“Was the investigation into claims of Russian interference a ‘hoax,’ as Trump and his allies have long claimed? No, Horowitz found. By the summer of 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies already knew that Russian hackers had breached Democratic Party servers with cyberattacks. FBI agents also received word from an Australian diplomat that George Papadopoulos, a low-ranking Trump campaign aide, claimed he had been approached by a purported Russian intermediary with offers of political dirt on Clinton. Those factors and others gave agents the minimal basis they needed under FBI policy to open an investigation.”
Matt Ford, New Republic

Some posit that “The conclusion that the predication standard was satisfied comes as no surprise. The standard is low, and deliberately so. While this standard prevents the FBI from opening an investigation on a whim or for an improper personal or political purpose, it allows probes to begin on even the slightest indication of a threat to public safety or national security. A higher standard would handcuff the FBI from completing its mission to protect and defend the American people…

“When predication indicates a threat to public safety or national security, the FBI has a duty to investigate. That duty applies even when the stakes are high, and the target is a powerful person in government. For the FBI to ignore such a threat would be to shirk its responsibilities, and instead leave our nation at risk.”
Barbara McQuade, USA Today

Others argue that “there are important systemic problems with the FBI and the way that the U.S. government approves invasive surveillance techniques on American citizens… the Clinton Foundation investigation began—and this is no joke—with an anti-Hillary book paid for by the former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. If the FBI is making errors in seeking permission to surveil current or former advisers to a presidential campaign, the most politically sensitive kind of investigation, it suggests that there are many more flawed applications to be found in operations where the investigations are not nearly so delicate. The process for seeking permission to spy on American citizens suspected of being foreign agents should be more adversarial than it is, if only to keep the government honest.”
Adam Serwer, The Atlantic

“The investigation was not an investigation of the Trump campaign. It was four investigations of individuals—Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn—associated with the campaign but about whom there was specific reason for concern. In other words, investigators were not spying on the Trump campaign. They had concerns about specific people and their relationship with Russia, just as the FBI has always said… Page has a right to be pissed off. The inspector general has, after all, concluded that serious errors took place in seeking Page’s surveillance orders. But that’s about as far as it goes. The errors were not political. They were not part of some coup. And in any event, the Page FISA applications did not end up being all that important.”
Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare Blog

“No one spied on the Trump campaign. The Steele dossier did not set off the Russia investigation. Two FBI employees, FBI attorney Lisa Page and FBI agent Peter Strzok, were not decision-makers and did not taint the investigation. In short, the panoply of screwy accusations meant to smear the FBI was false… Horowitz deserves credit for sticking to the facts and resisting what must have been intense pressure to go along with an administration bent on sustaining blatantly false conspiracy theories.”
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post