Two passages, separated by more than 50 pages, when read together reveal an eighth significant inaccuracy and omission from the first FISA application, and one repeated in the later three renewals: Steele's sources and sub-sources were not ones he used or developed during his time with the British intelligence service MI6, contrary to the impression created in the FISA applications.
The IG report began with a general description of the FISA process, explaining that a proposed application, typically referred to as a "Read copy," is presented to the FISA court.
The final version of the October 2016 FISA application included the requested description, which again remains redacted, but surely concerns Steele's prior spy work for the United Kingdom.
As highlighted above, the source network Steele relied upon to craft his dossier was not developed or used during his previous life as a British intelligence agent.
By stressing Steele's prior work with MI6 in response to the legal advisor's questioning of Steele's network of sources, the DOJ created the false impression that the network of sources that Steele used and relied upon for his dossier were also used and relied upon by the British government.
That the legal advisor not only raised the question about Steele's access to a network of sources, but then insisted that the FISA application be updated to include information concerning Steele's prior government position, shows the FISA court placed great significance on Steele's previous British intelligence work for purposes of assessing the reliability of his source network.
The DOJ's failure to inform the FISA court that Steele's sources and sub-sources were privately acquired-or the FBI's failure to inquire of these facts in light of the FISA court's query-is yet another significant inaccuracy and omission in the FISA applications.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/02/exclusive-the-inspector-general-missed-yet-another-lie-from-the-fbi/
The IG report began with a general description of the FISA process, explaining that a proposed application, typically referred to as a "Read copy," is presented to the FISA court.
The final version of the October 2016 FISA application included the requested description, which again remains redacted, but surely concerns Steele's prior spy work for the United Kingdom.
As highlighted above, the source network Steele relied upon to craft his dossier was not developed or used during his previous life as a British intelligence agent.
By stressing Steele's prior work with MI6 in response to the legal advisor's questioning of Steele's network of sources, the DOJ created the false impression that the network of sources that Steele used and relied upon for his dossier were also used and relied upon by the British government.
That the legal advisor not only raised the question about Steele's access to a network of sources, but then insisted that the FISA application be updated to include information concerning Steele's prior government position, shows the FISA court placed great significance on Steele's previous British intelligence work for purposes of assessing the reliability of his source network.
The DOJ's failure to inform the FISA court that Steele's sources and sub-sources were privately acquired-or the FBI's failure to inquire of these facts in light of the FISA court's query-is yet another significant inaccuracy and omission in the FISA applications.
https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/02/exclusive-the-inspector-general-missed-yet-another-lie-from-the-fbi/
No comments:
Post a Comment