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
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @07:08PM (4 children)
False. On page 367-368, 377-378:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6571528/120919-Examination.pdf [documentcloud.org]
False. Page 193, 376-377:
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)
Oh ya got me! I should have said 'investigations' instead of '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:
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 18 2019, @08:25PM (2 children)
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:
However, as to whether those investigations were above board:
And finally there is this:
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)
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
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).