Thread by @themarketswork

1) Newly unredacted Footnote 293 states:

"[Redacted] Her signature also specifically authorized overseas surveillance of Carter Page under Section 705(b) of the FISA and Executive Order 12333 Section 2.5

"Her" refers to FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer.

2) Section 2.5 of EO 12333 is in regards to collection of surveillance of a US citizen - either on US soil - or abroad.

That person must be deemed an "Agent of a Foreign Power"

3) Newly unredacted Footnote 276 explains the FBI's rush:

"...the desire to have FISA authority in place before Monday, October 17, was due, at least in part, to the fact that Carter Page was expected to travel to the United Kingdom and South Africa shortly thereafter..."

4) But it seems likely the FBI & the Obama Administration were facing another time hurdle as well.

The end of Obama's tenure as president.

And this part has to do with a different subset of EO 12333.

5) On January 3, 2017, Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 was signed into effect.

Its actual title is:

Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the NSA
assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3283…

6) Agencies and individuals could now ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that is useful to a particular mission.

No initial privacy protection of the raw data occurs at the NSA.

7) As the New York Times noted at the time:

"The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations"
nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/…

8) The change allowed for officials from other agencies to "search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions."

9) James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, signed off on Section 2.3 on December 15, 2016.

The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on January 3, 2017.

10) Like many, I wondered at the timing of the order.

But what I found particularly curious was that it was so overdue.

11) Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016.

The order had been reported as being on “the verge” of finalization in late February 2016.
nytimes.com/2016/02/26/us/…

12) One particular provision that had not previously been in place relating to our "Political Process" caught my eye at the time:

(U) Section III – Protections for Raw SIGINT:
B. (U) General Protections:
3. (U) Political Process in the United States:

13) The EO went into effect on Jan. 3, 2017

Prior to signing of Section 2.3, it appears greater latitude existed w/in the White House in regards to gaining information.

Once signed into effect, Section 2.3 granted broad latitude to inter-agency sharing of information.

14) As the NYT noted, the new rules allowed "analysts, including those at the F.B.I., to search the raw data using an American’s identifying information"

This was to be used "only for the purpose of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigations."

15) This criteria would seem to apply directly to Carter Page - and any who were subject to surveillance through him - since the Oct. 2016 FISA had already been put in place.

16) And as the NYT rightly noted on Jan 12, 2017 in regards to the new Executive Order:

"they may do so only if one of several other conditions are met, such as a finding that the American is an agent of a foreign power."

17) On July 27, 2017, @DevinNunes sent a letter to then-DNI Dan Coats:

republicans-intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/…

18) "We have found evidence that current and former government officials had easy access to U.S. person information and that it is possible that they used this information to achieve partisan political purposes, including the selective, anonymous leaking of such information."

19) Cont:

"The committee has learned that one official, whose position had no apparent intelligence related function, made hundreds of unmasking requests during the final year of the Obama administration."

The unnamed individual was likely former UN Ambassador Samantha Power.

20) Nunes Letter Cont: "Obama-era officials sought the identities of Trump transition officials within intelligence reports…The Committee is left with the impression that these officials may have used this information for improper purposes, including the possibility of leaking."

21) And as Nunes pointed out:

"More pointedly, some of the requests for unminimized U.S. person information were followed by anonymous leaks of those names to the media."

22) Nunes continued by noting this:

"We have identified a significant issue that will require changes to federal law. Specifically, we have found that the Intelligence Community’s U.S. person unmasking policies are inadequate to prevent abuse, such as political spying."

23) Interestingly, Nunes’ letter was written on the same day – July 27, 2017 – that Inspector General Horowitz notified Mueller of the Strzok/Page texts.

I have long questioned both the timing and substance of EO 12333 - 2.5

Hopefully some hard questions are now being asked.

Note: @walkafyre correctly notes that the signature referred to in FN 293 is that of Sally Yates. Not Judge Collyer.

https://twitter.com/walkafyre/status/1250823238244016130

I've previously written about Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 twice.

First on April 4, 2017 and a second time on December 17, 2017.
themarketswork.com/2017/04/04/the…

Declassification Raises Further Questions About Timing of Obama Data Sharing Order

New, detailed article related to earlier thread.
theepochtimes.com/declassificati…