• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Store
  • ION Awards
  • Podcasts
  • Full Measure
    • Full Measure Cover Stories
  • Donate
  • Bestseller "Slanted"

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
    • Omicron Lab Origin
    • Covid-19 Origins
    • Covid-19 Natural Immunity
    • Covid-19 Vaccine Concerns Summary
    • Covid-19 Vaccine: 80 Common Adverse Events
  • The Censored
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Media Mistakes, Biden Era
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Other investigations
      • Benghazi
      • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
      • Election 2020
      • Fake News
      • Fast & Furious
      • Obamacare
      • Obama Surveillance TL
      • Other investigations
      • Ukraine 'Sabotage' of Trump TL

FBI violates procedures designed to prevent surveillance abuse of U.S. citizens

Dated: December 21, 2019 by Sharyl Attkisson 2 Comments

      

About 2 yrs ago, I wrote about the FBI's apparent violation of its "Woods Procedures" in investigating the Trump campaign.

The recent Department of Justice Inspector General report confirmed FBI violations of the very rules intended to prevent abuses.

Original article dated: February 4, 2018

Nunes memo raises question: Did FBI violate Woods Procedures?

For all the debate over the House Republican memo pointing to alleged misconduct by some current and former FBI and Justice Department officials, one crucial point hasnโ€™t gotten the attention it deserves.ย ย And it relates in an unexpected way to special counselย Robert Mueller.ย The point is: There are strict rules requiring that each and every fact presented in an FBI request to electronically spy on a U.S. citizen be extreme-vetted for accuracy โ€” and presented to the courtย only if verified.

Thereโ€™s no dispute that at least some, if not a great deal, of information in the anti-Trump โ€œSteele dossierโ€ was unverifiedย or false. Former FBI directorย James Comeyย testified as much himself before a Senate committee in June 2017. Comey repeatedly referred to โ€œsalaciousโ€ and โ€œunverifiedโ€ material in the dossier, which turned out to be paid political opposition research againstย Donald Trumpย funded first by Republicans, then by the Democratic National Committee and theย Hillary Clintonย campaign.ย ย 

Presentation of any such unverified material to the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to justify a wiretap would appear to violate crucial procedural rules, called โ€œWoods Procedures,โ€ designed to protect U.S. citizens.ย Yet Comey allegedlyย signedย threeย of the FISA applications on behalf of the FBI.ย Deputy Directorย Andrew McCabeย reportedly signed one and former Attorney Generalย Sally Yates, then-Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente and Deputy Attorney Generalย Rod Rosensteinย each reportedly signed one or more.ย 

Woods Proceduresย ย 

Woods Procedures were named for Michael Woods, the FBI official who drafted the rules as head of the Office of General Counselโ€™s National Security Law Unit. They were instituted in April 2001 to โ€œensure accuracy with regard to โ€ฆ the facts supporting probable causeโ€ after recurring instances, presumably inadvertent, in which the FBI had presented inaccurate information to the FISA court.ย ย Prior to Woods Procedures, โ€œ[i]ncorrect information was repeated in subsequent and related FISA packages,โ€ the FBI told Congress in August 2003. โ€œBy signing and swearing to the declaration, the headquarters agent is attesting to knowledge of what is contained in the declaration.โ€ย 

Itโ€™s incredible to think of how many FBI and Justice Department officials would have touched the multiple applications toย wiretap Trump campaign adviser Carter Pageย โ€” allegedly granted, at least in part, on the basis of unverified and thus prohibited information โ€” if normal procedures were followed.ย The FBIโ€™s complex, multi-layered review is designed for the very purpose of preventing unverified information from ever reaching the court.

It starts with the FBI field offices.ย ย According to former FBI agent Asha Rangappa, who wrote of the process last year inย JustSecurity.org, the completed FISA applicationย requires approvalย through the FBI chain of command โ€œincluding a Supervisor, the Chief Division Counsel (the highest lawyer within that FBI field office), and finally, the Special Agent in Charge of the field office, before making its way to FBI Headquarters to get approval by (at least) the Unit-level Supervisor there.โ€ย 

At FBI headquarters, an โ€œaction memorandumโ€ is prepared with additional facts culled by analytical personnel assigned to espionage allegations involving certain foreign powers.ย ย Next, it goes to the Justice Department โ€œwhere attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it,โ€ wrote Rangappa. โ€œDOJ verifies the accuracy of every fact stated in the application. If anything looks unsubstantiated, the application is sent back to the FBI to provide additional evidentiary support โ€“ this game of bureaucratic chutes and ladders continues until DOJ is satisfied that the facts in the FISA application can both be corroborated and meet the legal standards for the court.

After getting sign-off from a senior DOJ official (finally!).โ€ย 

Thereโ€™s moreย 

But there are even more reviews and processes regarding government applications for wiretaps designed to make sure inaccurate or unverified information isnโ€™t used.ย ย In November 2002, the FBI implemented a special FISA Unit with a unit chief and six staffers, and installed an automated tracking system that connects field offices, headquarters, the National Security Law Branch and the Office of Intelligence, allowing participants to track the process during each stage.ย 

Starting March 1, 2003, the FBI required field offices to confirm theyโ€™ve verified the accuracy of facts presented to the court through the case agent, the field officeโ€™s Chief Division Counsel and the Special Agent in Charge.ย All of this information was provided to Congress in 2003. The FBI director at the timeย also ordered that any issue as to whether a FISA application was factually sufficient was to be brought to his attention. Personally.ย 

Who was the director of the FBI when all of this careful work was done?ย Robert Mueller.ย Perhaps ironically, Mueller isnโ€™t in charge of the investigation examining the conduct of FBI and Justice Department officials and whether they followed the rules heโ€™d carefully implemented 15 years before.

Instead, Mueller is leading the probe into Russiaโ€™s alleged illegal connections with Trump associates. Congress is looking at the wiretap process.ย With so much information still classified, redacted and โ€” in some cases โ€” withheld, there is much we donโ€™t know. Perhaps we will eventually learn that thereโ€™s a good reason unverified material was given to the court.

Maybe there was no violation of rules or processes.ย But thereโ€™s a reason Woods Procedures exist in the first place. They arenโ€™t arcane rules that could have been overlooked or misunderstood by the high-ranking and seasoned professionals working under the Obama and Trump administrations who touched the four Carter Page wiretap applications and renewals.

And unless theyโ€™ve secretly been lifted or amended, Woods Procedures arenโ€™t discretionary.ย In the past, when the FBI has presented inaccuracies to the FISA court, itโ€™s been viewed so seriously that itโ€™s drawn the attention of the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigates Justice Department attorneys accused of misconduct or crimes in their professional functions.

Read the original article in The Hill by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/372233-nunes-memo-raises-question-did-fbi-violate-woods-procedures


      

About Sharyl Attkisson

Emmy-Award Winning Investigative Journalist, New York Times Best Selling Author, Host of Sinclair's Full Measure

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. randy says

    December 28, 2019 at 3:34 pm

    I just finished your book, "Stonewalled". I enjoyed it very much. I hope my local library has your other book.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Click Here

The Sharyl Attkisson Store

Buy Great, Original Products & Support Independent Journalism

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

SUBSCRIBE TO SHARYL’S RUMBLE CHANNEL


Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube



Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

Sitemap

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Newsletter
  • Returns & Refunds Policy

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Election 2020
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Copyright © 2023 ยท Log in