This is worth a half hour of your time to watch from start to finish. And on top of that, the OANN reporter and FOX babe du jour are very easy on the eyes, but maybe best of all is the enthusiasm and optimism of the final reporter. Watch it, you'll be glad you did:

Best Four reactions to the FISA Memo

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
In a rare survey of the cable channels just now, I caught an evaluation of the Intel Committee, rules, past, release of information, etc by Jonathan Turley on CNN. Surprise!

Turley is often seen on Fox with level headed, calm and expert analysis of legal issues. Seeing him on CNN with the other guys and excelling himself was impressive.

Jonathan Turley is a Democrat (I think) and we don't always agree on issues, but he is always very level-headed and sticks to the rule of law. I have never disagreed with his analysis of a law issue.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:
Watch it, you'll be glad you did:

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

BY SHARYL ATTKISSON

For all the debate over the House Republican memo pointing to alleged misconduct by some current and former FBI and Justice Department officials, one crucial point hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves.

And it relates in an unexpected way to special counsel Robert Mueller.

The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified.


There’s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to “salacious” and “unverified” material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.


Presentation of any such unverified material to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to justify a wiretap would appear to violate crucial procedural rules, called “Woods Procedures,” designed to protect U.S. citizens.

Yet Comey allegedly signed three of the FISA applications on behalf of the FBI. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe reportedly signed one and former Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each reportedly signed one or more.

Woods Procedures

Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of the Office of General Counsel’s National Security Law Unit. They were instituted in April 2001 to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent, in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.

Prior to Woods Procedures, “[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,” the FBI told Congress in August 2003. “By signing and swearing to the declaration, the headquarters agent is attesting to knowledge of what is contained in the declaration.”

It’s incredible to think of how many FBI and Justice Department officials would have touched the multiple applications to wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Page — allegedly granted, at least in part, on the basis of unverified and thus prohibited information — if normal procedures were followed.

The FBI’s complex, multi-layered review is designed for the very purpose of preventing unverified information from ever reaching the court. It starts with the FBI field offices.

According to former FBI agent Asha Rangappa, who wrote of the process last year in JustSecurity.org, the completed FISA application requires approval through the FBI chain of command “including a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there.”

At FBI headquarters, an “action memorandum” is prepared with additional facts culled by analytical personnel assigned to espionage allegations involving certain foreign powers.

Next, it goes to the Justice Department “where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it,” wrote Rangappa. “DOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support – this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court. After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!).”

There’s more

But there are even more reviews and processes regarding government applications for wiretaps designed to make sure inaccurate or unverified information isn’t used.

In November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage.

Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm they’ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field office’s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.

All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the time also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his attention. Personally.

Who was the director of the FBI when all of this careful work was done?

Robert Mueller.

Perhaps ironically, Mueller isn’t in charge of the investigation examining the conduct of FBI and Justice Department officials and whether they followed the rules he’d carefully implemented 15 years before. Instead, Mueller is leading the probe into Russia’s alleged illegal connections with Trump associates. Congress is looking at the wiretap process.

With so much information still classified, redacted and — in some cases — withheld, there is much we don’t know. Perhaps we will eventually learn that there’s a good reason unverified material was given to the court. Maybe there was no violation of rules or processes.

But there’s a reason Woods Procedures exist in the first place. They aren’t arcane rules that could have been overlooked or misunderstood by the high-ranking and seasoned professionals working under the Obama and Trump administrations who touched the four Carter Page wiretap applications and renewals. And unless they’ve secretly been lifted or amended, Woods Procedures aren’t discretionary.

In the past, when the FBI has presented inaccuracies to the FISA court, it’s been viewed so seriously that it’s drawn the attention of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department attorneys accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions.

Sharyl Attkisson (@SharylAttkisson) is an Emmy-award winning investigative journalist, author of The New York Times bestsellers “The Smear” and “Stonewalled,” and host of Sinclair’s Sunday TV program “Full Measure.”


http://thehill.com/opinion/cam...ate-woods-procedures

“The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified.”

Rules and procedures? What does that mean? Do they carry the same weight of laws?

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
“The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified.”

Rules and procedures? What does that mean? Do they carry the same weight of laws?

The rules and procedures carry the same weight in some senses, in that compliance is obligatory, but they are not punitive, in that non compliance carries jail, fines, beatings, disgrace, etc. The penalty is that whatever position you are trying to advance won’t until the deviation is rectified, or abandoned.

For example, ordinary court procedures are that to be evidentiary, statements in writing must be in an affidavit, under oath, sworn to by a declarant who has personal knowledge, or acceptable knowledge, information and belief. If that statement is required, but omitted, the facts in the document cannot be used as evidence, ignored. The FISA applications must be signed by an FBI director or deputy, and either the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General, attesting that good grounds exist and all the required standards are met. The court staff reviews each application as well to determine that the proper evidentiary and substantive requirements are satisfied, before it goes to a judge. Until then, no cookies!

here is an estimated schedule of the orig FISA warrant and the 3 extensions

last column shows FBI lead and DoJ lead

The dates for the 3 extensions are estimates based on 90 day length of warrant and when various players were in or out



Two items pop out

first, the dossier came out in full and public in January 2017. It was identified as unverified by Buzzfeed

Comey told President Trump in January 2017 that it was unverified

Yet even with the dossier out in public, 2 more extensions were granted by FISC courts. How likely would it be, with all the publicity going on, that FISA judges didn't recognize the dossier and the claims that it was unverified ?

second, the knowledge that Clinton and DNC paid for the dossier wasn't revealed until Oct 2017 when Perkins Coie knew the bank records of Fusion GPS were about to come to the House Intel Comm.

So strictly from that view, the knowledge of who paid for the dossier wasn't publicly known until after the last extension.

But Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS on the Trump op research. Her husband Bruce (DoJ) met w Fusion and Steele in the November time frame.

What were the chances that the Ohrs didn't know who funded the dossier ?

For that matter, how could the FBI act on the dossier without knowing who paid for it ? Where were Mueller and his 16 rabid prosecutors when we needed them (sarc)

I’m wondering if Nellie Ohr was the subcontractor referred to in the 99 page FISA Order and Certification who had been given access to the database and search stuff described in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed April 26, 2017 starting on page 83. There are potentially troubling references to non compliance on page 5 as well.

It is redacted, of course, and if we are ever to know, we’ll need something more.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JALLEN,

I bet Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer of the FISC has had a busy time the last couple days since the Nunes memo came out.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
I bet Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer of the FISC has had a busy time the last couple days since the Nunes memo came out.

They take turns, one week at a time, each. Judge Collier took senior status awhile back, so maybe she is letting the young folks take a pull.

Three have to be from the DC district, and they must be from 7 circuits, each one appointed by the Chief Justice, one each year.

There is a list of the judges from the start. I notice only one from California in all that time, none from the Southern District in San Diego. Those guys are way too busy with smuggling and immigration cases, plus flying back to DC for a week must be awkward for scheduling.

Just saw an announcement that Carter Page will be interiewed by Laura Ingraham tonight on Fox News.

I think one of the things that is still smoke and mirrors and just more lies by DoJ and the Feebs is that this stuff is classified national security

its not

its only classified because someone said it was to try to keep it out of the public eye

as for national security - that smokescreen has been used so often that its laughably absurd

we are still being lied to, we are still being screwed and as long as we continue to shake in fear assuming that these people have the country's best interest at heart, they will continue to do what they've been doing

you want trust in the DoJ and FBI? Put the top three layers of management in prison and that will be a good start.

I find it incredulous given all of the information that has been released (and the memo was probably 10% of whats about to come down) is that not one person is being held

no one

that should tell you something

I'd like to believe that the American people and the country will get justice and those that tried to destroy the fabric of our country will go scot free but I just don't believe that this is anything more than a political smoke screen

Whoa - so, FISA warrant targets Carter Page in October 2016, based on being a “foreign agent” - but he was actually working as an undercover FBI informant through May 2016 - so what’s really going on? I suspect shenanigans...


♦ In April 2017, writing a story about Carter Page, and trying to enhance/affirm the Russian narrative, they outlined Page’s connections to the Trump campaign, the New York Times referenced Page’s prior connection to the operation.

Russian intelligence operatives tried in 2013 to recruit an American businessman and eventual foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign who is now part of the F.B.I. investigation into Russia’s interference into the American election, according to federal court documents and a statement issued by the businessman.

The businessman, Carter Page, met with one of three Russians who were eventually charged with being undeclared officers with Russia’s foreign intelligence service, known as the S.V.R. The F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Page in 2013 as part of an investigation into the spy ring, but decided that he had not known the man was a spy, and the bureau never accused Mr. Page of wrongdoing.

The court documents say that Mr. Page, who founded an investment company in New York called Global Energy Capital, provided documents about the energy business to one of the Russians. […] To record their conversations, the F.B.I. inserted a listening device into binders that were passed to the Russian intelligence operatives during an energy conference, according to a former United States intelligence official.

It is transparently clear that Carter Page was the Under-Cover Employee (UCE) of the FBI in the 2013 case. Carter Page was working for the FBI. However, in 2017 the New York Times, using information from “a former intelligence official“, conflates that fact. Heck, the NY Times tries to entirely change the relationship between Carter Page and the FBI.

Why?

Because on October 21st 2016 the FBI claimed to a FISA Court; to gain a “Title I” surveillance warrant; that Carter Page was working on behalf of a foreign government.

Carter Page was an FBI Under-Cover Employee in 2013, and remained the primary FBI witness through May of 2016.

If Carter Page was working as an UCE (FBI undercover employee), responsible for the bust of a high level Russian agent in 2013 -and remained a UCE- throughout the court case UP TO May of 2016, how is it possible that on October 21st 2016 Carter Page is put under a FISA Title 1 surveillance warrant as an alleged Russian agent?

Conclusion: He wasn’t. The DOJ National Security Division and the FBI Counterintelligence Division flat-out LIED.

Now, go back to the March 2016 DOJ Press Release of the guilty pleading for Evgeny Buryakov, announced from the New York office:

…”Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and John P. Carlin, Assistant Attorney General for National Security, announced”…

Because “FISA Title I” surveillance authority against a U.S. citizen is so serious (the U.S. government is essentially calling the target a spy), only a few people are authorized to even apply for such surveillance warrants. One of the four people authorized to make such a filing is the Asst. Attorney General who is head of the National Security Division of the DOJ. That person is John P Carlin.

The same John P Carlin who, together with the FBI counterintelligence unit, hired Carter Page as an FBI Under-Cover Employee, turns around and six months later accuses Page of being a Russian Spy – because the DOJ-NSD and FBI CoIntel needed to find a legal way to spy on the Trump campaign. The 2016 FISA Title 1 surveillance of former FBI employee Carter Page became that legal way. [“The Insurance Policy”]

In October of 2016, immediately after making the FISA Court filing, claiming Page was working for a foreign government and successfully gaining the surveillance warrant, Asst. Attorney General John P Carlin resigns as head of the DOJ-NSD.

The entire FISA Title I surveillance authority over Carter Page was cover, most likely retroactive cover, for the DOJ and FBI conducting surveillance on the Trump campaign.

Clear enough?

https://theconservativetreehou...s-a-spy/#more-145498

umm say what

feersum,

I would take a long hard look at the article. It is what Conservative Treehouse says, but the time lines don't seem to match. The FBI talks to male-1 (Page) in June 2013 (see case doc on p11)

The undercover agent is operating summer of 2014. Not at all clear that is Carter Page.

(MHO)

The article cited doesn’t establish that Page was an UCE in 2016 or anything much past 2013, if indeed it is Page they are referring to.

This might explain why Page can run around as a “consultant” nere do well between the US and the rest of the world.

What was the FBI paying him in those days?

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
you want trust in the DoJ and FBI? Put the top three layers of management in prison and that will be a good start.

Sorry to be disagreeable, but this nonsense seems far to much like treason to me. I think a fair trial, conviction, and execution by hanging is the appropriate remedy. Certainly several in the FBI and DOJ are candidates to serve as examples. There is a former POTUS who may or may not also be eligible.

It occurs to me that Hillary Clinton was desperate from waaaay before the 2016 election began. And her personal desperation bleed on to dozens, perhaps hundreds of her supporters.

Among the highlights:

She was desperate to control information about her time as SECSTATE. That, and not convenience is the reason for the outhouse server debacle.

She conspired with Wasserman-nutcase for the DNC to torpedo Bernie Sanders.

She conspired with Donna Brazile to get the debate questions in advance.

She conspired with half of DC, Fusion GPS, and Christopher Steele to concoct a collection of bullshit documents about "Russian collusion."

And more.

But WHY?

Why would this woman, declared the most qualified candidate in American history by none other than the President of the United State himself, go to these extraordinary lengths?

It dawned on me this evening there is only one reason.

Hillary Clinton knew, knew down deep in that innermost part of her psyche, that she was unelectable on her own merits.

That realization says more to me than every word written or spoken since she announced her "candidacy."

I'd give a testicle and a kidney to ask her about this and get a straight answer.

She's about to be thrown under but the bus by the DNC too. You watch. "It was hillary's idea - coming to a theatre near you.

Being a friend of Bill and Hil has been a dangerous, hazardous position for decades.