By J. D. Heyes, editor-in-chief
(National Sentinel)Â FISA Corruption: More information continues to be revealed and released following Friday’s publication of the scandal-filled FISA memo.
It has now become clear that there is a direct link from the FISA approval process to the former president of the United States, Barack Obama.
AsÂ ABC News reported:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,Â commonly referred to as the “FISA Court,” is a secret tribunal with legal authority to grant (or deny) warrants for electronic surveillance against would-be spies or terrorists.
The court — made up of 11 federal judges, serving 7-year terms and selected by the chief justice of the Supreme Court — meets in private, sometimes in the middle of the night. FISA targets are highly classified.
More than a thousand applications for electronic surveillance, all signed by the attorney general, are submitted each year, and the vast majority are approved.
The Obama administration said after President Donald J. Trump claimed he was “wiretapped” by his predecessor March 2017, “A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice. As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.”
But changes made to the original Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 — via theÂ FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (and renewed in December 2012) give presidents and the intelligence community much more latitude when it comes to surveillance of “foreign” persons.
As explained byÂ Yale Law professor Jack Balkin in 2009:
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President – now President Obama – the authority to run surveillance programs similar in effect to the warrantless surveillance program [secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001]. That is because New FISA no longer requires individualized targets in all surveillance programs. Some programs may be ‘vacuum cleaner’ programs that listen to a great many different calls (and read a great many e-mails) without any requirement of a warrant directed at a particular person as long as no US person is directly targeted as the object of the program.
As the Brookings Institute noted in a policy paper arguing for the Trump administration to renew legislation reauthorizing Section 702 of the FISA Act, which clarifiesÂ warrant requirements of the Act, information gathered via FISA warrants “sometimes known as PRISM, comprises a large part of the Presidentâ€™s Daily Brief.”Â
If you can believe that Obama’s attorney general — the one who spoke with the former president-husband of a suspect currently under investigation for Espionage Act violations (Hillary Clinton) — would not have informed the head of the Executive Branch that his intelligence community was spying on a rival presidential campaign, well, okay.
But then, that informationÂ very probably was included in the President’s Daily Intelligence Brief.
There’s more; Brookings’ policy paper arguing on behalf of maintaining Sect. 702Â also noted this important distinction:
We often think about 702 as an NSA authority, but it is also to a significant degree an FBI authority. Thus, the person and the integrity of the FBI director is critically important to the integrity of the program.
We now know, thanks to the release of the FISA memo on Friday, that fired FBI Director James Comey was involved in approving the FISA warrants used to spy on Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter Page over his alleged “ties” to Russia (foreign intelligence targets). AsÂ Fox News reported, “The memo stated that then-FBI Director ComeyÂ signed three FISA applications for [Trump campaign foreign policy advisor Carter] Page and McCabe signed one.”
Comey has testified before Congress that he had no idea the so-called “Trump dossier” used as justification for the FISA spy warrant against Page was bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — that it was aÂ political, notÂ intelligence, document. As House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes said on Saturday, either Comey’s telling the truth or he’s lying –Â either way that’s a problem.
Given all of this, how likely is it thatÂ ObamaÂ — whose FBI director and AG were heavily involved in securing the FISA warrant (information included in daily presidential briefs) — reallyÂ didn’t know that Trump’s campaign was under surveillance?
Advertising disclaimer: Click here
What areÂ your thoughts?