Posted originally on CTH on September 9, 2025
There’s a reason why the J6 Committee deleted the records of their activity, an angle missed by most. When you understand what they hid and why they did it, you then understand why current Speaker of The House Mike Johnson will not go near the subject.
The J6 Committee used interfaces with the NSA database and pre-existing portals with aligned DHS Social Media databases (including Twitter, see prior “Twitter Files”), as research and evidence gathering mechanisms for their investigations.
The J6 targets were identified through a collaboration between the legislative research group and the FBI. [That’s unlawful by the way – but that’s another matter]. The FBI contracted Palantir to identify the targets using facial recognition software and private sector databases.
Once identified, the targets were then searched in the NSA database for a fulsome context of identity. All subsequent electronic metadata of the targets was retrieved and utilized in prosecution; however, no one ever discovered this was the collaborative method. That has not come out yet.
Ultimately, the J6 Committee hiding and deleting their files and operational techniques was due to several issues. They really didn’t have a choice given the unknowns of an incoming republican majority.
First, the collaboration with the FBI is unconstitutional. Legislative officers are not law enforcement officers. There is a separation of powers issue.
Second, ultimately – and most consequentially – all of the participants did not want the American public aware of the mass surveillance techniques that were carried out as part of the ’round up.’
Wait to see what the next NSA compliance audit looks like. Remember, these reports are more than a year behind the activity they highlight.
This is where a complete mental reset is needed.
The modern application of the fifty-year-old concept around FISA as a constitutional mechanism to search the private papers (data) of American citizens, is a fraud, a complete ruse.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, represents the method used by the intelligence apparatus of the FBI to conduct surveillance. It was purposefully designed, as a method to avoid the problems with 4th amendment protections. However, the modern application of the FISA justification has no lawful basis.
♦CONTEXT – Beginning in/around 2012, after the Dept of Justice National Security Division was created by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, the use of FISA warrants were extended to include electronic searches of captured information held within the National Security Agency (NSA). This was the database into which former NSA employee Edward Snowden was creating the search engine software.
The capturing of information was relatively new; technology was still being developed. Rapid scale-ups of archives and data processing was underway. Various iterations of the search tools and processes were being tested and deployed.
Prior to 2010/2012 we were mostly talking about emails, phone calls and text messages. However, as more and more technology was deployed, the interfaces expanded. Today, almost every electronic interface is captured/stored within either the NSA database, or a private sector database with connections to the NSA search portals.
Arguably, all of the underlying data captures were unconstitutional, and when the captures were originally discovered there was some intense conversations about fourth amendment protections and Americans privacy. To set aside the concerns and justify the existence of electronic search measures, the American government justified existence via the FISA court process, which extended to cover the new capabilities.
Currently, almost every American interfaces electronically with some system that captures their data. In the private sector that data is then assembled, attributed and used for consumer product micro-targeting, i.e., all data is commercially monetized.
Local and state governments also interface with the federal government database. As a consequence, all data eventually flows to the NSA capture points where searches of the total assembly are possible.
As noted in various explanations of government collaboration with social media, DHS has access to the various databases which house information inside the private sector. The lines between govt and private sector data captures are nonexistent as both public information and private information databases can be searched through the same network.
This is the baseline to understand the scope of data collection.
The important part to understand is all of the data collected is searchable. Then you move on to ‘how’ can the data be searched.
The ‘how’ is where FISA comes into the picture as the justifiable mechanism that permits the federal government to search the database.
The existence of the database is no longer argued. The govt has now moved beyond justifying the existence of the stored data, and now the only point of contention is ‘how’ and ‘when’ the government may exploit it.
This is where the DOJ-NSD, FBI, U.S. Intelligence Community, Congress and even the Judicial Branch claim the FISA laws protect the unlawful exploitation of the search capability. However, did you know there is not a single example of a FISA search application to the FISA Court that has ever passed Inspector General review.
Prior to President Trump’s authorization of the OIG in 2017, no one was ever permitted to review, check or audit the government submissions to the FISA Court. From the moment the DOJ National Security Division was created to permit the enhanced search review, not a single oversight mechanism was ever in place.
Factually, in the timeline of FISA use not a single oversight mechanism was ever in place. The entire process, and think of searching the database as a process, was/is based on the ‘honor system’. That explains why it was so easy to weaponize by Obama/Holder.
As soon as President Trump permitted the Office of Inspector General to start looking at filled out FISA applications, and justified FISA search documents created by users who were searching through the database, what they discovered was a non-existent accountability system.
After the DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG), Michael Horowitz, presented his December 2019 findings of the FISA application used against U.S person Carter Page, the gross deficiencies and intentional fraud were so extensive the IG said he was going to review a sample of FISA applications to identify if the fraud and abuse was widespread.
The OIG began reviewing FISA applications from eight field offices (the proverbial “rank and file”). The OIG selected 29 FISA applications from those field offices over the period of October 2014 to September 2019.
Additionally, every field office and the DOJ-NSD generate internal “Accuracy Reviews”, or self-checks on FISA applications; so, the OIG inspected 42 of the accuracy review FISA files to determine if they were compliant.
The results were so bad the IG produced an interim memorandum to the DOJ and FBI [pdf link here]. Within the 17-page-memo the IG notified Attorney General Bill Barr and FBI Director Chris Wray that all of the claimed FISA processes, in every field office, are grossly deficient, and in most cases, there is zero compliance with FISA standards.
The IG memorandum was presented before the Inspector General even looked at the specifics of the non-compliance.
Below is the report/memorandum. Additionally, I am summarizing the stunning top-lines identified by the IG memo:
- The IG reviewed 29 FISA applications, surveillance warrants, used against U.S. persons.
- The 29 FISA applications were from eight different field offices.
- The FISA applications were from Oct/2014 through Sept/2019.
- All of the FISA applications reviewed were approved by the FISA court.
The ‘Woods File’ is the mandatory FBI evidence file that contains the documentary proof to verify all statements against U.S. persons that are contained in the FISA application. Remember, this is a secret court, the FISA applications result in secret Title-1 surveillance and wiretaps against U.S. persons outside the fourth amendment.
♦ Within the 29 FISA applications reviewed, four were completely missing the Woods File. Meaning there was zero supportive evidence for any of the FBI claims against U.S. persons underpinning the FISA application. [ie. The FBI just made stuff up]
♦ Of the remaining 25 FISA applications, 100% of them, all of them, were materially deficient on the woods file requirement; and the average number of deficiencies per file was 20. Meaning an average of twenty direct statements against the target, supporting the purpose of the FISA application, sworn by the FBI affiant, were unsubstantiated. [The low was 5, the high was 63, the average per file was 20]
♦ Half of the FISA applications reviewed used Confidential Human Sources (CHS’s). The memo outlines that “many” of applications containing CHS claims had no supportive documentation attesting to the dependability of the CHS.
♦ Two of the 25 FISA applications reviewed had renewals; meaning the FISA applications were renewed to extended surveillance, wiretaps, etc. beyond the initial 90-days. None of the renewals had any re-verification. Both FISAs that used renewals were not compliant.
Keep in mind, all of these applications/justifications to engage title-1 surveillance against suspects, were approved by the FISA court. How is this possible, unless the FISA Court is intentionally just a false front for a nonexistent process.
That’s my position now. There is no FISA process in place at all. It’s as if there’s a traffic light at an intersection, but the power is turned off. What good is the traffic light, other than to say there’s a traffic light at this intersection.
But wait… it gets worse.
The DOJ and FBI have an internal self-check mechanism. The DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD) chief counsel, and the chief counsel for every FBI field office are required to conduct an “Accuracy Review” of selected FISA applications.
One review per FBI field office (25 to 30 field offices), which are also sent to DOJ-NSD (main justice) for general counsel inspection.
Keep in mind, these “accuracy reviews” are known in advance, so the FBI has all the time in the world to select the best FISA file for review.
Additionally, I surmise the OIG wanted to inspect the “accuracy review” FISA’s because they would show the best light on the overall system itself. The OIG was looking for the best, most compliant, product to report on.
However, when the OIG inspected 42 of these Accuracy Reviews, the IG identified that only three of them had accurately assembled documents (Woods File) supporting the application. The error rate within the files self-checked was over 93%.
So the best FBI files are selected to undergo the FBI and DOJ-NSD accuracy review. The accuracy review takes place by FBI legal counsel and DOJ-NSD legal counsel. However, the IG finds that only three FBI applications in the accuracy reviews were compliant.
The error rate in the files undertaken by the internal accuracy review was over 93% (3 compliant out of 42 reviewed). These were the FISA submissions with the greatest possibility of being accurate.
This is the baseline to understand what comes next.
Summary: The justification of FISA or FISA (702) as a mechanism to protect the American people from illegal searches of the NSA database IS A FRAUD. The searching of the NSA database not only continues but has factually expanded through today. There are no established limits on search use, only false claims that are fed to the public for popular consumption.
The DOJ and FBI are aware of this. The OIG is aware of this. The Intelligence Community is aware of this. The NSA is aware of this. The FISA Court is aware of this. The Supreme Court, which oversees the FISA Court, is aware of this. The Legislative Branch is aware of this.
We have the evidence and receipts.
More soon…
Centinel2012 