Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

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.

thehill.com...

T and C doesnt want me copying the whole article, but its worth a look.

Basically in 2001 the FBi instituted what they called woods procedures, which was to make sure unverified info was not being presented to the Fisa court.

The reason for this was that the FBI admitted that prior to this, they often mistakenly presented unverified evidence to the fisa court.

So the woods procedures makes it so many people at various levels have to see the evidence and make sure it is verified before it is presented to the FISA court.

Ironically, the head of the FBI when most of these changes were implicated was Robert Mueller.

The fact that Comey admitted that parts of the dossier were unverified, that the memo claims that other fbi units and higher ups in the fbi said the dossier was only minimally verified, and that we know that major allegations listed in the memo are easily proven false; l;eads to serious questions as to rather or not the Woods Procedures.

And lets not forget that most people now admit that Muellers investigation in now off of looking for trump collusion with russia, but now on to obstruction of justice.

So my question is to all of those claiming that the FBI must have verified the info about Page,

What happens if the Muller investigations ends and Page isnt charged with being an agent of russia?

How could that be if the FBI verified the dossiers claims about Page?

If that was verified for the fisa warrant last October, why hasnt page been charged yet?

You THINK with a case with this high of a profile they'd be extra careful to not break the RULES...

It seems that all the President's "men" and supporters are...

originally posted by: DanteGaland
You THINK with a case with this high of a profile they'd be extra careful to not break the RULES...

Yes you would think that, wouldnt you?

Making it all the more ridiculous if they did break the rules.

a reply to: DanteGaland

In their minds they didn`t have to be careful or follow procedures because Hillary was suppose to win and she was going to cover their butts,nobody was ever suppose to find out that they cut corners and broke laws.

originally posted by: DanteGaland
You THINK with a case with this high of a profile they'd be extra careful to not break the RULES...

Think of how many times they must have broken the rules "to get their man", and were just never found out.

It takes "Presidential Powers" to find out what really goes on at the FBI.

No one else has that kind of power to go "look see", so nobody would be any the wiser in any other case.

All these "supposed rules" are just a smoke screen, that creates an "aura" of righteousness, when in fact the actors behind the scenes operate with Crowley's principles of "Do what ye wilt, shall be the whole of the law."

Interestingly, if Nunes really wanted to do “oversight” and was worried about the process, he could have followed regular oversight procedures. This isn’t about oversight, however, it is about partisan politics and a scheme to protect a President.

If the Woods procedure has not been adequately followed, that is easy to correct.

a reply to: Grambler

From the article:

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.

How much is this dead horse of a talking point going to get beaten? James Comey was refer to parts of the dossier having to do with Trump, particularly referencing the pee-pee incident which again, is the *only* part of the dossier which could be described as "salacious."

Google:

sa·la·cious
səˈlāSHəs/
adjective
adjective: salacious

(of writing, pictures, or talk) treating sexual matters in an indecent way and typically conveying undue interest in or enjoyment of the subject.

It makes absolutely no sense that the only "salacious" part of the dossier would have been included on the FISA warrant application. I think it's telling that Nunes disingenuously relies on this talking point as an "essential part" of his unverified memo.

What happens if the Muller investigations ends and Page isnt charged with being an agent of russia?

If that was verified for the fisa warrant last October, why hasnt page been charged yet?

Nothing? Warrants often fail to yield evidence of crimes or evidence that isn't concrete enough on its own for a prosecution. You're basically implying that any warrant that doesn't result in prosecution was improperly obtained.

I haven't read the Woods Procedures but it seems like it would be an obvious catch-22. Warrants are an investigative tool that are granted when there is probable cause. The author is attempting to elevate Woods Procedures (without actually citing them to boot) to a standard so high that a FISA warrant would require a conviction.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Interestingly, if Nunes really wanted to do “oversight” and was worried about the process, he could have followed regular oversight procedures. This isn’t about oversight, however, it is about partisan politics and a scheme to protect a President.

If the Woods procedure has not been adequately followed, that is easy to correct.

Keep in mind that the oversight committee has been attempting to perform their job for over a year, and yet they are being stonewalled by the fbi at every turn.

And by the way to elaborate off of what AMPTAH is saying, this isnt something new.

The FBI routinely refuses to comply with oversight requests on many cases.

It is time for a change, and Nunes and the intel committee were operating within their legal rights by releasing the memo.

a reply to: AboveBoard

No, it's not easy to correct when corruption is institutionalized and hides behind "national security."

Everyone knew that at one time. Now some are willing to turn a blind eye because of their blind hatred. It's very easy to see-through.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I will respond in two posts.

first the bottom.

We are not just discussing a regular warrant, we are discussing using the surveillance powers of the intel community against an American.

The threshold for this is suppose to be very high, and should be even higher when it is against someone who was a member of a Presidential campaign, especially when the evidence is from that campaigns direct opponent.

Remember, this was not under title 7 of fisa, this was title one, so they had to show that Page was likely a foriegn spy, which I see no even suggestion of in the dossier.

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.

theconservativetreehouse.com...

So if the dossier was used for this warrant, and it turns out page wasnt a foreign spy,

we have the fbi using the opponents paid for dossier, that they knew was largely unverified, that they could have easily seen that parts of it were flat out false, that they knew came from a guy who admitted being desperate to keep trump out of office, that they knew was sourced from Kremlin agents

and they were totally wrong.

This would be unbelievably corrupt.

a reply to: Grambler

I have found a copy of the Woods Procedures here that were taken from a 2002 oversight hearing conducted by the Senate Judiciary committee (p.264 here).

I scanned it and it doesn't appear to set out evidentiary standards for information included in FISA warrants. It mostly just describes the process. It does mention records checks but that's in the context of searching FBI records to determine if the subject is somehow involved in another investigation, is an informant, etc.

I don't see anything that would preclude the inclusion of raw intel. Imagine this scenario. Two Russians are caught in an intercept saying, "Carter Page met with Sechin." The two communicating are known Russia intelligence agents. What the author seems to imply and you in turn, is that the intercept could not be used in a FISA warrant application because the FBI doesn't know conclusively based on the intercept that Carter Page actually met with Sechin. (it would be hearsay)

I think that's almost certainly wrong.

Evidence to assert probable cause for a warrant does not have to meet the same evidenciary standards as evidence presented in a prosecution. Hearsay evidence such as in the above example could be used for a warrant in any other federal court, I don't think FISC is an exception. It certainly isn't based on the Woods Procedures.

Lawshelf - Probable Cause

Probable cause may be demonstrated by live, sworn testimony or by affidavit. More importantly, an affidavit based on hearsay (which could not be used as evidence in a criminal trial) can be used as the basis for issuing a search warrant, so long as the circumstances in their totality establish probable cause. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).

a reply to: theantediluvian

As far as the comey quote, several points.

1. others such as brennan and others have said they saw no proof of many of the allegations against trump including in the dossier.

The memo also says another head of the fbi (Bill Presbiet or something) said the verification was minimal. It also says another fbi group said the same thing.

2. Even if comey is just saying only small parts of the dossier are salacious and unverified, that is enormously troubling. Why should the dossier be trusted if parts of it are so salacious and unverified?

This would further buttress my above post, that they better have been almost completely certain of the allegations about Page if they are using this document they know is so unverified and salacious in other parts.

3. If part of the dossier was salacious and unverified, it is not a lie to say the dossier is salacious and unverified.

Especially in light of the fact that Comey never admitted that the major allegations were verified, nor did Brennan, nor did the groups outlined in the memo (if its true) nor did any of the people that not only knew of the dossier, but long after the warrant said they saw no evidence of trump russia collusion.

a reply to: theantediluvian

I will read through that PDF later.

but lets look at your scenario.

We are not talking about the FBI themselves overhearing two russians.

We are talking about a guy who is being paid by the opposition of the people set to be spied on, who has admitted to hating Trump and wanting to stop his election, claiming he russians told him page was doing bad things.

we also know in the same dossier he makes that claim, he is saying other things easily proved false "like cohen in prague) and salacious garbage like the trump pee story.

So they damn well better be absolutely certain that the have verified the allegations of page and have proof he is most likely a russian spy, which is the standard under title 1 that they sought the warrant over.

If they were able to verifiy those claims, why use the dossier; a poorly written controversial salacious document, to get that warrant, as opposed to just the facts the fbi were able to verify themselves?

This is further troubling if as the memo says, the Issikoff Yahoo news article, that was actually just steele feeding info, was used to corroborate steeles own dossier.

a reply to: theantediluvian

And even though as I explained in my above post this situation is far different than fbi agents hearing two russsians talking, I wanted ot hit on that hypothetical.

No, I dont think this should be enough to suspend someones 4th amendment rights, particularly someone invilved in a Presidential campaign.

There should have to be much more evidnece to go along with that.

Think of what this would lead to.

Russians could now just randomly talk about how whichever candidate they dont want in office, or both just to mess with the system, knowing that the FBI will then spy on anybody they just mention.

What power that would give the russians to mess with our system!

But ironically, that is exactly what the kremlin sourced dossier has done; it was the clearest most direct way for russia to interfer with our system of governance.

What a dream for them!

What better way to screw with ameirca than to have one party pay to have someone come to your officials to smear the other party, and then have the freaking FBI use that evidence for over a year and basically grind the Presidency to a halt.

That is why the threshold for using the FBI to spy on Americans should be very, very high.

a reply to: theantediluvian

the big picture is, this isn't up to you, me, nor anyone else here. It's up to the investigation committee that will be formed and look really deep into all this. From what I see from your posts, is you don't think the "D's" did anything wrong, and the "R's" are just making stuff up. That's all fine, but again, it's not up to us. So while I'm sure you will continue to have your opinion and I will continue to believe otherwise, it will all come out in the end. This is just starting, and it's too far along to just ignore it at this point.

Time will tell, and we have lots of it.

a reply to: Grambler

individual was likely an actual agent of a foreign government

And wouldn't it be the judge who determines whether or not the evidence demonstrates that the individual is a likely foreign agent?

So if the dossier was used for this warrant, and it turns out page wasnt a foreign spy,

we have the fbi using the opponents paid for dossier, that they knew was largely unverified, that they could have easily seen that parts of it were flat out false,

Again, what they have to demonstrate to the judge is that the subject is a likely agent of a foreign government, they do not prove definitively that the subject is one. It would be the judge who determines if that threshold was met.

You keep talking about "the dossier" but it's completely irrelevant what else was eventually packaged into what became known as the "dossier." All that would matter in the context of that FISA warrant is the raw intel used in the FISA app.

There's another problem here too which is the assumption that what appears in the memos about Carter Page (and later in the dossier) is what's in the FISA app. As though we can assume that they ran off a copy of the memos and attached them to Appendix II or something. That seems highly unlikely. I imagine that during his debriefing, the FBI got the *really* raw intel underlying the summation in the memo. That is, details of the conversation, actual quotes, possibly even recordings.

that they knew came from a guy who admitted being desperate to keep trump out of office,

Irrelevant. If you witnessed a murder and you were desperate for the police to do something about it, does it mean that they should tell you to hit the bricks and come back when you're dispassionate? The reason Steele approached the FBI in the first place was that he was alarmed by what he was finding.

What Nunes tried to do and what you're doing in relying on his talking points memo, is effectively that Steele didn't want Trump elected, therefore he went to the FBI — as though Steele (who isn't an American, doesn't reside in America, etc) is motivated by partisanship.

When in fact, Steele's "desperation" stems from an alarm over what he's telling the FBI. In other words, he's not concerned about Trump being elected because he hates Trump, he's concerned about Trump being elected because he believes based on what he's seen that Trump could be a Russian puppet.

It's a subtle but extremely important distinction.

that they knew was sourced from Kremlin agents

As I pointed out in another thread, it's not clear from the bits about Carter Page that the information came from "Kremlin agents" in fact, of the three sources, one is definitely not.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: Grambler



And wouldn't it be the judge who determines whether or not the evidence demonstrates that the individual is a likely foreign agent?

Yes but the understanding of the court is that the info being provided to them has been verified.

Again, what they have to demonstrate to the judge is that the subject is a likely agent of a foreign government, they do not prove definitively that the subject is one. It would be the judge who determines if that threshold was met.

You keep talking about "the dossier" but it's completely irrelevant what else was eventually packaged into what became known as the "dossier." All that would matter in the context of that FISA warrant is the raw intel used in the FISA app.

Thats outrageous.

So if I get paid by trump to make a dossier of dirt aagainst the democrats, and 90 percent of the claims I am making are inverified or salcious or false, that shouldnt matter, and you can take a small piece out of there that is not proven, and seek to spy on the democrats because of that?

That is absurd. The entire context of the dossier, who wrote it, and who paid for it are all relevant info.

There's another problem here too which is the assumption that what appears in the memos about Carter Page (and later in the dossier) is what's in the FISA app. As though we can assume that they ran off a copy of the memos and attached them to Appendix II or something. That seems highly unlikely. I imagine that during his debriefing, the FBI got the *really* raw intel underlying the summation in the memo. That is, details of the conversation, actual quotes, possibly even recordings.

That could be true. However lets not forget they tried to get a warrant on Page earlier and failed, which is almost unprecedented.

If McCabe did tetsify that there would have been no warrant without the dossier, it is outrageous and a huge scandal, because this shows the details you are discussing were not enough to get the warrant, so the dossier was the tipping point.

Irrelevant. If you witnessed a murder and you were desperate for the police to do something about it, does it mean that they should tell you to hit the bricks and come back when you're dispassionate? The reason Steele approached the FBI in the first place was that he was alarmed by what he was finding.

Thats not an appropriate analogy.

If I was paid by some guys rival to dig up dirt, then claimed I heard people say he killed someone but didnt see it myself, and also had those people tell me other things that were false (like Cohen in Prague) and details about gross sex happenings,

the police should not immediatly start spying on the suspect based on this.

How can you even suggest they should?

As I pointed out in another thread, it's not clear from the bits about Carter Page that the information came from "Kremlin agents" in fact, of the three sources, one is definitely not.

Thats not true. We know most of the most serious allegations were sourced from Kremlin government connected people.

Here is a pdf break down of it.

nucleardiner.files.wordpress.com...

Notice the allegations of page discussing getting parts of rosneft, about meeting with secgin, etc, were all sourced by russian officials or russians close to those officials.

a reply to: network dude

the big picture is, this isn't up to you, me, nor anyone else here.

Goes without saying, doesn't it?

From what I see from your posts, is you don't think the "D's" did anything wrong, and the "R's" are just making stuff up.

This is really interesting in what it reveals about how you're approaching this. Who exactly are the "D's" here? The FBI = Democrats? It's almost like in your mind, the FBI has morphed into the Democratic Party.

I think it's worth looking into but I don't see any concrete evidence of impropriety. Nunes is a Trump stooge and a hack. He's not the entire Republican Party though.

It's up to the investigation committee that will be formed and look really deep into all this.

This is just starting, and it's too far along to just ignore it at this point.

Time will tell, and we have lots of it.

I'm sure you're very excited about lots of investigations that you're hoping will serve your partisan desires. That's a normal enough thing. Just remember that you said all this when it comes to investigations into Russian interference and the possibility of collusion with the Trump campaign.

We've got all the time in the world. Certainly no need for right-wing partisans to declare arbitrary time limits on any of them, particularly the Mueller investigation right?

a reply to: Grambler

1. others such as brennan and others have said they saw no proof of many of the allegations against trump including in the dossier.

Irrelevant to what was included in the FISA app that is sourced to Steele (and ultimately his source). As I explained in my other post, not only does the dossier as a whole factor in here, specific parts come from different sources, collected at different times in different ways. It's also seems unlikely that copy-n-pasted the parts about Page into the FISA warrant app.

I would imagine that what appears in the FISA app is vastly different from the summation of the raw intel in the memos and later the dossier.

2. Even if comey is just saying only small parts of the dossier are salacious and unverified, that is enormously troubling. Why should the dossier be trusted if parts of it are so salacious and unverified?

3. If part of the dossier was salacious and unverified, it is not a lie to say the dossier is salacious and unverified.

You're really pushing hard to have the dossier considered in its entirety (as are Nunes and cohorts). Again, was the dossier printed and attached to the FISA warrant?

The veracity of what Steele relayed to the FBI has practically nothing to do with the dossier.

How shocked will you be if we find out that not one sentence from the dossier actually appears in the FISA warrant application? Would that drastically change your opinion of Nunes and his allegations if you learned that he was painting an grossly inaccurate picture?

Alright, I've got to run out to get smokes before the Superbowl starts. I'll probably be back after the Superbowl. (or not, I've also got to finish a Disaster Recovery Plan tonight to present to auditors)

Go Eagles!