Any anonymous ‘state secrets’ (e.g. FBI fronting for CIA) finger
On the FBI’s fraudulent application for a FISA secret warrant (authorization to spy) on Carter Page: The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s ‘cover your ass’ Order Misc. 19-02 finding of fact:
“The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable. The FISC expects the government to provide complete and accurate information in every filing with the Court. Without it, the FISC cannot properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual basis”
That is why we ‘had’ a (‘lip serviced’ or given political fellatio by the court) so-called ‘Bill of Rights’ that went out the window with the National Security Act of 1947 (the underlying foundation of the FISA Court.) In fact there is not, and has never been, an advocate (sound legal mechanism) to insure the American citizen ‘targets’ of FISA court secret warrants are properly protected, via right of discovery demanding exculpatory evidence; placing the Department of Justice personalities, the FBI particularly, squarely in the sights of prosecution for the above described or what amount to ‘color of law’ violations of Fourth Amendment and other rights. Now, on to the abject failure of what has been ordered:
“THEREFORE, the Court ORDERS that the government shall, no later than January 10, 2020, inform the Court in a sworn written submission of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application. In the event that the FBI at the time of that submission is not yet able to perform any of the planned steps described in the submission, it shall also include (a) a proposed timetable for implementing such measures and (b) an explanation of why, in the government’s view, the information in FBI applications submitted in the interim should be regarded as reliable”
We can put one + one together and see the how the math doesn’t stack up in a constitutionally sound way:
In the finding of fact: “…representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable” clearly casts doubt on the entire process and every FISA application ever made (noting the court has processed thousands of applications with a history of rejecting a handful.)
In the actual court order section we see “…an explanation of why, in the government’s view, the information in FBI applications submitted in the interim should be regarded as reliable” or essentially only a demand of from this point (date of the order, 17 December 2019) in any pending or future application will there be any correction made in circumstance of the FISA Court demanding the FBI ‘police themselves.’
Since when (post King George III our sovereign) has the state been entitled and/or trusted to ‘police themselves’ in matters of crimes of the state against its’ citizens? That was the underlying rationale of the Bill of Rights, precisely because the state cannot ever be trusted to do that.
This RANK FAIL (order) omits to do two critical things; use of the courts contempt powers to sanction the FBI (send a message, up to and inclusive of jailing the corrupt actors) and more importantly, search for, identify and provide avenue to remedy for plausible past abuses. This 2nd instance could easily (however imperfectly) be addressed, it would be as simple as the FISA Court appointing and empowering an independent special master (people’s advocate) with exculpatory evidence subpoena power to begin a review of past, present and future applications. Now, why doesn’t the court dare go there? Secrecy?
Here’s where it gets sticky for the secret court; in a case of ‘what you don’t know, won’t hurt you’ (and especially what you don’t know shouldn’t hurt the FISA court.) Firstly, if your rights have been violated, you won’t even be allowed to know it. Because if you WERE allowed to know this, it opens the door to all sorts of complications for the national security state, not only what the state has been up to in secret, where it is poking its’ nose, but certainly not least, a scrutiny of the FISA Court as a rubber stamp ‘star chamber’ in the absolute absence of any independent advocate mechanism to secure the rights of those Americans unfairly, wrongly, even maliciously, targeted by FISA secret spying warrants.
It follows, even if you have solid grounds (e.g. yours truly does) to believe corrupt FBI/FISA abuse happened to you, you won’t have a remedy because the established ‘state secrets’ doctrine demands you have no access to the documents necessary to substantiate your claim. The constitutional absurdity of this is, you cannot independently prove the government illegally-unjustly-corruptly spied on you (establish standing to sue), so you have no access to the proof they did, even if they did so egregiously, as was the one-off (became known) case of Carter Page.
What broke the Carter Page case into the open is politics, pure and simple, the fallout causing the FISA Court to issue the ‘cover your ass’ “Order Misc. 19-02” or a ‘police yourselves’ pretense of accountability.
Postscript: on 22 December there is reportedly another (not yet released) order holding exactly ONE individual to account for FISA abuse in the case of multiple deceits by several individuals exposed in the case of Carter Page (scapegoat settled upon!)
Related: The Oath and the Trash Bin