THE FISA WARRANT AND THE WOODS PROCEDURES

With a major tip of my imaginary hat to the invaluable work performed by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson….

…please read these excerpts from her latest commentary on the FISA Warrant that generated Robert Mueller’s Independent Counsel investigation:

For all the debate over the House Republican memo pointing to alleged misconduct by some current and former FBI and Justice Department officials, one crucial point hasn’t gotten the attention it deserves. 
There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy — and presented to the court only if verified.
There’s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump “Steele dossier” was unverified or false. Former FBI director James Comey testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to “salacious” and “unverified” material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
 
 
Presentation of any such unverified material to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to justify a wiretap would appear to violate crucial procedural rules, called “Woods Procedures,” designed to protect U.S. citizens.
 
Yet Comey allegedly signed three of the FISA applications on behalf of the FBI. Deputy Director Andrew McCabe reportedly signed one and former Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein each reportedly signed one or more.
 
Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of the Office of General Counsel’s National Security Law Unit. They were instituted in April 2001 to “ensure accuracy with regard to … the facts supporting probable cause” after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent, in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court. 
 
Prior to Woods Procedures, “[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,” the FBI told Congress in August 2003. “By signing and swearing to the declaration, the headquarters agent is attesting to knowledge of what is contained in the declaration.” 

I don’t care whether you are a Republican, Democrat or anything else.  If you can’t smell the aroma emanating from this FISA warrant – the basis for Robert Mueller’s IC investigation – you either have lost your olfactory senses or are using the greatest nose plugs ever invented.

Will our supposedly “neutral” media – the people entrusted with keeping government on the up and up –  start getting serious about this?

Or is the fact that so many of them have covered for Comey, Clinton and Democrats in general  over the past year forcing them to continue looking the other way – because to report accurately now would mean facing questions about how disgraceful their non-coverage of this scandal has been to date?

We deserve answers.

We deserve an FBI and DOJ that is not tainted with political partisanship.

Honest, dedicated FBI and DOJ personnel – and I have no doubt at all that most are both – deserve this ugly stain to be eradicated from their service as soon as possible.

When does it start to happen?

3 Comments

  • the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research against Donald Trump funded first by Republicans

    I would like to know which Republicans funded this and why.

    • NONE Of the dossier Steele compiled was funded by Republicans. Washington Free Beacon paid Fusion through GOP primaries on all candidates, notbjust Trump

      They dropped Fusion when Trump won GOP nomination- it was THEN that DNC/Clinton funded FusionGPS, which did not yet Hire Christopher Steele until June 2016

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *