re: Bill Barr orders Rosenstein to conduct full audit of Carter Page FISA Warrant

Some more home reading for you.

quote:

---

More fundamentally, though, much of the commentary claiming some clear breach of protocol in the Carter Page FISA simply misunderstands what it means to say that a FISA application has been “verified.” It does not mean that every tip provided by a source has been independently corroborated. Rather, “verification” refers to the process laid out in the so-called “Woods procedures,” which require Justice Department officials to verify that representations made in a submission to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court match the information in the FBI’s investigative files. If the application relies upon a source for some claim, does the documentation in the case file support that the source actually said what the application presents the source as saying? In this case, then, “verification” would not mean the FBI had necessarily tracked down Steele’s own sources to corroborate his reporting. Rather, it would require that someone “verify” that when the application summarized what Steele had told the FBI, it did so accurately.

This should, in a way, be a matter of common sense. If the FBI had independently confirmed a tip from a source, after all, that independent confirmation would be in the application. Indeed, why would you rely on a source at all if you had been able to directly confirm their claims? It would be fairly bizarre for the FBI to say “our own investigation has unearthed proof that our source’s claims were true, but we’re not going to make that proof part of our showing to the court.” In this case, it seems as though the FBI was quite straightforward in telling the FISA Court that their reliance on Steele’s information was based on his track record of providing reliable evidence in the past, not on having independently duplicated his reporting. There is a reasonable argument to be made that the Court should not have been satisfied with this sort of second- or third-hand evidence, but it can’t be reasonably argued that they didn’t understand what the evidence was, or were tricked into thinking the FBI had extra secret evidence to support their claims. It is not so uncommon, after all, for intelligence investigations to involve information provided by foreign allies that the U.S. government cannot itself directly check. If Israel tells the FBI about information reported by an undercover agent in a terror group, the FBI can check whether that intelligence is consistent with their other information, but will rarely be able to interview the mole directly. The question, as always, is not whether one has indisputable proof, but what level of credibility the agency ascribes to the varied types of information it has available.

---

LINK

I think I’ve discovered your major malfunction. You read opinion pieces that support your predetermined conclusion and think they are influential. Last time we discussed this I posted Mueller’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and took an excerpt from your posting of the Woods procedure. Those are for more accurate than your article written by Julian Sanchez, former assistant editor of Reason Magazine. (Who, by the way, offers zero authority for his wildly innacurate interpretation of the law).

I did find his article from 2013 about NSA “compliance incidence” being out of control. He was very skeptical of the IC then. I wonder what happened to make him change his tune? Hmmmmmm. Orange....man.....bad???

9/20/18

Oh...and the lead author of the flimsy report on your boy said: “I have no evidence of them actually sitting behind a keyboard”.

And the New York Times admitted there is “no direct evidence of a direct link to the Russian hackers”.

Ouch.

No evidence....that’s your wheelhouse.

quote:

---

I can only lead a horse to water I can’t make them drink.

---

I thought we were talking about the law. Had I known you simply wanted to discuss the opinions of liberal “journalists” you could have saved us a lot of time. When you want to discuss the actual law as it pertains to the dossier being illegally introduced to the FISA court, let me know.

I politely decline to get into a discussion about opinions of leftist writers. Their opinions are irrelevant.

Of course, if you can cite one section of code or one ruling or judgment setting a precedent that supports his definition of verify...please post. I’ll wait, patiently.

quote:

---

“Woods procedures,”

---

So in other words, as long as they made their lies match, all is good.

quote:

---

Again, FBI procedure. I think the law on including hearsay in warrant applications is pretty settled.

---

Robert Mueller has a different standard. At least he did in his testimony to the Senate Judiciary. Are you saying Robert Mueller is mistaken and that you and Julian Sanchez are correct?


Still waiting on a single citation. I noticed you failed to provide one.

Remember when this whole thing started between us. You were saying the FBI didn’t have to verify. Then you got shown they did...now you want to argue an absurd definition of verify. It is a waste of my time. But I do enjoy seeing how far in your suspension of reality you are willing to go.

I’m still sitting here just wanting verification from Poso

quote:

---

report, but I contend that Horowitz's account as Inspector General is where the fireworks are.

---

I would temper your excitement there Vox.

This is the same Horowitz that concluded no political bias even though they cited substantial evidence of it in the same report.

I think Barr cares deeply about the DOJ, the integrity of the department, and sanity of the FISA process.

Barr knows this is bullshite and that the court and process was compromised by politics and he intends to get everything out in the open

quote:

---

This. Besides, OIG Horowitz's report that follows Mueller's SC report is where the SHTF. Mueller/RR/et al. haven't left the store with the shite under the coat yet. It's not until the reports are filed that you can actually hammer them on what's been done.

Everyone's breathlessly awaiting the Mueller report, but I contend that Horowitz's account as Inspector General is where the fireworks are.

---

They need someone inside the DOJ currently to be able to refer for a criminal investigation. That man is Bruce Ohr. The 3rd OIG report will be the floodgate.