Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz will release his much anticipated report on his investigation Monday afternoon into the FBI’s handling of its probe into President Donald Trump’s campaign and the now debunked assumption that there was collusion with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.

The report, along with the House Judiciary impeachment hearing, are expected to be the lead stories of the day competing for space in the news cycle. Republicans have accused Chairman Jerrold Nadler of conducting the hearing as a diversion from what is expected to be a damning 500 page report on the FBI and how it handled the investigation into Trump.

Moreover, the report will reveal the FBI’s handling of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant issued by the secret court to monitor short term campaign volunteer Carter Page, who says his life was turned upside down by the bureau’s handling of the case. The FISA warrant is central to understanding how FBI officials vetted their information on Page when they submitted their application to the court. It will be a central part of the report and how the bureau handled his application should concern every American.

According to senior Republicans involved in the investigation, as well as others familiar with the FISA application on Page, exculpatory evidence on Page was also withheld from the FISA court. Those sources have told SaraACarter.com that withholding this information will be damning to those officials at the FBI that applied for the warrant to monitor his communications.

We know there’s exculpatory evidence that we’ve seen on Carter Page that they didn’t give to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA court, Nunes

Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures” host Maria Bartiromo that a significant piece of exculpatory information was withheld from the court. He listed a series of important pieces of evidence he believes will be forthcoming Justice Department watchdog’s report.

“We know there’s exculpatory evidence that we’ve seen on Carter Page that they didn’t give to the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] FISA court,” said Nunes. “That’s critical.”

Another significant piece of information that will be clarified pertains to the story in the New York Times regarding FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith, who altered the documents pertaining to the FISA application. If so, and if the alterations were significant there may be a criminal referral on Clinesmith in the report.

Further, Horowitz is expected to reveal new FBI names we may not be familiar with in the report. Remember, he was also investigating leaks and many of the senior FBI officials that the public is familiar with have already been named. Specifically, Horowitz may list other FBI agents involved in putting together and signing off on the FISA warrant on Page.

Already Former FBI Director James Comey, General Counsel James Baker, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Special Agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, National Press Secretary Michael Kortan, among others, have either been fired by the FBI or resigned from the bureau.

The report is also expected to shed light on the infamous and salacious Christoper Steele ‘dossier’ on Trump. Steele was a former British MI6 spy hired by the private research firm Fusion GPS to investigate Trump’s alleged ties with Russia. He was paid by Fusion GPS with money allocated by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

Even with a payout of $168,000 for his work, Steele testified in the British courts that he collected the information but did not verify the information in the dossier.

Information that the FBI did not properly vet the intelligence collected in the dossier is also expected to be in Horowitz’s report. The dossier’s dubious nature and long suspected leaks about the erroneous information contained in the dossier to the media will also play a part in the IG’s report, sources say.

I believe one of the most significant pieces of evidence that may be exposed will be whether or not the FBI provided a detailed defensive briefing to the Trump campaign, if they believed Russians or people influenced by Russians were attempting to penetrate the campaign.

If they did not, we have to ask the question why didn’t they. After all, the FBI does defensive briefings with members of Congress, presidential hopefuls and the like whenever the bureau suspects a foreign adversary may be trying to penetrate a campaign or influence an elected official.

If the bureau didn’t provide the defensive briefing, the question one has to ask is why? Possibly because it allowed the FBI to build a case to spy on the campaign.