Worth remembering this statement from the day when IG Horowitz released his report on four FISA applications.
Also worth remembering there is an unknown letter from the DOJ, specifically including Durham requested guidance, that precipitated a response from FISA court presiding judge Boasberg.
We are looking at this in hindsight. The response from the FISC was dated June 25, 2020, so the request for opinion from the court was before June 25th.
The court opinion tells us for the first time, the DOJ is admitting/stating that ALL FOUR of the Carter Page FISA applications were corrupt upon origination. This is a big deal.
In previous filing with the court (January 2020) DOJ only refuted the predication for the second and third renewal.
Within the FISC reply we see the DOJ stating all four submissions contained material omissions and violations of “the duty of candor” (ie. lying) by the FBI investigative unit and the DOJ team that assembled the application(s).
All four of them.
As we look closely at the response from Judge Boasberg we see some very specific language that tells a story.
Apparently the DOJ asked the FISA court for guidance on five very specific issues centering around the Carter Page FISA application. The DOJ was asking for legal guidance to assist them in disclosing information in the FISA file & evidence attached to the FISA file.
The five issues all circle around the FBI/DOJ use of the Carter Page FISA application; and, more importantly, the underlying evidence that is attached to the FISA application. The five topics are very interesting:
I. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to FOIA demands. FISC gives legal opinion.
II. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material due to ongoing and anticipated civil litigation. The FISC gives legal opinion and expands to criminal litigation.
III. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to internal investigative units from the FBI inspectors division (INSD). FISC gives opinion and advice.
IV. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of non-minimized information, and/or, minimized information as part of the ongoing Office of Inspector General oversight. FISC gives opinion and guidance.
V. DOJ requests guidance for distribution of material to John Durham probe, both for criminal prosecution and possible evidence gathering attached to other ongoing investigative needs. FISC gives opinion and guidance.
The opinion from the FISC is only 20 pages long, and if you skip the citations it’s a pretty straight forward answer from Judge Boasberg to review. I would urge everyone to take a few minutes and read it… carefully…. to see what John Durham was asking.
Pages #6 and #7 talk specifically about the different requirements for retention and distribution and outlines a cautious approach toward distribution. On this issue the court says allowing a target to escape prosecution is part of the penalty upon the DOJ for wrongful assembly.
The court does not consider the DOJ is targeting the “assemblers” for their criminal conduct. Rather the response is general toward criminals who were targets of a FISA application assembled with corrupt intent. A little weird.
Pages #11 and #12 hit the topic of FOIA production. The court says “some” FOIA requests might warrant document distribution, but not all. However, on the topic of Carter Page getting his FOIA fulfilled, the court supports expansive distribution to Mr. Page.
I find the arguments and issues in/around page #14 to be especially noteworthy. In this segment the court is responding to the underlying raw evidence that would normally be used to assemble a “woods file”.
The court notes the FBI Sentinel system would contain the minimized outcomes (redacted evidence) and this points to a bigger issue.
Note the woods file would be what is in the Sentinel system.
The government (Durham Probe) needs “access to the case file” beyond what is in the Sentinel system. Durham wants to see the raw data, the underlying raw intelligence.
Why?
It looks like Durham investigators were already on the trail of the special counsel creating a Woods file…. and/or wants to see if the Steele Dossier is the original substantive documentation that underpins the Woods file.
Notice how INSD previously received “hard copies” of documentation that is presumed to be the Woods file.
Regardless of motive or investigative suspicion, someone wants to compare the raw intel to the intel that made it into the FBI/DOJ Sentinel system.
In response to this inquiry Judge Boasberg notes FBI investigators would have access to the minimized information within the Sentinel system; however, insofar as there was additional inquiry into the raw and non-minimized intelligence....cont.
cont... a review and distribution would be permissible so long as there was a strong filter team in place to ensure statutes surrounding FISA securities (minimization requirements) were not violated.
Overall, Boasberg gives permission and approval for all six aspects requested. However, he does so with several legal qualifiers and distinctions which the DOJ was told to observe.
/END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Let me bring FU type clarity to the "reasonable reforms" argument.
I have talked to everyone in DC about this. They are idiots. Not making mistakes, just plain allowing the IC to tell them nonsense. So, let me be clear.
2) Office of Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified April 27, 2023, more than 3.4 million search queries into the NSA database took place between Dec. 1st, 2020 and Nov. 30th, 2021, by government officials and/or contractors working on behalf of the federal government.
3) These search queries were based on authorizations related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and 702 search authorization.
1) There are two general flaws in this type of analysis.
While likely accurate that ISIS did not originate the planning of the attack. Two elements stand out that appear to point away from Galloway's supposition.
2) First, the suspects are alive. Meaning, there was no mop up operation behind them to remove the fingerprints of operational control.
Example (mop up): They didn't jump in the car after the attack and have the car explode with them in it. Essentially eliminating the trail.
3) The absence of the clean-up (could have been anything - not just my example) implies the people who organized the attackers wanted the attackers to be captured.... and therefore, talk about their prior instructions.
1. Let me be very clear, I have talked to congress about everything involved in Spygate, far, far, far, beyond the @shellenberger generalities and provided over 600 pages of verifiable info documents to prove the events as they took place. THEY DON'T CARE.
2. I also talked to J. Durham and W. Aldenberg about the specific info that proves the IC was coordinating with the Senate (SSCI) on all the Trump targeting stuff. I have been vetted, researched and investigated for providing the docs. Again, they don't care.
3. The apparatus of our govt, has made it perfectly clear they intend to do nothing except cover-up all of the activity because the institutional damage is too encompassing for them to deal with. QUOTE: "The IC activity was too big to cope with," the system is not designed...
1. The J6 pipe bombs were the fedsurrection insurance policy, in the event the feds couldn’t get the crowd to comply with the FBI provocations. If no one stormed the Capitol, the finding of the two pipe bombs would be the emergency to shut down the process.
2. Literally 3 minutes before 2 reps issued a vote for motions to suspend the certification, the House members were “informed” by capitol police and other “agents” that a protest was about to breach the chambers. This effectively halted the Chamber Process.
3. Pence, Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconnell can be seen being walked out and escorted from the chamber.
Once capitol police & other “law enforcements agents” informed the speaker and 3 other individuals, Pelosi UNILATERALLY UNDER EMERGENCY RULES, suspended the business of the congress.
Now that I'm really thinking about this, meaning I've finally stopped laughing,... the only possible explanation can be that in an election year Main Justice is threatening almost the entire U.S. Senate, specifically the Senate Foreign Relations Committee writ large.
THINK BIGGER. The USA led "western" sanctions against Russian interests were not designed to keep Russia isolated financially, they were designed to keep USA and Western banking customers walled in.
[To create a dollar based CBDC (writ lg) you need a captured base.]
BRICS+ was creating a non-dollar-based currency alternative for trade.
Then comes.... western financial sanctions, under the auspices of Ukraine conflict. But, think "stopgap."
The sanctions didn't block Russia, they walled-in the WEST.
Now you start to see it.
I did not realize the scale of this, until I sat in multiple banks in eastern Europe and listened carefully to the very real and practical process of avoiding western sanctions. Then, after meeting with people specifically to discuss the conflicting reality, it made sense.