No, on that last point. They went back in October with another version, which was approved this time.
Got it. And that is where, per this article, they may have really crossed over the line:
“Second, it is possible Obama’s team may have perjured themselves before the FISA court by withholding material information essential to the FISA court’s willingness to permit the government surveillance.”
As one FNC guest theorized, since the FISA court already turned down a request to wiretap Trump, yet a second attempt was successful, wouldn’t it be logical to assume that “something” was different in the 2nd request?
Something like, for example, omitting the name “Trump” and fuzzing it up to make the focus on “foreign entities” or something?
That’s what I’ll bet we find they did in order to get the order approved on the 2nd attempt. And leaving out material facts is a felony.