Consider this scenario: A federal lawyer is filling out applications requesting FISA warrants to spy on American citizens who work for a major presidential campaign to determine whether the campaign staffers are collaborating with a foreign power to steal the presidency of the United States.
So what are the chances that a good-faith investigation would botch nearly every request to spy on the campaign when the FISA court is already signing off on over 96 percent of applications? What are the chances that the FISA applications of a good-faith investigation would be riddled with errors and rely on "Misleading and inaccurate" information based on a fabulist document paid for by the opposing political party?
In December, Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that the FBI had included "At least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and many errors in the Woods Procedures" during its Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
A new IG report looked at another 29 applications the FBI filed to get permission to spy on "U.S. Persons".
The FBI couldn't even find "Woods Procedure" files - which contain "Supporting documentation for factual assertions contained in the FISA applications, as required by FBI policy" - for four of the applications, while every single one of the other 25 that auditors examined had "Apparent errors or inadequately supported facts." In addition to the 29 applications audited, the IG looked at the FBI's own "Application oversight mechanisms" relating to 42 FISA applications.
Put it this way, the new IG report found a total of 390 problems in 39 of the 42 applications that "Including unverified, inaccurate, or inadequately supported facts, as well as typographical errors," and it found another 20 issues per application in the new audit.
If you're keeping score at home, only three of 75 FISA applications used to spy in the investigation, starting in October 2014, were not problematic.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/fbi-inspector-general-report-fisa-scandal-about-corruption-not-sloppiness/
So what are the chances that a good-faith investigation would botch nearly every request to spy on the campaign when the FISA court is already signing off on over 96 percent of applications? What are the chances that the FISA applications of a good-faith investigation would be riddled with errors and rely on "Misleading and inaccurate" information based on a fabulist document paid for by the opposing political party?
In December, Inspector General Michael Horowitz found that the FBI had included "At least 17 significant errors or omissions in the Carter Page FISA applications and many errors in the Woods Procedures" during its Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
A new IG report looked at another 29 applications the FBI filed to get permission to spy on "U.S. Persons".
The FBI couldn't even find "Woods Procedure" files - which contain "Supporting documentation for factual assertions contained in the FISA applications, as required by FBI policy" - for four of the applications, while every single one of the other 25 that auditors examined had "Apparent errors or inadequately supported facts." In addition to the 29 applications audited, the IG looked at the FBI's own "Application oversight mechanisms" relating to 42 FISA applications.
Put it this way, the new IG report found a total of 390 problems in 39 of the 42 applications that "Including unverified, inaccurate, or inadequately supported facts, as well as typographical errors," and it found another 20 issues per application in the new audit.
If you're keeping score at home, only three of 75 FISA applications used to spy in the investigation, starting in October 2014, were not problematic.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/04/fbi-inspector-general-report-fisa-scandal-about-corruption-not-sloppiness/
No comments:
Post a Comment