Sundance – Having read, re-read and re-re-read, the recent FISA application release, here’s my take at both the 30,000 ft and granular level.

First, the elevated review is actually more interesting than the granular, which is remarkably odd considering how far we have traveled with this story.

Why publicly release the FISA application?  After all, even with the voluminous redactions, it is very unusual and it would have been exceptionally easy to deny any FOIA request under the auspices of national security.  To highlight this question, consider how stunned Fran Townsend was at the release: “Having run The Justice Dept office responsible for #FISA The release of these documents is irresponsible & will irreversibly weaken counterintelligence & Counterterrorism investigations going forward.”

Here is where a similar, I would say parallel, release will be overlooked.  Remember, it was April 2017 when ODNI Dan Coats released the 99-page FISA Court ruling/opinion on the historic 2015/2016 FISA abuse by the FBI and DOJ-NSD.  That release, like this one, while also heavily redacted, seemed out-of-custom for the intelligence apparatus.  Coincidentally FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer is a central figure in both releases.

In the 2017 FISC abuse opinion release, Judge Collyer wrote the ruling.  In this 2018 FISA application release, Judge Collyer was the authorizing FISC authority granting the Title-1 search warrant.  In an odd way, there’s a particular appearance of connectivity here.  For those who are unfamiliar, FISA material is not subject to FOIA; everything connected to FISA and the FISC is considered “classified” at the origination. [Remember that.]

You see, it was July 17th (a few days ago) when the Comey, Brennan, Yates, Carter criticisms were on full boil (due to the Trump/Putin presser), when I began to wonder when DNI Coats would reach the point –AGAIN– of saying ‘enough is enough’?  My suspicions were that something was soon to happen… because the ridiculousness of it all was nearing the apex.  Methinks this FISA release is in line with that general disposition.

Anyone who thinks this FISA application release is not a big deal has not followed the details, and does not comprehend what is attested to within the FISA application.  But that’s in the granular…. for now, let’s stick to the 30,000 ft review.

The overall FISA application is ridiculously short on substance, and generally is a long way from providing the evidence needed for Title-1 surveillance authority over a U.S. person.  In fact, the FISA application is very sloppy… almost as if it wasn’t a priority to have a solid and defensible document.  I think there’s a simple reason for that.

After all, the DOJ and FBI never thought anyone would ever be looking at this issue; they thought Hillary Clinton was going to win. To quote the disposition of FBI Counterintelligence Agent Peter Strzok: “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40.”  Key word: “unlikely“, they never contemplated -until later- the full scope of justification that would be needed…. they were setting up something no-one really thought would need to be utilized…. all of the legal apoplexy and ass-covering came in hindsight.

So when we review the FISA application, it is worth reminding yourself this was a tool, a temporary means to an end, they never thought they would actually need…. so they didn’t spend a great deal of time hammering out the finer points.  The political surveillance was useful, but it was likely never to be known how it was utilized.  Ms. Lisa Page was focused on empowering Hillary Clinton, stupid -albeit useful and obnoxiously arrogant- Pete was in charge of the less-than and likely unneeded insurance.

We begin to get increasingly granular now:

Context:  The current DOJ and FBI elements of the intelligence community are only slightly less corrupt internally than they were prior to the Trump inauguration.  Institutionally they are still full of corrupt individuals; and administratively they are managed by people concerned about retaining the institutions – not eliminating the corruption.  In our ongoing opinion this institutional emphasis is misplaced and misguided at best, and complicit at worst; likely more the latter. – Continue reading . . .

SF Source The Conservative Treehouse Jul 2018