The criminal aspect of the target is secondary and not required. FISA exists to produce warrants where none are required. The administration can undertake surveillance for foreig intelligence purposes without a warrant. The statutory FISA structure exists to make the public believe this power has independent oversight.
I would not be so quick to believe FISC is apolitical. From my point of view, all branches and all players in the federal government are political, and aim to grow their power.
My point though, is that between FISC and the FBI, there is a set of working assumptions supposedly enforced by institutional controls. The FBI is responsible to verify information before using it to obtain a warrant. The DOJ is the oversight for this. Only after FBI and DOJ agree does the application go to FISC.
FISC mistake, like the public's, is having trust. Better to assume the people asking for soemthing are liars, because chances are, they are.
Not quite:
...establishes procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of "foreign intelligence information" between "foreign powers" and "agents of foreign powers" suspected of espionage or terrorism
I believe espionage and terrorism are criminal acts, but the primary requirement is that the basis must be regarding foreign agents. Either with or without court orders, warrants are based on the target being the foreign agent. This warrant appears to violate that.
FISA exists to produce warrants where none are required.
Not sure how you meant this but FISA exists to collect intelligence on foreign agents, which requires a surveillance warrant. Further, the court is mandated to operate in a non-adversarial role which to me indicates non-partisan but I could be wrong in the legal definition of that.
The FBI is responsible to verify information before using it to obtain a warrant. The DOJ is the oversight for this. Only after FBI and DOJ agree does the application go to FISC.
Agreed, although the NSA can be involved. Given what you stated it is quite clear that the process is tainted and guilty as charged in accordance with what the Trump administration has cited as being biased. That should cause the issuing judge to revoke the warrant and put the surveillance under judicial review.