Posted on 02/02/2018 2:40:41 PM PST by Bigtigermike
The FISA ‘warrant’ request, against Carter Page, was made October 21st, 2016, under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Meaning the surveillance application was specifically stating, to the court, the U.S. individual was likely an actual agent of a foreign government, ie. “a spy.”
The DOJ (National Security Division) and the FBI (Counterintelligence Division) were not asking to review ancillary data collected on U.S. Person Carter Page as an outcome of surveillance on a foreign person, or foreign agent; that would be Title 7 (FISA-702).
In action outlined within the HPSCI memo, the DOJ and FBI were specifically telling the FISA court they had evidence that U.S. Person Carter Page was working as an agent of a foreign government. He was their target, and therefore requesting direct FISA Title 1 surveillance of that target on October 21st, 2016
[....]
AND as such they carried full surveillance authority upon all of this activities, interactions, communications and contacts therein.
Because of this direct approach, any group, organization or entity who came in contact with U.S. Person Carter Page was then open for ancillary review and FBI investigation
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
I am very curious about this, but cannot find an answer. With the exception of the guy who commented on this story who said this was a “super warrant” vs a regular FISA warrant on an individual. This would be a critical distinction and if this were the case, everyone around Page could be monitored and/or unmasked.
Seems crazy and it is probably wrong, but if it is not this is even more frightening.
My argument here is unrelated to the current FISA circus, but it is still relevant: that government personnel who oversee, order and carry out such surveillance on INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING Americans should be subject to routine mental and psychological examinations. Standards must be developed so that government officials act responsibly. If a program like this already exists, it's clearly not effective.
We only have to look at recent history: Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Bundy Ranch. In each of these instances, while the "targets" (who eventually became victims), were not completely innocent and whose behavior raised many flags, the response of government personnel was beyond what sane, rational people would do. The dangerous sociopaths and psychopaths who happen also to be employed in our intelligence, military and law-enforcement agencies need to be identified and terminated. These people terrorize Americans you'll never hear about, destroy individual liberty, and get away with far more heinous behavior than is believable - all in their official capacity.They're criminals.
No....it’s much worst than you describe. If Carter Page just frequent Trump Tower or make phone calls there ...aka HQ then as a foreign agent...that place is under surveillance. If Carter Page is sending emails that forward it to Don Jr then Don Jr is caught up into it because a foreign agent, a spy is talking to Don Jr
“We only have to look at recent history: Waco, Ruby Ridge, the Bundy Ranch. In each of these instances, while the “targets” (who eventually became victims), were not completely innocent and whose behavior raised many flags, the response of government personnel was beyond what sane, rational people would do. The dangerous sociopaths and psychopaths who happen also to be employed in our intelligence, military and law-enforcement agencies need to be identified and terminated. These people terrorize Americans you’ll never hear about, destroy individual liberty, and get away with far more heinous behavior than is believable - all in their official capacity.They’re criminals”.
Well said.
This is the absolute key to the memo.
Nobody cares about Carter Page. He could have been taken out and shot in front of the Capitol Building and people would assume it was an accident.
So the $10 trillion question: who else did they put surveillance on as part of their investigation into "Russian spy" Carter Page?
Generally, here’s more on your Title 1 Q.
That "legally/illegally" distinction is a trap. As a matter of law, if a warrant was sought by a US official (check) and a warrant was issued (check), the surveillance was legal.
There is no remedy in the law for corrupt officials or corrupt judges. They skate, as a matter of law.
50 USC 1509(b) DefenseIt is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction
Wow....this (Title I) makes it worse than we thought.
Gaijin,
Thanks for posting that !
Check out these posts by Steven w. & Kitj :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3628381/posts?page=99#99
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3628381/posts?page=101#101
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3628381/posts?page=100#100
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3628381/posts?page=103#103
It's a pretty good place, but by far not the only one. Be careful with taking the contentions hook-line-and-sinker. He means well (as do I), but we all make mistakes.
;)
If the names need to be unmasked, that means the names were originally masked according to the minimization rules set out in the FISA application. What was happening was a bypassing of minimization by the same people who swore to abide by it in the FISA application.
Rogers knew the extent of unmasking requests, saw a pattern, and knew shenanigans circumventing the law were afoot.
No. The fact of unmasking indicates a circumvention of minimization. Minimizing a name is synonymous with masking a name. Names were masked according to the law and to any minimization specifics recited in (or incorporated by reference) the warrant.
Maybe a bit like "Q". Better for people to study it, than to have it laid out. Awareness improves with study.
HPSCI did put out a 3 page followup/counterpoint to DEM talking points. It's pretty good.
“They skate as a matter of law”
But the illegality is the perjury used to obtain the warrant, right? And isn’t there more impact in the potential charge of “abuse of power” that Greg Jarrett keeps citing?
Saved your graphic; perfect for the things we’ll be learning over the next months. This guy should really be a meme.
The only oath in the application is by the investigator. The DOJ role is approval, which amounts to making sure the contents satisfy the form.
I suspect the oath in this case is that the material in the warrant is true to the best of knowledge. Lie by omission is not a violation of the oath.
-- ... isn't there more impact in the potential charge of "abuse of power" ... --
Abuse of power isn't the name of a crime, although some crimes, like deprivation of civil rights, follow from what is properly viewed as abuse of power.
The FISA context changes the way the law is usually applied. It's nominally a crime to use FISA to deprive a person of fourth amendment or first amendment right. But then the law provides a defense to the key players ...
50 USC 1809 - Criminal Sanctions
(a) A person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally--
(1) engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by this chapter ...(b) Defense
It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a) that the defendant was a law enforcement or investigative officer engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction.
FISA warrants are issued to get around the fourth amendment when the purpose of the surveillance is to get foreign intelligence. The legal framework is radically different from the typical warrant used to investigate potential crimes.
FISA invites abuse. It is a deliberately secret process, and we are supposed to have blind trust in it. The contention that Congress can conduct meaningful oversight to the process is risible. The process is operated by investigators and courts. Bad warrants have been challenged. The challenger always loses.
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.