# Did the Page FISA applications omit? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 26, 2018, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620 "2018-07-26T15:00:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/21 "2018-07-26T18:17:34Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Wasn’t the conservative group a primary challenger? How is it a wash? They were both Trump oponents. That they were both Trump oponents does not impeach the application. AFAIK, to impeach evidence one needs to show that there was dishonesty or false statements, in this case from the evidence presented by the parties. That they looked at Trump funny is not a good reason to dismiss it. And the evidence now shows that Nunes and many Republicans just look more dishonest than they they were before. [https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications](https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-make-carter-page-fisa-applications) > [@](#): > > for those who don’t remember, the controversy about these FISA applications first arose in February when House intelligence committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes released a memo claiming that the FBI misled the FISA Court about Christopher Steele, the former British secret agent who compiled the “dossier” on Trump-Russia ties and who was a source of information in the FISA applications on Page. The main complaint in the Nunes memo was that FBI whitewashed Steele—that the FISA applications did not “disclose or reference the role of the DNC, Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier were then known to senior and FBI officials.” > > In response to the Nunes memo, the Democrats on the committee released their own memo. That memo quoted from parts of the FISA applications, including a footnote in which the FBI explained that Steele was hired to “conduct research regarding Candidate #1,” Donald Trump, and Trump’s “ties to Russia,” and that the man who hired him was “likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump’s] campaign.” > > Based on this back and forth between the HPSCI partisans, I wrote on Lawfare at the time that the FBI’s disclosures on Steele “amply satisfie[d] the requirements” for FISA applications, and that the central irony of the Nunes memo was that it “tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court.” The Nunes memo accused the FBI of dishonesty in failing to disclose information about Steele, but in fact the Nunes memo itself was dishonest in failing to disclose what the FBI disclosed. I said then, and I still believe, that the “Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy.” > > Now we have some additional information in the form of the redacted FISA applications themselves, and the Nunes memo looks even worse. In my earlier post, I observed that the FBI’s disclosures about Steele were contained in a footnote, but argued that this did not detract from their sufficiency: “As someone who has read and approved many FISA applications and dealt extensively with the FISA Court, I will anticipate and reject a claim that the disclosure was somehow insufficient because it appeared in a footnote; in my experience, the court reads the footnotes.” Now we can see that the footnote disclosing Steele’s possible bias takes up more than a full page in the applications, so there is literally no way the FISA Court could have missed it. The FBI gave the court enough information to evaluate Steele’s credibility. - David Kris (He previously served as assistant attorney general for national security, associate deputy attorney general, trial attorney at the Department of Justice, general counsel at Intellectual Ventures, and deputy general counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner. He is the author or co-author of several works on national security, including the treatise National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, and has taught at Georgetown University and the University of Washington.) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/22 "2018-07-26T18:32:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > (He previously served as assistant attorney general for national security, associate deputy attorney general, trial attorney at the Department of Justice, general counsel at Intellectual Ventures, and deputy general counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner. He is the author or co-author of several works on national security, including the treatise National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, and has taught at Georgetown University and the University of Washington.) Is it your view that identifying Kris with that level of specificity is relevant to an assessment of his credibility? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/23 "2018-07-26T18:40:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That they were both Trump oponents does not impeach the application. AFAIK, to impeach evidence one needs to show that there was dishonesty or false statements, in this case from the evidence presented by the parties. That they looked at Trump funny is not a good reason to dismiss it. I don’t have any hopes the application will be “impeached”. The omission does, however bolster my beliefs in a “deep state out to get Trump”. And, when I hear/read the mainstream media deny there were any omissions, it further drives me to alternative media sources. I suspect there are many others like me, and the mainstream media, if it wants to reverse its declining viewership, should, I think, start to admit things like this omission. My guess is they will continue to be “all in” on assuming their viewers are useful idiots though. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/24 "2018-07-26T18:44:52Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I don’t have any hopes the application will be “impeached”. The omission does, however bolster my beliefs in a “deep state out to get Trump”. And, when I hear/read the mainstream media deny there were any omissions, it further drives me to alternative media sources. I suspect there are many others like me, and the mainstream media, if it wants to reverse its declining viewership, should, I think, start to admit things like this omission. My guess is they will continue to be “all in” on assuming their viewers are useful idiots though. Uh huh. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/25 "2018-07-26T18:45:00Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Wasn’t the conservative group a primary challenger? How is it a wash? They were both Trump oponents. What difference does that make? Do you think there could be no warrant issued unless Trump himself paid for the dossier? None of these parties are the source of the information. This whole bias approach is nonsense. If claims like that were accepted by the courts then any presidential candidate would be free to commit any crime they want because anyone who presents evidence against them would be considered biased and no evidence would be acceptable. No reason has been given to reject the contents of the dossier based on it’s content. Which is nothing but raw intelligence data. ---
**Author:** ![Aspenglow](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aspenglow/32/76_2.png) [@Aspenglow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspenglow)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/26 "2018-07-26T18:50:04Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding a warrant application NEEDS to include any known info which might potentially cause it to be denied. And I further gather that this is especially true in the secretive FISA court because of the extra imbalance between investigator and investigated. Can any lawyers, or motivated non-lawyers, provide the textbook analysis of my two impressions above about how warrant applications are supposed to work? While it is technically true that there is no specific mention of the DNC, Clinton campaign, etc., this is not a nefarious or uncommon thing. FISA warrant applications customarily use generic identifiers. It is usual practice. Don’t fall for the implication that this is somehow shady. It’s not. The FISA application and its renewals are 412 pages long. The Steele dossier is only a part of this application and not offered as proof of anything, any more than what some snitch alleges he heard is offered as proof. (See **Bricker** hypothetical above.) The dossier was offered as a partial basis of _probable cause_ to dig further, along with other information. That’s what warrants are for. Is there a basis to surveille this individual to learn if these assertions are actually true? Four judges, all Republicans (a point that should be immaterial), repeatedly said, “Yes. Keep digging.” This is exactly how law enforcement works, every single day. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/27 "2018-07-26T18:54:08Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > What difference does that make? Do you think there could be no warrant issued unless Trump himself paid for the dossier? > > None of these parties are the source of the information. > > This whole bias approach is nonsense. If claims like that were accepted by the courts then any presidential candidate would be free to commit any crime they want because anyone who presents evidence against them would be considered biased and no evidence would be acceptable. No reason has been given to reject the contents of the dossier based on it’s content. Which is nothing but raw intelligence data. No, they should just reveal what they know about the source and let the judge decide. Then the candidate is NOT free to “commit any crime they want”. ---
**Author:** ![simster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/simster/32/1047_2.png) [@simster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/simster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/28 "2018-07-26T19:02:31Z")
> [@Aspenglow](#): > > While it is technically true that there is no specific mention of the DNC, Clinton campaign, etc., this is not a nefarious or uncommon thing. FISA warrant applications customarily use generic identifiers. It is usual practice. Don’t fall for the implication that this is somehow shady. It’s not. > > The FISA application and its renewals are 412 pages long. The Steele dossier is only a part of this application and not offered as proof of anything, any more than what some snitch alleges he heard is offered as proof. (See **Bricker** hypothetical above.) > > The dossier was offered as a partial basis of _probable cause_ to dig further, along with other information. That’s what warrants are for. Is there a basis to surveille this individual to learn if these assertions are actually true? Four judges, all Republicans (a point that should be immaterial), repeatedly said, “Yes. Keep digging.” This is exactly how law enforcement works, every single day. QFT. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/29 "2018-07-26T19:03:16Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No, they should just reveal what they know about the source and let the judge decide. Then the candidate is NOT free to “commit any crime they want”. I don’t disagree with that. But the judge would not have seen any reason to dismiss the application simply based on who funded it. So even if included it still doesn’t provide any reason to deny the warrant. it’s absence is harmless error. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/30 "2018-07-26T19:11:54Z")
Another possibly misleading point is the description of Steele as a source, when in fact he’s an informant. He had no independent knowledge of anything in the dossier; the people providing him with information were the sources. The redacted portions of the application do not appear to show the court being provided with any way of assessing the credibility of those individuals. > [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No, they should just reveal what they know about the source and let the judge decide. Inarguably, they didn’t do that. And the argument that the court is not interested in whether or not the information being presented is credible, or that motivation is irrelevant to credibility, seems difficult to support. Why would there be a warrant process at all if the truth of the evidence presented didn’t matter? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/31 "2018-07-26T19:16:29Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding a warrant application NEEDS to include any known info which might potentially cause it to be denied. That’s not quite correct, no. > [@](#): > > And I further gather that this is especially true in the secretive FISA court because of the extra imbalance between investigator and investigated. I don’t know that to be true, but I admit there may be some FISA-specific rules in play which I’m unaware of. The seminal authority on this matter is Franks v. Delaware, a 1978 Supreme Court case. Jerome Franks was convicted in Delaware of rape, kidnaping, and burglary. The victim had described her assailant as armed wth a knife and wearing a white thermal undershirt, black pants with a silver or gold buckle, a brown leather three-quarter-length coat, and a dark knit cap. Police submitted an affidavit in support of the warrant claiming that, amongst other evidence against Franks, police had personally interviewed two people at Franks’ place of employment, and they both said that Franks was known to wear a white knit thermal undershirt and a brown leather jacket, and one also confirmed that Franks “often wears a dark green knit hat.” The police search of Franks’ apartment found a white thermal undershirt, a knit hat, dark pants, and a leather jacket, and, on petitioner’s kitchen table, a single-blade knife, all of which were introduced in evidence at trial. On appeal, he alleged that the warrant secured to search his room was defective; he claimed that the warrant affiant never actually spoke to the co-workers and the claim that they said Franks normally wears those types of clothes was included in bad faith. The Supreme Court of Delaware said, in effect, “Tough luck. The police had a warrant. You can’t challenge it.” But the US Supreme Court reversed, holding that when there’s a challenge to a warrant, the rules that I laid out above apply: > [@SCOTUS in Franks v Delaware](#): > > We reverse, and we hold that, where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, **and if the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause** , the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant’s request. (emphasis added) The citation is 438 U.S. 154 at page 156. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/32 "2018-07-26T19:17:06Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > What difference does that make? Do you think there could be no warrant issued unless Trump himself paid for the dossier? > > None of these parties are the source of the information. > > This whole bias approach is nonsense. If claims like that were accepted by the courts then any presidential candidate would be free to commit any crime they want because anyone who presents evidence against them would be considered biased and no evidence would be acceptable. No reason has been given to reject the contents of the dossier based on it’s content. Which is nothing but raw intelligence data. In regards to “raw intelligence”, it seems more like “cooked intelligence” in light of: > **[Read: the full text of the Nunes memo](https://www.vox.com/2018/2/2/16957588/nunes-memo-released-full-text-read-pdf-declassified)** > > The allegations aim to call the FBI and Justice Department’s professionalism into question. “The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a September 23, 2016, Yahoo News article by Michael Isikoff, which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow. This article does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News. The Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not directly provide information to Yahoo News.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/33 "2018-07-26T19:22:17Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Shouldn’t point 6 read something like “Sally Boe, who related that she entered the fenced back yard of 77 Sunset Strip with the intent of obtaining incriminating material on John Q Doe” to be more like the Page application? No. My hypo has a warrant that on its face appears to show damaging information and does not reveal the biased source, which is what the critique of the FISA warrant alleges. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/34 "2018-07-26T19:40:44Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Is it your view that identifying Kris with that level of specificity is relevant to an assessment of his credibility? Well, IMHO when quoting someone, it is better to quote people that do have a background in the field being discussed. After all, it is better to have an educated opinion rather than an ignorant one. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/35 "2018-07-26T19:48:25Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I don’t have any hopes the application will be “impeached”. The omission does, however bolster my beliefs in a “deep state out to get Trump”. And, when I hear/read the mainstream media deny there were any omissions, it further drives me to alternative media sources. I suspect there are many others like me, and the mainstream media, if it wants to reverse its declining viewership, should, I think, start to admit things like this omission. My guess is they will continue to be “all in” on assuming their viewers are useful idiots though. The problem with that is that you do think that alternative media sources and FOX, that do have an ax to grind, are not working to mislead their viewers and readers. > **[Fox & Friends outright lies about Carter Page FISA application](https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-friends/fox-friends-lying-about-fisa-application-surveillance-carter-page)** > > The actual report is damning. > [@](#): > > Fox & Friends is lying about an application presented to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court regarding Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. > > On July 21, for the first time in the history of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Department of Justice disclosed an application to conduct surveillance of an American citizen, releasing the application to conduct surveillance of Page since 2016. After its release, Fox & Friends leapt to mischaracterize the document, saying the government did not mention that part of the evidence that supported the application “was funded by the DNC and Hillary Clinton['s]” campaign, and attacking a Yahoo News article cited in the application because a source of its information was allegedly Christopher Steele, former head of the Russia desk for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service. Co-host Steve Doocy went on to complain about how much information was redacted in the publicly released application, saying, “There’s a lot of stuff here that you would think is not a method of surveillance or anything like that.” Doocy then asked, ”You think [the FISA judge is] going to read all that stuff?” > > Later in the show, Fox & Friends hosted Judicial Watch’s Tom Fitton, who claimed that “there was no good reason not to inform the court that” part of the application had political origins, “other than to, again, mislead the court into providing a pretext to spy on the Trump team.” > > **But, according to The New York Times, “the application shows that the F.B.I. acknowledged to the court that it believed that the person who hired Mr. Steele was looking for information to discredit Mr. Trump’s campaign.” Specific names were masked, as is standard operating procedure for such applications. The Department of Justice included Yahoo News in the application because, according to New York Times national security reporter Charlie Savage, officials wanted to inform “the court that Page had denied the allegations about” his contacts during a July 2016 trip to Moscow. Moreover, as Savage notes, “Some say the Steele dossier was the sole basis of the application. That’s false. There are redacted pages of other facts + we can see [the application] cited info from a prior investigation into Russian spies who sought to recruit Americans,” including Page.** > > This is not the first time right-wing media have pushed dishonest claims regarding the FISA application for surveillance on Page. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/36 "2018-07-26T19:49:40Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Clinton was a source, and Trump wasn’t. The point of the application is to establish the credibility of the information, and an integral part of that is identifying the sources sufficiently **so that the court can consider their motivations**. I’m not sure that bolded part is accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/37 "2018-07-26T19:58:23Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Was the opposition limited to Clinton, or were there other persons or organizations opposing Trump? > **[Paul Singer’s Fight for the Soul of the GOP](https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/2bsw3hq9l8lt16xa3v3sw/corner-office/paul-singers-fight-for-the-soul-of-the-gop)** > > A hedge fund titan uses his money to support establishment Republicans – but will it be enough? > [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Clinton was a source, and Trump wasn’t. > The point of the application is to establish the credibility of the information, and an integral part of that is identifying the sources sufficiently so that the court can consider their motivations. Clinton was not a source, unless you’re misunderstanding what the word “source” means. It’s perfectly clear that “Source #1’s” efforts were funded by political opponents. Again, what value does it add if Clinton’s name were specifically attached? If Steele did his work for Rubio during the primaries, you think the judge would have approved the warrant; but if Steele did his work for Clinton during the general, he would not? > [@](#): > > On this point, what the FBI actually said was that Simpson of GPS Fusion was hired by a law firm and that “the FBI speculates” that he was “likely” looking for information to discredit Candidate #1. That certainly understates the FBI’s level of knowledge; I’m pretty sure that the FBI knew that the law firm had been retained by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and it did not disclose this information to the court. Are you asserting that the FBI in October 2016 had obtained evidence from Fusion GPS, the DNC, or the Clinton campaign as to the motivations for the opposition research? If the FBI didn’t have evidence (emails, interviews, etc) then “speculates” is a perfectly cromulent word for the situation. > [@](#): > > Also, I think the application indicates that Page was under FBI scrutiny since 2013 but does not indicate that he was a cooperating informant for the FBI at that time. There’s multiple references to Page being interviewed by the FBI. See pages 12 and 13, for example. > [@](#): > > This is a different point. I’m not aware of any evidence other than the Steele dossier used to support the warrant, so I can’t address what **Bricker** is thinking of. I don’t believe that the unredacted portion of the application that was recently released sets forth any evidence other than the Steele dossier. The application seeks foreign intelligence information related to Page. In the unredacted portions, there’s quite a few assertions of his connections to important Russians that isn’t related to the dossier. Are you saying that after reading this document, you find it unreasonable to conclude that Page had substantive interactions with Russians that would result in any foreign intelligence on what Russia was up to? And that a judge appointed by George Bush (and who had rulings that would have gutted the Affordable Care Act, BTW) was somehow duped into carrying out a Democratic plot? Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/38 "2018-07-26T19:59:01Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The problem with that is that you do think that alternative media sources and FOX, that do have an ax to grind, are not working to mislead their viewers and readers. > > [https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/23/fox-friends-lying-about-fisa-application-surveillance-carter-page/220751](https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/07/23/fox-friends-lying-about-fisa-application-surveillance-carter-page/220751) It looks like there was a quote within a quote, so the part I wanted to respond to is omitted. In regards to name masking being SOP, I don’t think that is true in regards to informing the judge of sources against someone else. This is a secret court to begin with. So why would you do that? Prove me wrong. I would guess: If they know a source’s identity, they can go ahead and disclose it to the judge in the secret FISA proceedings. In particular, the Clinton funding of the dossier. If I am wrong, point me to the reference that they were prohibited from naming Clinton. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/39 "2018-07-26T20:03:25Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Another possibly misleading point is the description of Steele as a source, when in fact he’s an informant. He had no independent knowledge of anything in the dossier; the people providing him with information were the sources. The redacted portions of the application do not appear to show the court being provided with any way of assessing the credibility of those individuals. Jesus Christ, dude. Look on page 16. It literally says that Source #1 “tasked his sub-sources to collect the requisite information.” This takes care of your first two sentences, because there is nothing misleading about the FBI saying the thing that you accuse them of not saying. Second, how do you know that redacted portions “do not appear to show the court” something? You have some kind of x-ray vision there, pal? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2018, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620/40 "2018-07-26T20:30:41Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No, they should just reveal what they know about the source and let the judge decide. Then the candidate is NOT free to “commit any crime they want”. How can the judge decide this? I could be wrong but I assume the court accepts the FBI’s warrant application at face value and that the FBI, by asking for the warrant, feels the evidence provided to them has sufficient credibility to ask for the warrant so they can gather more concrete evidence. If you think about it the police/FBI are dealing with criminals and lowlifes all the time and they use their claims in requests for warrants. Is the judge, knowing only that the source in a given application is (say) a drug dealer, to deny that application because the judge “feels” drug dealers are unreliable? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-page-fisa-applications-omit/818620.md?page=3)