10 Key Takeaways From The Released FISA Warrants Against Carter Page

The Federalist ^ | July 23, 2018 | Margot Cleveland

[detective]

In a surprise move, on Saturday evening the Department of Justice released copies of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) applications used to obtain a secret court order to conduct electronic surveillance on former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. The 412 pages of documents turned over in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by several media outlets included the initial October 2016 application and the three applications for renewal of the surveillance order.

While the newly released documents remain heavily redacted, the details revealed confirm the charges of abuse laid out early this year by House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA). The documents also provide additional evidence that the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and career DOJ, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and State Department employees misused the FISA court system to spy on the Trump campaign. Here are ten key take-aways.

[detective]

This is an excellent article.

The Obama administration lied to the FISA court to obtain authorization for the government and the Clinton campaign to illegally spy on the Trump campaign and the Trump administration.

[dartuser]

Did they intend to do it? < /sarc>

[pnut22]

It’s been a very good day to be a Trump supporter. The Obama curtain is being slowly pulled back, the economy is soaring and the dems are arguing about just how socialist can we be and still be credible. Happy in Ohio.

[texas booster]

1. The State Department Had Its Fingers In this Mess
2. The Applications Relied Heavily on the Steele Dossier
3. The FBI Paid Christopher Steele
4. Warrants Relied On Hearsay from Tertiary Sources
5. The DOJ Used News Outlets to Establish Probable Cause
6. The DOJ Effectively Criminalized GOP Foreign Policy
7. Why Were the Dates Redacted?
8. The FISA Applications Didn’t Establish Probable Cause
9. The FISA Court Clearly Needs Revamping
10. Heavy Redactions Will Give Dems Cover

I've read the article but must admit that I do not fully comprehend it. It is detailed and each paragraph backs up the title, and there is a lot to absorb.

I started reading it expecting a deep state attack - but it is clearly not that. Very well worth bookmarking.

Here is the bio for the author:

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame.

[texas booster]

Next discussion, tho premature for today - Ms. Cleveland's contention in #9:

9. The FISA Court Clearly Needs Revamping

[joshua c]

How socialist can we be and still get away with calling ourselves centrists?

The battle of the masked and unmasked socialists.

[Chewbarkah]

Good article. I’m interested in next steps (beyond dragging the unredacted version into public view).

1) FISA must not continue unless and until the judges are competent and diligent. This case certainly implies they are neither. How can FISA judges be held accountable?
2) FISA courts are administrated by the Chief Justice of the USSC. Has John Roberts been looking into the standard practices (i.e., rubber stamping)? Has he removed some of these clowns from the court? Revamped training? Personally checked cases for quality control?

Congress needs to advise Roberts that a competent job is required. If steps are not immediately forthcoming, Congress needs to de-authorize the program. It cannot function in secret without people of high ability, diligence, and integrity at the helm. We don’t have that.

[Pagey]

Read, Print + Fwd.

[arthurus]

Trump needs to completely declassify the warrants so they come through unredacted which I expect he will do at the appropriate time.

[TChad]

I heard Carter Page interviewed on Hannity this afternoon. He was not what I expected. I thought he would be furious about what had happened to him, but he seemed only mildly annoyed. When asked if he would sue the FBI/CIA to salvage his reputation after they branded him a Russian agent, he said that he might, eventually, but "It's not about me."

He seemed incapable of responding to a direct question with "yes," "no," or any other straightforward answer. Instead, he kept changing the subject.

He refused to say anything negative about Putin or Russia. He repeatedly dodged questions about the number of his FBI/CIA debriefings on the occasions when he returned from Russia. He dodged questions about having contacts in the Kremlin during the years he lived in Russia.

He kept repeating that he was never asked to do anything improper by the Russians, without defining what he considered improper.

It was a weak, unimpressive performance. He probably had good reasons for being so evasive, but I bet this interview harmed his credibility.