Amicus Report, Amicable with Malfeasance by Agents

In response to “accuracy concerns to FBI Matters submitted to the FISC” (Docket No. Misc. 19-02) , Judge James A Boasberg released an “OPINION AND ORDER” letter which addresses the OIG report relating to the the misconduct and the political use of FISA. The Judge and the OIG try to focus on amending the procedures while leaving the people in charge at large. Some of them still working for the DOJ and Intelligence Comunity at critical positions. The judge orders those people to stay way from FISA applications giving them a slap on the wrist.

Those agents and lawyers used surveillance authorised by FISA courts to spy and entrap Trump campaign and entourage using Carter Page as a conduit without his knowledge. At least four FISA applications were based on sworn “Woods process testimony” that was based on Steele dossier that was based on Russians, British, Ukrainians and Americans lying sources. Some people applying for the the FISAs didn’t vet the information properly while the others lied on the factual contents and hid exonerating information that would deny the authorisation of the application. Once a target is surveiled the people who contact are also surveiled as well as the people who contact those people. Basically you need only one point of entry to abuse the constitutional right for privacy of many people who are not aware of it.

Mueller who was in charge of verifying the Steele accusations took for granted the veracity of FISA applications and used them for fruits of the i tree indictments. Mueller team and report promoted the narrative that Trump was aided by Russians while hiding the fact the British, Russians and others were assisting HRC with the help of the Intelligence community and their contractors who laundered spying and media disinformation.

Carter Page while spied upon, was defamed by the media after malicious inaccurate leaks either form the Intelligence community or lawmakers who are supposed to oversee the intelligence community or both. This is not to say that there weren’t other spying operations on other people as well as the improper use of citizens’ trust and taxpayers money for political hit jobs. It is reported that even before 2012 similar Russian Collusion dossiers were prepared as “insurance policy” against McCain or others. The IC in conjuction with DNC contractors and media outlets used same modus operandi with old and new contractors. The dossier tailoring and information gathering was done with the help of the DNC (or for the DNC) with shared contractores also on other candidates in the 2016 elections before knowing who would be the GOP nominee.

Russian collusion dossier was already in the drawers of Fusion GPS, the DNC think tank, the media and the IC. People in the making were transitioning or networking within companies like Crowdstrike, lawfirms, media and were present or “friends” with FBI Jim Baker, David Corn, Bruce/Nelly Ohr, Stephan Halper, McCabe , State Department bureaucrats, Five Eyes and so on.

It seems this report like the OIG report is another layer on top of another layer that tries to blame the procedures instead of the instigators and protect their own. Judge Boasberg doesn’t refer to the amicable relations of FISA judge Contreras and Peter Strzok who was pushing the anti Trump agenda in the FBI and was using of the “insurance policies” and was in charge of the people who doctored the FISA materials.

The current situation speaks for itself as the people who signed the illegal FISAs, doctored the documentation, hid exonerating materials are at large and are getting money for consulting on TV and selling books, while saying it was the responsibility of “7 layers” beneath them. Some of them knew it was a political hit job and people were handpicked personally by them. Connecting the dots, it seems many actors have been acting maliciously and betraying their oath and duty of protecting of the people and not using and abusing the people for political gains. But even if some of them acted in a non professional way they should be accountable due to negligence or cover up actions.

The DOJ attorney did not, however, follow up to confirm the nature of that relationship after the FBI case agent declared it “outside scope.” Id. at 157, 159. The DOJ attorney also received documents that contained materially adverse information, which DOJ advises should have been included in the application. Id. at 169-70. Greater diligence by the DOJ attorney in reviewing and probing the information provided by the FBI would likely have avoided those material omissions.

The report states in pg. 19 that at least 3 people are responsible for the illegal FISAs:

The attorney that changed “YES” to “NO” on Page working for the IC.
The case agent(s) or the supervisor who intentionally declared it is “outside scope.”
The attorneys in the DOJ and FBI that reviewed and delivered the applications.

At the end of the day the agents that created the political spying and use of FISA courts and taxpayers money are off the hook for now for criminal charges and disbarring. The OIG report and the Amicable report deal with FISA procedures instead of firing the responsible agents and charging them in the court of law. The procedural amendments don’t correct the situation since with no punishment, there is no deterant, it might happen again or already happened in other cases..

Those agents and their proteges can still promote political spying by using other loopholes and fabricating more elaborated dossiers with testimonies and plea deals like the deals Mueller team had or tried to achieve. These people can protect their fabricated testimonies by signing favourable “Mills” plea deals that prevent people from testifying against them by giving them NDA/plea deal immunity and use it to cover up. Since the IC has many people under leach for other crimes they can use them to push forward any political hit job like using Parnas, Greenberg, Michael Cohen and trying to stick a FARA or penury trap on people like Corsi, Stone, Carter Page, Flynn, George Papadoupolos and so on. (with the help of Schiff people in Congress or without).

“Mills” plea deals are deals tailored by the IC/DOJ in order to protect a main figure like HRC, familty or friends, and the IC itself against testimony of malfeasance. In this method HRC and the FBI got off the hook on deleting her mails and not securing her servers since the persons who did the deletion or received the order were given a preferential unjustifiable plea deal in order to obstruct justice. The plea deal was given by the people who are to investigate obstruction of justice while they committed it in conjunction with the plea person since they used the plea deal to get someone off the hook.

In this way the IC can protect, coerce fake or out of context testimonies, jurors, or political persecution contractors like Steele that would help political contenders like Hilary Clinton or Joe Biden either in cover up or by persecuting others as a gas lighting operation like Ukrainegate. Similar cases may have been happening with the investigations of the death of Seth Rich, JE, Judge Scalia or Philip aney where conveniently investigations, 302s, evidence, witnesses disappear or appear in a convenient way.

“Director Wray also pledged to take appropriate disciplinary action regarding individuals who have been referred by the OIG for review, if warranted at the completion of the required procedures for disciplinary review… processes to ensure appropriate individual accountability.”

Director Wray also pledged to take appropriate disciplinary action regarding individuals who have been referred by the OIG for review, if warranted at the completion of the required procedures for disciplinary review.

https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Misc%2019%2002%20Opinion%20and%20Order%20PJ%20JEB%20200304.pdf Pg. 14

Disciplinary process without criminal investigation and charges put agents in preferential mode over the people they are suppose to protect and who pay their salaries. Accountability without a deterring action doesn’t calls for a repetition of the same action with different ways .