>>7886759 (lb)
>>7886825 (lb)
Baker, did you ever get a full article cap from Q post? If not, here is the full article:
By Byron Tau
Updated Jan. 23, 2020 4:27 pm ET
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department now believes it should have discontinued its secret surveillance of one-time Trump campaign adviser Carter Page far earlier than it did, according to a new court filing unsealed Thursday.
The Justice Department made that determination in a December letter to the secret court that oversees surveillance of suspected foreign spies, acknowledging it may have lacked probable cause to continue wiretapping in the last two of the four surveillance applications it sought against Mr. Page.
The government began the surveillance in late 2016, after he left the Trump campaign, and continued monitoring him until late 2017—ultimately obtaining a warrant and three subsequent renewals. The last two applications were submitted in April and June of 2017. It now has concluded there was “insufficient predication to establish probable cause” in the last two renewals, which authorized about six months of surveillance on the former adviser.
Probable cause is the legal standard to obtain a secret warrant against suspected agents of a foreign power from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the secret judicial panel that approves such warrants.
Probable cause is the legal standard to obtain a secret warrant against suspected agents of a foreign power.
The Justice Department letter is classified, but is referenced in a new order declassified by the judge that heads the FISA court, James Boasberg, on Thursday. The Justice Department said it would sequester all the material it collected against Mr. Page pending further internal review of the matter.
The Justice Department declined to comment.
Judge Boasberg ordered the government to explain further the specific steps it intended to take in response to its belief that some of the surveillance collected against Mr. Page lacked a legal basis. The order was issued Jan. 7, but wasn’t declassified until Thursday.
The Justice Department’s acknowledgment is an unusual retreat in a major investigation that has been under scrutiny for nearly three years. The determination also is sure to fuel the debate over a government investigation into the Trump presidential campaign during the 2016 election.
The letter refers to a Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation into links between people associated with the Trump campaign and Russia. A critical internal watchdog report determined that the FBI had the proper basis to open the investigation, though the bureau made many mistakes along the way. But the department’s belated conclusion that it lacked the legal grounds to surveil Mr. Page is an acknowledgment that a major component of that investigation wasn’t on firm legal ground for part of the probe’s duration.
The revelation also comes as lawmakers in both parties are beginning to weigh changes to elements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ahead of a March expiration of some surveillance authorities. That statue lays out the process for obtaining permission for monitoring.
Attorney General William Barr also announced new rules last week requiring top-level approval for investigations involving presidential campaigns.
Mr. Page briefly served as a foreign-policy adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign. Before that he worked in investment banking and consulted on energy and natural gas issues in Russia and elsewhere.
He drew the interest of U.S. counterintelligence investigators in 2013 when he had a brush with a suspected Russian spy in New York. Mr. Page met with Victor Podobnyy, a junior attaché at the Russian consulate, at an Asia Society event and went to coffee with him after.
Mr. Podobnyy was later accused of serving as an agent of Russia’s foreign intelligence service while under diplomatic cover and left the country. Mr. Page was interviewed by counterintelligence investigators as part of that case over his contacts with Mr. Podobnyy. He hasn’t been accused of any wrongdoing in that case.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-department-believes-it-lacked-legal-basis-for-continued-surveillance-of-trump-adviser-11579810061?