You have commented 278 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Exceptional Work by Sharyl Attkisson – Did FBI Violate Woods Procedures?…
[ConservativeTreehouse] Sharyl Attkisson picks up from there with her deep dive into exactly what protections are in place and the extraordinarily high-bar the DOJ needs to pass in order to gain Title I surveillance authority.

The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy ‐ and presented to the court only if verified.

There’s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump "Steele dossier" was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to "salacious" and "unverified" material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Presentation of any such unverified material to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to justify a wiretap would appear to violate crucial procedural rules, called "Woods Procedures," designed to protect U.S. citizens.

Yet Comey allegedly signed three of the FISA applications on behalf of the FBI. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe reportedly signed one and former Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each reportedly signed one or more.

To think that unverified claims, gossip, media reports, and generally salacious political opposition research could be included in an application to remove an Americans’ right to privacy and liberty is really the BIGGER story being clouded in this entire discussion.

....And keep in mind, amid all of this exhaustive FBI surveillance and DOJ national security division digging into every aspect of his life, Mr. Carter Page has never been accused of any crime, wrongdoing, or subsequent criminal conduct.

It appears the entire reason to label Mr. Page as a Title One "foreign agent" was so the DOJ National Security Division and FBI Counterintelligence Division, could use Mr. Page’s short contact with the Trump campaign as an excuse to monitor everyone else within the campaign before, during and after the election.
Posted by:Anomalous Sources

#6  Is there any rule, regulation, procedure or law that this slime hasn't violated?
Posted by: AlanC   2018-02-05 16:50  

#5  Talk into the titty Texas!
Posted by: Skunky Shurt8590   2018-02-05 14:09  

#4  Do you suppose the appointment of Contreras and Boasberg were planned to help get some FISA warrants for spying on the GOP?

I wonder if FISA was used to spy on Romney?
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom   2018-02-05 11:40  

#3  There's nothing like clearing the air by firings and prosecutions of these traitors.
Posted by: JohnQC   2018-02-05 11:01  

#2  But there’s a reason Woods Procedures exist in the first place. They aren’t arcane rules that could have been overlooked or misunderstood by the high-ranking and seasoned professionals working under the Obama and Trump administrations who touched the four Carter Page wiretap applications and renewals. And unless they’ve secretly been lifted or amended, Woods Procedures aren’t discretionary.

In the past, when the FBI has presented inaccuracies to the FISA court, it’s been viewed so seriously that it’s drawn the attention of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department attorneys accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions.

Robin C. Ashton
Counsel, Office of Professional Responsibility
Robin Ashton became the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility in January, 2011.

So Ms. Ashton, ball in your court. Are you a standup professional or just another Democrat crook?
Posted by: E. Ebbomomble9848   2018-02-05 08:15  

#1  That's why they had to slip their own judge in.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2018-02-05 04:55