Posted on 08/11/2018 2:38:11 AM PDT by AJFavish
Journalist Paul Sperry tweeted on August 5, 2018 that we should look this month for President Donald Trump to "declassify 20 redacted pages of the June 2017 FISA renewal." Sperry is referring to a Portable Document Format file released on July 21, 2018 by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which contains heavily redacted versions of four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications to conduct surveillance of Carter Page, who had been a foreign policy adviser to presidential candidate Donald Trump. Even with the redactions, the June 2017 warrant application is damning for deputy United States attorney general Rod Rosenstein.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Did Rosenstein Make False Statements to the FISA Judge?”
Did his lips move?
That's your point of view, but I submit it is not Rosenstein's point of view, nor is it the DOJ's point of view. If Roesenstine believed he was personally responsible for the contents, and in any way personally liable for errors within, he would have behaved differently.
-- If the others lied to him, they are liable. --
Are they? That seems a contradiction to your previous assertion, that Rosenstein is personally liable. Otherwise, you say, what is the point of him signing it?
apparently the FISA court judge has no problem with the fact that false evidence was presented to them. I can’t imagine why /s.
RELEASE THE CHEESE!!
I am sure that the Department of Justice has never described the FISA process as being so slipshod and lacking in meaningful final review before a FISA application is filed.
— If the others lied to him, they are liable. —
Are they? That seems a contradiction to your previous assertion, that Rosenstein is personally liable. Otherwise, you say, what is the point of him signing it?
If they have been lied to, then the burden is shifted. Rosenstein has not made any allegation that he was lied to, as far as it appears.
What he appears to be saying is this:
I just sign paperwork. I have no responsibility for what is in the paperwork. I only sign it.
There is no point in him signing paperwork if he has no responsibility for what is in it.
Responsibility for accuracy is pushed down the ladder. The claim is that the review is thorough and meaningful and 100% accurate, totally forthright, nothing hidden from the judge, no question the justification is sound.
The worse they screw up, the harder they defend the institution.
The FISA gig is a gravy train for the judges. The assigned judges get a break from their usual work, travel to Washington at taxpayer expense, best rooms and food for free, and are put in a work environment that (unlike their usual work) is totally walled off from public view.
They are true believers in the law as the most perfect system devised by man, and they are proud to be part of such an edifice. I'm convinced they honestly believe what they are doing is meaningful and valuable. I still see it as a charade to fool the public. We got along without FISA up until 1970 whatever it passed, so we can get along fine without it. FISA does not curtail snooping, and that is the ONLY purpose it has, to make the public believe snooping is controlled, curtailed, and only done for justifiable reasons.
The vast majority of snooping is done without a warrant, and outside of FISA.
BS. That's your point of view about your own words.
Now you are substituting "signature represents responsibility fore the system" for "signatrure represents personal review of the contents."
I first said his signature is an instututional statement, not a statement of personal vouching for contents, and you called BS on that. Make up your mind.
Now you are substituting “signature represents responsibility fore the system” for “signatrure represents personal review of the contents.”
They are the same thing, although I did not say “signature represents responsibility fore the system”
You are implying that *no one* has responsibility for what is in the warrants.
You wrote:
“Responsibility for accuracy is pushed down the ladder. The claim is that the review is thorough and meaningful and 100% accurate, totally forthright, nothing hidden from the judge, no question the justification is sound.”
That is very close to what I wrote:
People in charge of agencies are supposed to put in place safeguards and procedures so that when they sign things, they have a reasonable expectation that what they are signing is correct. If they have doubts, they are supposed to ask questions.
Does anyone REALLY believe that these CROOKED cops would NOT spy unless they had a warrant?? HAHA
cboldt: Sort of like the buyer or purchasing agent for a company. That person enters into contracts, but it isn't a personal bond, it's institutional, representing the company's entering into a contract.marktwain: B.S. If he signed it, he is personally certifying it. There is no other reason for him to sign it.
Now you say that "signature represents responsibility for the system" is the same thing as "signature represents personal review of the contents."
I think that's simply nuts. Those two things are not the same. The two things reflect a difference I aim to assert actually exists, and the same difference in my OP that you call BS.
-- You are implying that *no one* has responsibility for what is in the warrants. --
No. I am implying that Rosenstien's signature does not repreent a personal vouching or a personal responsibility - it represents an INSTITUIONAL one. Now, we might move to discuss what is the point of institutional resposnibility if the person signing isn't personally held responsible, or *which living breathing human being* is responsible if the signer is not.
We could also discuss the remedy when the responsibility is not met.
-- If they have doubts, they are supposed to ask questions. --
And if they don't have doubts?
I don't think Rosenstein escapes without being hammered further, maybe even removed for failure to correct the institution. So he isn't escaping responsibility. My point was on what responsibility did he fail to execute, what EXACTLY does his signature represent? And I see it as "DOJ swears this stuff is true," not "Rosenstein has personally reviewed and on hs own PERSONAL belief, swears this stuff is true." There aren't enough hours in a day for him to do that. It's impossible.
Analogy to the purchasing agent, if the company welches on the contract, the comany pays, and if it has to pay enough, it might fire the purchasing agent. But the money doesn't come out of the purhasing agent's pocket.
I have about the same point of view, but would conclude with "it is not because no one has responsibility on paper."
The law puts all sorts fo high-sounding principles and systems on paper. Very convincing rhetoric. Mostly BS in practice.
Now, we might move to discuss what is the point of institutional resposnibility if the person signing isn’t personally held responsible, or *which living breathing human being* is responsible if the signer is not.
Institutions are made of individuals.
There is no point in having individuals sign if they have no responsibility.
You wrote:
“I see it as “DOJ swears this stuff is true,” not “Rosenstein has personally reviewed and on hs own PERSONAL belief, swears this stuff is true.”
Your statement about Rosenstein being removed for *failure to correct the system* shows that Rosenstein *has* responsibility for what is in the document, through his office.
I see what you are attempting to say. I disagree, but I do not think it makes any practical difference.
I apologize for the use of the term B.S. It was inappropriate.
When I was in the DOD, it was drilled into me over and over that when I signed paperwork, I was personally responsible for what was in the paperwork, even though I was signing for what my employees did.
Of course, if they lied to me, or misrepresented facts, that would be a mitigating circumstance, and they would bear most of the responsibility.
There's no question about it.
At least one FISA judge has been removed...he was overseeing the Gen. Flynn case.
That same judge also happens to be 'friends' with agent Strozk.
I think in this case, the remedy amounts to furious sound and anger, but nothing more than talk. Maybe a note in Rosenstein's permanent file.
He's going to be excused from failure to correct the system, because he hadn't enough time in the office. And after some public examination, Congress will declare that FISA is by and large working, this was an aberration. Nonsense, more of the same nonsense, but it's necessary to justify the continuation of the bureaucracy.
The reason I made the comparison to purchasing agent at all, was to emphasize my view that contrary to popular belief, Rosenstein is not PERSONALLY responsible for the contents of the warrant application, and it should NOT be shocking in the least that he did not read it. The honesty function is pushed down the ladder. If his minions screw him, he screws them. That's the way the system works, and you know it because you lived it.
Does the bear crap in the woods???
I’m not sure you’re right. Maybe. Maybe not. If a judge signs a warrant, then they’re telling the world that they read it, agreed with the probable cause outlined in it, and approve it.
I’m thinking that when Rosenstein, Certified It, that might mean that he read, made sure it met the criteria to be presented to the FISC and gave approval to whatever, US Attorney went before the court. If his signature is on it, then it’s as if he wrote it. Only way out of it for him, maybe, is falling back on the Collective Knowledge Rule, where he can state that he has the ability to take the affiants word for it, that all is legit and legal. He is not under any obligation to critique or research the underlying supporting documentation. But, I think he may be in too deep for that, at this point.
However, his boss don’t care, so he know’s it isn’t a big deal.
That is probably the way to bet.
There is some chance for reform if the Republicans hold the house and gain seats in the Senate.
That will signal to the Congresscritters they have less to fear from the alliance of the Agencies and the Media.
He almost certainly did. He knows he can get away with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.