Did the FBI defraud the FISA Court in 2013-14 and again in 2016-17?
* The Horowitz Report's forgotten FISA applications: Carter Page's Role as U.S. Informant appears to have been withheld from an earlier set of Warrant Applications.
The Attorney General Inspector General's report confirmed yesterday that Page was a US intelligence source from 2008-13, and that information was withheld in 2016-17 warrant applications. We are now reminded that there were earlier FISA warrants issued for Page in 2013-14. That same information was apparently not revealed to the FISA Court in the earlier warrant applications, if Page was indeed then the target.
The first issue raised in Attorney General's IG Report released Monday concerns ommissions in the FBI FISA warrants to surveil Carter Page in 2016 and 2017. It is puzzling, therefore, that it somehow makes no reference to a set of earlier FISA warrants reportedly issued to surveil Page in 2013-2014. These earlier FISA warrants were first reported by CNN in 2017 and became a side issue in the Nunes Memo but, it seems, they were all but forgotten or have been intentionally ignored in the Horowitz report.
This raises serious questions about the completeness of the Horowitz report if the now unearthed news reports are accurate, we have also have to ask why major media that reported the earlier warrants aren't now publicly asking the same question.
CNN and the NYT and several other major outlets reported in 2017 and 2018 that FISA warrants were obtained for Page five years earlier to surveil suspected Russian espionage figures associated with Page. Several Congressmen were quoted to that effect in major media reports two years ago. Yet, in a seeming case of mass institutional amnesia, nobody in the corporate media now mentions the striking variance in the Attorney General's IG report from the public record.
This apparent gap in the Horowitz report is extremely troubling, given that alleged FBI misconduct in obtaining warrants for Page has become a core issue in questions about political bias in launching of the Russiagate investigation.
What is going on? Why aren't CNN and the New York Times and the others asking questions about the missing FISA warrants in the Horowitz report? There is a logical and obvious answer, but before we come to that, let's review the history of what has been reported about the earlier round of FISA applications.
On August 3, 2017, CNN made an important disclosure about FISA warrant applications that had been sought five years ago for Carter Page, who is now central to the controversy brewed up by the Horowitz report accusations of FBI lawbreaking in warrants sought in 2016-17 to wiretap the Trump Campaign and Administration. More than 18 months ago, the CNN article first revealed: https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-investigation-russia-tru...
"Page had been the subject of a secret intelligence surveillance warrant since 2014, earlier than had been previously reported, US officials briefed on the probe told CNN.
When information emerged last summer suggesting that the Russians were attempting to cultivate Page as a way to gain an entrée into the Trump campaign, the FBI renewed its interest in him. Initially, FBI counterintelligence investigators saw the campaign as possible victims being targeted by Russian intelligence."
A follow-up published by Ryan Goodman in the July, 2018 JustSecurity Blog referenced that CNN article, detailed a number of related media references, and observed: https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/reports-carter-page-subject-fisa-warr...
"Carter Page came to the attention of the FBI long before he joined the Trump campaign, as the Wall Street Journal and other news outlets have reported. In 2013, Russian spies tried to recruit Page as an intelligence source, and Page passed documents to an agent of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service. In discussing the Oct. 2016 FISA warrant, the WSJ says, “It isn’t clear whether the department had previously requested a FISA warrant on Mr. Page.”
I have always recalled a nugget buried deep in a CNN report published in Aug. 4, 2017. The 61st paragraph of the report reads:
“Page had been the subject of a secret intelligence surveillance warrant since 2014, earlier than had been previously reported, US officials briefed on the probe told CNN.”
I long thought that CNN report was the only reference to such a warrant. But there’s more.
[Update: On Feb. 2, 2018, the New York Times’ annotation of the Nunes memo states, “In accusing the F.B.I. of omitting important information, this memo’s critics say the memo itself omits crucial context: other evidence that did not come from Mr. Steele, much of which remains classified. For example, it makes no note of the fact that Mr. Page attracted the F.B.I.’s interest in 2013, when agents came to believe that Russian spies were trying to recruit him. The F.B.I. obtained a FISA wiretap order then, as well, according to a person familiar with the matter” (emphasis added).]
On Feb. 2, 2018, FOX News’ Dana Perino said, “if Carter Page is under a FISA warrant starting in 2013. You have to go to the FISA court every 90 days in order to keep up that warrant. We don’t know if there was a lapse in the warrant between 2013 and 2015.”
In Feb. 4, 2018, TIME published a piece on Carter Page’s 2013 letter to an academic press declaring, “Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin.” The TIME story also said, “According to published reports, the FBI obtained a first FISA warrant to eavesdrop on Page’s electronic communications during 2013.” Note: that line in the TIME story linked to a Washington Post report, at least the current version of which does not say Page was subject to a 2013 FISA warrant.
On Feb. 4 2018, Jake Tapper on CNN’s State of the Union stated, “In 2013, 2014, Carter Page was spied on by the FBI in a different FISA warrant.”
On Feb. 5, 2018, CNN’s Justice Correspondent, Jessica Schneider said, “In 2014, the FBI began surveilling Page’s communications under a FISA warrant.”).
In a piece published on Feb. 25, 2018, Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass) told World Net Daily. “The first warrant on Carter Page went back to 2013. He had been surveilled back then as a possible Russian agent. FBI had the evidence. That may have had some influence on the court.” (The WND is generally not a reliable source, but this news story included direct quotes from WND interviews with several congressional representatives.)
Finally, not as explicitly stated or clear cut but Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said in Feb. 2018, “The Nunes Memo specifically focuses on the most recent warrants for surveillance of Carter Page, who has reportedly been under watch for his potentially illicit relationship with the Russian government since 2013” (emphasis added).
If a FISA warrant was issued to surveil Page back in 2013 or 2014, it would add a meaningful piece to analyses of the FBI and courts’ actions in 2016 and 2017."
Indeed, it would be meaningful. Given that we are now told that reference to Page as an “operational contact” from 2008-2013 for an unnamed US Government intelligence agency was withheld from the four warrant applications filed during 2016-17, that would answer why the FBI would go to such extraordinary lengths to hide his role as a government informant in the earlier FISA applications.
Frankly, I am surprise that as of my last Google search this afternoon, this subject hasn't been raised anywhere but here.
I can only surmise, if this isn't a case of mass amnesia, that for various reasons, nobody wants to risk their career by being the first to raise the following question in major media. If one puts two and two together -- confirmation in the IG Report that Carter Page was a US intelligence agency operative from 2008-2013, and that fact was withheld and falsified in the warrant applications submitted to FISC Judges most recently two years ago -- doesn't it follow that the same information was withheld from the Court in the 2013-2014 FISA Court applications?
See, related reporting here: https://caucus99percent.com/content/impeachment-fruit-poisonous-tree
UPDATES AS THEY DEVELOP
Comments
I have struggled
with your statement,
If Page had been referred to as an asset or an agent, those would have been familiar terms we could take clear meaning from. But “operational contact” isn't real clear. And "intelligence agency" isn't real clear either.
I am a person who sees the FBI and the intelligence agencies working for a list of private contractors in energy, finance, mercenary armies, weapons systems and the like. Not a huge list, exactly, but specific companies in competition with other companies, pipeline contractors against other pipeline contractors, for example. And I see these long-term ringers like Carter Page being used to dirty up people when it's useful to the client contractors. So Comey's clients against Manafort's clients, something like that. And when you're in power, when you've gone from being general counsel for Lockheed to being Director of the FBI, as Comey did, you didn't do it because you wanted to give back to your country, but because you could dirty up people like Manafort, crush all the contractors working in the interests of pro-Russian deals and smooth the way for pro-IMF deals.
So what I see is Carter Page being a long-term asset, for sure, traveling to conferences, wiretapping discussions, and destroying individuals working to do business outside the confines of the killer elite we call our government. But when the report describes him as an “operational contact,” I think they're being careful not to describe him as an asset. I think that means one can only show what he really is by showing what he has actually done, and for how long, and forget the labels.
I thought
Carter Page was a CIA asset. That's what I've heard in reports, and also that the FBI was well aware of this - had talked with his CIA handler - but failed to mention this connection to the FISA court.
I get the feeling there's an internecine battle going on between the various intelligence agencies, the State Department and so on. I'm pretty sure I've seen from authoritative sources that in Syria a group of jihadists funded by the CIA was fighting against a group of jihadists funded by the State Dept. I'm sure they don't care as long as the weapons sales continue and there are opportunities for unaccounted for $$$ to disappear who knows where.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
Page was working with the CIA at the time
but that wasn't mentioned to the FISA judge. I posted a tweet about it in the EBs. This is what that agent changed on the report that we learned about last week. Zero Hedges has some excellent coverage of this if you're interested. Might need to scroll through the site to find them all.
IIRC Durham is going to a grand jury with his information and has stated that it will be a criminal case. We'll see...
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
"Operational contact" is an unusual term, not normally used as a
"Contact" is a term most often used by the FBI to refer to a person who was interviewed or otherwise provided information. One sees that term used in internal Bureau reports to refer to members of the public who provided information but weren't the target of an investigation. CIA uses "contact" generically to indicate someone who provides assistance or entre.
The term "operational" as used here appears to reference an ongoing intelligence or law enforcement field operation or program, rather than routine agency administration.
While we're at it, and before we return to Page, we might as well define organizational terminology referring to roles. The term "agents" varies by the organization (e.g., denotes officers of the FBI and Treasury Dept.), while CIA uses the term "officer" to denote its career intelligence employees. Officers who direct Agency operations are "managers", those who handle agents in the CIA clandestine service are "covert operators" or "agent handlers." The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) uses the term "agent handler". "Operative" is a technically outdated term used by the OSS, but is still used informally. Agent is always reserved for persons who have an operational role, either as a agent handler or as an asset. CIA and most other IC agencies refer to non-employee third-parties who provide services as "contractors."
The FBI uses the acronym U.C.E. (Undercover Employee), a specialized term, to designate a paid contractor who carries out undercover work but is who is not a sworn Special Agent of the Bureau. A related term, C.I. (Confidential Informant) may be paid or unpaid informant.
The public record indicates that Carter Page at various times worked for military intelligence, the CIA, the FBI, and the State Department. After graduation from Annapolis, Page was assigned to military Intelligence unit in the Mideast. He left Naval Intelligence, and pursued a PhD working for Merill Lynch in London, Moscow and finally in New York. While working abroad in Russia from 2008-2010, he would most likely have had contact with CIA (Page admits prior contact abroad with both CIA and DOS), while we already know he served as FBI "MALE-1" cooperating witness in the Polobnyy prosecution. There was a second related case in which he may have been referred in DOJ documents as "UCE-1". Here is how I previously reported that here in February 2018: https://caucus99percent.com/content/wsj-confirms-carter-page-was-coopera...
It's looking increasingly as if Page was both MALE-1 and UCE-1, testifying in both cases, and that he was indeed more than a casual FBI contact in the 2013-14 FISA applications. Put that together with his confirmed prior role as an "operational contact" for another U.S. agency, and it becomes clear that he was acting as a full-blown agent provocateur when he wormed into the Trump Campaign. The FISA warrants obtained for him were fraudulently obtained in so far as he was portrayed as a Russian agent. The evidence is convincing: he was, in fact, acting as a U.S. agent.
Yes, leveymg,
I completely agree that Page is a long term intelligence military industrial asset. Your work in bringing all of this information to us is priceless. I just felt that the report's use of the word "contact" was meant to obscure his direct connection to U.S. intelligence.
Here are some related document extracts and links:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/evgeny-buryakov-pleads-guilty-manha...
October 2016 FISA Application FBI Supporting Affidavit and Supporting Documents:
https://vault.fbi.gov/d1-release/d1-release/view
Moon of Alabama of course has excellent coverage
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/12/the-fbi-pushed-by-john-brennan-lie...
Lots of links to follow. I like the way this one lays everything out. And it confirms that Page was working with the CIA at the time.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/can-we-impeach-the-fbi-...
Horowitz stated that there was no political bias, however that wasn't the case when Strzok was fired.
https://www.vox.com/2018/8/13/17683566/peter-strzok-fired-fbi-trump-russia
Hmm..did we ever see the final report on the FBIs investigation into Hillary's emails? We only saw an unfinished report.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
The IG report might have been finished
And look at this gem.
Id love to have the time to read it, but then why bother since she got away with it?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
The media have very selective memories
If I did not know that the media are on the side of truth and justice, I might think that they were engaged in propaganda. Perish the thought.
This is very interesting
Statement from Lavrov on trying to clear Russia of election interference
More than once I have wondered if Trump was in on the Russia Gate scam. He seems to have committed some unforced errors at convenient times and so has his mouthpiece Rudy. I've often wondered why they would say or do something that just made them look bad. Trump has many ways to clear up what happened during the FBI's farce investigations, but didn't.
Obama let the birtherism nonsense go on for 3 years until he finally released his birth certificate. The right latched on to his not being an American just like we have latched on to first the investigation into Hillary's private email server and now trying to debunk Russia Gate. Just like others have latched on to Russia Russia Russia and Trump is bad. Both are great distractions from what congress is doing. However I don't think we have missed very much of what they have done.
Thoughts?
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.
~Hannah Arendt
Ongoing Sam Sheepdog / Ralph Wolf show to keep us sheep in line?
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1toPGth4]
The system told me “Flock ewe” so I became one of these mountain goats:
http://www.viruscomix.com/page532.html
The revolving door has to stop!
So. No law enforcement background, heavy ties to a potential criminal organition, jumps over the career people.
I want to see career people whose pension is already in the bank, advanced to the top, not the current spoils system. If Comey had been a state prosecutor or head of the California Highwat Patrol, cheif of the Illinois State Police or something of that sort, it would be approptiate to make him head of FBI to give an outside perspective to a professional. But corporate counsel? Talk about the Fox guarding the henhouse.
Can you say "regulatory capture"? I knew you could.
This explains why he shitted all over the FBI's reputation for being non-political. His real job was to prevent investigation of MIC contract abuses.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
leveymg, how is the term "Confidential Human Source"
used in Horowitz's report? It's unfair for me to expect you to have read all of the report when I haven't. But do you have a sense that the report is implying Page is described in various ways, including as a "Confidential Human Source"?
The report referenced here is from November 2019, not the one being debated this week: