Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Secret FISA Court Issues Highly Unusual Public Rebuke of FBI for Mistakes

posted by martyb on Wednesday December 18 2019, @09:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the follow-the-rules dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/secret-fisa-court-issues-highly-unusual-rebuke-fbi-mistakes-n1103451

The secret federal court that approves orders for conducting surveillance on suspected foreign terrorists or spies issued a strong and highly unusual public rebuke to the FBI on Tuesday, ordering the agency to say how it intends to correct the errors revealed last week by a Justice Department report on one aspect of the FBI's investigation of Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said the FBI made serious and repeated mistakes in seeking under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to conduct surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.

The FBI's submission to the court made assertions that were "inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation," the report said.

Rosemary Collyer, presiding judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, said in the unusual public order that the report "calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable." She ordered the FBI to explain in writing by Jan. 10 how it intends to remedy those problems.

Document here: https://www.scribd.com/document/440156909/Fisa-Court-to-FBI

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Secret FISA Court Issues Highly Unusual Public Rebuke of FBI for Mistakes | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 66 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:29PM (11 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:29PM (#933821) Journal

    Also note that they investigated FOUR separate warrant applications and found errors only on ONE of them. So, 75% were fine.

    And, they also found that no bias was involved in these errors.

    Throw the book at whoever fucked up, though!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:41PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:41PM (#933831)

    Both those statements are blatantly false. Quotes from Horowitz's testimony or the report to back it up?

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:58PM (3 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday December 18 2019, @06:58PM (#933847) Journal

      Claim 1: They investigated four warrant applications
      Claim 2: They found issues with only one.
      Claim 3: They found no bias

      Claims 1 and 3:

      We did not find documentary or
      testimonial evidence that pol itical bias or improper
      motivation influenced the decisions to open the four
      individual investigations.

      Claim 2: This article is only about the Cater Page application.

      FTSummary:

      Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said the FBI made serious and repeated mistakes in seeking under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, to conduct surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:10PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:10PM (#933855)

        That says they found no one who admitted to bias or anyone who wrote down they were opening the investigation due to bias. Not that they found no bias. See quotes in the other response to you.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @09:50PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @09:50PM (#933934)

          Ah, the Trump era where

          We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias

          does not mean that they found no bias.

          Up doesn't mean up, favor doesn't mean favor, and the IG report is going to be the definitive report until it doesn't say what they want it to say.

          Oh, and we have Trump's defenders saying that it is improper to open an investigation into a presidential candidate, except, you know, when the president (or is it an R?) does it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @10:47PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @10:47PM (#933959)

            That is in any era, it has been known since ancient times. Also, in Horowitz's testimony before congress he explicitly says that bias is indeed one possible explanation for why there were so many "errors" made in the same direction.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:08PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:08PM (#933852)

    Also note that they investigated FOUR separate warrant applications and found errors only on ONE of them. So, 75% were fine.

    False. On page 367-368, 377-378:

    None of the inaccuracies and omissions we identified in the first application
    were brought to the attention of 01 before the last FISA application was filed in
    June 2017. Consequently, these failures were repeated in all three renewal
    applications.
    [...]
    In addition to repeating the errors contained in the first FISA application, we
    identified other, similarly significant errors in the three renewal applications, based
    upon information known to the FBI after the first application was filed and before
    one or more of the renewals was filed.
    [...]
    As described above, given that certain factual misstatements
    were repeated in all four applications, across three different investigative teams
    [...]
    That so many basic and fundamental errors were
    made on four FISA applications by three separate, hand-picked teams, on one of
    the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within
    the FBI and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close
    scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command's
    management and supervision of the FISA process.

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6571528/120919-Examination.pdf [documentcloud.org]

    And, they also found that no bias was involved in these errors.

    False. Page 193, 376-377:

    Steele's September 2017 interview with the FBI, which was conducted 2
    months after the final Carter Page FISA renewal application was submitted to the
    court, also revealed bias against Trump.
    [...]
    We also found the quantity of omissions and inaccuracies in the applications
    and the obvious errors in the Woods Procedures deeply concerning. Although we
    did not find documentary or testimonial evidence of intentional misconduct on the
    part of the case agents who assisted 01 in preparing the applications, or the agents
    and supervisors who performed the Woods Procedures, we also did not receive
    satisfactory explanations for the errors or missing information.
    [...]
    While we found no documentary or testimonial evidence that this pattern of
    errors by Case Agent 1 was intentional, we also did not find his explanations for so
    many significant and repeated failures to be satisfactory.

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6571528/120919-Examination.pdf [documentcloud.org]

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:37PM (3 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:37PM (#933869) Journal

      Oh ya got me! I should have said 'investigations' instead of 'applications.'

      In addition to repeating the errors contained in the first FISA application, we
      identified other, similarly significant errors in the three renewal applications,

      They found errors in the Carter Page application and those errors weren't fixed in the renewals.

      They reviewed FOUR investigations:
      Carter Page
      George Papadopolous (who is now a felon)
      Paul Manafort (who is now a felon)
      And, Michael Flynn (who is also now a felon)

      From the OIG report:

      he decision to open Crossfire Hurricane and four
      individual cases on current and former members
      of the Trump campaign, George Papadopoulos,
      Carter Page, Paul Manafort, and Michael Flynn;
      the early investigative steps taken; and whether
      the openings and early steps complied with
      Department and FBI policies;

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @08:25PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @08:25PM (#933885)

        I don't even believe that is what you original meant (you most likely copy-pasted that talking point from somewhere), but this report only tangentially touches on those other investigations:

        With respect to the four individual investigations, CD transferred the Carter
        Page investigation to NYFO, and it remained assigned to Case Agent 1, who
        returned to that office following his 90-day TDY. DAD Jennifer Boone and SSA 3 of
        Operations Branch II at FBI Headquarters assumed program management
        responsibilities over the case. The Papadopoulos investigation was transferred to
        the Chicago Field Office and assigned to Case Agent 3. The Flynn investigation was
        transferred to the Washington Field Office (WFO) and assigned to Case Agent 4.
        Strzok and SSA 2 of Operations Branch I retained program management
        responsibilities over both of these investigations. The Manafort investigation was
        transferred to a white collar criminal squad at WFO. 185

        However, as to whether those investigations were above board:

        We concluded that the FBI's decision to open Crossfire Hurricane and the four
        related individual investigations was, under Department and FBI policy, a
        discretionary judgment call and that the FBI's exercise of discretion was in
        compliance with those policies. For the reasons described below, we found that
        each investigation was opened for an authorized purpose and, in light of the low
        threshold established by Department and FBI predication policy, with adequate
        factual predication. We also found that the FBI satisfied the DIOG's notification and
        approval requirements for designating Crossfire Hurricane and the four related
        individual investigations as SIMs. Nevertheless, we were concerned about the
        limited notice requirements under Department and FBI policy before opening
        investigations such as these, relating to constitutionally protected activity occurring
        during a national presidential campaign. We were also concerned about the limited
        notice requirements before using more intrusive investigative techniques that could
        impact constitutionally protected activity.

        And finally there is this:

        In addition, Source 2 told the Crossfire Hurricane team that Source 2 had
        known Trump's then campaign manager, Manafort, for a number of years and that
        he had been previously acquainted with Michael Flynn. Case Agent 1 told the OIG
        that "quite honestly ... we kind of stumbled upon [Source 2] knowing these folks."
        He said that it was "serendipitous" and that the Crossfire Hurricane team "couldn't
        believe [their] luck" that Source 2 had contacts with three of their four subjects,
        including Carter Page.

        Whenever you see something surprising, that means one of your premises is probably wrong. This is why Barr/Durham said they disagreed about the predication for the case because they had extra info. Here the CIA comes into play, we will see that coming out later.

        So anyway, the report does not say what you claim it does (as usual). Now go forth and continue to spew your propaganda.

        • (Score: 2) by Aegis on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:12AM (1 child)

          by Aegis (6714) on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:12AM (#934001)

          You realize that your quotes say there were four cases and that they were opened appropriately, right?

          • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:20AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:20AM (#934005)

            Can you see where it says "appropriately" is according to some very low standards that should be changed, and only refers to *opened* as a preliminary investigation vs continued after contrary evidence accumulated (and was hidden and falsified).

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday December 18 2019, @09:52PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 18 2019, @09:52PM (#933935) Journal

    Also note that they investigated FOUR separate warrant applications and found errors only on ONE of them. So, 75% were fine.

    Only if you ignore a bunch of stuff:

    In the filing the Justice Department finally revealed that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Page FISA spy warrants, first issued in 2016 and subsequently renewed three times:

    [National Security Division] FOIA consulted [Office of Intelligence] … to identify and locate records responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request…. [Office of Intelligence] determined … that there were no records, electronic or paper, responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] FOIA request with regard to Carter Page. [Office of Intelligence] further confirmed that the [Foreign Surveillance Court] considered the Page warrant applications based upon written submissions and did not hold any hearings.

    The Department of Justice previously released to Judicial Watch the heavily redacted Page warrant applications. The initial Page FISA warrant was granted just weeks before the 2016 election.

    So t was a single erroneous warrent renewed three times. Hence, the initial errors apply to all.