Read on Twitter
The FBI/DOJ are STILL unjustifiably redacting information even in the latest less redacted FISA's warrant applications
Get this: the FBI/DOJ are claiming that public news articles from the Washington Post are "sensitive information" to be blacked out. I'm not kidding!
THREAD
Get this: the FBI/DOJ are claiming that public news articles from the Washington Post are "sensitive information" to be blacked out. I'm not kidding!
THREAD
Here's what the DOJ told Congress about its release of more FISA information
âThe FISA's contain only "minimal redactions". Minimal!
âThe DOJ only made "limited redactions", to "preserve classified, sensitive, or certain foreign information"
See letter (edited for brevity)
âThe FISA's contain only "minimal redactions". Minimal!
âThe DOJ only made "limited redactions", to "preserve classified, sensitive, or certain foreign information"
See letter (edited for brevity)
This section appears on p.22 and p.23 of the 2nd and 3rd FISA renewals
The redactions are supposedly for "Sensitive information" DOJ needs to "protect".
The redactions are supposedly for "Sensitive information" DOJ needs to "protect".
Except those redactions aren't blacking out "Sensitive information"...
....they're just quoting from a *public Washington Post article*.
This one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-is-source-d-the-man-said-to-be-behind-the-trump-russia-dossiers-most-salacious-claim/2017/03/29/379846a8-0f53-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html
....they're just quoting from a *public Washington Post article*.
This one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-is-source-d-the-man-said-to-be-behind-the-trump-russia-dossiers-most-salacious-claim/2017/03/29/379846a8-0f53-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html
Some context first before showing what the redactions almost certainly say
This section of the FISAs is referring to the public exposure of Sergei Millian as a potential source for the Steele dossier
That exposure happened on Jan 24 2017 (WSJ), and March 29 2017 (WaPo, above)
This section of the FISAs is referring to the public exposure of Sergei Millian as a potential source for the Steele dossier
That exposure happened on Jan 24 2017 (WSJ), and March 29 2017 (WaPo, above)
âThe first FISA was on Oct 21 2016
âThe 2nd (1st renewal) was on Jan 12 2017
Both were before those WSJ/WaPo stories appeared.
That's why this section of the FISAs appears for the first time in the 2nd renewal (and is repeated in the 3rd renewal)
âThe 2nd (1st renewal) was on Jan 12 2017
Both were before those WSJ/WaPo stories appeared.
That's why this section of the FISAs appears for the first time in the 2nd renewal (and is repeated in the 3rd renewal)
This new section of the FISAs appears immediately after this footnote (footnote 18). This describes Sergei Millian as a "Sub-Source" for the dossier*
*You'll just have to trust me on this one (but it'll be obvious it does in a minute, even if you don't)
*You'll just have to trust me on this one (but it'll be obvious it does in a minute, even if you don't)
Here's what that hidden "sensitive information" that needs to be "protected" almost certainly says, comparing the Washington Post news article to the FISA wording, context and redaction length
What's really going on here, is that DOJ know that if they allow a reference to that WaPo article to appear unredacted in the FISA, everyone will be able to work out that Sergei Millian (or "Person 1") was relied on as an alleged "Sub-source" for the FISA warrant by the FBI/DOJ
âThat "Person 1" or Millian was relied on by the FBI as an alleged Sub-source for the dossier/FISA warrant is already known. So you're busted fellas. Give it up.
âOnly by coming clean can everyone regain confidence in the FBI/DOJ and the redactions process. This isn't helping.
âOnly by coming clean can everyone regain confidence in the FBI/DOJ and the redactions process. This isn't helping.
SUMMARY
Those statements from DOJ to Congress about "minimal" & "limited" redactions are not true.
The Assistant AG should be hauled in to Congress and asked to justify these redactions, in light of the information available in the IG report and the public domain.
/ENDS
Those statements from DOJ to Congress about "minimal" & "limited" redactions are not true.
The Assistant AG should be hauled in to Congress and asked to justify these redactions, in light of the information available in the IG report and the public domain.
/ENDS
