According to a Wall Street Journal report, Carter Page was on the radar of the FBI since 2013 “when Russian spies made an attempt to recruit him.”  However, for some undetermined reason the FBI waited until October 21st, 2016, to apply for Title I surveillance authority through the FISA court.

Additionally, according to their reporting, after FISC approval there were three more renewal applications for a total of four submissions to the FISA court.  A source tells the Journal all four FBI requests were reviewed by four different judges:

[…] The memo describes the process by which the government got a secret warrant under the law that governs the secret court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, for Mr. Page.

[…]  At least two of those renewals occurred while Mr. Trump was president and at least one was authorized by a Justice Department official he appointed. A person familiar with the matter said that four separate federal judges approved the surveillance of Mr. Page, and all of those judges were appointed by Republican presidents. (link)

If this is factually correct it raises an interesting dynamic because there are not that many FISA Court Judges in Washington DC. [FISA Court Link]

♦Judge Rosemary M Collyer is the presiding FISA judge and was the signatory for the court’s 99-page opinion written, April 2017, in the aftermath of the DOJ, FBI and NSA admissions to violating the FISA-702(16)(17) rules and procedures.  [See Here]

♦Judge Rudolph Contreras is a FISA judge and the original DC circuit presiding judge who accepted the Mike Flynn plea (Dec. 1, 2017) and then ‘was recused’ five days later. [See Here]

Accepting there are only three DC circuit judges:  Rosemary Collyer, Rudolph Contreras and James Boasberg; and accepting that four different judges approved the DOJ/FBI application and renewals for Title I surveillance of Carter Page; it seems almost certain that Collyer and Contreras were involved in the Justice Department effort to identify Carter Page as an ‘American working on behalf of a foreign government’.

It would be ‘almost’ impossible to have four separate engagements with the FISA court, and gain a different judge on each encounter.  It would be entirely impossible to have four separate judges if the original application and all three subsequent renewals went through the same district.  (There are only three judges in the DC district – making four separate judges impossible.)   Something is entirely fishy about this.

Even if you expand the pool of possible judges to include the entire Northeast, there are only SEVEN (DC-3, NJ-1, NY-1, MD-1, VA-1)  The probability of having four separate judges engaged on the same Title I request (against Carter Page), on four different occasions, is too small (00.94%) to be a random, or non-manipulated, sequence of events.

Either the WSJ source is incorrect, or the greater likelihood is the DOJ was strategically approaching a different FISA judge each time.

Democrats, media, and the aggregate DOJ/FBI intelligence community are finally seeing accountability.  With the HPSCI memo now in the rear-view mirror, and the content in the bloodstream of the U.S. electorate, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is next.

Toward the end of December, the FBI provided the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley, with FBI investigative documents (likely FD-302’s) from their contacts with Christopher Steele.  According to most reasonable timing we can discover Steele met with FBI officials sometime around October 1st, 2016.

From the U.K. lawsuit against Christopher Steele (pdf here), Steele admits to having shopped the Clinton-Steele dossier to U.S. media outlets “in person” in late September (New York Times, WaPo, New Yorker and CNN), and mid-October, 2016 (New York Times, WaPo, and Yahoo News), per instructions from Glenn Simpson (Fusion GPS):

(Source – Page #8, pdf)

Additionally, in late October, 2016, Christopher Steele briefed Mother Jones via Skype.

According to the released HPSCI intelligence memo, the FBI sought a FISA application based on the Steele Dossier on October 21st, 2016.  From those UK court records at least two briefings with reporters, containing five outlets, took place prior to the FBI using the Clinton-Steele dossier in their FISA application.

The “late September” briefings with the New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, New Yorker and CNN took place prior to Christopher Steele meeting with FBI officials early October.   The implication therein is that the FBI had to know prior to their October 21st, 2016, court application that the information they were presenting to the FISA court was being heavily shopped to media outlets. This would be immediately disqualifying.

However, in yesterday’s released HPSCI memo, it is noted that Christopher Steele lied to the FBI about those media engagements taking place.  See:

The HPSCI memo notes the FBI relationship with Christopher Steele was terminated after the FISA application (Oct. 21st, 2016), as a result of the Mother Jones article from October 30th, 2016.  Media contact by an FBI material witness is immediately disqualifying.

The question is: did the FBI submit the FISA application under false pretenses?  Did the FBI actually know Christopher Steele was shopping the dossier to the media prior to their FISA court submission?

The HPSCI memo gives the FBI the benefit of doubt by presuming the FBI were unaware or “lied to“.   The FD-302’s (FBI investigative interview notes), which appear to have been turned over to Senate Chairman Chuck Grassley, would contain the evidence to support the FBI being duped – OR – show the FBI knew, and proceeded in using the dossier despite disqualifying knowledge of media involvement.

The answers to those important questions appears to be the looming in the FBI classified documents behind the Grassley criminal referral.

In an effort to get the answer to those questions into sunlight; and with the understanding that Chairman Grassley has the FBI documents; Grassley has produced a memo for declassification that facilitates understanding how the FBI used the Clinton-Steele dossier.

Like the underlying documents behind the HPSCI (Nunes) memo, the Grassley memo cannot declassify the underlying information (ie. the FBI FD-302’s).  However, unlike the process in the House, Senator Grassley cannot declassify the memo and submit it for public review without approval from the DOJ, Rod Rosenstein, and FBI Director Christopher Wray.

On January 5th, 2018,  The Grassley Memo approach surfaces. Grassley issues a statement on the reason for the criminal referral. He let’s us know that he ALSO has a classified memo that he is trying to get released! Unlike Nunes he needs to go through DOJ:

January 24th, 2018, Grassley Speech: “Hiding From Tough Questions” – In his 17 minute speech Grassley reveals important details about his investigation into Steele and the FBI.

Thanks to the brilliant work of DaveNYviii we can walk through this carefully, and watch the outline in a logical sequence.

FIRST – The Criminal Referral:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

SECOND – The Discrepancies: “If those [FBI] documents are not true, and there are serious discrepancies that are no fault of Mr. Steele, then we have another problem—an arguably more serious one.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

THIRD – The Grassley Memo: “Judiciary Cmte has access to the same information that House Intel Cmte saw before drafting ITS SUMMARY MEMO. Our committee doesn’t have the same authority to release classified information. We have to rely on the agency to review & potentially DECLASSIFY OUR MEMO”:

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

In his speech, Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley lets us know that unlike Devin Nunes and the HPSCI he has to get agency approval (DOJ) to declassify his memo.

Chairman Nunes had the clearance and a process to release his memo to the Full House, Executive Branch and then to the public. Senator Grassley does not have that same process or clearance availability… Yet.

There is a key distinction being overlooked, perhaps conflated, by many who are reviewing the recently released HPSCI memo as it relates to the outlined targeting of U.S. individual Carter Page.

In the HPSCI outline it specifically notes the targeting of U.S. individual Carter Page was NOT a FISA Title VII search request.  Title VII is FISA(702), the incidental collection of U.S. person information as it relates to National Security or Counterintelligence operations targeting foreign individuals.

The FISA ‘warrant’ request, against Carter Page, was made October 21st, 2016, under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  Meaning the surveillance application was specifically stating, to the court, the U.S. individual was likely an actual agent of a foreign government, ie. “a spy.”

The DOJ (National Security Division) and the FBI (Counterintelligence Division) were not asking to review ancillary data collected on U.S. Person Carter Page as an outcome of surveillance on a foreign person, or foreign agent; that would be Title 7 (FISA-702).

In action outlined within the HPSCI memo, the DOJ and FBI were specifically telling the FISA court they had evidence that U.S. Person Carter Page was working as an agent of a foreign government. He was their target, and therefore requesting direct FISA Title 1 surveillance of that target on October 21st, 2016.

To give validity to the underlying position of the DOJ and FBI, the justice department used: the Clinton-Steele Dossier; media reports from -and of- the Clinton-Steele dossier; and opposition research provided by Clinton financed Fusion-GPS through Nellie Ohr, so they could monitor U.S. Person Carter Page.

In total, this sketchy assembly of political campaign research was used by the FBI as evidence to back-up their claim U.S. person Carter Page was working as a foreign agent; essentially saying: he was a spy.  This application assembly was then certified on four different occasions by specific officials within the DOJ and FBI.

Without knowing the court had been provided political research, the FISA Court granted the FBI full surveillance authority for U.S. Person Carter Page.   The distinction is rather stark.

The FBI were not targeting Page incidentally as an outcome of foreign intelligence collection; the FBI was targeting Carter Page directly. AND as such they carried full surveillance authority upon all of this activities, interactions, communications and contacts therein.

Because of this direct approach, any group, organization or entity who came in contact with U.S. Person Carter Page was then open for ancillary review and FBI investigation.  Those who engaged in contact with Carter Page became subject to surveillance and searches in the same manner as if Page was an actual foreign agent.

Legal commentary thread on #Memo by Robert Barnes:

It is important to remember that FISA courts are not like other courts; there needs to be specific evidence of a particular national security threat to circumvent regular federal courts.

It is a HIGHER standard because its jurisdiction is LIMITED
FISA courts have LIMITED jurisdiction because the scope of the invasive tools of the NSA is far more INVASIVE than regular wiretaps, due to the SECRET nature of such courts, and from the risk of forum shopping with the limited number and deferential nature of FISA Judges.

That is why Congress imposed SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS on access to FISA courts and use of FISA evidence. To access FISA courts, only the highest ranking FBI officials must vet and approve, a high ranking DOJ official must authorize, and they must re-vet and re-approve every 90 days.

To spy on Americans through a FISA court, the FBI must show the target is an “agent of a foreign power,” not merely in contact with a foreign power. The law makes it difficult to show someone is an “agent of a foreign power” to make sure it is not misused to spy on Americans.

The law does not allow the FBI to call an American an “agent of a foreign power” unless they can show the person “knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power” AND the nature of their activity is criminalized.

Claiming someone is an “agent of a foreign power” is a difficult standard to ever show, and should never happen to a domestic political opponent in a domestic political campaign. That is why the FBI had to cook the books — put a bogus informant on their team & lie to the courts.

Trump’s winning caused a problem for Comey & Comey’s firing caused a problem for Rosenstein. Both Comey & Rosenstein signed off on the bogus affidavits to the FISA court to continue spying on Trump team members post-election and post-inauguration. They needed Mueller to cover up.

Key fact about Mueller: he is very close friends with Comey, and was the mentor and close friend of Rosenstein. Mueller is also expert at covering up for lawless law enforcement: see his role with Whitey Bulger, BCCI, HSBC, Waco, Noriega, IRS/Tea Party & Fast & Furious.

FISA law protects Americans from lawless spying by masking & deletion of intercepted data. If an American’s conversations are intercepted, his identity must remain hidden, and if no p/c of a crime, his conversations deleted. Hence, the importance of @Cernovich Susan Rice story.

FBI turned over their NSA spying capacity to a private lobbying company in order to promote a smear campaign against a domestic political opponent. Fearing being caught, they appointed a special counsel (Mueller) to cover for them by accusing the man (Trump) who might expose them (link)

Here’s the HPSCI Point and Counterpoint as released earlier:

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/370616574/content?start_page=1&view_mode=&access_key=key-3M0Odh02jQcoh5EvW3LR

.