What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Trump and the FBI (2 Viewers)

SaintsInDome2006 said:
 Gates believes that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, as well as several other cabinet members, merely accepted their roles to obtain a divestment tax credit for their portfolios.
Click to expand...
😅 Jesus, could there be any more cynical reason to accept a position in government? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power said:
Have we figured out who Mifsud is yet?  Is he still a Russian agent?
Click to expand...
Whether or not Mifsud was a Russian agent or who Is fusion GPS (who has Russians on the payroll, had done work for Putin and had played a role in the election) are not within the scope of an investigation of Russian interference in the election.  

 
Sam Quentin said:
Whether or not Mifsud was a Russian agent or who Is fusion GPS (who has Russians on the payroll, had done work for Putin and had played a role in the election) are not within the scope of an investigation of Russian interference in the election.  
Click to expand...
Mueller specifically addressed it. So did Horowitz.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Max Power said:
He told the FBI he was coming to town in one interview and he told the FBI he was currently in town in the other. 

Mifsud was even a guest speaker at a state dept event while he was in town and the FBI still couldn't locate him...
Click to expand...
George Papadopoulos

Investigators approached Papadopoulos for an interview based on his role as a foreign policy advisor to the Trump Campaign and his suggestion to a foreign government representative that Russia had indicated that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to candidate Clinton. On January 27, 2017, Papadopoulos agreed to be interviewed by FBI agents, who informed him that the interview was part of the investigation into potential Russian government interference in the 2016 presidential election.

During the interview, Papadopoulos lied about the timing, extent, and nature of his communications with Joseph Mifsud, Olga Polonskaya, and Ivan Timofeev. With respect to timing, Papadopoulos acknowledged that he had met Mifsud and that Mifsud told him the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of thousands of emails.” But Papadopoulos stated multiple times that those communications occurred before he joined the Trump Campaign and that it was a “very strange coincidence” to be told of the “dirt” before he started working for the Campaign. This account was false. Papadopoulos met Mifsud for the first time on approximately March 14, 2016, after Papadopoulos had already learned he would be a foreign policy advisor for the Campaign. Mifsud showed interest in Papadopoulos only after learning of his role on the Campaign. And Mifsud told Papadopoulos about the Russians possessing “dirt” on candidate Clinton in late April 2016, more than a month after Papadopoulos had joined the Campaign and been publicly announced by candidate Trump. Statement of Offense ¶¶ 25-26, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. 1:17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 2017), Doc. 19 (“Papadopoulos Statement of Offense”).

Papadopoulos also made false statements in an effort to minimize the extent and importance of his communications with Mifsud. For example, Papadopoulos stated that “[Mifsud]’s a nothing,” that he thought Mifsud was “just a guy talk[ing] up connections or something,” and that he believed Mifsud was “BS’ing to be completely honest with you.” In fact, however, Papadopoulos understood Mifsud to have substantial connections to high-level Russian government officials and that Mifsud spoke with some of those officials in Moscow before telling Papadopoulos about the “dirt.” Papadopoulos also engaged in extensive communications over a period of months with Mifsud about foreign policy issues for the Campaign, including efforts to arrange a “history making” meeting between the Campaign and Russian government officials. In addition, Papadopoulos failed to inform investigators that Mifsud had introduced him to Timofeev, the Russian national who Papadopoulos understood to be connected to the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, despite being asked if he had met with Russian nationals or “[a]nyone with a Russian accent” during the campaign. Papadopoulos Statement of Offense ¶¶ 27-29.

Papadopoulos also falsely claimed that he met Polonskaya before he joined the Campaign, and falsely told the FBI that he had “no” relationship at all with her. He stated that the extent of their communications was her sending emails — “Just, ‘Hi, how are you?’ That’s it.” In truth, however, Papadopoulos met Polonskaya on March 24, 2016, after he had joined the Campaign; he believed that she had connections to high-level Russian government officials and could help him arrange a potential foreign policy trip to Russia. During the campaign he emailed and spoke with her over Skype on numerous occasions about the potential foreign policy trip to Russia. Papadopoulos Statement of Offense ¶¶ 30-31.

Papadopoulos’s false statements in January 2017 impeded the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Most immediately, those statements hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question Mifsud when he was interviewed in the lobby of a Washington, D.C. hotel on February 10, 2017. See Gov’t Sent. Mem. at 6, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. 1:17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017), Doc. 44. During that interview, Mifsud admitted to knowing Papadopoulos and to having introduced him to Polonskaya and Timofeev. But Mifsud denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation. Mifsud also falsely stated that he had not seen Papadopoulos since the meeting at which Mifsud introduced him to Polonskaya, even though emails, text messages, and other information show that Mifsud met with Papadopoulos on at least two other occasions — April 12 and April 26, 2016. In addition, Mifsud omitted that he had drafted (or edited) the follow-up message that Polonskaya sent to Papadopoulos following the initial meeting and that, as reflected in the language of that email chain (“Baby, thank you!"), Mifsud may have been involved in a personal relationship with Polonskaya at the time. The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s January 2017 interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud when he made these inaccurate statements.

Given the seriousness of the lies and omissions and their effect on the FBI’s investigation, the Office charged Papadopoulos with making false statements to the FBI, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Information, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. 1:17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 2017), Doc. 8. On October 7, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to that charge pursuant to a plea agreement. On September 7, 2018, he was sentenced to 14 days of imprisonment, a $9,500 fine, and 200 hours of community service.
Click to expand...
- Papadopoulos admitted to all this. He was prostrate before the court, begging for mercy, which he very much got because he cooperated all the way in the end. Frankly anything he has said since then is bs.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Papadopoulos admitted to all this. He was prostrate before the court, begging for mercy, which he very much got because he cooperated all the way in the end. Frankly anything he has said since then is bs.
Click to expand...
You know the 302s happened before his plea.  There are also plenty of reasons to take a plea. 

 
Mifsud is a Maltese national who worked as a professor at the London Academy of Diplomacy in London, England. Although Mifsud worked out of London and was also affiliated with LCILP, the encounter in Rome was the first time that Papadopoulos met him. Mifsud maintained various Russian contacts while living in London, as described further below. Among his contacts was ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■, a one-time employee of the IRA, the entity that carried out the Russian social media campaign (see Volume 1, Section II, supra). In January and February 2016, Mifsud and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ discussed ■■■■■■■■■ possibly meeting in Russia. The investigation did not identify evidence of them meeting. Later, in the spring of 2016, ■■■■■■■■■ was also in contact ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ that was linked to an employee of the Russian Ministry of Defense, and that account had overlapping contacts with a group of Russian military-controlled Facebook accounts that included accounts used to promote the DCLeaks releases in the course of the GRU’s hack-and-release operations ... .
Click to expand...
That's the statement on Mifusd. Not that he's an "agent" of Russia, just that he was in contact with members of Russian IRA, MOD and MFA.

 
Max Power said:
I'm saying he told the FBI when Mifsud would be in town multiple times.  The dates on the 302 show it.  So for the FBI to not go get Mifsud and blame Papad is a bull#### claim. 
Click to expand...
They did interview Mifsud.

One of the innovations of the Trump movement is rejecting indictments, convictions even confessions of investigated and captured criminals. These are matters of proof in federal courts. These things happened. It's just a constant rejection of the judicial system of the United States of America.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Most immediately, those statements hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question Mifsud when he was interviewed in the lobby of a Washington, D.C. hotel on February 10, 2017. See Gov’t Sent. Mem. at 6, United States v. George Papadopoulos, No. 1:17-cr-182 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2017), Doc. 44.
Click to expand...
- Mueller

The feds did interview Mifsud, the point is because Papadopoulos misled them they were deprived of information they needed to understand what they should have.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
They did interview Mifsud.

One of the innovations of the Trump movement is rejecting indictments, convictions even confessions of investigated and captured criminals. These are matters of proof in federal courts. These things happened. It's just a constant rejection of the judicial system of the United States of America.
Click to expand...
What date did they interview Mifsud?  was a 302 created? I haven't seen it released yet.  

I'm just calling the FBI on it's bogus claim.  Which from reading a date and witness statement I can see for myself they failed. 

 
The FBI's Delta files contain no evidence that Mifsud has ever acted as an FBI CHS,463 and none of the witnesses we interviewed or documents we reviewed had any information to support such an allegation.
Click to expand...
- Horowitz

Now what is the great mystery lurking here? Mueller has explained who he is. Horwoitz has explained who he is not.

 
Max Power said:
What date did they interview Mifsud?  was a 302 created? I haven't seen it released yet.  

I'm just calling the FBI on it's bogus claim.  Which from reading a date and witness statement I can see for myself they failed.
Click to expand...
Please let Papadoupoulos know he should tell a judge. Seriously, he can walk into court and seek to have his conviction overturned and have the DOJ prosecuted for malicious prosecution. None of these criminals do.

 
Max Power said:
I haven't seen it released yet.  
Click to expand...
I'll see if it's the Buzzfeed Foia releases - but please remember this is Barr's show. Congress has asked and subpoenaed and sued for the underlying evidence of the Mueller report.

Now I think you know as well as I do if it hasn't been released why it hasn't.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'll see if it's the Buzzfeed Foia releases - but please remember this is Barr's show. Congress has asked and subpoenaed and sued for the underlying evidence of the Mueller report.

Now I think you know as well as I do if it hasn't been released why it hasn't.
Click to expand...
Do you think Mifsud's 302 is more damning than what was in the report? 

I think this door only swings one way. 

 
Max Power said:
Do you think Mifsud's 302 is more damning than what was in the report? 

I think this door only swings one way. 
Click to expand...
Well I think I quoted this further up but I expect this...

During that interview, Mifsud admitted to knowing Papadopoulos and to having introduced him to Polonskaya and Timofeev. But Mifsud denied that he had advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of emails damaging to candidate Clinton, stating that he and Papadopoulos had discussed cybersecurity and hacking as a larger issue and that Papadopoulos must have misunderstood their conversation. Mifsud also falsely stated that he had not seen Papadopoulos since the meeting at which Mifsud introduced him to Polonskaya, even though emails, text messages, and other information show that Mifsud met with Papadopoulos on at least two other occasions — April 12 and April 26, 2016. In addition, Mifsud omitted that he had drafted (or edited) the follow-up message that Polonskaya sent to Papadopoulos following the initial meeting and that, as reflected in the language of that email chain (“Baby, thank you!"), Mifsud may have been involved in a personal relationship with Polonskaya at the time. The false information and omissions in Papadopoulos’s January 2017 interview undermined investigators’ ability to challenge Mifsud when he made these inaccurate statements.
Click to expand...
...And this from the sentencing memo...

Most immediately, those statements substantially hindered investigators’ ability to effectively question the Professor when the FBI located him in Washington, D.C. approximately two weeks after the defendant’s January 27, 2017 interview. The defendant’s lies undermined investigators’ ability to challenge the Professor or potentially detain or arrest him while he was still in the United States. The government understands that the Professor left the United States on February 11, 2017 and he has not returned to the United States since then.
Click to expand...
...will be borne out.

- However I probably need to back up because I probably misinterpreted that reference to a memo further up as being the interview summary, it's not, it's just the sentencing memo. That doesn't mean there is or is not a 302, but it does mean it's entirely within the power of AG Bill Barr to reveal if there is or is not one. This isn't a Deep State thing, it's a Bill Barr thing.

 
Horowitz does say this:

As described later in Chapter Eight, in February 2017, the FBI interviewed Joseph Mifsud who the FBI believed communicated to Papadopoulos the alleged offer from the Russians. According to FBI documents, Mifsud denied having advance knowledge that Russia was in possession of DNC emails and denied passing any offers or proffers to Papadopoulos.
Click to expand...
There is also a description of a case update of the Misfud interview.

- Obviously there is documentation of the Mifsud interview, but also that's entirely consistent with the Mueller report.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
****

The Court has grave concerns about the objectivity of the process that preceded the public release of the redacted version of the Mueller Report and its impacts on the Department’s subsequent justifications that its redactions of the Mueller Report are authorized by the FOIA.

****

As noted earlier, the Court has reviewed the redacted version of the Mueller Report, Attorney General Barr’s representations made during his April 18, 2019 press conference, and Attorney General Barr’s April 18, 2019 letter. And, the Court cannot reconcile certain public representations made by Attorney General Barr with the findings in the Mueller Report. The inconsistencies between Attorney General Barr’s statements, made at a time when the public did not have access to the redacted version of the Mueller Report to assess the veracity of his statements, and portions of the redacted version of the Mueller Report that conflict with those statements cause the Court to seriously question whether Attorney General Barr made a calculated attempt to influence public discourse about the Mueller Report in favor of President Trump despite certain findings in the redacted version of the Mueller Report to the contrary. These circumstances generally, and Attorney General Barr’s lack of candor specifically, call into question Attorney General Barr’s credibility and in turn, the Department’s representation that “all of the information redacted from the version of the [Mueller] Report released by [ ] Attorney General [Barr]” is protected from disclosure by its claimed FOIA exemptions.

In the Court’s view, Attorney General Barr’s representation that the Mueller Report would be “subject only to those redactions required by law or by compelling law enforcement, national security, or personal privacy interests” cannot be credited without the Court’s independent verification in light of Attorney General Barr’s conduct and misleading public statements about the findings in the Mueller Report, id., Ex. 7 (April 18, 2019 Letter) at 3, and it would be disingenuous for the Court to conclude that the redactions of the Mueller Report pursuant to the FOIA are not tainted by Attorney General Barr’s actions and representations. And, despite the Department’s representation that it “review[ed] the full unredacted [Mueller] Report for disclosure pursuant to the FOIA,” Brinkmann Decl. ¶ 11, the Court cannot ignore that the Department’s withholdings under the FOIA exemptions mirror the redactions made pursuant to Attorney General Barr’s guidance, which cause the Court to question whether the redactions are self-serving and were made to support, or at the very least to not undermine, Attorney General Barr’s public statements and whether the Department engaged in post-hoc rationalization to justify Attorney General Barr’s positions.

****

 
Last edited by a moderator:
***

However, Special Counsel Mueller himself took exception to Attorney General Barr’s March 24, 2019 letter, stating that Attorney General Barr “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of th[e] [Special Counsel’s] Office’s work and conclusions,” EPIC’s Mot., Ex. 4 (March 27, 2019 Letter) at 1, and a review of the redacted version of the Mueller Report by the Court results in the Court’s concurrence with Special Counsel Mueller’s assessment that Attorney General Barr distorted the findings in the Mueller Report. Specifically, Attorney General Barr’s summary failed to indicate that Special Counsel Mueller “identified multiple contacts—‘links,’ in the words of the Appointment Order—between Trump [c]ampaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government,” Def.’s Mot., Ex. D (Mueller Report – Volume I) at 66, and that Special Counsel Mueller only concluded that the investigation did not establish that “these contacts involved or resulted in coordination or a conspiracy with the Trump [c]ampaign and Russia, including with respect to Russia providing assistance to the [Trump] [c]ampaign in exchange for any sort of favorable treatment in the future,” because coordination—the term that appears in the Appointment Order—“does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law,” id., Ex. D (Mueller Report – Volume I) at 2, 66. Attorney General Barr also failed to disclose to the American public that, with respect to Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into whether President Trump obstructed justice, Special Counsel Mueller “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment[,] . . . recogniz[ing] that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting [p]resident would place burdens on the [p]resident’s capacity to govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct,” ...

***

 
Judge Boasberg's order on reforms in the FISA court.

According to the OIG Report, the DOJ attorney responsible for preparing the Page applications was aware that Page claimed to have had some type of reporting relationship with another government agency. See OIG Rpt. at 157. The DOJ attorney did not, however, follow up to confirm the nature of that relationship after the FBI case agent declared it “outside scope.” Id. at 157, 159. The DOJ attorney also received documents that contained materially adverse information, which DOJ advises should have been included in the application. Id. at 169-170. Greater diligence by the DOJ attorney in reviewing and probing the information provided by the FBI would likely have avoided those material omissions. As a result, reminders of DOJ's obligation to meet the heightened duty of candor to the FISC appear warranted. The Court is therefore directing that any attorney submitting a FISA application make the following representation: "To the best of my knowledge, this application fairly reflects all information that might reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information or the reasonableness of any FBI assessments in the application, or otherwise raise doubts about the requested probable cause findings."

DOJ should also consider whether its attorneys need more formalized guidance - e.g. , their own due-diligence checklists. Consideration should also be given to the potential benefits of DOJ attorney visits to field offices to meet with case agents and review investigative files themselves, at least in select cases - e.g. , initial applications for U.S.-person targets. Increased interaction between DOJ attorneys and FBI case agents during the preparatory process should not only improve accuracy in individual cases but also likely foster a common understanding of how to satisfy the government's heightened duty of candor to the FISC.

Amicus also suggested that the FBI case agent, who usually works in a field office, rather than a supervisory headquarters agent, attest to the FISA application itself. See Amicus Letter Br. at 8. Because case agents have more direct knowledge of most information uncovered in an investigation, they are in the best position to affirm the veracity of the proffer. The government agreed to this change in its reply and is in the process of working out how to implement it. See Resp. to Amicus at 9. The Court believes that this development could significantly improve the FISA process, provided that case agents fully understand their duty of candor and are held accountable for fulfilling it. To that end, the Court is directing that each FBI declarant attest: "To the best of my knowledge, the Office of Intelligence of the Department of Justice has been apprised of all information that might reasonably call into question the accuracy of the information or reasonableness of any FBI assessment in the application, or otherwise raise doubts about the requested probable cause findings."
Click to expand...
- Apparently the court is finding a disconnect between the DOJ attorneys who sign off on the Fisa applications and the FBI field agents finding the facts in the Fisa cases were not actually signing off on the applications.

 
***********

While Mr. Barr insisted he made his decision about Mr. Stone’s proper punishment based on the merits of the case, sentencing data show the move was extraordinary.

A jury convicted Mr. Stone, 67, of obstructing a congressional inquiry, tampering with a witness and lying to congressional investigators. The government requested that Mr. Stone be granted leniency despite the fact that he had refused to plead guilty.

That was the case in less than 2 percent of the nearly 75,000 criminal defendants who were sentenced in federal courts in the fiscal year that ended in September, according to data from the United States Sentencing Commission. The Stone case also stands out because the government ended up seeking a lighter punishment than the federal probation office had recommended, although that recommendation was likely guided by information provided by the prosecutors whom Mr. Barr overruled.

Prosecutors rarely ask for leniency after a trial because it undercuts their ability to negotiate guilty pleas with other defendants, according to Douglas A. Berman, a professor at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law who specializes in sentencing issues. “They want to be able to say, and to have a defense attorney repeat to a client, that they are willing to cut a deal, but they are never going to offer this again,” he said.

In fact, a review by The New York Times of more than 60 federal cases in which a defendant faced at least one similar charge to Mr. Stone’s turned up no instances in which the government recommended leniency after a trial. The Times reviewed cases in which defendants were sentenced after January 2017 and that were handled by two of the biggest U.S. attorneys offices: in Washington and in the central district of California.

In at least nine cases, the government asked for leniency, technically called a variance from sentencing guidelines. Prosecutors typically cited other mitigating factors, including advanced age or illness, on top of a speedy guilty plea.

***********

NYT: Barr Increasingly Appears Focused on Undermining Mueller Inquiry

 
Are you saying that the decisions made by the DOJ brass are politically influenced?

Honestly, I would assume that's the case for most admins. It's just that the people in and around this one just can't stop crimin...

 
The Z Machine said:
Are you saying that the decisions made by the DOJ brass are politically influenced?

Honestly, I would assume that's the case for most admins. It's just that the people in and around this one just can't stop crimin...
Click to expand...
I think policy - abortion, incarceration, civil rights, etc. - is typically political because it has to be. The situation where the President is using an AG as a surrogate to personally protect him and his allies in cases affecting him is fairly unique. The only examples I can think of are maybe Nixon (AG John Mitchell went to jail) and Harding (AG Harry Daugherty).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
DOJ IG Horowitz has issued another report.

Long title:

Management Advisory Memorandum for the Director of the Federal Bureau of InvestigationRegarding the Execution of Woods Procedures for Applications Filed with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Relating to U.S. Persons
Click to expand...
Concerns Identified to Date in the OIG Audit of the FBI’s Execution of its Woods Procedures Although all 29 FISA applications that we selected for review were required by FBI policy to have Woods Files created by the case agent and reviewed by the supervisory special agent, we have identified 4 applications for which, as of the date of this memorandum, the FBI either has been unable to locate the Woods File that was prepared at the time of the application or for which FBI personnel suggested a Woods File was not completed. We, therefore, make a recommendation below that the FBI take steps to ensure that a Woods File exists for every FISA application submitted to the FISC in all pending investigations.

Additionally, for all 25 FISA applications with Woods Files that we have reviewed to date, we identified facts stated in the FISA application that were: (a) not supported by any documentation in the Woods File, (b) not clearly corroborated by the supporting documentation in the Woods File, or (c) inconsistent with the supporting documentation in the Woods File. While our review of these issues and follow-up with case agents is still ongoing—and we have not made materiality judgments for these or other errors or concerns we identified—at this time we have identified an average of about 20 issues per application reviewed, with a high of approximately 65 issues in one application and less than 5 issues in another application.

Moreover, although there are specific requirements related to FISA applications that utilize CHS reporting, we have observed that these requirements are not being consistently followed. Specifically, the Woods Procedures require that when a FISA application contains reporting from an FBI CHS, the Woods File must include documentation from the handling agent or CHS coordinator (or either of their immediate supervisors) stating that: (1) this individual has reviewed the facts presented in the FISA application regarding the CHS's reliability and background; and (2) based on a review of the CHS file documentation, the facts presented in the FISA application are accurate. About half of the applications we reviewed contained facts attributed to CHSs, and for many of them we found that the Woods File lacked documentation attesting to these two requirements. For some of these applications, the case agent preparing the FISA application was also the handling agent of the CHS referenced in the application, and therefore would have been familiar with the information in CHS files. Nevertheless, the FBI's policy does not specifically annul the requirement in these situations, and the required documentation was not included in the Woods File.

Our preliminary results also indicate that FBI case agents are not consistently following Woods Procedures requirements related to renewal applications. If continued FISA coverage on a U.S. Person is deemed necessary, the FBI must request from the FISC a renewal of its authorization every 90 days. According to FBI policy, the case agent is required to re-verify that statements of fact repeated in a renewal application from an initial FISA application remain true and must obtain supporting documentation for any new statements of fact included in the renewal application that goes to the FISC for approval. However, based on the results of our review of two renewal files, as well as our discussions with FBI agents, it appears that the FBI is not consistently re-verifying the original statements of fact within renewal applications. In one instance, we observed that errors or unsupported information in the statements of fact that we identified in the initial application had been carried over to each of the renewal applications. In other instances, we were told by the case agents who prepared the renewal applications that they only verified newly added statements of fact in renewal applications because they had already verified the original statements of fact when submitting the initial application. This practice directly contradicts FBI policy.

We believe that the repeated weaknesses in the FBI’s execution of the Woods Procedures in each of the 29 FISA applications we reviewed to date— including the 4 applications for which the FBI could not furnish an original Woods File—raise significant questions about the extent to which the FBI is complying with its own requirement that FISA applications be supported by documentation in the Woods File as part of its efforts to ensure that applications are “scrupulously accurate.” Our concerns are supported by the fact that in four instances the FBI could not produce the original Woods File, that the Woods File deficiencies that we identified spanned all eight field offices in which we performed fieldwork, that case agents or supervisors whom we interviewed generally did not contest our results, and that the FBI CDC and NSD OI accuracy reviews conducted for the same period of our review identified similar deficiencies. As a result, we do not have confidence that the FBI has executed its Woods Procedures in compliance with FBI policy, or that the process is working as it was intended to help achieve the “scrupulously accurate” standard for FISA applications.

As noted earlier in this memorandum, we have not made materiality judgments for these or other errors or concerns we identified. Also, we do not speculate as to whether the potential errors would have influenced the decision to file the application or the FISC’s decision to approve the FISA application. Our review was limited to assessing whether the FBI’s Woods Files included documentation to support the factual statements in its FISA applications as required by FBI policy; we did not review case files or other documentation to confirm FISA application accuracy or identify any relevant omissions.
Click to expand...
- So apparently the Carter Page issues were systemic, and not politically driven.

- The failure to follow the required procedures for Woods Files does not mean that a Fisa was wrongfully sought or granted, just that the required paperwork is often sloppy.

- Overall not a great look for the FBI and in general this should be pretty helpful for the defenses of the bad guys they pursue, but in general hopefully it leads to greater reform in keeping with the original legislation.

- Fin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump fires intelligence community inspector general

The president has formally notified the Senate Intelligence Committee of the move.

President Donald Trump has fired the intelligence community’s chief watchdog, Michael Atkinson, who was the first to sound the alarm to Congress last September about an “urgent” complaint he’d received from an intelligence official involving Trump’s communications with Ukraine.

Trump formally notified the Senate Intelligence Committee of his intention to fire Atkinson and remove him from his duties, to take effect 30 days from Friday, according to two congressional officials and a copy of the letter obtained by Politico.
Click to expand...
- The open purge continues.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
GordonGekko
NBC News Chuck Todd On Solving Trump For POTUS 2024 - "The Only Answer Is Death" ( 7/11/22 17:52 PST)
Replies
20
Views
659
Captain Cranks
Captain Cranks
GordonGekko
MSM Silent As Drunk Driver Released After Killing Teenager He Falsely Accused Of Being A "Republican Extremist" (10/4/22 16:34 PST)
2 3
Replies
111
Views
3K
squistion
squistion

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top