2 ms·
One relevant paragraph from the middle of this court order directed at the FBI: > The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the OIG r
by floatingatoll 7y ago
One relevant paragraph from the middle of this court order directed at 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. The FISC expects the government to provide complete and accurate information in every filing with the Court. Without it, the FISC cannot properly ensure that the government conducts electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes only when there is a sufficient factual basis.
- pkilgore 7y agoI only wish this is how we would treat every case for a warrant. But it is not [1]. For us regular folk, this is Franks v. Delaware. To be “material,” a lie or omission has to change the result. So, if the omitted information were added, or the lie deleted, the remainder of the information has to be insufficient to get the warrant. The problem is that the standard (usually probable cause) is so easy to meet that it can be met even with the lie deleted, or omitted information included. So it’s rare for even a blatant lie or deceitful omission to be material, and thus overturn the warrant. If, on the other hand, you lie to the government... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_v._Delaware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks_v._Delaware