The political anti-Trump sources of the information were not provided to the court....
It appears that now goNadler is saying that it was. If so the courts would have some explaining to do.
Otherwise, as I think is the case, the courts can cover themselves by saying they trusted the integrity of the agents presenting the evidence, and the properly signed surveillance requests.
My understanding from legal people who have commented is that a judge has a responsibility to actually look at the documents and supposed evidence presented to obtain a warrant and determine its legitimacy.
If so, a judge knows he has bogus evidence and becomes complicity.
Or, a judge is hoodwinked by a masterful lying application, and afterwards should be extremely PO’d and set about rocking the liar’s world.