Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Showing posts with label FISA Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FISA Court. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 31, 2020

When The Cops Lie, Can Anyone Get Justice?

Inspector general finds more problems with FBI surveillance applications

WASHINGTON — A Justice Department watchdog has found more problems with FBI applications to a secret court that approves surveillance as part of counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations.
The inspector general audit, released Tuesday, could play into the ongoing congressional debate over the program.
In December, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz identified “significant concerns” with how the FBI handled applications to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. His office looked at 29 other applications in an audit and found the FBI was not following procedures from 2001 meant to protect the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process from abuse and irregularities.
In a memo Tuesday, Horowitz wrote that “we believe that a deficiency in the FBI’s efforts to support the factual statements in FISA applications through its Woods Procedures undermines the FBI’s ability to achieve its ‘scrupulously accurate’ standard for FISA applications.”
The FBI requires case agents to keep a “Woods file” that contains documentation for every factual assertion in a FISA application and other information, Horowitz wrote. It must be completed before an application is submitted to the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court.
Of the 29 applications, the audit found no Woods file for four cases. And there were multiple problems in all 25 of the other applications, such as facts in the applications that were not supported by documentation in the Woods file or were inconsistent with that documentation.
“While our review of these issues and follow-up with case agents is still ongoing — and we have not made materiality judgments for these or other errors or concerns we identified — at this time we have identified an average of about 20 issues per application reviewed, with a high of approximately 65 issues in one application and less than 5 issues in another application,” Horowitz wrote.
The FISA process has been in the political spotlight because the FBI launched a criminal probe into members of President Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. Trump and his congressional allies criticized the FBI probe into Russian interference in the election.
In December, Horowitz found 17 “significant inaccuracies and omissions” in applications to allow for continued surveillance of Page.
Tuesday’s memo indicates the problems with the FISA application process are more widespread than just the Page case.
Surveillance authorities, including those under FISA, lapsed earlier in March. Congress then extended those authorities until the end of May to deal with the debate over the issue when it was not dealing with the immediate concerns over the coronavirus outbreak.
The House had passed a bill (HR 6172) on March 11 to reauthorize FISA powers but overhaul some provisions. Among them, the bill would impose additional requirements on FISA court orders that target a federal elected official or candidate, and require the FBI to appoint an officer responsible for compliance with FISA requirements.
Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU senior legislative counsel, used the Horowitz memo Tuesday to call on the Senate to improve the House-passed bill.
“This report further demonstrates that the incident with Carter Page was not a one-off. There are systemic problems with our foreign intelligence surveillance laws and courts,” Guliani said in a news release.
“It is disappointing that despite repeated examples of deficiencies with our surveillance laws, Congress has failed to advance a strong surveillance reform bill to better protect our privacy rights,” she said.
— Todd Ruger
CQ-Roll Call
———

Monday, December 2, 2019

Charlie Daniels Says It Like It Is!

Charlie Daniels: The Deep State Does Whatever It Wants

When looking at the Left’s agenda, many Americans fear Draconian taxation, public school indoctrination, a socialist takeover over of the country and countless other progressive wish list items.
But we take comfort in believing that none of this is likely to happen in America. But should we really be so comfortable?
According to country legend Charlie Daniels, any of this could happen if the Deep State wants it.

‘Once they surround themselves with power they can do anything they want’

In his new Soap Box commentary, Daniels says “they” can do whatever they like if given enough power.
“Let’s say that your taxes double, homeschooling is made against the law and one morning you wake up with federal agents knocking on your door with a federal search warrant to locate and confiscate all your firearms. Well, the first thing you’re going to say is ‘They can’t do that,'” Daniels wrote.
He continued, “WRONG, these people, once they surround themselves with power can do anything they want, up to and including the stringent measures I listed above.”
Daniels believes the U.S. passed the point of no return concerning creeping tyranny a few years ago.
He said the U.S. entered a “Danger Zone” a few years back and it’s still there.
Daniels believes that the “American Dream, our individual rights, our Sovereignty, and any real chance of pursuing life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, without interference from an all-consuming central government would become a thing of the past.”

‘These things alone threaten the freedom, due process and quality of life of every American’

He believes several forthcoming reports could reveal exactly how close American came to not being.
“It would appear that in the coming months several separate reports will be issued that could expose a coordinated attempt to defraud the federal justice system, threaten the rights of citizens, drive others into bankruptcy by unrelenting pressure, cover up serious federal crimes by high government officials and circumvent the will of the American people by removing a sitting American president by bogus processes,” he said.
Daniels was talking about the Democrats’ “collusion” conspiracy theory against President Trump, their accusations of corruption, of bribery, of quid pro quo, and the ongoing impeachment campaign.
“These things alone threaten the freedom, due process and quality of life of every American, but should they succeed, the ramifications would change America forever. Let’s take a look,” he said.
“A FISA warrant is one of the most serious and most secretive documents in our nation’s arsenal in our fight against espionage, terrorism and subversion and involves using federal agencies in spying on an American citizen,” Daniels said.
“It requires credible information that an American citizen is involved in something that constitutes a serious danger to the nation,” he explained. “It requires heavyweight signatures and has to be signed off on by the FISA Court, the [acronym] FISA stands for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and there has to be strong, evidence-backed by a declaration of imminent crimes against the state, such as collusion with foreign powers, planning a terrorist attack or other plots to harm America.”

Daniels believes those used by the Obama administration to spy on President Trump’s campaign were “obtained under shaky and questionable, possibly totally false circumstances.”
“Hillary put Secret State Department documents on an unsecured server and destroyed documents that were under federal subpoena,” he wrote.

‘I truly believe that America came dangerously close to losing control of our government’

“When you hold all the cards in government, the collusion of the head of the FBI and cooperation of the heads of other powerful government agencies, and the media is in your pocket you can do just about anything you want to,” he said.
“What I’m saying people is, I truly believe that America came dangerously close to losing control of our government,” Daniels concluded. “These people have already shown us the treachery they’re capable of and the distances they are willing to go and the evil they’re willing to use to achieve their goals.”

Monday, July 23, 2018

FISA Court Was Asleep At The Wheel!


FIRST THOUGHTS ON THE CARTER PAGE FISA APPLICATION

Given that most of the application that Barack Obama’s Department of Justice submitted to the FISA court to obtain a surveillance order on Carter Page has been redacted, what we can say about the application is limited. Still, a few things stand out.
First, the FISA application expresses confidence that Page was an agent of the Russian government, and engaged in criminal activity:
But Page has never been charged with anything. Accordingly, the least we can say is that Obama’s FBI and DOJ were wrong.
Second, the application’s description of Christopher Steele and the provenance of his dossier was misleading at best:
The “identified U.S. person” is Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion GPS. Source #1 is Christopher Steele. The DOJ’s statement that “the FBI speculates that the identified U.S person [Simpson] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit Candidate #1’s [Trump’s] campaign” could only have been an intentional effort to deceive the FISA judge. The FBI was perfectly well aware that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC hired Simpson through their lawyers, and the purpose of doing so was to attack candidate Donald Trump. References to “speculation” about “likely” motives are entirely dishonest.
Third, the application relies to an astonishing degree on anti-Trump news stories published in the Democratic Party press. Does the FBI really get surveillance warrants on the basis of partisan press accounts? Apparently so. For example:
Notwithstanding such speculation in the Democratic Party press, the Trump administration has, in fact, agreed to send a $200 million military aid package to Ukraine. So the Carter Page warrant was obtained, at least in part, on the basis of groundless speculation in anti-Trump newspapers.
Amazingly, the FISA application relies on “speculation in U.S. media” for the proposition that Russia was behind the phishing of DNC emails:
This is truly pitiful.
Fourth, we still don’t know who at the FBI assembled the FISA application, since that person’s signature is redacted. But we do know who approved it–hyper-partisans James Comey and Sally Yates:
That probably tells us all we need to know about the veracity of the FISA application. Perhaps one day we will learn that Peter Strzok was the Democratic Party activist who prepared the application.
What I really want to know is the identity of the judge who signed off on the surveillance of Carter Page, based on such flimsy grounds. Some are speculating that he must be from Hawaii.

Thursday, March 22, 2018

Pruden Tells It Like It Is

Explaining 

the Foreign Intelligence 

Surveillance Court (FISA) 

Fiasco

https://israel-commentary.org
The surveillance state is here, and to stay
Redacted from article
By Wesley Pruden – The Washington Times
February 8, 2018
The administration of Barack Obama, eager to advance the interests of Hillary Clinton, who was to be the front for his otherwise constitutionally forbidden third term, sought court approval to spy on a suspected colluder with Russians, and in doing so advanced the surveillance state that will now spy on everybody.
Everything about FISA is shady, smarmy and suspicious to the limit. The Obama administration cut corners and trashed the ethics (do not laugh) of government lawyers to get necessary warrants to pursue Carter Page, a minor Trump campaign aide and the suspected colluder.
To do that, the lawyers for Mr. Obama’s government told the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court some imaginative things about Mr. Page, none of them good and some of them more than a little naughty. But what Mr. Obama’s lawyers didn’t tell the court was that their “facts” were extracted from a dossier of unverified rumors, hearsay, gossip and street talk, put together by a British undercover man whose word and reliability the FBI would not vouch for.
Nor were the judges told that an official of the Justice Department, one Bruce Ohr, had colluded privately with the author of the dossier — and that Mr. Ohr’s wife, Nellie, had worked on the dossier. The dossier was not great literature, but it apparently was enough to keep a family together.
Most revealing of all, the dossier was originally paid for by Hillary Clinton, eager to collect campaign dirt on Donald Trump, and the Democratic National Committee, which was doing everything it could to grease the nomination for Bubba’s first lady. Mr. Obama’s lawyers were working under the mushroom theory of courtroom connivance, keep the judges in the dark and under a blanket of bovine fertilizer. Judges usually don’t like that.
But it was all in a good cause. Donald Trump had to be destroyed, lest lightning strike and he become the president of the United States. Lie, fib, fudge and make it up, and when caught at it lie some more. Everybody expects politicians to lie. Denial is the unanimous reaction on the left to “the memo” that set out some of the particulars of the chicanery uncovered by congressional committees.
“The big memo was a bust,” wrote one hyperventilating pundit in flyover country, still in a sulk that Donald Trump was elected by the Electoral College, as the Constitution provides, and not by a popular vote. The memo accomplishes “little other than prompting the preposterous second-place president to declare preposterously that somehow, amid its utter irrelevance, the memo had vindicated him.”
But what we saw, Judge Andrew Napolitano, retired from the New Jersey judiciary, observes in The Washington Times, was “a new turn as politicians engaged in cherry-picking snippets from classified raw intelligence data that support their political cases, pro-Trump and anti-Trump.”
Politicians, good ones and bad ones, are eventually deleted from the passing parade, and this, too, will pass. (So far it has no name, but only if we’re lucky will it escape being called “something-gate”). But the damage done will not pass so easily. The surveillance state, once established, is likely to be with us forever.
The implications of “something-gate” are well over the heads of the big-time mainstream legacy media, so called. Barack Obama was once a professor of constitutional law, deeply distrustful of what he agreed was a secretive “deep state,” but once in the White House he, too, recognized the usefulness of a weaponized intelligence service and even the IRS, ready to go after pesky critics. The big-time mainstream legacy media is largely dedicated now to the restoration of how it used to be, and how it must be again.
Woodward and Bernstein are footnotes now to an ancient history. There are no hungry reporters in hot pursuit of a Nixon administration or rogues in the government of Ronald Reagan. The New York Times and The Washington Post, together with the great civil libertarians, are no longer demanding accountability in inconvenient places. They oppose the disclosure of embossing public documents. The president is an inviting target and bashing him is great fun.
The watchdogs have gone to sleep, lest they see something they don’t want anybody to talk about.
• Wesley Pruden is editor in chief emeritus of The Times.

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

The Truth About Collusion Is Starting To Come Out And It Looks Bad For The Democrats And Obama Specifically

Trump-Hater Lindsey Graham Makes Shock Admission About Dossier

 Print
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, are seeking an investigation into former FBI Director James Comey for the role he may have played in using the Russian dossier to set up President-elect Donald Trump.
In a letter to Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, the senators specifically call for an investigation into a briefing Comey gave Trump in January 2017, days before he took office, during which the then-FBI director told the incoming president about the contents of the unverified dossier, The Washington Times reported.
The briefing was then leaked to the media and first reported by CNN. Buzzfeed quickly followed, posting the dossier in its entirety, which CNN linked to in its coverage.
“There is a question as to whether the FBI included the dossier in the briefing, and possibly leaked that it had done so, in order to provide the media a pretext to report on the dossier,” Graham and Grassley wrote in their letter to Horowitz.
The Graham-Grassley letter also raised the issue of testimony Comey offered in a private interview before the committee being contradicted by information the FBI provided to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in the fall of 2016 to gain authority to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.

The Western Journal Daily Email

Facebook
 
The testimony apparently involved the importance the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton campaign funded dossier played in the FISA court application.
“Did Director Comey intentionally mislead the committee?” the senators asked the inspector general.
“Did anyone express any concerns about the propriety of presenting unverified, uncorroborated claims from the Steele dossier as the basis for a FISA warrant on an American citizen?” Graham and Grassley also wondered.
The two lawmakers — along with Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., — in a separate letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein last week called for a second special counsel to be established to look into the FBI’s use of the dossier to obtain FISA warrants to surveil Page.

Do you think Comey was involved in a scheme to bring down Trump?

   
Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out.
“The reason we want a special counsel is we believe crimes may have been committed,” Graham told Fox News late last week.
The letter also requested Horowitz’s office investigate the FBI’s relationship between the dossier’s author former British spy Christopher Steele and the high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr.
After the FBI discovered Steele was leaking information to the media, the Bureau officially cut ties with the informant; however, Ohr’s wife Nellie worked at Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that hired Steele. Bruce Ohr reportedly remained a conduit between Steele and the FBI.
RELATED: Developing: GOP Senator Lays Out Conditions to Impeach Trump
“Was anyone in the Justice Department, including senior leadership, aware that Mr. Ohr continued to pass information from Steele and Fusion GPS to the FBI even after Steele was suspended, and terminated, as a source?” the letter asked.
The four senators further noted in their letter to the DOJ the need for a second special counsel due to the inspector general’s office not being able to call key witnesses who do not work within the department.
In an Op-Ed earlier this year, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York accused the Obama administration of using the levers of government to purposely “entangle the new (Trump) administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked in the door of the White House.”
He argued it did so by using the antiquated Logan Act of 1799 as a pretext for the DOJ to launch its investigation into the Trump incoming National Security Advisor Michael Flynn based on phone conversations he had with the Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition.
The Logan Act prevents private citizens from functioning as representatives of the U.S. to foreign governments. It has rarely been invoked and never in relation to transition officials speaking to foreign officials, which is commonplace.
Portions of the Flynn-Kislyak conversations were leaked to media to build the Russia narrative, York argued.
The proof is in the pudding, according to the columnist.
“(W)hen it finally came time to charge Flynn with a crime, did prosecutors, armed with the transcripts of those Flynn-Kislyak conversations, choose to charge him with violating the Logan Act? Of course not,” York wrote. “But for the Obama team, the law had already served its purpose…to entangle the new administration in a criminal investigation as soon as it walked in the door of the White House.”
What do you think?