What point are you trying to make?
The Dossier was used in the 3 other applications and the FISA Court
wasn't told it was paid and financed by the DNC and Clinton Campaign.
They hid that from the court. That makes the 3 extensions illegal and very
possibly an abuse of the 4th amendment rights of anybody monitored.
Thus, you can kiss that special counsel goodbye, once SCOTUS has
this presented to them. They'll have no choice, because the FBI/SC
will never be able to distinguish one from the other.
That was not hidden from the court, Nunes duped you...
Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant
Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.
Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.
Devin duped me? Well, when he stops by tonight I will inform him of
that.
btw...Nobody disclosed that the memo was bought and paid for by the
DNC and the Clinton Campaign. That's a pretty big omission.
Oh? What part of the following is too difficult for you to comprehend...?
Republicans concede key FBI 'footnote' in Carter Page warrant
Devin Nunes said Monday the FBI had disclosed political backing for a Trump-Russia dossier in October 2016, but a controversial GOP memo released last week did not mention it.
Republican leaders are acknowledging that the FBI disclosed the political origins of a private dossier the bureau cited in an application to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, undermining a controversial GOP memo released Friday and fueling Democratic demands to declassify more information about the bureau’s actions.
They did not inform the FISA Court that the dossier was financed and
paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign.
There are no gray areas in applications. They are all black and white.
No Court is going to "assume" or "read between the lines."
If a lawyer wants something to be read between the lines, he damn well
better have some words between the lines.
The FBI and DOJ both believed they needed the extra weight of the Dossier
to continue to get extensions. The FBI and DOJ both believed that if they
told the court it was a political hit piece paid for by the DNC/Clinton Campaign, the court would not issue the extensions.
So they created the omission, which now that it has been discovered is
going to taint and probably destroy their entire case.
There are no gray areas in applications.
A lot of folks here may have been born at night, but 'tweren't none of us born last night. To wit....
The matter of what does and does not constitute probable cause for obtaining authorization to conduct intrusive forms of surveillance such as wiretapping is itself gray. There is no trial and there is no absolute correctness to any given assertion that "such and such" constitutes probable cause that warrants law enforcement organizations, in the course of investigating whether criminal acts were by someone(s) committed, to invade one's privacy. What entails due probable cause in one matter, at one point in time, for a given set of circumstances, etc. may or may not constitute it in others.
That such forms of surveillance/investigation as wiretapping, searching private residences, and mail interception are intrusive on one's privacy is precisely why law enforcement organizations (LEO) are required to obtain from judges warrants to do so: it is the judiciary's job to determine whether the surveillance action is or is not in compliance with the law. Moreover, a citizen's abstract right to communicative subject matter privacy with regard to their non-governmental expressions is considered violable for only 90 days when LEO obtain a warrant of the sort the FBI obtained to surveil Carter Page. Accordingly,
the FBI had to, and did, reapply to the FISC for surveillance authorization of Carter Page three times after its first application. Each subsequent application had to show -- to the satisfaction of the authorized top level officials in the FBI and in the DoJ and the presiding jurist for each application -- that (1) the previous use of the prior warranted observation tactics bore fruit, as it were, and (2) that the probable cause militating for implementing such tactics was ongoing, thus the then-current application's
raison d'etre. (Click on the link for the FISC's procedural rules found at the end of this post.)
Quite simply, FISA warrants are not doled out as one might Halloween candy. Furthermore, "There are
11 federal judges on the FISC, and they take cases on a rotating basis and
at least seven of them must come from different judicial districts/circuits. The judges deal with non-FISA cases and are selected for the
additional responsibility of the FISA court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. That is hardly the beginning and end of the checks and balances in the FISA warrant application process. Another, for example, is the burden of justification (not
proof; if LEO had proof of a crime's commission and who committed it, they wouldn't need a search/observation warrant, nor would they need to conduct investigative activities) for subsequent warrant applications being "stepped-up" from that of the initial application.
Additional References:
