Congressman Confronts FBI Over 'Egregious' Unlawful Search of His Personal Data (arstechnica.com) 110
Last month, a declassified FBI report revealed that the bureau had used Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to conduct multiple unlawful searches of a sitting Congress member's personal communications.
From a report by Ars Technica: Wired was the first to report the abuse, but for weeks, no one knew exactly which lawmaker was targeted by the FBI. That changed this week when Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) revealed during an annual House Intelligence Committee hearing on world threats that the FBI's abuse of 702 was "in fact" aimed at him. "This careless abuse by the FBI is unfortunate," LaHood said at the hearing, suggesting that the searches of his name not only "degrades trust in FISA" but was a "threat to separation of powers" in the United States. Calling the FBI's past abuses of Section 702 "egregious," the congressman -- who is leading the House Intelligence Committee's working group pushing to reauthorize Section 702 amid a steeply divided Congress -- said that "ironically," being targeted by the FBI gives him a "unique perspective" on "what's wrong with the FBI."
LaHood has said that having his own Fourth Amendment rights violated in ways others consider "frightening" positions him well to oversee the working group charged with implementing bipartisan reforms and safeguards that would prevent any such abuses in the future. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said that LaHood "personifies the fears and mistrust many in America have about the FBI's leadership," noting that "too many Americans are worried it could be them" next. FBI director Christopher Wray said that he "completely" understood LaHood's concerns, while emphasizing that the FBI has already implemented reforms and safeguards to prevent similar abuses in the future. An FBI spokesperson told Ars that "extensive changes" to address 702 compliance issues include "a whole new Office of Internal Audit currently focused on FISA compliance" and new policies requiring "enhanced pre-approval requirements before certain 'sensitive' US person queries can be run." The spokesperson provided an example, saying that for any sensitive queries involving elected officials, the FBI's deputy director must sign off. Wray said at the hearing that queries of the Section 702 database on US persons have dropped by 93 percent since last year. He also confirmed that the FBI launched "all sorts of mandatory enhanced training" initiatives on 702 compliance.
UPDATE: "At the same time, [LaHood] made clear that he still believes that Congress must reauthorize Section 702," reports the New York Times, "which he praised as a vital tool for combating a broad range of foreign threats."
From a report by Ars Technica: Wired was the first to report the abuse, but for weeks, no one knew exactly which lawmaker was targeted by the FBI. That changed this week when Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.) revealed during an annual House Intelligence Committee hearing on world threats that the FBI's abuse of 702 was "in fact" aimed at him. "This careless abuse by the FBI is unfortunate," LaHood said at the hearing, suggesting that the searches of his name not only "degrades trust in FISA" but was a "threat to separation of powers" in the United States. Calling the FBI's past abuses of Section 702 "egregious," the congressman -- who is leading the House Intelligence Committee's working group pushing to reauthorize Section 702 amid a steeply divided Congress -- said that "ironically," being targeted by the FBI gives him a "unique perspective" on "what's wrong with the FBI."
LaHood has said that having his own Fourth Amendment rights violated in ways others consider "frightening" positions him well to oversee the working group charged with implementing bipartisan reforms and safeguards that would prevent any such abuses in the future. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) said that LaHood "personifies the fears and mistrust many in America have about the FBI's leadership," noting that "too many Americans are worried it could be them" next. FBI director Christopher Wray said that he "completely" understood LaHood's concerns, while emphasizing that the FBI has already implemented reforms and safeguards to prevent similar abuses in the future. An FBI spokesperson told Ars that "extensive changes" to address 702 compliance issues include "a whole new Office of Internal Audit currently focused on FISA compliance" and new policies requiring "enhanced pre-approval requirements before certain 'sensitive' US person queries can be run." The spokesperson provided an example, saying that for any sensitive queries involving elected officials, the FBI's deputy director must sign off. Wray said at the hearing that queries of the Section 702 database on US persons have dropped by 93 percent since last year. He also confirmed that the FBI launched "all sorts of mandatory enhanced training" initiatives on 702 compliance.
UPDATE: "At the same time, [LaHood] made clear that he still believes that Congress must reauthorize Section 702," reports the New York Times, "which he praised as a vital tool for combating a broad range of foreign threats."
Slashdot 1,000% (Score:3, Insightful)
I need to check the party affiliation of the complainant before I can form an opinion.
--
www.fuck.com/politics
Re: (Score:2)
Despite how rational we want to believe that we are, it really comes down to who we trust more, the person/group that we trust more, we will be much more willing to give their view credence, and the other side as trying to give manipulative information.
Lets compare Global Warming and GMO foods.
In general the Left doesn't take credence that GMO food is healthy, nutritious and safe. Despite a large number of scientific studies to point into that direction, any of the science that points into that direction a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The truly shocking (though I guess it shouldn't be) part of this is the current group cheering on the FBI are the ones who were targeted by it the last time the FBI decided it was involved in domestic politics. It's like the 60s and 70s just don't exist to this people--which, if you're talking about the younger crowd at least makes sense... but the older crowd are often the same individuals who were actually and actively targeted.
It's like Rodney King saying, "The LAPD are an honorable organization, and th
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
It is really funny, when a republican (who demonstrates being completely controlled by their amygdala), attempts to replicate the higher brain functions demonstrated by progressives
Like producing a copy of the Mona Lisa, drawn in crayon with fecal stains wiped across it
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a double ad-hominem attack, and like the other one, this one is also misdirected. I'm not, nor have I ever been, a republican. Are you just that shitty a troll? Or are you that threatened by reasoned response that you can't debate a point, but simply devolve to othering people?
Re: (Score:3)
Translation:
"$myguys are really smart and educated and never do anything wrong.
$your guys ate really dumb and ignorant and only do wrong."
That pretty much covers your entire line of reasoning. Deeply thoughtful, fact based, highly logical, unemotional, unbiased, rational, clear thinking, intellectually honest.
Re:Slashdot 1,000% (Score:5, Informative)
Not really, when I watch right wing news (fox, oan, even national review three days) I see a huge amount of fear-driven messaging. Fear that "they" are coming for your guns, fear that "they" are going to eliminate the police, fear that mobs are going to burn down your city...
And, yet I do not get a hard drum beat, fear driven messages from "liberal" news media
Here, read what science has to say about it: Conservatism and the neural circuitry of threat: economic conservatism predicts greater amygdala–BNST connectivity during periods of threat vs safety [nih.gov]
Just to remind you, people make horrible decisions when influenced by fear [psychologytoday.com]
Or as portrayed in fiction (but true all the same):
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past, I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
Re: (Score:1)
Fear that "they" are coming for your guns
Because the D politicians keep saying it? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/2... [cnbc.com]
fear that "they" are going to eliminate the police
Because there are D politicians have been saying that they want to defund and disband the police? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
fear that mobs are going to burn down your city
Maybe because there were mobs of D supporters who were committing arson on businesses in many cities all over the place for nearly a year?
And, yet I do not get a hard drum beat, fear driven messages from "liberal" news media
Did you miss all the lies in the coverage of Sandman? Rittenhouse? The McCloskeys? Did you miss all the fearmongering about those incidents, which was all false?
I
Re: (Score:2)
Fear that "they" are coming for your guns
Because the D politicians keep saying it? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/2... [cnbc.com]
I am not in or from the US but allowing the general public access to assault style weapons seems pretty idiotic to me. Why would you want that kind of weapons in the hands of ordinary people? What scenario could possibly warrant their use? I have been in the military and used weapons like these. I cannot see why a civilian should ever have access to them.
So if the "D politicians" are coming after these guns, yes, I fully support them. No, I applaud them. And if you are a person feeling that they are coming
Re: (Score:2)
Guns: you're not an American so probably don't understand that even if it is stupid to let everyone have "assault weapons" (whatever that means), it is still a constitutional right. There is a well understood process for changing the constitution. If some folks want to remove the second amendment they are welcome to follow the process as laid down by the constitution. If they do an end run around one of our rights, then none of our rights are safe. No right is morally superior to any other. We get them
Re: (Score:3)
Guns: you're not an American so probably don't understand that even if it is stupid to let everyone have "assault weapons" (whatever that means), it is still a constitutional right. There is a well understood process for changing the constitution. If some folks want to remove the second amendment they are welcome to follow the process as laid down by the constitution. If they do an end run around one of our rights, then none of our rights are safe. No right is morally superior to any other. We get them all we get none. I prefer all, thanks.
Could you please point me to the part of the second amendment that shows that citizens have to have access to semi-automatic rifles (that can easily be converted into automatic ones). I thought the second amendment said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Are most of your gun owners part of a well regulated Militia? Because I know of a few countries that rely on some part of the population being armed and part of a home defence force, to deter potential invaders. But they are well regulated, meaning that they are members of units that does re
Re: (Score:2)
The flip side of the militia argument is that a citizen-soldier needs access to military grade hardware to dissuade country-level adversaries from contemplating an invasion. You can defeat an army easily enough, but if every citizen has a weapon behind their door which can dispatch an infantry squad, how will you counter that threat? Even the US lost counter-insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Defeating an army is a matter of relative strength, but defeating a citizen-led insurgency has never been don
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, give the militia access to military grade hardware as long as they are part of the well regulated militia. But don't let anyone get their hands on military grade hardware. This is how other nations solve the problem. Back in the day, about the time I did my military service, my father used to serve as such a militia/home-defense-unit and had the same type service gun I had, just that he had it stored in his home. I had mine in a military storage close to where I was stationed.
Also, having restrictions
Re: (Score:2)
There is a method to update the constitution. They should use it if they don't like the current version.
As far as what a well regulated militia means, the current words apparently have a different meaning than when the founders wrote them but I'm not an expert in the English of that time period so I'm not going to assume that's true, just something I've read a few different places. Ymmv.
But it is very simple to clarify if we want to make sure semi-autos are not held by citizens. Change the second amendmen
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so this is going to be very not-politically correct but it's truthful.
Yes, the US has a very high rate of gun deaths compared to all other western nations. There is a reason for this. It is not because we let citizens have fire arms.
The vast majority of those deaths are gang war shootings in ghetto areas. Drive bys, executions, one of murders, drug deals gone bad, and so on. The reason Americans don't care about these statistics is because most people figure it saves us hiring more cops and prosecuto
Re: (Score:2)
There is a method to update the constitution. They should use it if they don't like the current version.
So that is not "coming for your guns" then? And it would be easy to update the constitution? No gun lobby that would oppose?
Can't tell if you are actually serious or if this is a red herring.
As far as what a well regulated militia means, the current words apparently have a different meaning than when the founders wrote them but I'm not an expert in the English of that time period so I'm not going to assume that's true, just something I've read a few different places. Ymmv.
Ah, so you DO agree that the times (and language) has changed, and you cannot read the constitution as-is but have to interpret it for modern times. Because there seem to be a lot of Americans that do not agree and want it to be interpreted "literally" according to their reading.
But it is very simple to clarify if we want to make sure semi-autos are not held by citizens. Change the second amendment to say so explicitly.
You say it is very simple. I do not belie
Re: (Score:2)
Ok so this is going to be very not-politically correct but it's truthful.
Yes, the US has a very high rate of gun deaths compared to all other western nations. There is a reason for this. It is not because we let citizens have fire arms.
Wow, that is one bold statement! I think many policy makers would love to be so decisive and certain in what causes to eliminate from the discussion. So tell us, is it because you have criminal gangs and other western nations have very few? Or what is?
The vast majority of those deaths are gang war shootings in ghetto areas.
Half of the gun deaths in the US [nsc.org] are suicides. Almost any source I could find say the same.
As for gang homocides I could not find any recent data, but the data I found say it is about a tenth of the suicides [ojp.gov] making gang related homocides 5% of the total number
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped when you went to suicide data which is completely irrelevant.
You're moving goal posts.
People who are going to commit suicide will find a way. The fact that some choose a gun is irrelevant. Some jump off bridges. We don't ban those.
If you're going to be intellectually dishonest, which you are, then whatever. Waste of my time to discuss a very serious topic with a very unserious person who is just trying to "win" an internet discussion.
Have a nice day.
Re: (Score:2)
When you factor in that half of the deaths were suicide, you arrive at a homicide figure of around 23k per year attributable to guns.
By way of comparison, about 39k people are killed in automobile accidents each year.
What this means is that the average driver is more dangerous than the average gun owner, or put another way, cars are more dangerous than guns.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone that does statistics at gun deaths and gun injuries include suicides. You want to count it any other way? Why don't convince the scientific community that suicides doesn't count. Should we not count the murder-suicides too, since the perpetrator commited suicide AFTER killing people?
It is not a moving goal post. If you had studied gun related deaths the least you would know this. The fact that you didn't know this tell me that your reasoning is not based on facts and statistics but a feeling of how
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, you can compare apples to oranges if you want to. And if you believe that cars have no other use than to kill people, feel free to advocate for a ban. Or what is your message here? Does the average gun owner spend as much time shooting their gun as the average car driver spends driving their car? There is more than one way to do metrics you know.
And while doing comparisons, let us find some more. There are about 3,4 million deaths each year in the US, some 695000 from heart disease, 605000 from cancer
Re: (Score:2)
No fear from the left?
You mean climate change isn't going to wipe us out?
White supremacists aren't hiding under every rock waiting to leap out and inflict systemic racism on us?
Men aren't behind every tree gathering in force to gang rape every woman they see in a rage of toxic masculinity?
Our cars, food, vaccines, water, air, and almost everything else aren't giving us cancer or causing birth defects or autism or etc etc etc?
Yup, the fear mongering is strictly from the right. /sarc and huge *eyeroll*
Re: (Score:3)
Reforms and safeguards don't go far enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Would be interesting to know what the FISO warrantless search was searching for, and what the evidence was that it would be found in the search.
In general, no one should be above the law, and if warrantless searches are allowed on anyone, that "anyone" should include everyone: including congressmen.
The FBI's "reforms and safeguards" don't go far enough. "The spokesperson provided an example, saying that for any sensitive queries involving elected officials, the FBI's deputy director must sign off only protects elected officials. The fourth amendment shouldn't just apply to congressmen, it should apply to everybody. At a minimum: there should be a paper trail kept of all the warrantless searches, who was targeted and why, and this paper trail should be released after a specified period of time.
Re:Slashdot 1,000% (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear.
In fact Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) used the fact that Russ Feingold (former Senator, D-WI) voted against the so-called USA Patriot Act (which expanded how easy it was to get searches) that he was "A DURTY DEMONRAT WHO IS SOFT ON TERROR!"
I'm unable to be outraged it happened to one of the ivory tower elite class.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don’t have to. I’m pretty sure he approves of these measures if they’re used on BLM or Al Queda or women seeking abortions. But now he’s under the magnifying glass it’s a problem.
Speculating that the target of the investigation is ok with abuse of power, so long as its used as the right people, in a post that tacitly approves of this actual abuse of power because it's being used against the right people. Stay classy, progressives.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Keep spinning the spin trumpian
Re: (Score:1)
I am not, nor have I ever been a supporter of Darth Cheeto. On the other hand, my comment must have hit pretty close to the mark to draw a (misdirected) ad-hominem attack in reply, don't you think?
Re: (Score:1)
This is how you find out who is in a cult. doesn't matter which cult either (R or D)
hell, even the other Parties have cultists . One cannot converse with any of them (cultists) because they cannot fathom their side is every bit as corrupt as their side.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you debating whether or not the gop has violate existing norms by supporting Trump?
If so, then you need to get out more and see what has been happening outside of the right wing o sphere
Re:Slashdot 1,000% (Score:5, Informative)
How's about we just check his voting record [votesmart.org] where we can see that yes, he votes for all the things they tell him to vote for, and none of the things they tell him not to.
Re:Slashdot 1,000% (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I came to the same conclusion. He wants reforms so that elected people are not held to the same standards and hence won't be spied on by their own government. Typical hypocritical elected official. They want rules for us but not for themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Only fools see privacy as a partisan issue. Keeping pointing the fingers across the lobby as they al step on the freedoms they've taken from us.
Federal breach of rights charges perhaps? (Score:4, Interesting)
A grand jury opening such an investigation would be interesting, along with a contempt of congress charge against the FBI would do wonders. Preferably charge a few of those who sought and signed off the order. A few imprisoned FBI agents would do wonders...
Re: (Score:2)
He can go fly a USA flag kite.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just because it happened to a member of the Ivory Tower Elites?"
No, just because it happened to a member of Congress. It's in the Constitution: "[Members of Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
He's claiming they violated this clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is investigation the same as arrest?
Re: (Score:2)
"they shall not be questioned."
Re: (Score:2)
I do not think the article even mentioned the Senator receiving a request for an interview, or are you trying to apply a different meaning to "be questioned"?
Re: (Score:2)
during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses and in going to and returning from the same
He can be questioned any other time. He's not immune from questioning. How do you know it wasn't about a Felony or Treason? Lots of that going around these days.
Re: (Score:2)
So funny when Ivory Tower Elites whine about something that would've hit their constituents a thousand times harder. Remember it's FOREIGN Intelligence Surveillance Act... fits in nicely with treason exception if they do question him.
"We're going to fix this!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians make a new rule: FBI can't search for sitting Congress members' info without letting the majority party leaders know. Everybody else is still fair game.
What, you thought politicians were doing this to protect YOU?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"We're going to fix this!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Politicians make a new rule: FBI can't search for sitting Congress members' info without letting the majority party leaders know. Everybody else is still fair game.
What, you thought politicians were doing this to protect YOU?
My thought exactly. That they will now be more careful about politicians makes it worse, not better.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I get it that a politician should not be above the law. However... do we really want to allow a President, through the FBI, to threaten legal action against a member of Congress? Without immunity for legislators, we are in fact giving the President the de-facto power to create laws, going against the very design of the separation of powers in the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
do we really want to allow a President, through the FBI, to threaten legal action against a member of Congress?
Members of Congress should be subject to the same laws as the President and Joe and Jane Main Street. None should be special. FBI should investigate crimes if they have reasonable suspicion, no matter who the subject or complainant is. Threats of legal action without any supporting evidence should also be treated by the system accordingly.
Leave the immunity for special people to shithole authoritarian countries.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have immunity for the police, err, I mean the government. We already live in that type of country. The difference is that corruption is legalized and given the force of law, rather than just being garden variety bribery and graft.
So this is going to sound trollish, but stay with me here. Yes, I have some definite political opinions, but I'm going to use an example here of a particular party to illustrate my point. I could just as easily find a different example from a different party to pr
Re: (Score:2)
it is clear that the Democratic party was associated with Southern politicians who fought a war to continue the practice of slavery.
It is also clear that was 160 years ago, and today it is the Republicans who hate blacks, LGBT, and don't think enough of women to allow them bodily autonomy as well. I'm Canadian and don't have a horse in this race, but these are the objective facts as seen by the rest of the world. Where the GOP used to be seen as a revered political party, we now only half jokingly call them the American Taliban. The party of Lincoln and Reagan unfortunately is, sadly, long since gone.
If we held Congress to the same standard that we held everyone else, we'd have to jail the entirety of the Democratic party.
If the same standard applied you
Corrupt politician investigated, what's new? (Score:2)
"Sensitive Queries" (Score:2)
"The spokesperson provided an example, saying that for any sensitive queries involving elected officials, the FBI's deputy director must sign off"
TL;DR - the ruling class gets special treatment, while the working class plebs can be subject to as many FISA searches as the FBI wants.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the special reason for elected officials is because these are also prime targets for abuse in the past. It's a tug of war between trying to protect against foreign influence and trying to stop political abuse domestically. Both of these problems are real and elected officials are real targets of both.
Re:"Sensitive Queries" (Score:5, Interesting)
FISA warrants are blatantly unconstitutional and should not even exist. The idea that elected officials get special treatment WRT FISA warrants is ridiculous.
If the general public has to put up with it, so should they. Give them special treatment and it removes all incentivization to fix the system.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't Congress in the business of granting unreasonable investigatory rights to government bodies in the name of "freedom and such"? I mean, it's probably not right, but it's the same "not right" that happens every day to people who aren't in Congress.
It touched him, so he's bent out of shape about it. But I would like to know where he stood for 20 years of the Patriot Act, and where he stands on the mechanisms that have continued since it expired.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pull the other one, it's got bells on... (Score:1, Troll)
FBI director Christopher Wray said that he "completely" understood LaHood's concerns, while emphasizing that the FBI has already implemented reforms and safeguards to prevent similar abuses in the future.
That's what they said after they got caught lying to this court in order to wiretap Trump people -- the DOJ IG found four separate cases where the FBI's errors in FISA applications were "material" (enough to change the FISA court's decision). It's what Wray himself said [thehill.com] 20 years ago. That's what almost the same set of clowns said after the Snowden leaks.
At some point we need to stop trusting them when they say they've fixed the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The name "Wray" only appears once in that linked opinion piece, and isn't associated with any statements.
Re: (Score:2)
That's from the summary above, not from the linked article (which I have not looked at yet).
What I found amusing about that 93% is that it is only the second week of March, admittedly far more than 7% of the year 2023 but who says the figure was from this week?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
FBI director Christopher Wray said that he "completely" understood LaHood's concerns, while emphasizing that the FBI has already implemented reforms and safeguards to prevent similar abuses in the future.
That's what they said after they got caught lying to this court in order to wiretap Trump people -- the DOJ IG found four separate cases where the FBI's errors in FISA applications were "material" (enough to change the FISA court's decision).
Citation?
There were errors, but from what I heard they were more due to bureaucratic laziness than malice. And I never heard anything about errors material enough to change the courts decision.
Now I do agree there needs to be an extra level of caution and scrutiny when FISA applications or other parts of the justice system are used against politicians. Not because politicians are deserving of extra protection, but because using the justice system again politicians is a very effective way for someone to infl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There were errors, but from what I heard they were more due to bureaucratic laziness than malice. And I never heard anything about errors material enough to change the courts decision.
Now I do agree there needs to be an extra level of caution and scrutiny when FISA applications or other parts of the justice system are used against politicians. Not because politicians are deserving of extra protection, but because using the justice system again politicians is a very effective way for someone to influence the government.
Assuming you aren't trolling or a retard, google "Clinesmith" if you're looking for material errors in FISA applications.
I'm neither a troll nor a retard, just someone with an accurate understanding of what happened: [cnn.com]
Boasberg, who is also the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court’s presiding judge, notably said he believes the warrant still may have been signed for surveillance of Page, who in 2017 was a former Trump foreign policy adviser who was under investigation because of his ties to Russians.
“Even if Mr. Clinesmith had been accurate about Dr. Page’s relationship with the other government agency, the
Re: (Score:2)
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/... [justice.gov] describes them as "material", and links to the underlying report that quotes the relevant definition of "material". These are more serious errors than the 17 "significant" errors that the IG found in the Carter Page FISA applications, and described in an earlier (2019) report.
Re: (Score:2)
https://oig.justice.gov/sites/... [justice.gov] describes them as "material", and links to the underlying report that quotes the relevant definition of "material". These are more serious errors than the 17 "significant" errors that the IG found in the Carter Page FISA applications, and described in an earlier (2019) report.
From your link:
We first reported the issues we discovered during this audit in March 2020 after an initial review of 29 FISA applications relating to U.S. persons that were approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) between fiscal years 2015 and 2019
[...]
After informing the FBI and NSD of our initial findings in March 2020, DOJ reviewed the 29 FISA applications and notified the FISC of 209 errors in those
applications, 4 of which DOJ deemed material.
So 4 material errors among 29 FISA warr
Re: (Score:2)
The earlier report you're talking about was a follow-on to the one I was referring to, which was announced at https://oig.justice.gov/press/... [justice.gov] . Notice that I said 2019?
When the IG found 17 significant errors in the Trump-related FISA applications, they went digging to see if there were wider problems. There were.
Re: (Score:2)
The earlier report you're talking about was a follow-on to the one I was referring to, which was announced at https://oig.justice.gov/press/... [justice.gov] . Notice that I said 2019?
When the IG found 17 significant errors in the Trump-related FISA applications, they went digging to see if there were wider problems. There were.
Ok, I'm not reading through a giant report. But the fact still stands that the "4 material errors" comes from a link you supplied and it does not support your assertion that those errors related to the Trump warrents.
Moreover, your thesis seems to be that the DOJ bent the rules to go after Trump specifically. But the fact that there were wider problems with FISA warrants contradicts that thesis. Instead, the errors made in the Trump investigation seem to be fairly typical of the FISA process.
Re: (Score:2)
Commenting here so this article is in my FBI file. (Score:1)
Interesting headline there, Slashdot. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually checks the Wired article:
So the Slashdot article entirely omitted the fact that LaHood was being investigated for crime. What crime? Who know, but this isn't Lahood's first time 'round the crime circuit. [apnews.com]
Indeed, if it's that specific case, it's entirely natural that the FBI would make a FISA query on the topic. Why? Because it was about "... illegal political contributions. That case involved Lebanese-Nigerian businessman Gilbert Chagoury, who is prohibited from making political contributions because he isn’t a U.S. citizen." FISA allows one to spy on communications of overseas (but not domestic) targets - hence, using FISA to gather evidence on Chagoury's communications (if, again, that is the case in question). But whatever it was, the query was later found to be noncompliant with procedures.
Re:Interesting headline there, Slashdot. (Score:4, Informative)
ED: Whoops, the other case was about Ray Lahood, but this is Darin LaHood. So I have no idea what the current case was about. I'm sure he does, but he doesn't see fit to tell us
Re: (Score:1)
One Hood is pretty much like the next.
Re: (Score:2)
Ray is Darin's father, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
ED: Whoops, the other case was about Ray Lahood, but this is Darin LaHood. So I have no idea what the current case was about. I'm sure he does, but he doesn't see fit to tell us
Good show. Not only did you misattribute an action to the individual in question, you also chose to ignore the first sentence of the summary:
Last month, a declassified FBI report revealed that the bureau had used Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to conduct multiple unlawful searches of a sitting Congress member's personal communications
So, going back to your comment on the misattribution, that a FISA warrant was "entirely natural" due to "illegal campaign finance" here's another something you can read [intel.gov] (I'll quote the important bit below):
Section 702 only permits the targeting of non-United States persons who are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States. United States persons and anyone in the United States may not be targeted under Section 702. Section 702 also prohibits “reverse targeting”—the IC may not target a non-U.S. person located outside the U.S. if the purpose of the collection is to collect information about a United States person or anyone located in the United States.
So a section 702 warrant against a "US person" (who also happens to be a sitting congressman) does not seem to "entirely natural" does it?
Re: (Score:2)
ED: Whoops, the other case was about Ray Lahood, but this is Darin LaHood. So I have no idea what the current case was about. I'm sure he does, but he doesn't see fit to tell us
And yet, your original is still modded up, even though you've effectively retracted. All because of political tribalism.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So unlawful searches are okay, because it's a Republican that has allegedly failed to fill out a form.
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of a mix here. They were most likely investigating a foreign person at the start, possibly money was traveling to the congressman and questions were raised. Or the congressman had been seen interacting wiht the foriegn mantion that was on a watch list. It's highly unlikely that they picked a congressman at random from the R pack for a fishing expedition (when their boss at the time was an R who was deeply distrustful of them anyway). Also this was right in the run up to the presidential electi
You can't fix this by having them police themselve (Score:4, Interesting)
That's another layer of having the FBI police itself. The FBI's OIG appears to have almost never launched a criminal investigation, let alone arrested and brought charges against, FBI agents and senior management despite having some scathing reports such as rampant sexual misconduct [senate.gov] that allegedly included blatant coercion and sexual assault of female staffers.
The only way police can be investigated is simple: you bring in an outside law enforcement agency and turn them loose like a starving fox in a hen house. For the FBI that means calling DHS and ordering the US Secret Service or Homeland Security Investigations to send agents over to the FBI to conduct a full criminal investigation of the FBI's handling of S702 and order them to take the case as far as the facts go while ordering the whole FBI to bend over backwards to comply or face insubordination charges.
Re: (Score:3)
I support this starting with local cops and working your way up.
We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong.
every time (Score:2)
Every time this happens, they tell us it will never happen again.
only special people get protection? BULL! (Score:2)
Article:
This is bull****. Only "sensitive" and "elected officials" get protection against a rogue FBI? And only then because they can complain publicly such that it can be heard? All citizens need protection against the FBI, aka "secret police",
Fire everyone involved (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn’t hurt you to tell the truth. The IRS went after left wing groups as well as the TEA party. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
How many of each?
Re: (Score:2)
Your imply that because they went after a few leftist groups it was ok. A lot of people would disagree with you. One guy resigned. No one went to prison or was even indicted.
From your link:
Press reaction to the IRS's actions was intense.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said: "There is a reasonable fear by all of us, by any of us, that the kind of power the IRS has could be misused," she further said that this scrutiny of Tea Party groups was "not fair."[89]
Comedy Central's Jon Stewart stated that the controversy ha
Please let this tank FISA renewal (Score:2)
Best thing that could happen to this country.
If congressppl get illegal searches what about eve (Score:2)
Assuming the reporting isn't highly misleading it seems like this search is the one wired reported the FBI admitting was noncompliant. So this isn't some congressman complaining about a legal search but the FBI violating the law. Whether or not there is a good reason to investigate this congressman or they could have gotten a warrant doesn't matter - they broke the law in this search.
Ok, the FBI says it was a misunderstanding of the rules. Fine, but even the greenest new agent is going to realize combing
Re: (Score:2)
That the FBI lied about understanding how FISA courts and warrants works, is scay and hard to believe. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and ignorance of the law when it is your job to enforce and uphold is doubly worrying.
I see the problem (Score:2)
He's merely a Representative, and not a particularly highly-ranked one at that. He's nowhere near high enough in power to be fully above the law.
Once he chairs a major committee or attains a higher office, he may be able to get away with more, but for now he'll have to settle for being able to get out of speeding tickets or minor sexual imposition charges.
Big crocodile tears. (Score:2)
So is this congress critter pissed that rights are being violated, or that HIS rights are being violated? He seems to think that Section 702 is still justified, so I'm guessing it's the latter.
It's quite telling if he's fine with other people having their shit searched through FISA warrants, but only gets rankled when it's HIS phone. What's he hiding? Why should there be different rules for him than anyone else? Would he be equally incensed if we were talking about someone deeply involved with BLM prote
Just assume he's lying (Score:2)
"National" security be damned (Score:1)