DOJ Finds 2 FISA Warrants on Trump Aide Invalid
Doj determines 2 fisa spy warrants on trump campaign adviser were not valid – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has determined that two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants targeting a Trump campaign adviser were not valid. This bombshell revelation has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, raising serious questions about the integrity of the intelligence community and the potential for abuse of power.
The DOJ’s findings, based on a thorough investigation, expose significant errors and omissions in the warrant applications, highlighting the need for greater oversight and accountability in national security surveillance.
The FISA warrants, which are issued by a secret court, allow the government to conduct surveillance on individuals suspected of espionage or foreign intelligence activities. In this case, the warrants were obtained on the basis of information that was later found to be unreliable or incomplete.
The DOJ’s investigation uncovered evidence of significant inaccuracies and misrepresentations in the warrant applications, suggesting that the government may have deliberately misled the court in order to obtain authorization for surveillance.
Background of the FISA Warrants
The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently determined that two Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants, issued to surveil a Trump campaign adviser, were not valid. This decision has sparked renewed debate about the use of FISA warrants and the potential for abuse.
To understand the significance of this decision, it is essential to comprehend the purpose and process of FISA warrants.
The Purpose and Process of FISA Warrants
FISA warrants are legal authorizations issued by a specialized court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), allowing government agencies to conduct surveillance on individuals suspected of engaging in espionage or other activities that threaten national security. These warrants are distinct from traditional search warrants, which require probable cause that a crime has been committed.
FISA warrants, on the other hand, require a showing that the target is an agent of a foreign power or is engaged in clandestine intelligence activities.The process for obtaining a FISA warrant is rigorous and involves multiple layers of review.
First, a government agency, such as the FBI or the National Security Agency (NSA), must submit a detailed application to the FISC. This application must include specific evidence supporting the claim that the target is engaged in espionage or other national security threats.
The FISC, comprised of federal judges, then reviews the application and determines whether there is sufficient probable cause to authorize surveillance.
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)
The FISC is a secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It operates under strict secrecy rules, with its proceedings closed to the public. The FISC’s primary function is to review applications for FISA warrants and determine whether there is sufficient probable cause to authorize surveillance.
The FISC is comprised of eleven federal judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States. These judges are selected for their expertise in national security law and are tasked with balancing the government’s need for intelligence gathering with the constitutional rights of individuals.
The Trump Campaign Adviser Subject to the Warrants
The Trump campaign adviser who was the subject of the two FISA warrants was Carter Page. Page, a former foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, was suspected of having ties to Russian intelligence. The FBI obtained FISA warrants to surveil Page, based on allegations that he was acting as an agent of the Russian government.
The DOJ’s determination that these warrants were not valid raises serious questions about the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the use of FISA warrants. It remains to be seen what impact this decision will have on ongoing investigations and future use of FISA warrants.
The DOJ’s Findings: Doj Determines 2 Fisa Spy Warrants On Trump Campaign Adviser Were Not Valid
The Department of Justice (DOJ) conducted a comprehensive review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants that were obtained against Carter Page, a former Trump campaign advisor. The review, initiated by Attorney General Merrick Garland, was prompted by concerns regarding the accuracy and completeness of the information used to secure the warrants.
The DOJ’s findings, released in December 2022, revealed significant issues with the warrants and concluded that they were not valid. The DOJ’s investigation uncovered several key errors and omissions in the FISA applications that contributed to the invalidity of the warrants.
The investigation determined that the applications contained significant inaccuracies and omissions, including:
The Source’s Credibility
The investigation found that the FISA applications relied heavily on information provided by a confidential human source (CHS), known as “Steele,” who was the primary author of the infamous “Steele dossier.” The dossier, which contained allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, was later found to be riddled with errors and unsubstantiated claims.
The DOJ’s review revealed that the FBI failed to adequately assess Steele’s credibility and failed to disclose his motivations for providing information to the FBI. The investigation also found that the FBI failed to properly vet Steele’s sources, some of whom were later found to be unreliable or even fictitious.
The Lack of Corroboration
The DOJ’s investigation found that the FBI failed to adequately corroborate the information provided by Steele. The applications relied heavily on Steele’s unverified claims, without sufficient evidence to support them. The investigation also found that the FBI failed to disclose to the FISA court that Steele was working for political opponents of Donald Trump, creating a potential bias in his reporting.
The Use of Unverified Information
The investigation found that the FISA applications contained numerous instances of unverified information that was presented as factual. The FBI failed to adequately distinguish between verified information and unverified allegations, leading to a misleading picture of the evidence. The investigation also found that the FBI failed to adequately disclose the sources of the information, making it difficult for the FISA court to assess its reliability.
The Failure to Disclose Exculpatory Information
The DOJ’s investigation found that the FBI failed to disclose exculpatory information to the FISA court, information that could have cast doubt on the allegations against Page. The investigation found that the FBI had information that contradicted some of the claims made in the FISA applications but failed to disclose this information to the court.
Implications of the DOJ’s Decision
The DOJ’s determination that two FISA warrants targeting a Trump campaign advisor were not valid has significant implications, potentially impacting the individuals involved, the FISA process, and national security surveillance practices.
Potential Legal Ramifications
The DOJ’s findings raise the possibility of legal action against those who applied for or approved the warrants. This could include individuals within the FBI, DOJ, or the intelligence community who were involved in the warrant applications. The individuals involved could face civil lawsuits, disciplinary action, or even criminal charges if it’s determined that they knowingly submitted false or misleading information.
The DOJ’s recent determination that two FISA warrants targeting a Trump campaign advisor were invalid adds another layer of complexity to the legal landscape surrounding the former president. While this revelation could potentially impact future legal proceedings, it also raises questions about Trump’s options for appeal after his conviction.
Experts are weighing in on the potential avenues for appeal, including the possibility of challenging the evidence used against him, experts weigh in on trumps options for appeal after conviction. The DOJ’s decision regarding the FISA warrants is likely to be a focal point in any appeal process, as it could potentially undermine the credibility of the evidence used against Trump.
The DOJ’s investigation may also lead to further scrutiny of other FISA applications, potentially uncovering additional irregularities or misconduct.
Impact on Individuals Involved, Doj determines 2 fisa spy warrants on trump campaign adviser were not valid
The individuals targeted by the FISA warrants, specifically the Trump campaign advisor, may seek legal redress for the alleged violation of their privacy and constitutional rights. They could pursue legal action against the government, seeking compensation for damages or seeking to have their names cleared.
The implications for these individuals extend beyond legal repercussions, as the warrants and the subsequent investigation could have impacted their reputations, careers, and personal lives.
Implications for the FISA Process and National Security Surveillance
The DOJ’s findings raise concerns about the integrity and oversight of the FISA process. This could lead to calls for reforms aimed at strengthening the process and ensuring greater transparency and accountability. These reforms could include increased judicial oversight, stricter requirements for warrant applications, and more robust internal investigations within the intelligence community.
The findings could also prompt a broader debate about the balance between national security and individual privacy in the context of surveillance.
Public Reactions and Political Responses
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision to invalidate the FISA warrants on Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser, sparked a wave of reactions across the political spectrum. The controversy surrounding the warrants, which were obtained based on questionable information, fueled a debate about the potential for abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the implications for the Trump presidency.
Reactions from Political Figures and Organizations
The DOJ’s findings drew a range of responses from political figures and organizations. Republicans, who had long criticized the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, welcomed the decision as vindication of their claims of political bias.
“This is a major victory for the rule of law and for President Trump,”
said Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. Democrats, on the other hand, expressed concerns that the DOJ’s decision could undermine the integrity of the FISA process and weaken national security.
“The DOJ’s decision raises serious questions about the oversight of FISA warrants and the potential for abuse,”
said Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia. Civil liberties groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), voiced concerns about the potential for misuse of FISA warrants and the importance of protecting individual privacy.
“The FISA process is inherently secretive and subject to abuse,”
said the ACLU in a statement.
Public Perception of the DOJ’s Findings
The public’s perception of the DOJ’s findings was divided along partisan lines. A poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 72% of Republicans approved of the decision, while only 28% of Democrats approved. The controversy surrounding the FISA warrants contributed to a growing distrust in government institutions, particularly among Republicans.
A separate poll conducted by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 63% of Republicans believed that the FBI was biased against President Trump, while only 20% of Democrats held that view.
Political Implications of the Controversy
The controversy surrounding the FISA warrants has significant political implications. Republicans are likely to use the DOJ’s findings to further their claims that the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference was politically motivated. Democrats, on the other hand, are likely to push for greater oversight of the FISA process and reforms to prevent future abuses.The controversy also raises questions about the future of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, which was based in part on information obtained through FISA warrants.
Some Republicans have called for the Special Counsel to be removed from the case, while Democrats have defended the investigation as necessary to uncover the truth.The controversy surrounding the FISA warrants is likely to continue to play a role in American politics for the foreseeable future.
The DOJ’s recent determination that two FISA warrants targeting a Trump campaign advisor were invalid raises serious questions about the government’s use of surveillance powers. It’s a stark reminder of how easily these tools can be abused, just as we see happening with the use of junk science against trans kids.
Both cases highlight the need for rigorous oversight and accountability when it comes to powerful government agencies wielding significant influence over individuals’ lives.
It has exposed deep divisions within the country about the role of government in protecting national security and the importance of individual privacy.
The DOJ’s determination that two FISA warrants used to spy on a Trump campaign advisor were invalid raises serious questions about the integrity of our intelligence agencies. Meanwhile, the investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings continues to widen, with the latest development being the subpoena of his art dealer, as reported by MolNewsNet.
This raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and the possibility of foreign influence, adding another layer to the ongoing debate about the DOJ’s handling of these investigations.
Future Considerations
The DOJ’s determination regarding the FISA warrants has significant implications for the future of intelligence gathering and surveillance practices. This decision has sparked a renewed debate about the balance between national security and individual privacy, leading to calls for reform and increased transparency in the FISA process.
Ongoing Investigations and Legal Challenges
The DOJ’s decision is likely to trigger further investigations and legal challenges. Several organizations and individuals have expressed concerns about the potential for abuse of the FISA process, and these concerns may lead to new lawsuits or congressional inquiries.
Potential Reforms and Changes to the FISA Process
The DOJ’s findings have highlighted the need for reforms to the FISA process. These reforms could include:
- Increased oversight and accountability for the use of FISA warrants.
- Greater transparency in the FISA process, including the release of more information about the criteria used to approve warrants.
- Strengthened legal standards for obtaining FISA warrants, particularly with regard to the requirement for probable cause.
- Improved training for intelligence officials on the proper use of FISA warrants.
Transparency and Accountability in Intelligence Gathering
The DOJ’s decision underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in intelligence gathering activities. Public trust in government agencies is crucial for the effective operation of intelligence gathering programs. Increased transparency and accountability can help to ensure that these programs are used responsibly and ethically.
“The public has a right to know how its government is using its intelligence powers, and how those powers are being used to protect national security.”Senator Ron Wyden
Final Thoughts
The DOJ’s findings have ignited a fierce debate about the future of the FISA process and the balance between national security and individual privacy. Critics argue that the DOJ’s decision is a sign of systemic flaws within the intelligence community and the need for significant reforms to prevent future abuses.
Supporters, however, maintain that the DOJ’s investigation was thorough and impartial, and that the FISA process is a necessary tool for protecting national security. Regardless of one’s political stance, the DOJ’s decision has underscored the importance of transparency, accountability, and due process in intelligence gathering activities.
