Congress Let Spy Powers Expire Last Month, Which Is Having Almost No Effect On Current Spying

from the hey-you-guys-need-to-knock-it-off-whenever-it's-convenient-for-you dept

Thanks to the goddamn everything else going on in the world right now, we've now learned what happens when Congress lets surveillance authorities expire. Nothing, really. Here's Charlie Savage for the New York Times.

House Democrats left the capital on Friday after passing the $2 trillion coronavirus relief legislation without taking up a Senate bill to temporarily revive three expired F.B.I. surveillance tools for terrorism and espionage investigations, ensuring that the laws will remain lapsed at least until the Senate returns from vacation next month.

The authorities created by the US Patriot Act -- specifically, the bulk collection of business records and roving wiretaps -- both expired on March 15th. More pressing issues backburnered the reauth, which is probably preferable to the alternatives: a blanket reauthorization rush job or some rights-wrecking abomination tacked onto a must-pass coronavirus response bill.

But letting these authorities expire doesn't change much of anything, especially since the FISA Court is presumably on limited duty like other courts in the nation while waiting for the pandemic curve to flatten a bit. It's still business as usual for any surveillance business in progress before the March 15th cutoff, as Julian Sanchez explains.

A so-called savings clause permits the laws to remain in effect for investigations that already existed on March 15, or for new investigations into events that occurred before then.

“The authorities remain available for either investigations open at the time of expiration or investigations predicated on underlying conduct that predates the sunset date,” Mr. Sanchez said.

This means agencies can initiate surveillance using these expired authorities so long as they backdate the impetus for the investigation. We're in the midst of a never-ending War on Terror, so any targets loosely associated with the terrorist networks we've targeted for decades will remain surveilled under expired authorities. And that will continue up until Congress gets around to actually reauthorizing the surveillance that never stopped.

In practice, this means all sorts of surveillance is continuing without explicit Congressional permission. But that's the way the law was written. The escape hatch says nothing needs to stop even when nothing governing surveillance says it's alright to keep going. Securing the nation is too important to be left in the hands of three branches. Congress has cut itself out by not handling the reauthorization in a timely manner. And the FISA Court can't do anything about since it's forced operate (and authorize) in the void Congress created.

There's a lot of power in play here and it's being handled irresponsibly. Just when the FBI has shown it can't be honest with the FISA Court (and hasn't been for most of two decades), no one's stopping anyone from doing anything, much less instituting needed reforms. While tackling the virus may have been the more important job, it's disheartening to know there's really no expiration date on surveillance authorities, no matter what might be said in Congress during these periodic battles over domestic surveillance.

Filed Under: fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisc, patriot act, section 215, surveillance

New Inspector General's Report Finds Even More Problems With The FBI's FISA Surveillance Applications

from the demanding-the-best-people-but-demanding-nothing-from-them dept

The FBI's inability (or unwillingness) to craft factual FISA court affidavits was exposed late last year by an investigation by the DOJ's Inspector General. During the FBI's surveillance of former Trump advisor, Carter Page, information known by the agency was omitted to allow agents to continue its interception of Page's communications. Despite having obtained info showing Page was likely not acting on behalf of a foreign power, the FBI continued its surveillance for months by hiding this key finding from the FISA court.

The fallout from this report continues. The FISA Court banned the FBI agent who lied on the warrant applications. The court also instructed the FBI to start cleaning up its Carter Page mess, including tracking down where any other info it might have illegally collected in this case might have gone, in order to prevent further violations by other agencies in the future.

Current and former DOJ/FBI officials made it clear the FBI's questionable actions in this case were only the agency's most current violations. The skirting of internal guidelines and the truth itself was a common practice dating back nearly 20 years.

The Inspector General's findings in the Page investigation were the tip of the unexpected iceberg. The IG is now looking at the rest of the FBI's FISA work. And the office is finding even more to be concerned about.

The finding of broader failings in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act program came in a review launched by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz after an earlier inquiry found numerous errors in applications to monitor former Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. In a bid to assess whether the faults in the Page’s surveillance process were an aberration or a chronic problem, Horowitz’s audit team zeroed in on 29 applications for surveillance of U.S. citizens or green-card holders over a five-year period.

Horowitz found an average of 20 errors in each of the applications.

It's impossible to say how many of these errors were accidental or deliberately induced. But an average of 20 errors per application is breathtaking, considering the FISA court's national security focus. This is where the government should be the most careful and the FBI clearly isn't. And if this is where the FBI's top agents end up, you have to wonder how many errors normal, non-FISA applications contain.

There's a specific set of policies the FBI is supposed to adhere to when asking the FISA court for permission to engage in domestic surveillance. Even the most minimal conditions of the Woods Procedures aren't being followed by agents. The Procedures say the FBI must compile and retain supporting documentation to ensure FISA applications are "scrupulously accurate." We already know the applications aren't accurate. The report [PDF] points out at least one reason why:

[W]e could not review original Woods Files for 4 of the 29 selected FISA applications because the FBI has not been able to locate them and, in 3 of these instances, did not know if they ever existed…

The system appears to be broken from the ground up. The applications contain errors. The supporting information isn't accurate when it isn't missing completely. Interviews with agents and supervisors by the IG reveal this has been an ongoing problem for years now. And no one up top is doing anything to fix it.

FBI and NSD officials we interviewed indicated to us that there were no efforts by the FBI to use existing FBI and NSD oversight mechanisms to perform comprehensive, strategic assessments of the efficacy of the Woods Procedures or FISA accuracy, to include identifying the need for enhancements to training and improvements in the process, or increased accountability measures.

Every 90 days, the FBI is supposed to justify continued surveillance to the FISA Court. It did this multiple times during the Carter Page investigation, continuously omitting facts that would have resulted in its surveillance being terminated. The FBI does this in multiple cases, apparently. A mixture of malice, stupidity, and laziness has resulted in the mess observed by the Inspector General.

[B]ased on the results of our review of two renewal files, as well as our discussions with FBI agents, it appears that the FBI is not consistently re-verifying the original statements of fact within renewal applications. In one instance, we observed that errors or unsupported information in the statements of fact that we identified in the initial application had been carried over to each of the renewal applications. In other instances, we were told by the case agents who prepared the renewal applications that they only verified newly added statements of fact in renewal applications because they had already verified the original statements of fact when submitting the initial application. This practice directly contradicts FBI policy.

The FBI agrees with the IG's assessment that it's terrible at following its own policies. But the response attached to the IG report -- crafted by the Deputy FBI director -- says things will be fine because… the FBI is creating more policies!

[T]he FBI has been intensely focused on implementing these remedial measures with the goal of ensuring that our FISA authorities are exercised with objectivity and integrity. Among many other changes, we revised FISA request and verification (Woods) forms, developed a new confidential human source checklist, developed and released training on this checklist, developed and provided new training on revised FISA forms, and developed new FISA process rigor training. The revised Woods form now requires agents and supervisors to attest to their diligence in re-verifying facts from prior applications. All Woods forms, both for initial applications and renewals, must now be scanned and maintained in the electronic case file. These already-implemented changes will drive accountability, accuracy, and completeness in the FISA process.

All of this new paperwork doesn't mean anything if the FBI isn't going to make sure agents follow it. The problems seen in 2002 still exist nearly 20 years later, and that's after the implementation of additional policies following every successive reaming from the Inspector General and the FISA Court. If the FBI isn't going to start engaging in serious oversight -- including meaningful discipline of agents who fail to follow policies -- the problems will continue. The only change will be the length of oversight reports, which will contain details of all the new ways the FBI is ignoring its own protocols.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, carter page, doj, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisa warrants, fisc, inspector general, surveillance

Senate Punts FISA Reform Bill For At Least 77 Days

from the punting-surveillance dept

Last week, we were perplexed as to why House Democrats had agreed to an extension of NSA/FBI surveillance powers for a President they keep insisting is incompetent and vindictive against anyone he dislikes. At the same time, we couldn't figure out why Republicans were so keen to support it at the same time they were insisting that those same powers were used by the "deep state" to spy on the President's own campaign. After it passed, President Trump hinted that he might veto it anyway, and now with the Covid-19 pandemic in full swing, the Senate has agreed to punt on the issue for the time being, extending the FISA authorities for 77 days, with a promise of debating real reform in the interim:

The Senate on Monday unanimously adopted a short-term extension of key federal surveillance programs that expired on Sunday night — a move that allows the chamber to more rapidly consider legislation addressing the economic impacts of the global coronavirus pandemic.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell scrapped an initial procedural vote Monday night on a House-passed bill that would reauthorize now-expired provisions of the 2015 USA Freedom Act and alter the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Instead, McConnell and his leadership team worked out a deal with civil libertarian hard-liners who oppose that House bill, including Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.), on a 77-day extension of the surveillance powers.

Of course, we've gone through this before, with extensions being agreed to along with promises of time to debate the issues... and the debate almost never shows up. Instead, we get down to the very last minute again, and something gets shoved through. In this case, given that everyone's attention is really needed in dealing with the pandemic, this seems like a reasonable move, however. I do hope that there actually is a serious debate on the need for these FISA surveillance authorities at some point though.

Filed Under: congress, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisa warrants, fisc, nsa, section 215, senate, surveillance

Bizarre: Democrats In Congress Agree To Give Trump More Of The Spying Powers He Complains Were Abused Against Him

from the someone-explain dept

If ever there were a time to end Constitutionally questionable FISA surveillance powers it should be now. Democrats have been, quite rightly, concerned about an out of control Trump administration, abusing the powers of government to target his enemies and critics. Republicans have been screaming from the heavens, quite rightly, about the FBI's abuse of the FISA process to conduct surveillance on members of the Trump Campaign. And all this is coming at a time when the crown jewel of the program -- the phone metadata surveillance -- has been shown to have been a huge, wasteful mess that has been effectively useless.

And it's up for renewal. So just kill it.

But, no, that's not how Congress works. Instead, earlier this week, the House worked out a bipartisan "compromise" that lets them each claim victory -- when all it really does is reauthorize powerful, frequently abused, Constitutionally-questionable surveillance powers -- the very same powers that the Trump administration has been insisting are being abused by "the deep state" against the President himself. As Marcy Wheeler explains, the final bill involved Rep. Adam Schiff -- who ran the impeachment effort against Trump, pointing out how incompetent and dangerous Trump can be -- watering down an earlier proposal to make sure that Trump has much greater surveillance powers with less oversight.

Effectively, Adam Schiff took the Jerry Nadler bill, watered down some key provisions, but added a bunch of symbolic certifications that would do nothing to eliminate the kinds of problems in the Carter Page application, probably are less effective than certifications presiding FISA judge James Boasberg required the other day, but give Republicans who are too stupid to understand FISA the ability to claim victory.

She goes on to detail the rather sneaky language in the bill that seems designed deliberately to give William Barr could use the program to hide some pretty scary shit:

Finally, and most outrageously, the government can still move not to give that notice based on a claim that providing it “would harm to the national security of the United States.” Outrageously, they don’t even have to convince a judge that such harm is real. A court “or other authority of the United States” could agree with such a finding. The Attorney General is “an authority of the United States.” So Attorney General Bill Barr — the father of the first subpoena based dragnet — could make a motion saying that notice of a dragnet would harm the national security of the United States, and Attorney General Bill Barr could agree with Bill Barr that that’s the case.

This is how the whole dragnet problem started in the first place, when, in 1992, Bill Barr decided that he could authorized secret dragnets.

I'm sure that won't be abused at all...

Of course, Bill Barr is thrilled with this outcome:

"I have reviewed the House FISA bill and support its passage. The bill contains an array of new requirements and compliance provisions that will protect against abuse and misuse in the future while ensuring that this critical tool is available when appropriate to protect the safety of the American people.

I am pleased that the bill contains a number of provisions Director Wray and I put forward to address past failures, including compliance failures that the Inspector General has identified for us in his recent audit work. The IG’s analysis and recommendations have helped shape our proposals. The Director and I will promulgate additional, implementing rules that advance these reforms.

It is of the utmost important that the Department’s attorneys and investigators always work in a manner consistent with the highest professional standards, and this overall package will help ensure the integrity of the FISA process and protect against future abuses going forward. This legislation deserves broad bi-partisan support."

Because none of this makes sense any more, the bill has both bipartisan support -- and bipartisan opposition, with the opposition coming from those who tend to actually fight to protect our civil liberties from either party. CNN has some of the details:

But the agreement has also come under fire from lawmakers in both parties, criticized by both liberals and libertarian-leaning Republicans for not going far enough to address privacy concerns.

In a sign of the odd alliances over the vote, both the leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Biggs, and the co-chairs of the liberal Congressional Progressive Caucus, Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan, opposed the measure.

"It's not real reform," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, a Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee who took part in the negotiations with Democratic leaders.

On the Senate side, Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Ron Wyden have all complained about the bill as well -- with threats to block and requests for Trump to veto the bill.

And, of course, privacy advocates are reasonably concerned about this as well. The ACLU has asked Congress to vote against the bill:

Over the last several years, it has become abundantly clear that many of our surveillance laws are broken. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is not equipped to protect Americans’ rights -–with an Inspector General report finding a litany of errors in the government’s applications to the court to surveil Trump campaign advisor Carter Page. During a House hearing last month, FBI Director Christopher Wray agreed with the characterization of at least a portion of the surveillance of Carter Page as illegal. Also last month, the FISC court itself accepted the Justice Department’s position that at least two of the surveillance applications for spying on Page were “invalid” and the court took extraordinary steps to order the government to try to remedy its wrongdoing and avoid a repeat. Despite the secrecy around FISA proceedings, the Page episode offers a window into the abuses that predictably follow from giving the government extraordinary powers with minimal checks and no meaningful due process.

At the same time, Section 215, which is one of the Patriot Act provisions set to expire on March 15th, has been used to engage in large-scale collection of Americans’ information, and the call detail record program operated under the authority has been suspended following compliance violations that resulted in unlawful collection of information.

Despite this record, disappointingly, the reforms contained in H.R. 6172 are minimal –in many cases merely representing a codification of the status quo. In addition, the bill contains provisions that would be a step back from even our flawed current law, including an additional criminal penalty. Given this, we believe that a short six week extension of the expiring

One hopes the criticism of the bill -- and the bizarre situation of Trump possibly signing a bill that continues the program he's been railing against (while pretending to limit it) -- leads this bill to die.

Filed Under: adam schiff, carter page, fisa, fisa renewal, house, mass surveillance, section 215, senate, surveillance, trump administration

FBI And DOJ Personnel Confirm Agents Frequently Fudge Facts When Seeking FISA Warrants

from the respecting-the-fuck-out-of-the-rule-of-law dept

The fallout from the FBI's highly-questionable Carter Page investigation continues. The problems first came to light in an Inspector General's report which found the FBI did a lot of creative writing to continue its surveillance of Page, even after information came to light indicating the former Trump adviser was not operating on behalf of a foreign power.

The IG pointed out the FBI warrants relied on statements that were "inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation." If the FBI did this in the Page investigation, it could easily be assumed the FBI had done it in other cases utilizing the FISA court. The protections erected to protect American citizens from surveillance by their own government were rendered useless by FBI statements the Inspector General was too kind to call lies.

The FBI has been ordered to overhaul its FISA warrant process by the FISA court. The FBI has agreed to do so, while still trying to downplay its serious violations as a long string of one-offs that apparently dates back at least 30 years. A new report from Charlie Savage and Adam Goldman for the New York Times opens with the recounting of the same sort of material omissions by the FBI during its hunt for an alleged Russian mole in the CIA. In that case, agents did the same thing, adding and subtracting evidence to continue unjustified surveillance.

This is, apparently, how the FBI performs its FISA business -- something acknowledged by the many agents and DOJ officials the reporters spoke to about the latest FBI/FISA fiasco.

The problems may be part of a broader pattern in other applications that never receive the same intense scrutiny, according to interviews with more than two dozen current and former F.B.I. agents and Justice Department officials who have worked with national security wiretaps. The system is vulnerable, they said, to lower-level agents suppressing or overlooking evidence that weakens their case when they seek permission to conduct surveillance.

The FBI is a law enforcement bureaucracy. Results are expected and no one gets participation trophies for investigations that go nowhere. To justify expenditures already on the books (and with an eye on funds not yet spoken for), agents have been adjusting narratives to ensure investigations keep running, even when the evidence appears to show there's nothing worth investigating.

The time limits on FISA warrants add to the problem.

F.B.I. agents are also racing against a clock with FISA wiretaps — good for 90 days — which can also leave them open to confirmation bias, former officials said.

Once a wiretap is in place, Justice Department lawyers charged with seeking its renewal begin nagging F.B.I. agents to identify new facts gleaned from the wiretap that could help justify continuing it. But the lawyers are less insistent on finding facts that might instead undercut their suspicion, former officials said.

These all-too-human weaknesses haven't been tempered by DOJ oversight or the FISA court. Since the court isn't adversarial, it's the FBI's word against the FISA court's judgment -- and the Court is often flying blind, cut out of the loop by national security concerns even as it attempts to regulate the business of national security.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the FBI didn't feel its evidentiary cherry-picking was worthy of discipline. Fortunately, the Inspector General -- who has long complained about the lack of cooperation from the DOJ components he oversees -- referred one FBI official involved in the Carter Page surveillance efforts for criminal investigation.

The problems uncovered in the Page case aren't just an FBI problem. They're a law enforcement problem. Warrants are 90% boiler plate and 10% cherry picking, even during legitimate investigations. When investigations fail to uncover criminal activity, they can be artificially extended by omitting anything that might suggest the target isn't the criminal law enforcement thinks they are. Unlike other criminal cases, FISA evidence is tough to challenge. Whatever isn't obscured by parallel construction is hidden from the defendant (and possibly the judge) as being too "sensitive" to be discussed in open court.

The FBI's habit of abusing its powers isn't going to be reversed just because some of it has been made public. It takes meaningful oversight to make any changes stick. The current Inspector General takes his job seriously, but those above him in Congress often seem more concerned with political point-scoring than actually addressing the root cause of this abuse.

Filed Under: doj, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisc, warrants

FISA Court Orders FBI To Start Cleaning Up Its Carter Page Surveillance Mess

from the fool-me-a-dozen-or-more-times,-here's-another-angry-court-order dept

The FBI's abuse of its surveillance powers in the Carter Page investigation -- uncovered by the Inspector General -- is now being addressed by the FISA court. The FISA court is often considered to be a rubber stamp for government applications -- only very rarely rejecting the government's national security advances.

Some of this is due to deference the government very definitely hasn't earned. But some of this is due to the FISA court flying blind. The government still keeps secrets from the nation's most secretive court and judges are forced to accept its assertions because they don't possess the information needed to push back against the government's claims.

The Inspector General's report highlighted more abuses by the FBI during its investigation of former Trump campaign advisor, Carter Page. The IG found the FBI had omitted info that likely would have seen its applications denied, most notably knowledge it had obtained from its sources that Carter Page most likely wasn't acting as an agent of a foreign power.

The first application made to the court in October 2016 was probably legitimate. The other two applications seeking to continue surveillance of Page weren't. Had the FBI been honest in its applications, the two extensions would likely have been rejected by the FISA court.

With this info in hand, the FISA court is moving forward with another attempt to keep the FBI from abusing its national security privileges. We'll see if it works. So far, nothing has permanently prevented any agency with access to the FISA court from abusing its surveillance powers.

The corrective actions began with a December 2019 order that demanded the FBI identify any other matters before the court that involved FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. Clinesmith altered an email from another US government agency to hide the fact that Page was a government source for this agency. The FBI lawyer has since resigned and been referred to the DOJ for criminal charges.

The latest order [PDF] is another rarity for the FISA court, but sketchy times call for greater transparency. If the FBI doesn't want its dirty laundry aired publicly by the secret court, perhaps it shouldn't create so much of it. Very few orders have been released by the FISA court without a (regular) court battle, so the FISA court's proactiveness is still very much an anomaly.

The order makes more demands of the FBI. The court wants to know how the agency is going to make things right. In reference to the Carter Page surveillance applications, the court demands the FBI to explain how it's going to "sequester" everything the FBI collected on/from Carter Page using its bogus applications.

It also wants a detailed description of what the FBI/DOJ is doing to restrict access to unminimized US person info gathered during the Carter Page investigation, as well any restrictions it has placed on access/dissemination of info on Page it never should have collected, much less distributed in the first place.

The Intelligence Community's string of surveillance abuses remains unbroken. Because the FISA court is only barely adversarial, the government is able to run its bullshit pretty much uncontested. Once again, it took outside help -- namely, the Inspector General's office -- to show the court what the FBI was really doing. The only question is how often the court is willing to get burnt by its untrustworthy patrons.

Filed Under: carter page, doj, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisc, inspector general, transparency

FISA Court Benchslaps FBI For Its Abuse Of The FISA Warrant Process During The Trump Campaign Investigation

from the FBI-finally-uses-up-all-of-its-unearned-trust dept

This didn't take long. The Inspector General's report on the FBI's Trump campaign investigation had nothing positive to say about the FBI other than it sucked at its job. Unbelievably, this was better than the IG saying the FBI performed its job in a biased fashion as part of a concerted Deep State effort to prevent Trump from taking office. (Or from staying in it, I guess, since the prevention plan obviously didn't work.)

But there was also an aspect of the FBI's investigation that should probably be chalked up to malice, rather than stupidity: the FISA warrant process. The FBI was so very determined to keep campaign advisor Carter Page under surveillance it cherry-picked statements from cooperators and buried everything that might have suggested Page was not actually involved in a Trump-Russia conspiracy.

The Inspector General said the FBI's FISA affidavit process was so full of failure, the office would be performin an audit of the FBI's FISA application processes and procedures. That's still in the works. Until then, there's the FISA court itself, which is incredibly peeved by these findings.

An order issued December 17 by FISA judge Rosemary Collyer was released publicly -- something the FISA court rarely does without allowing the IC to perform a few rounds of declassification vetting first. Charlie Savage of the New York Times was the first to report on the order [non-paywalled link here], but the order [PDF] does a pretty good job of speaking for itself.

The order opens by making it clear Judge Collyer is incredibly unhappy with the FBI's behavior, as uncovered by the IG's investigation.

This order responds to reports that personnel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided false information to the National Security Division (NSD ) of the Department of Justice, and withheld material information from NSD which was detrimental to the FBI's case, in connection with four applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) for authority to conduct electronic surveillance of a U.S. citizen named Carter W. Page. When FBI personnel mislead NSD in the ways described above, they equally mislead the FISC.

After detailing the OIG's findings, the court delivers its message to the FBI.

The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the OIG report, was antithetical to the heightened duty of candor described above. 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.

Oof. The FISA Court just said it no longer trusts the FBI.

To earn back this trust, the court has ordered it to deliver a sworn submission that outlines the agency's efforts to ensure every application going forward will not contain material omissions or otherwise untrustworthy statements. Better, the court orders the FBI to undergo an immediate review of the December 5th order (which demanded the FBI explain the statements [or omissions] made in the Page warrant affidavits) in preparation for it to be released to the public. The last sentence of the order makes it clear any attempts to subject this soon-to-be-declassified order to further convenient omissions won't be tolerated by the Court.

In view of the information released to the public in the OIG report, the Court expects that such review will entail minimal if any redactions.

How many times must the FISA court benchslap IC members for abusing processes and powers? At least once more apparently. It's refreshing to see the FBI called out for its misconduct, but the FISA court has been soundly and serially abused for years by multiple agencies who know the real benefit of a non-adversarial system is it minimizes the number of parties capable of calling bullshit.

Filed Under: deception, fbi, fisa, fisa affidavit, fisa court, fisa warrants, fisc, lying, rosemary collyer

Inspector General's Report On Investigation Of Trump Campaign Finds More FISA-Related Abuse By The FBI

from the and-if-the-FBI-does-this-to-the-big-people,-imagine-what-it-does-to-the-little-p dept

The Inspector General's report [PDF] on the FBI's investigation into Russia's connection to the Trump election campaign has been released. In the 480-page report, there's enough to satisfy both sides of the argument. Those who believe the investigation was never politically-driven will have their hunches confirmed. Those that believe there's a concerted Deep State effort targeting Trump will find just enough in it to affirm those beliefs as well.

The Inspector General behind the report, Michael Horowitz, has never been afraid of calling bullshit on the numerous agencies he oversees. These agencies, on the other hand, do everything they can to thwart his investigations, so if anything crucial seems to be missing from this report, you can probably blame the FBI.

The report clears the FBI of any wrongdoing, at least as far as the "politically-driven" allegations. The IG concluded the FBI did things badly, but did not do them for anti-Trump reasons.

That being said, the more disturbing aspects of the report deal with the FISA court and the FBI's casual abuse of its surveillance authorities. Not much is known about the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts -- at least not those authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. While the FBI routinely performs "backdoor" searches of domestic communications harvested by the NSA's foreign-facing surveillance efforts, we have yet to see an actual FISA affidavit from the FBI.

The affidavits reviewed by IG Horowitz involved the surveillance of Carter Page, hat-wearer and foreign policy advisor for the Trump campaign. The super-secret process has rarely been this closely examined before. What it shows is the FBI playing fast and loose with its surveillance powers. Here's Charlie Savage's take for the New York Times:

[T]he inspector general found major errors, material omissions and unsupported statements about Mr. Page in the materials that went to the court. F.B.I. agents cherry-picked the evidence, telling the Justice Department information that made Mr. Page look suspicious and omitting material that cut the other way, and the department passed that misleading portrait onto the court.

Here's what the report says:

Our review found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure that all factual statements in a FISA application are "scrupulously accurate." We identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed.

The FBI was so interested in keeping Carter Page under surveillance that it manipulated the facts it had to better fit the actions it wanted to take. In the FBI's initial wiretap application, the agency cherry-picked info from informants to find anything that might possibly suggest Carter Page was the connective tissue between Donald Trump and the twice-convicted Paul Manafort. When it came time for the wiretap renewal, the FBI chose to withhold new information that contradicted some of the original probable cause it had supplied to the FISA court on its first application.

This is just the FBI adding onto its not-so-proud tradition of misleading the FISA court. As far back as 2002, the FISA court was already complaining about the FBI's "inaccurate affidavits." Not much seems to have changed. If this report is any indication of the FBI's general approach to submitting affidavits, agents are massaging weak correlations into something approaching probable cause and continuing this abusive editing process for every renewal. The procedures introduced following the FISA court's 2002 criticism don't appear to be having much of an effect.

The FBI will get yet another chance to start acting like a trustworthy government agency. More pressure is being placed on it from its oversight. The Inspector General's office says another audit is underway -- this time to determine just how often the FBI fudges facts on FISA applications.

Given the extensive compliance failures we identified in this review, we believe that additional OIG oversight work is required to assess the FBI's compliance with Department and FBI FISA-related policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons. Accordingly, we have today initiated an OIG audit that will further examine the FBI's compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons in both counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations.

These findings will be of considerable public interest, but given how much secrecy surrounds FISA court proceedings, it's unclear when, or if, we'll ever see this report. So far, nothing seems to be making the FBI handle its considerable power more responsibly. The FISA court isn't adversarial. Few people criminally charged as the result of FISA-ordained surveillance have the opportunity to challenge this evidence in court. The worst thing that can happen to the FBI is periodic benchslaps by FISA judges. And the opinions and orders containing these benchslaps generally aren't cleared for public consumption until years after the fact. That's not much of a deterrent.

There's a Deep State problem out there, but it's not politically-motivated. It's not the FBI vs. politicians it doesn't like. It's the FBI vs. Americans it wants to place under surveillance via a court supposedly interested in the gathering of foreign intelligence. Ordinary domestic surveillance produces paper trails that must be turned over in trial courts. FISA surveillance does not, which is why the FBI loves having this option.

Filed Under: 4th amendment, fbi, fisa, fisa court, fisa warrants, fisc, inspector general, oversight, surveillance

Judge Not Impressed With DOJ's Attempt To Claim Presidential Tweets And Orders Don't Mean Anything

from the nice-try dept

The DOJ wants its secrecy. The President keeps taking it away. Over the past couple of years, FOIA litigants have received unexpected support from President Trump, often in the form of tweets. While the DOJ is arguing nothing the records seekers are seeking should be handed over, Trump is tweeting out demands that everything should be released -- largely due to his unwavering belief that selective transparency will somehow expose a massive Deep State operation against him and his associates.

The stuff Trump wants exposed relates to FISA court orders and other documents related to investigations of Trump's campaign team and their ties to Russia. Trump is convinced there's nothing there and wants the public to see this for themselves. It's inadvertently commendable, even though there's a strong possibility the documents won't actually prove what Trump thinks they'll prove.

Nonetheless, the friction between the DOJ's FISA-related opacity and Trump's Twitter account continues, as Josh Gerstein reports for Politico.

The Justice Department had urged U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta to shut down the Freedom of Information Act suit, arguing that all the unreleased parts of the warrant for former Trump adviser Carter Page remain classified.

However, Mehta said a series of factors combined to create a factual dispute denying the government victory in the case, at least for now. These included a Sept. 17 White House press release that said much of that information was declassified, Trump’s tweets four days later seeming to back away from the decision, and the Justice Department’s failure to adequately account for the statements.

The DOJ argued the tweet stating the DOJ had "agreed" to "release" the unredacted documents, as well as the White House press release ordering immediate declassification of parts of these documents, did not say the things they did. The DOJ's legal team claimed -- in a bunch of unsworn statements -- the President surely meant the opposite of the things he said.

Unsurprisingly, the court does not agree.

“Defendant offers no reason to believe that the Press Release inaccurately conveys the President’s ‘directive.‘ Thus, contrary to what Defendant says, it would appear that the President did make ‘his intentions clear ... to declassify information.’”

Not only that, but the DOJ ignored the press release entirely -- the one containing an order these documents be publicly-released. That didn't escape the notice of the court, which noted the DOJ did not submit anything at all referencing this order.

The DOJ also argued it could still withhold the information under other exemptions. Wrong again, the court declares. The DOJ cannot effectively nullify a presidential order simply by switching black-bar horses midstream.

The court is giving the DOJ a second chance to explain itself and its refusal to accept presidential orders and tweets at face value. But it will have to do so with sworn statements, rather than dropping a bunch of questionable assertions into the judge's inbox. In the meantime, it will have to hope the President stops handing FOIA plaintiffs tweeted gifts.

Filed Under: doj, fisa, trump

Court Says Government Can Continue To Withhold Six 'Significant' FISA Court Opinions In Their Entirety

from the releasing-even-a-single-word-would-apparently-destroy-the-nation dept

The EFF's attempt to force critical FISA court opinions out of the DOJ's hands has been rejected by a California federal court. The EFF was seeking to obtain unreleased FISA opinions by utilizing some of the new review requirements enacted with the USA Freedom Act. Unfortunately, the court has rejected the EFF's compound argument, as Aaron Mackey explains:

Although the court did not rule on whether USA Freedom requires the government to review and disclose significant FISC opinions created before May 2015, it decided that EFF could not rely on USA Freedom’s transparency provisions while seeking FISC opinions as part of a Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit. The ruling also upheld the government’s decision to completely withhold six significant FISC opinions based on the government’s claims that disclosing even a single word would jeopardize national security.

If there's any good news in this decision [PDF], it's the court taking a pass on the retroactivity issue, rather than offering judicial backing for the DOJ's opacity. Nothing in the law suggests the new FISA opinion review process only affects opinions created after the law went into effect. The law's language simply states that "each" significant FISA decision must undergo a declassification review. There's no time limit inherent to "each" significant decision, but the DOJ has chosen to read the language in a way that's most beneficial to it. With the court not giving its explicit blessing to the DOJ's interpretation, it can still be challenged.

That's pretty much the end of the good news. While the EFF has managed to pry loose 70 significant decisions, the government still wants to fully withhold six of them. The EFF argued that the review requirement prevents the DOJ from relying on blanket FOIA exceptions to keep these from being released. As the EFF pointed out, the government has offered no evidence these opinions have ever undergone a declassification review.

The court likes the argument, but doesn't agree with the EFF's assertions.

Although Plaintiff presents a creative argument, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff cannot enforce Section 402 [the declassification review] through this FOIA action. See Dkt. No. 69 at 2. While courts have not addressed this specific issue, the Court is persuaded by the decisions of courts interpreting FOIA’s relationship with other disclosure statutes.

[...]

Absent clear evidence that Congress intended Section 402 to be applied when reviewing FOIA exemptions, the Court will not impute such an intent to hybridize two statutory schemes. [...] The purpose of Section 402 was to allow for more transparency of FISC and FISCR opinions by requiring the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General to release information that they determined were not classified, not to override “the ability of the government to claim proper FOIA exemptions.”

The court also says the government's use of blanket exemptions is proper. It bases this on its own limited experience with national security issues.

Recognizing the Court's “limited institutional expertise on intelligence matters,” see Hamdan, 797 F.3d at 770, the Court accords substantial weight to Ms. Gaviria’s representation that “disclosure of this information could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage, and in some instances, exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States.” See Gaviria Decl. ¶ 30. In the area of national security, “it is conceivable that the mere explanation of why information must be withheld can convey valuable information to a foreign intelligence agency.”

With that bit of deference, the court declares the government to be the winner -- at least in terms of these six withheld decisions. Unfortunately, this means the government can continue to pretend it doesn't have to review old decisions until the court -- or Congress -- tells it otherwise.

Filed Under: doj, eff, fisa, privacy