Thread by @AprilFDoss

Alright folks, I've been holding off on wading into the Carter Page FISA discussion. But I realize that there are a relatively limited number of people who have had the opportunity to review Title I FISA applications on a regular basis. 1/

A lot of people are trying to make sense of legal documents & standards & a complicated law (FISA) that are unfamiliar to them. There's been some great commentary, including by @pwnallthethings, @DavidKris (check them out) and others, but there's also a lot of confusion. 2/

So in an effort to help demystify things, here's a really high-level explainer that attempts to be both accurate and simple - not always easy with a law as complicated as FISA is. I'm not trying to address all the details, just offering a few hopefully-helpful thoughts. 3/

First, Title I only permits surveillance of a U.S. person when there's probable cause to believe that the person is an agent of a foreign power. What the FBI put together in its submission was proof of PC. Remember, PC is not the same as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. 4/

It's not supposed to be. A FISA app doesn't have to meet the standard for criminal conviction. The app is just supposed to let an independent arbiter - a federal judge - decide whether there's enough evidence for a court order to allow the government to investigate further. 5/

And that's exactly what the 412 pages of these applications (initial and 3 renewals) did. They laid out a detailed case before a judge explaining why there was preliminary and ongoing cause to believe there was enough evidence for the government to continue investigating. 6/

The 4 FISA apps explained the sources of info & potential bias. And oh btw, anytime there's a witness, source, or CI in any kind of case, there's always a chance of bias. Because human nature. Judges, DoJ, FBI, IC are all well-versed in assessing whether bias affects reliability.

So the idea that DoJ, FBI, or FISC didn't know there could be bias in the info is factually inaccurate. And the idea they wouldn't've been able to assess the reliability of the info is: a) not true, and b) a red herring to detract from important facts showing probable cause. 8/

Let's pause for a side comment on FISC judges. All are federal judges from different parts of the country, appointed to the FISC for set terms. Please, for the sake of democracy, let's back away from distracting rhetoric about who appointed them. 9/

One of the most damaging, demoralizing, and dangerous impacts of the rhetoric around the Russia investigation has been the politicization of intelligence. Folks, national security is a nonpartisan issue. Intelligence officers do their work in an honorable, nonpartisan way. 10/

Same goes for federal judges. They're highly independent & tend to care more about legal principles than party affiliations. FISA approvals should be assessed on the merits of the decision, and these apps showed PC. We risk delegitimizing the judiciary by politicizing it. 11/

Remember: Foreign adversaries have no loyalty to a particular American political party. They will use any societal, economic, or political dynamic to their advantage to achieve their aims. Americans who believe adversaries are loyal to our internal parties are fooling themselves.

Anyone who's spinning this FISA story for partisan purposes is doing a disservice to our nation. The reason 4 judges signed off on the FISA apps? Because each one established a strong, detailed factual predicate that met the standard for probable cause.13/

So can we lay off the hyper-partisanship and stop with the conspiracy theories? There is no deep state. If you haven't read the docs yet, I urge you to. bit.ly/2JFFsI0 Look for explainers from people who have experience in how FISA and natsec work. 14/

And let's all remember that we still have 2018 elections to secure. Let's not make it easy to exploit our divisions. Instead, let's look to facts & law. Let's follow the investigations where they lead. And let's hold each other accountable for living up to our best ideals. 15/15