Surprises

by Tim Cushing


Filed Under:
donald trump, foia, rejection, russia



Did The FISA Court Finally Reject The FBI's Advances?

from the too-coy-by-far,-and-with-too-many-unknown-details dept

Somewhere behind the lurid imagery of the unverified intelligence report BuzzFeed dropped on the web earlier this week is a possible story about the FISA court deciding, for once, that a government agency has gone too far. My apologies to those who've made New Year's resolutions to eat better: everything about this should be taken with several grains of salt.

First, there's the intelligence report itself, which has apparently been circulating for a long time before BuzzFeed stepped up and actually published it. The Guardian reports Mother Jones apparently had seen the document as early as last September. The previously anonymous source of the Trump/Russia intel report has now been outed, but to date, the only thing that has truly been confirmed are biases.

The document, however, was considered legitimate enough by John McCain to pass it on to the FBI. It includes -- along with the famous watersports details -- information on alleged contacts with Russia that Trump used to obtain information on political rivals. According to the document, Trump is both reliant on Russian intelligence services for info and a target for blackmail, should it be "needed," thanks to antics on Russian soil detailed in the report's pages.

The FBI has refused to comment on the document, other than to confirm that it has seen it. But there's another detail buried in the Guardian's report that suggests -- again, via several anonymous sources -- that the supposed intel report propelled the FBI to the FISA court to ask permission to spy on Trump's associates. This detail was pulled out of the densely-packed Guardian report by Jason Koebler of Vice.

Here's the passage from the Guardian article:

The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

How the Guardian "learned" this is never explained. The "one report" is an article at Heat Street, which also relies heavily on anonymous sources:

Two separate sources with links to the counter-intelligence community have confirmed to Heat Street that the FBI sought, and was granted, a FISA court warrant in October, giving counter-intelligence permission to examine the activities of ‘U.S. persons’ in Donald Trump’s campaign with ties to Russia.

According to Heat Street, this supposed application came on the heels of reports that Trump's private server was in frequent communication with a Russian bank. That story has been debunked thoroughly, but that doesn't necessarily mean the FBI didn't initiate an investigation on the (temporary) strength of these allegations. For it to have headed to the FISA court with a warrant app before the report was debunked seems unlikely, much less to have this one granted, rather than the one it wanted earlier in the summer.

That being said, if the FISA court did turn down the FBI's summer warrant application, it would be an anomaly. As Koebler points out, the FISA court hates being referred to as a "rubber stamp," but it can't really argue with its own track record.

According to the Department of Justice’s official numbers, of the thousands of applications made by the federal government to FISC, none have been denied since 2009. Rarely, the court has asked the government to modify its case. In 2013, the US made 1,588 applications; 34 were modified. In 2014, it made 1,379 applications; 19 were modified. In 2015, it made 1,457 applications; 80 were modified.

It could be that the Guardian story and the Heat Street story are actually referring to the same warrant applications. The FBI could have been asked to modify the order in the summer and had the fixed version approved in October. A BBC article claims it was the same warrant app -- rejected twice -- seeking info on Trump's ties to Russian banks. (Again, this is a firsthand account backed by anonymous sources.)

Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

The FISA court could still be pitching an application rejection shutout. We won't know more until the 2016 numbers are released by the DOJ and even then, we won't know much. If there's a denial or two on the record, it won't necessarily confirm these reports. And if it was just a demand for modification, the FBI's Trump-related warrant will just be one of the few dozen the FISA court issues every year.

Heat Street, however, claims there were two FBI FISA warrant applications, with the second directly tied to the Russian bank/Trump server story. Whatever the case is, the leaked intelligence report most likely wasn't the basis for the FBI's summer warrant application, as it may not have even been released yet to those who paid to have it compiled: Trump-opposing Republicans and Democrats. If the patrons truly believed everything in the report, you'd think they would have released it prior to the election. Then again, the document may have been shopped for months to sites far more reluctant than BuzzFeed to publish unsourced allegations.

Among all the unverifiables stands the FISA court, which may have withheld its rubber stamp just this once. As Vice's Koebler points out, even if it did, there's no reason to applaud its singular rejection.

[I]f The Guardian and HeatStreet reports are accurate, when the FBI decided to go after the rich, powerful, and politically well-connected, it was met with pushback. If only the rest of us could be so lucky.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Jason, 13 Jan 2017 @ 8:42am

    If only the rest of us could be so lucky.

    At least now we know just how rich and powerful you have to be in order to earn a wary eye from the judges instead of their rubber stamp on a warrant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    afn29129 (profile), 13 Jan 2017 @ 8:46am

    Spook puppets

    I love how the British Spook-Puppets tried to bury/hide identity of the 'dossier' author.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/trump-dossier-claims-ex-mi6-spy-d-notice/

    Extreme LOL !

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2017 @ 8:50am

      Re: Spook puppets

      IT's a salient point, however. Apparently, money buys more privacy than being lawful does.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Ninja (profile), 13 Jan 2017 @ 9:19am

        Re: Re: Spook puppets

        Money buys almost everything if you have enough to throw at it. Sadly.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Jon.m.Kelley, 24 Jan 2017 @ 9:14pm

        NOT money, IMPORTANT People: Spook puppets

        Ask Dot Com, money doesn't count, you have to be one of the IMPORTANT people. E.G. Bill Clinton is not a pass for most laws because he is a billionaire, but because he is an IMPORTANT person, as is Hillary.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Norahc (profile), 13 Jan 2017 @ 9:52am

    Judge shopping?

    Their first application, in June, was rejected outright by the judge. They returned with a more narrowly drawn order in July and were rejected again. Finally, before a new judge, the order was granted, on 15 October, three weeks before election day.

    Nothing like keeping at it till you get the results you want.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TechnoMage (profile), 13 Jan 2017 @ 10:09am

    Nope

    FBI agents didn't get FISA court approval ... but 'why'...

    I would agree that it is more likely that the FBI agents 'slow walked' the warrants... by purposely writing them so poorly that they got denied (for what counts as what... over 10% of the total denials...??)

    I have no proof of this... but from my time working in an office... I would be willing to bet you it has more to do with THIS than anything to do with FISA court growing a conscience

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dave Cortright (profile), 13 Jan 2017 @ 10:25am

    Please, someone test (troll) the FISA limits

    It would probably be career suicide, but if I were going to be retiring soon anyway, I'd take advantage of the "5 nines" approval record and see exactly how far one could go before the court turned a request down. Maybe if it actually targeted the members, family and friends of the FISA court judges themselves? But of course don't start there. Or couch it in a way that "leaks of information from within our agencies is a huge threat to national security and our children etc. This request is for all communications relevant to determine who is leaking this information." Dress it up in a way to make it sound less like "we are going to spy on our own" and see what happens.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2017 @ 10:50am

    Once again, intel agencies subcontract to GHQ

    in order to sidestep domestic spying restrictions.

    Methinks the Brit "ex"-spy was merely a cutout.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jan 2017 @ 1:07pm

    Probably more fake news.

    I can't imagine the FISA court doing such a thing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 13 Jan 2017 @ 1:10pm

    Tawdry Bits for Ignorant Twits

    First, there's the intelligence report itself, which has apparently been circulating for a long time before BuzzFeed stepped up and actually published it.

    Buzzfeed publishing this so-called "intelligence report" without vetting the information therein is not a step up but rather a step down into the sewer.

    There is a reason many in the mass media passed on putting the so-called "intelligence report" to print during the summer of 2016 as the information within the report was not able to be verified as factual.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 14 Jan 2017 @ 4:42am

      Re: Tawdry Bits for Ignorant Twits

      Just read this "report". There are details which could not possibly be known to author.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.