Posted on 02/05/2018 9:03:06 AM PST by markomalley
Republican senators Charles Grassley (Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.) on Monday released a letter they sent to the FBI asking that ex-British spy Christopher Steele be investigated for possible criminal violations. Steele authored the anti-Trump "dossier" that was full of false or unverified information, provided to the FBI and leaked to the press in 2016.
The FBI secretly used the Steele dossier to convince a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to permit one of the most sensitive invasions of privacy against a U.S. citizen: electronic surveillance by the government. Top Obama and Trump officials signed four wiretap applications against Trump adviser Carter Page starting in fall of 2016 - a month before the presidential election - relying, in part, on the dossier. That's according to House Republicans who, on Friday, released a summary of classified documents they reviewed.
The FBI's reliance on the anti-Trump dossier is questionable because while the judge was reportedly told the author had political motivations, the FBI allegedly did not disclose who funded it: Donald Trump's chief opponent in the presidential race - the Hillary Clinton campaign - and the Democratic National Committee.
Not only that, the newly-released criminal referral says Steele actually incorporated information that was funneled to him through Clinton associates and the U.S. State Department where Clinton had served as Secretary of State from 2009 to early 2013. In a memo dated Oct. 19, 2016, Steele wrote that a foreign source who was in touch with "a friend of the Clintons" passed him material through a U.S. State Department connection.
Even more problematic, the FBI may have violated strict rules - Woods Procedures - that forbid it from presenting even a single unverified fact to the special court, let alone a lengthy dossier full of them.
The criminal referral unveiled today says Steele's possible violations involve claims he reportedly made about his dealings with the media. Conflicting accounts arose as part of a lawsuit in Great Britain where Steele is defending a libel claim made by a Russian businessman. Steele publicly accused him of hacking the Democratic Party. The criminal referral is not a formal accusation of wrongdoing against Steele, but a request for an investigation.
Conflicts of interest?
In the bigger picture, the criminal referral highlights conflicts of interest questions emerging in the wide-ranging investigations:
The Steele criminal referral in essence asks the FBI to investigate a source with whom FBI officials collaborated, and whose evidence they used in a fashion that's under congressional investigation.
The referral was addressed to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein who himself signed at least one of the questionable wiretap applications using the Steele dossier.
It was also addressed to FBI Director Christopher Wray whose choice for general counsel, Dana Boente, also signed at least one of the wiretap applications. Boente replaced James Baker, a confidante of former FBI Director James Comey, who signed three of the wiretap applications. (Baker was reassigned in December after questions arose about leaks promoting the anti-Trump material in the dossier. Last June, Comey admitted that he secretly orchestrated a leak to the press to prompt a special counsel investigation of any Trump-Russia ties. Robert Mueller was appointed two days later.)
I don’t know. That’s why I hedged on whether she was right to assume Title I.
But if it is Title I, it sounds like the surveillance approved is on anyone and anything connected to the spy. Remember, it’s assumed that the investigators are honestly trying to stop whatever a spy intends to accomplish. It’s also assumed that they’re convinced he actually is a spy.
In the present case, the top investigators, including everyone doing the unmasking and those reading the unmasked info were anything but honest, in my opinion anyway.
Maybe the guy at ConsTree got out over his skis too far though? And if he is, I am too of course.
The Supreme Court upheld the prior rulings in the case, holding that the wiretaps were an unconstitutional violation of the Fourth Amendment and as such must be disclosed to the defense.
Sounds like it does not pertain. Would you close the loop on why you believe it to be germane?
The abuses predate Nixon.
No dispute from me, but the FISA was signed by Carter in 1978.
Long, but concise,
Over 400 pages is concise??? Looks to be a commission based upon acts committed, by-in-large, by the Johnson administration. Would not surprise me. That man was evil.
The Keith case is a criminal prosecution, so the 4th amendment applies. The holding you quoted pertains in that (criminal prosecution) context.
Within the Keith case is considerable discussion that the executive has certain surveillance power that is unrelated to criminal law. That is the FISA angle. Foreign intelligence vs. criminal. In many cases, totally separate; in many cases, overlapping.
Some cherry-picked excerpts, the last one being more or less, "Congress might want to pass a law." It did. FISA.
On the basis of the Attorney General's affidavit and the sealed exhibit, the Government asserted that the surveillance was lawful, though conducted without prior judicial approval ...-- Over 400 pages is concise? --[Referring to part of 18 USC 2511] At most, this is an implicit recognition that the President does have certain powers in the specified areas. Few would doubt this, as the section refers -- among other things -- to protection "against actual or potential attack or other hostile acts of a foreign power." But so far as the use of the President's electronic surveillance power is concerned, the language [of the statute] is essentially neutral. ...
The [Congressional] debate above explicitly indicates that nothing in S: 2511(3) was intended to expand or to contract or to define whatever presidential surveillance powers existed in matters affecting the national security. ...
Further, the instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country. ...
Given these potential distinctions between Title III criminal surveillances and those involving the domestic security, Congress may wish to consider protective standards for the latter which differ from those already prescribed for specified crimes in Title III.
Compared with the underlying facts and cases, yep.
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.