Jan2017
02-05-2018, 08:06 PM
The Woods Rule of the FISA Court bars the knowing presentation of flawed evidence to justify a surveillance warrant
Updated 05 Feb 2018 at 3:25 PM
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe may have increased the legal jeopardy he’s facing
with four other top federal law enforcement officials — by telling Congress in December 2017
that no surveillance warrants could be sought without using the undocumented Steele dossier.
By the procedural rules governing surveillance warrant requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court,
federal officials are barred from knowingly using undocumented evidence.
But thanks to the court’s “Woods Procedures,” that’s exactly what was done by McCabe.
That’s also what was done by his former boss, then-FBI Director James Comey,
former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente,
and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of
the Office of General Counsel’s National Security Law Unit. They were instituted in April 2001 to ‘ensure accuracy with
regard to … the facts supporting probable cause’ after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent,
in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.
Prior to Woods Procedures, ‘ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,’
the FBI told Congress in August 2003.
A judge who has even the smallest amount respect for his or her position should be righteously outraged
when a lawyer misleads or omits critically important information while seeking a warrant,
especially a warrant to secretly surveil an American citizen.”
Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert added that “since it appears our Democrat colleagues have no objections to
an administration using politically motivated and contrived information to weaponize the federal government against
its political opponents, it is even more critical that the Judiciary Committee get the FISA court transcripts
to review what went on within the FISA court, even if we have to do it in a classified setting.”
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/these-five-fbi-scandal-figures-may-never-get-out-of-the-fisa-woods/
If only 12 out of over 34,000 FISA Court warrant applications have been rejected over the decades -
was there the one rejection in the summer of 2016 that provided the impetus for the DNC/Clinton campaign's
production of a falsified document to get a FISA warrant accepted (?) - first as only an election "insurance policy"
and then later to put down the new Government of the United States coercively?
OR - if a July 2016 FISA Court application was in fact approved by the surveillance court - was the dossier produced anyway
to assure the renewal that Defendants Comey et al. would need for the October 21, 2016 FISA renewal before
Judge Rudolph Contreras that they would still seek after the 90 days produced insufficient evidence
to avoid[I] such an embarrassing "reverse October surprise" as a FISA warrant rejection thrown in the faces of the weasel liars in the FBI -
by not only the FISA Court but the voters of the United States needing to decide?
https://s26.postimg.org/4olebq609/uraniumoneplea.jpg (https://postimages.org/)https://s26.postimg.org/t3tmd8n21/trio.jpg (https://postimages.org/)
Updated 05 Feb 2018 at 3:25 PM
Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe may have increased the legal jeopardy he’s facing
with four other top federal law enforcement officials — by telling Congress in December 2017
that no surveillance warrants could be sought without using the undocumented Steele dossier.
By the procedural rules governing surveillance warrant requests to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court,
federal officials are barred from knowingly using undocumented evidence.
But thanks to the court’s “Woods Procedures,” that’s exactly what was done by McCabe.
That’s also what was done by his former boss, then-FBI Director James Comey,
former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente,
and current Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of
the Office of General Counsel’s National Security Law Unit. They were instituted in April 2001 to ‘ensure accuracy with
regard to … the facts supporting probable cause’ after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent,
in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.
Prior to Woods Procedures, ‘ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,’
the FBI told Congress in August 2003.
A judge who has even the smallest amount respect for his or her position should be righteously outraged
when a lawyer misleads or omits critically important information while seeking a warrant,
especially a warrant to secretly surveil an American citizen.”
Texas Congressman Louie Gohmert added that “since it appears our Democrat colleagues have no objections to
an administration using politically motivated and contrived information to weaponize the federal government against
its political opponents, it is even more critical that the Judiciary Committee get the FISA court transcripts
to review what went on within the FISA court, even if we have to do it in a classified setting.”
https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/these-five-fbi-scandal-figures-may-never-get-out-of-the-fisa-woods/
If only 12 out of over 34,000 FISA Court warrant applications have been rejected over the decades -
was there the one rejection in the summer of 2016 that provided the impetus for the DNC/Clinton campaign's
production of a falsified document to get a FISA warrant accepted (?) - first as only an election "insurance policy"
and then later to put down the new Government of the United States coercively?
OR - if a July 2016 FISA Court application was in fact approved by the surveillance court - was the dossier produced anyway
to assure the renewal that Defendants Comey et al. would need for the October 21, 2016 FISA renewal before
Judge Rudolph Contreras that they would still seek after the 90 days produced insufficient evidence
to avoid[I] such an embarrassing "reverse October surprise" as a FISA warrant rejection thrown in the faces of the weasel liars in the FBI -
by not only the FISA Court but the voters of the United States needing to decide?
https://s26.postimg.org/4olebq609/uraniumoneplea.jpg (https://postimages.org/)https://s26.postimg.org/t3tmd8n21/trio.jpg (https://postimages.org/)