President Trump Fires James Comey

Today the ODNI, in consultation with the DoJ, is releasing 3 sets of FISA Section 702 documents in redacted form.

Release of the FISC Opinion Approving the 2016 Section 702 Certifications and Other Related Documents

May 11, 2017

Today the ODNI, in consultation with the Department of Justice, is releasing three sets of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702 documents in redacted form.

First, we are releasing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s (FISC) Memorandum and Opinion approving the 2016 Section 702 Certifications (dated April 26, 2017, and hereafter the April 2017 Opinion). We are releasing this Opinion in keeping with the Principles of Intelligence Transparency for the Intelligence Community.

Second, we are releasing National Security Agency’s (NSA) updated Section 702 targeting and minimization procedures that were approved as part of the FISC’s April 2017 Opinion. Note that targeting procedures have not previously been released. We are releasing these procedures also in keeping with the Principles of Intelligence Transparency for the Intelligence Community.

Finally, we are publicly posting two separate tranches of Section 702 documents that are being released pursuant to a Freedom of Information (FOIA) case filed in the Southern District of New York, ACLU v. National Security Agency, et al. (hereafter the ACLU FOIA release April 11, 2017, and the ACLU FOIA release May 10, 2017).

ODNI notes that, separately, NSA decided to make public today a report by its Inspector General about compliance with Section 702. This release – even with several important national-security redactions – is intended to add to the public’s understanding of NSA’s changes to Section 702 foreign intelligence collection. NSA’s January 7, 2016 Inspector General Report.
Background

Section 702 was enacted as part of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA), and it requires the Attorney General and the DNI to provide to the FISC annual certifications authorizing the Intelligence Community (IC) to target non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States to acquire certain categories of foreign intelligence information. The FAA is a carefully constructed framework that provides the Government with the tools necessary to collect vital foreign intelligence information and includes robust protections for the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons. This framework is implemented in part through a detailed set of procedures designed to minimize the acquisition, retention, use, and dissemination of U.S. person information acquired under Section 702. For additional background information, please refer to the following documents previously released on IC on the Record: FISA Amendments Fact Sheet (posted on April 19, 2017), the FISC’s November 6, 2015 Memorandum Opinion and Order authorizing the 2015 Certifications (posted on April 15, 2016), the 2015 Section 702 Minimization Procedures (posted on August 11, 2016), and a Section 702 certification filing from 2014(posted on September 29, 2015).
The 2016 Section 702 Certifications: The FISC’s April 26, 2017 Memorandum Opinion and Order

In its April 2017 Opinion, the FISC concluded that the proposed certifications – including the associated targeting and minimization procedures – were consistent with FISA and the Fourth Amendment. In making its determination, the FISC considered the Government’s proposed Section 702 certifications submitted in September 2016 (“the 2016 Certifications”), the Government’s compliance record over the prior year (including a thorough review of several specific compliance incidents), and amendments made to the 2016 Certifications in March 2017.

After submitting its 2016 Certifications in September 2016, the Department of Justice and ODNI learned, in October 2016, about additional information related to previously reported compliance incidents and reported that additional information to the FISC. The NSA also self-reported the information to oversight bodies, as required by law. These compliance incidents related to the NSA’s inadvertent use of U.S. person identifiers to query NSA’s “upstream” Internet collection acquired pursuant to Section 702.

Pursuant to statutory requirements, the FISC was required to complete its review of the 2016 Certifications within 30 days of submission. See 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(i)(1)(B). Thus, the FISC had until October 26, 2016, to issue an order concerning the 2016 Certifications. However, after the October 2016 report to the FISC regarding improper queries, the FISC twice extended its time to consider the 2016 Certifications – first until January 31, 2017, and then until April 28, 2017 – in order to receive additional information about the compliance incidents and the Government’s plan to address them. See April 2017 Opinion at 3-4. The previous year’s certifications remained in effect during these extension periods.

During the extension periods, NSA undertook a broad review of its Section 702 program. Historically, NSA has been authorized to acquire communications to, from, or “about” a Section 702 target (i.e., communications that contain a reference to a Section 702-tasked selector) through its upstream Internet collection. After considerable evaluation of the program and available technology, NSA determined that it would no longer collect communications “about” a target (see NSA’s April 28, 2017, public statement NSA Stops Certain Section 702 “Upstream” Activities.

Accordingly, in March 2017, the Government amended the 2016 Certifications, to include submitting to the FISC amended Section 702 targeting and minimization procedures for NSA that authorize only the acquisition of communications to or from a Section 702 target. In addition, the revised minimization procedures require NSA to delete the vast majority of previously acquired upstream Internet communications, including those to or from Section 702 targets. Because of the more restricted nature of NSA’s reconfigured upstream Internet collection, certain restrictions in the use of U.S. person identifiers to query Internet communications acquired through NSA’s Section 702 upstream collection have been removed. See April 2017 Opinion at 23-30.

In considering the 2016 Certifications, as amended in March 2017, the FISC determined that the changes NSA made to its upstream Internet collection sufficiently addressed the compliance incidents involving the inadvertent use of U.S. person identifiers as query terms. See April 2017 Opinion at 29. The Court expressed concern about the government’s reporting of the compliance incidents and emphasized that prior to their remediation these incidents presented “a very serious Fourth Amendment issue.” April 2017 Opinion at 19. The FISC ultimately determined that NSA’s targeting and minimization procedures, as amended, were consistent with FISA and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. See April 2017 Opinion at 95.

click link for entire article / links to the forms.

originally posted by: Gandalf77

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: face23785

It would have leaked... Just like any evidence of collusion would have leaked.

If I had to put my finger on it, this is probably one of the biggest sticking points for me on these threads.
Purely opinion, but I'm just not convinced that any evidence would have necessarily leaked.
Maybe I'm just being naive in my faith in the FBI and the IC in general, but the nature of the evidence just has such explosive potential... Not saying there's a smoking gun by any means. My guess is that if there's anything at all, it's one giant puzzle, and they have to connect the dots one painful point at a time. Take the whole FISA warrant thing with Page. I know I keep going back to that, but if they got that renewed multiple times, imagine the amount of data they have to crunch now--new characters to look into, etc.

Well we had an example earlier in this thread, albeit from a questionable source, that the FBI leaked their were pending raids. Even if that's not true, these things have been known to happen. There have been plenty of anti-Trump leaks, not sure why it would be so hard for you to believe if there was another one?

a reply to: queenofswords

t doesn't matter why President Trump fired him, as far as the underlying details go. Trump said he wasn't doing a good job. That's how Trump saw it and once he made the decision, he did it without all the waffling and hesitation.

Not quite true. He fired Comey after deliberating with his staff. If he was so sure of his assessment, he would not of had to consult others.

I really don't think Trump worries so much about so-called 'optics'. Heck! He met with the Russian ambassador and Russian Foreign Minister the next day! Optics be damned.

That would fall in to the part in which I said he was not politically-savvy.

a reply to: introvert

Comey was a man of integrity that did his job very well, without political motivation.

He was. He had that reputation. But, over the last few years, perhaps he changed. There are many out there now that wonder. Many are saying the FBI has been politicized under Comey. (I still think the Clintons have something hanging over him.)

a reply to: face23785

Not to mention the leak of grand jury subpoenas for Flynn. Grand Jury's and their actions are secret.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Xcathdra

There are no political consequences, other than the drama the democrats are creating that will blow up in their faces.

I know you don't care what the Democrats think and frankly...neither do I. That being said, there are political consequences to consider when you are at that level of national politics. Even the slightest misstep can make or break a political career.

Even to someone such as myself that is neither a Dem or a Rep, this firing throws-up red flags. Comey was a man of integrity that did his job very well, without political motivation. Both the Dems and the Reps have taken their turn at bashing the man for his actions during the Clinton email issue and the Russia investigation. Both sides have been found to be hypocrites.

He was within his rights / authority to fire Comey.

Of course he has the authority. Real question is: Did he have a damn good reason to do so?

Just because he can, does not mean he should.

You may not have political leanings, but you are mistaken here. No man of integrity would've laid out the case he laid out against Clinton and not recommended charges. He's either corrupt, or Lynch and/or Obama have dirt on him and forced him to do that. Just the publicly available information that Clinton has admitted to is enough to convict her, nevermind all the deep details that we don't know about. Anyone who knows anything about classified info knows what she did was illegal, and Comey absolutely knows that. He also did not do his job well. Did you read the Deputy AG's letter? He outlined example after example of awful leadership, poor decisions, and doing things that were against FBI tradition and policy.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

a reply to: face23785

We are still waiting on the Inspector General instigation report into Comey and Lynch's actions. Initial chatter say the report takes both of them to task.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

That's actually really good leadership to personally not like the guy but wait until an impartial 3rd party tells you you do have legit reasons to fire him. Many "leaders" just make decisions like this based on personal bias.

a reply to: introvert

Considering the Dep AG was confirmed by the Senate 94 to 6 that # leadership would extend to them as well.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: introvert

Comey was a man of integrity that did his job very well, without political motivation.

He was. He had that reputation. But, over the last few years, perhaps he changed. There are many out there now that wonder. Many are saying the FBI has been politicized under Comey. (I still think the Clintons have something hanging over him.)

Many? That is an appeal to the majority. A logical fallacy.

If someone is going to be fired from any position, regardless of the level, I'd like to think they lost that job for just reasons.

What people feel and what they "wonder" is irrelevant.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

The fact is that Trump can #can his ass for any reason, anytime.

He doesn't have to explain it to anyone.

Tell me no one saw it coming. lol.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: introvert

Comey was a man of integrity that did his job very well, without political motivation.

He was. He had that reputation. But, over the last few years, perhaps he changed. There are many out there now that wonder. Many are saying the FBI has been politicized under Comey. (I still think the Clintons have something hanging over him.)

Many? That is an appeal to the majority. A logical fallacy.

If someone is going to be fired from any position, regardless of the level, I'd like to think they lost that job for just reasons.

What people feel and what they "wonder" is irrelevant.

If you apply your feeling about termination to politics your setting yourself up for failure.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

The fact is that Trump can #can his ass for any reason, anytime.

He doesn't have to explain it to anyone.

Tell me no one saw it coming. lol.

Comey sealed his fate with the press conference where he laid out the case against Clinton and it was confirmed when Trump won.

Fishing For Truth In A Sea Of Lies

"I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors."

-- Thomas Jefferson

The incredible storm of fiction surrounding the firing of FBI Director James Comey reminds me of just how tenuous and untrustworthy every news source can be.

Even in the Internet Age, where corroboration has never been easier, we're still dependent on sources -- even and perhaps especially primary sources -- that cannot be trusted. Throw in the penchant for unnamed sources that is now routine in political reporting, and establishing any sort of objective facts with reasonable reliability is often easier in the absence of news than with it.

In this case, it's hard to believe anyone is telling the truth. The American news beat is nothing more nor less than a never-ending retelling of Rashomon featuring an endless parade of unreliable narrators, chief among them the President of the United States.

Given the spectacular decline of such once-respected -- if not perfectly objective -- media icons as The New York Times and Washington Post thanks to their now wide-open partisanship and pathological reliance on anonymous sources, it's hard not to believe there's some sort of hidden hand behind it. Yet the most likely explanation is also the most obvious: falling standards lead to falling standards, and it's all writ large for everyone to see.

With no one left to trust, we must fend for ourselves, and as always, our best weapon is skepticism. To abandon that is to surrender control of our own minds to those least deserving of it.

The only thing we can be sure of is that we can never be sure of anything. Doubly so in the case of anything in the media, and exemplified here.

I don't think we're being told the truth.

It almost looks like Trump is just triggering, messing with, and trolling rabid, batsh*t crazy alt-leftist Democrats.

The more they rant and rave and scream "RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA"...with ZERO evidence...the more they continue to embarrass and isolate themselves.

His base loves watching the alt-left meltdown and act like lunatics...and the more ridiculous they sound, the more fractured the left becomes.
(I'm lovin' watching it...and see it take place here on ATS daily...most recently in this thread).

That seems a savvy and a very shrewd political strategy.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: burgerbuddy

He wasn't elected for being politically savvy.

Pretty much the opposite, I'd say.

That's obvious.

And again, it doesn't matter why he was fired. Trump could fire him for the stupid socks he wears.

I care about the 'why'. I'd hate to think that we not only have elected a man that does not understand the political nature of his job, but would also be so petty as to fire someone for the socks they wear.

It's insight in to the character. Then again, I doubt that was one of his attributes that got him elected.

Deputy AG gave a recommendation on why he himself would fire him and Trump said ok.

Sounds like # leadership.

The fact is that Trump can #can his ass for any reason, anytime.

He doesn't have to explain it to anyone.

Tell me no one saw it coming. lol.

Comey sealed his fate with the press conference where he laid out the case against Clinton and it was confirmed when Trump won.

Is comey a secret russian?

a reply to: face23785

You may not have political leanings

I do have political leanings, just not the traditional Left or Right.

but you are mistaken here. No man of integrity would've laid out the case he laid out against Clinton and not recommended charges.

That's a huge topic to undertake and has been in many other threads. Comey followed precedence and proper interpretation of existing law. Clinton should not have been brought-up on charges.

He's either corrupt, or Lynch and/or Obama have dirt on him and forced him to do that.

Can you prove any of that?

Just the publicly available information that Clinton has admitted to is enough to convict her, nevermind all the deep details that we don't know about.

No, it's not. If it was, why hasn't charges been filed? Remember when Comey said "any reasonable prosecutor would take this to court"? Well, turns out he was right.

No one has stepped to the plate.

Anyone who knows anything about classified info knows what she did was illegal, and Comey absolutely knows that.

Another logical fallacy. We've had many on this very website claim to be experts in classified info and almost all of them were wrong.

Also, we know she committed illegal acts, but they were so minor that it would have been handled internally within the SD, not taken to the courts. Comey also said that.

a reply to: Majic

I can be sure Clinton belongs in prison lol I don't have to rely on sources and pundits, I had a security clearance and I know the things she has acknowledged doing were highly illegal and put our national security at risk. That was why, as many reservations as I had about Trump, I could not vote for Clinton. I was also considering a career in the FBI after I retired from the military, and changed my mind because of their political decision to fail to hold her accountable.

originally posted by: introvert
If someone is going to be fired from any position, regardless of the level, I'd like to think they lost that job for just reasons.

What people feel and what they "wonder" is irrelevant.

But, you are essentially wondering if Comey lost his job for reasons that you consider 'just.'