Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
smultronkungen2
Citera vart rapporten fastslår att övervakningen inleddes på goda grunder för du sitter väl inte och ljuger, eller jo förresten det gör du ju för Horowitz fastslår nämligen att en utredning kan man alltid starta det är inga problem. Det är när man börjar ta action som te.x övervakning som det kan uppstå problem vilket det gjorde denna gång.
Se exempelvis:
Citat:
Från Oversight and Review Division 20-012 (2019), "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation"
(p. ii)
Although not mentioned in the EC, at the time, FBI officials involved in opening the investigation had reason to believe t hat Russia may have been connected to the Wikileaks disclosures that occurred earlier in July 2016, and were aware of information regarding Russia's efforts to interfere with the 2016 U.S. elections. These officials, though, did not become aware of Steele's election reporting until weeks later and we therefore determined that Steele's reports played no role in the Crossfire Hurricane opening.
Citat:
(p. iii)
This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if t rue, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring. For similar reasons, as we detail in Chapter Three, we concluded that the quantum of information articulated by the FBI to open the individual investigations on Papadopoulos, Page, Flynn, and Manafort in August 2016 was sufficient to satisfy the
low threshold established by the Department and the FBI.
Citat:
(p. iv)
We did not find documentary or testimonial evidence that political bias or improper motivation influenced the decisions to open the four individual investigations.
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
smultronkungen2
Rapporten fastslår nämligen att man har ändrat innehållet i ett mail från CIA från att Page skulle haft kontakt med ryssarna till att han inte skulle ha det så sjäääälvklart inleddes den inte på goda grunder, den inleddes på fabricerad bevisning som man uppenbarligen visste var fabricerad iom att man själva hade utfört handlingen. Sluta ljug är du gullig.
Citat:
Ursprungligen postat av
Fittahora
Det var mycket värre än så. CIA tillfrågades om Carter Page var hemlig rysslandsinformatör åt CIA. CIA svarade att Page arbetade åt CIA som hemlig informatör. Med den vetskapen måste utredningen mot Page läggas ned. Så man ändrade helt enkelt svaret från CIA till att Page inte var informatör.
Grävde lite och fick fram det här (bland annat, var tvungen att klippa för att komma ner till 10 000 tecken för FB):
Citat:
Från Oversight and Review Division 20-012 (2019), "Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation"
(p. viii)
Omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an "operational contact" for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain
Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;
Citat:
(p. ix)
In response to that inquiry, the case agent advised the OI Attorney that Page's relationship was "dated" (claiming it was when Page lived in Moscow in 2004-2007) and "outside scope." This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that Page was approved as an "operational contact" of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow). Moreover, rather than being "outside scope," Page's status with the other agency overlapped in time with some of the interactions between Page and known Russian intell igence officers that were relied upon in the FISA applications to establish probable cause.
Citat:
(p. 5-6)
However, the application, as well as the renewal applications, did not include significant relevant information, and contained inaccurate and incomplete information, that was known to the Crossfire Hurricane team at the time but that it did not share with NSD attorneys. For example, when asked by an NSD attorney who was involved in helping to draft the first FISA application whether Page had provided information to another U.S. government agency or was a source for that other agency, a Crossfire Hurricane agent incorrectly told the NSD attorney that Page's contact with the other U.S. government agency was "dated" and "outside scope." The Crossfire Hurricane agent made this statement despite the fact that the Crossfire Hurricane team had been told by the other agency in a written memorandum that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and that Page had provided information to the other agency that was relevant to the FISA application.
Citat:
(p. 79)
As we describe in Chapter Five, on or about August 17, 2016, the Crossfire Hurricane team received information from another U.S. government agency advising the team that Carter Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013 and detailing information that Page had provided to the other agency regarding Page's past contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers. However, this information was not provided to NSD attorneys and was not included in any of the FISA applications. We also found no evidence that the Crossfire Hurricane team requested additional information from the other agency prior to submission of the first FISA application in order to deconflict on issues that were relevant to the FISA application.
Citat:
(p. 157)
However, the information Case Agent 1 provided to the OI Attorney was inaccurate. As described in the August 17 Memorandum from the other U.S. government agency to the FBI, Page first met with the other agency in April 2008,
after he left Moscow (Page had lived in Moscow from 2004 to 2007), and he had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013. Additionally, rather than being outside the scope of the FISA application, the FISA application included allegations about meetings that Page had with Russian intelligence officers that Page had disclosed to the other agency.
Citat:
(p. 247-248)
As noted in Chapter Five, on or about August 17, 2016, while early FISA discussions were ongoing, the Crossfire Hurricane team received a memorandum (August 17 Memorandum) from another U.S. government agency relating to Page's prior relationship with that agency, including that Page had been approved for operational contact from 2008 to 2013. The information also described Page's prior interactions with Russian intelligence officers about which the agency was aware, including contacts Page had with a Russian intelligence officer (Intelligence Officer 1), which were among the historical connections to Russian intelligence officers that the FBI later relied upon in the first FISA application (and subsequent renewal applications) to help support probable cause. We found that, although this information was highly relevant to the FISA application, the Crossfire Hurricane team did not engage with the other agency regarding this information. In addition, in response to a question from the QI Attorney in September 2016 as to whether Carter Page had a current or prior relationship with the other agency, Case Agent 1 provided the OI Attorney with inaccurate information that failed to disclose the extent and nature of Page's relationship with that agency. As a result, the first FISA application, and FISA Renewal Application Nos. 1 and 2, contained no information regarding Page's relationship with the other U.S. government agency, and did not reveal that his relationship with the other agency overlapped in part with facts asserted in the application regarding Page's ties to particular Russian intelligence officers.
Citat:
(p. 364)
Omitted information from another U.S. government agency detailing its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application;
Citat:
(p. 413)
All of the applications also omitted information the FBI had obtained from another U.S. government agency detailing
its prior relationship with Page, including that Page had been approved as an operational contact for the other agency from 2008 to 2013, and that Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA application.
Dvs FISA-ansökan innehöll inte information om att Page informerat "den andra myndigheten" (CIA?) om vad ryssarna höll på med under en period på fem år ca tre år innan ansökan. Och att en av ryssarna som Page hade haft kontakt med var en av dem som den andra myndigheten var intresserad av.
Är det olämpligt, ja, men det är inte riktigt Watergate?
