact, there have been many instances where an inexperienced or over-zealous investigator put his/her entire focus on information from a criminal informant without taking time to verify its accuracy. This happened (still happens… more on that below) when an investigator has a preconceived notion regarding the perpetrator of the crime being investigated and was therefore blinded by his/her bias. For that reason, most law enforcement agencies have a separate manual, or a portion of their operations manual, dedicated to the different types of informants and proper procedures for handling each. The purpose of these written policies is to ensure that information received from a criminal informant is credible and can be corroborated by additional sources.

Based on all that I’ve read, I believe that the issue of credible information is going to become a major topic in the investigation of the FISA warrants obtained to conduct surveillance on President Trump’s presidential campaign. I get the sense that the investigative entities in this instance were completely negligent in terms of corroborating the information they received. It appears that the warrant applications were based solely on what’s been called the “Steele Dossier.” This dossier, from what I can discern from my research, was a compilation of information that former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele received from unnamed sources and then documented for a company called Fusion GPS. This same information was ultimately passed on to disgraced FBI investigator Peter Strzok and FBI attorney Lisa Page. Evidence has been presented in the form of text messages between Strzok and Page that clearly indicate an anti-Trump bias. Additionally, there was no available information regarding the “unnamed sources” who supposedly provided the information to Steele and no evidence that the information they provided was ever corroborated.

President Trump was clearly targeted in this case. In my last column, I predicted that some key heads will roll and many high-level Democrats will be implicated when the FISA warrant investigation is complete. In my opinion, some of the most basic investigative steps were skipped because of the bias and preconceived notions of those involved. The FBI is an incredibly professional organization but there were problems in this instance. Consider how many high-level FBI employees have been removed from their positions as this investigation progressed.

“Investigations 101” absolutely mandates that information be checked and double checked for accuracy, regardless of the source. No investigation should ever move forward until that most basic requirement is met. The Inspector General’s investigation has been completed and the results are due out any time. The Department of Justice’s investigation is ongoing. I think we’re going to witness plenty of scrambling and finger pointing by the Washington Democrats when the results of these investigations see the light of day.

Blaine Blackstone is a retired Los Angeles Police Sergeant who enjoys the simpler life in Thompson Falls. He can be reached by email at [email protected].