Sally Moyer Transcript…

Sally Moyer was FBI unit chief in the Office of General Counsel (counterintelligence legal unit within the FBI Office of General Counsel). Moyer reported to an unnamed section chief, who reported to Trisha Beth Anderson, who was deputy legal counsel to James Baker.

Ms. Moyer is responsible for the legal compliance within the FBI counterintelligence operations that generated FISA applications:

Pictured Above:  Ms. Sally Moyer

A review of the transcript clarifies a few aspects:

First, the DOJ/FBI team, “the small group”, specifically the legal officials who were ultimately participating in the process that permits politicization and weaponization of government intelligence systems, was also the exact same legal group who reviewed (and approved) the internal inspector general report which outlined their activity.

In essence, the DOJ/FBI bureaucratic corruption is so widespread, the corrupt officials involved are the same people who are the decision-makers in the amount of sunlight the Office of Inspect General is allowed to put forth.  Now the disconnect between the OIG executive summary and the body of content material makes sense:

Secondly, Ms. Moyer explains how verification of the FISA application used against U.S. Person Carter Page is essentially just making sure the citations align to show who is making the claims.

The underlying FISA application material does not need to be verified; rather the source material is just accurately cited and attributed.

Ultimately what this testimony reveals is that any U.S. person can be subjected to a Title-1 FISA surveillance warrant so long as the FBI (and DOJ) can accurately cite the reason for the underlying suspicion.

The merit of the accusation has nothing to do with the citation for the claim.

Consequence – (1) If this approach, and legal outlook, is factually accurate and acceptable, then no FISA abuse is possible from an Inspector General review. (2) The people making the determination of legal acceptability for the IG, are the same people writing the FISA applications being reviewed by the IG.


It’s circular.

If this legal analysis is accurate, they all get away.

This entry was posted in 4th Amendment, 6th Amendment, Abusive Cops, AG Bill Barr, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Cold Anger, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, FBI, IG Report FISA Abuse, media bias, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Spygate, Spying, THE BIG UGLY, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, White House Coverup. Bookmark the permalink.

352 Responses to Sally Moyer Transcript…

  1. M says:

    That’s some Catch, that Catch-22.

    Liked by 3 people

    • BobR says:

      Pivot to U1 pronto!


      • bertdilbert says:

        At this point I am thinking that Carter Page was more of a willing participant who wore a FISA instead of a wire. Would that be legal?

        Liked by 1 person

        • YeahYouRight says:

          Because he was already an FBI informant or because he seems so happy-go-lucky about the whole thing?


          • bertdilbert says:

            Carter Page has a history of doing what the FBI wants. When the FBI wanted to deliver bugged binders, Page did the work for them. So the FBI got a FISA on an informant that went where the FBI wanted him to go to dirty up Americans.

            Would not be surprised if Page met with the Russians before the Trump tower meeting. That would dirty up all the top brass.


            • TarsTarkas says:

              Page admitted in an interview that he remained in occasional contact with members of Trump’s campaign team and later Trump’s transition and POTUS team. By doing so he enabled the spies to continue legally two-hopping from him, as long as there was an active FISA. And Page knew it from the start. He was helping the Obama holdovers at DOJ etc. to spy on their own boss to continue to try and find a way to bring him down.


              Page is no innocent victim. Nor was Papadopoulos, at least originally. He kept trying to push the campaign into meeting with the Russians. Why? to make Muh Russia work better. Only when he started getting suspicious about his handlers’ ultimate intentions towards him did he wise up and start pushing back.

              Liked by 1 person

  2. franz dorn says:

    Judge Nap seems to be making a similar argument. FISA is unconstittutional.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “If this legal analysis is accurate, they all get away.” = Unbelievable.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Maga Truth Seeker says:

    If indeed you don’t need to corroborate the allegations for FISA Search, then the whole dang thing needs to shut down. It’s all FUBAR at this point. Burn it all down.

    Liked by 12 people

  5. zimbalistjunior says:

    until you actually charge these putzes with a crime and litigate, there will be no legal explication of concepts such as woods procedures, corroboration, verification etc

    the general theory is that 80 percent of employees in large organizations do not realize that they are being asked to do illegal things every day. putzes like Ms. Moyer above may not even realize how absurd and illegal her actions are. and until the white hats litigate this, the putzes will continue with their illegal activites..

    that is why ive been saying that the white hats should have been charging every putz involved with obstruction..
    we may lose some, we may win only a few..but thats not the point

    begin the beguine already

    Liked by 14 people

  6. There is no “getting away” from what God has in store, therefore, the ONLY 100% ACCURATE source on this is GOD’S WORD, therefore, the MAY 15TH PROPHECY has proclaimed what happens next!

    Liked by 3 people

  7. booger71 says:

    What is almost as frightening is how a slouchy, stringy haired FemiNazi could actually work for the FBI let alone rise to the rank of Unit Chief.

    Liked by 15 people

  8. Bubby says:

    So what Sundance is saying is that there are no procedures in place to ensure no unverified information makes its way on to a FISA application but rather the Woods file is nothing more than a check list of who provided what and who said what. That’s it? No verification is required it’s just assumed to be verified by the provider/author? Then anyone can be spied upon for no reason! If that’s true then the FISA needs to be shutdown, revoked, eliminated, made illegal, expired whatever it takes to get rid of it! What am I missing? I’m street fighting mad over this BS!

    Liked by 9 people

    • Stuart Evans is a counterpart at DOJ he seemed to have problems with the FISA warrant.
      There must be something more.

      Liked by 2 people

      • rf121 says:

        I suppose it will come down to what the FISA “rules” are versus what became standard procedure over time. My guess would be the process morphed into a rubber stamp operation with FISA judge complicity.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Kleen says:

      These people trashed the constitution a long time ago.

      We do have 2 sets of law.


      Liked by 4 people

    • kurt72 says:

      If any of the scum lied to a FISA judge, it’s a crime of perjury.

      Liked by 2 people

    • JD says:

      Exactly! Then what would be the function of the FISA court if the FBI pulls the strings? Maybe the FISA judges can pass out contraceptives for everyone who would eventually get screwed by these crap birds.

      Liked by 1 person

      • CM-TX says:

        It’s just like all those officials’ signatures required on the FISA apps. They sign-off, but later admit to never having verified any part, nor even bothered to read it. They then claim they aren’t really responsible for any misinformation or fraud it contains.

        Q: Well, ok then Mr. Official, do tell us wth the point is in placing your signature on the application? Why even require any signatures at all?

        🤔 Mr Official: Document Bedazzle✨?

        Q: There’s an old standard– the most basic of legal advice… “NEVER sign anything you haven’t read.” That’s b/c your signature actually means something, & so it becomes legally binding. You’re either certifying the accuracy of content in a doc, or agreeing to any terms set forth. So I’ll ask again, why did you sign it?

        🥴 Mr. Official: I don’t recall!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Mark McQueen says:

      Almost every “normal” warrant (arrest, search) is issued on the (legally sworn) word of the applicant. The difference between FISA and an actual Court is the accused gets to challenge a warrant’s validity. If the FISC won’t “police” (and there is no sign it ever does, certainly NOT in this case) itself it needs to be abolished.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. fanbeav says:

    Does anyone else need a shower after looking at her picture?

    Liked by 13 people

    • InAz says:

      Yep. Dirty, unkempt.
      She was hired for being a Communist FemiNazi Obama and Hitlary arse kisser.
      None of us would be hired if we dressed like she does with unkempt hair and appearance.
      She knew someone high up or promised something for the job. Typical government today. Actually that’s most places…..who you know not what you know to get hired.

      Liked by 5 people

      • nimrodman says:

        I looked at those photos and wondered whether it was raining that day or whether she shampoos with canola oil and doesn’t rinse

        just sayin’


    • daylight58 says:

      It looks like SHE could have used a shower.

      Man… she makes Nellie Ohr look date-able by comparison.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Tiffthis says:

      She looks like she just came from a shower at the gym, some of lisa pages photos look similar. Lol

      Liked by 3 people

    • carterzest says:

      I wonder if she emits an “odor” that smells like “boiled cabbage, urine, and farts.

      Eeeew. Not another one.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Kleen says:

    Andy McCarthy. Verified account

    Replying to @JohnWHuber
    I wouldn’t make this about the Woods Procedure. It’s basic: Steele was not the SOURCE; he was the ACCUMULATOR/PURVEYOR of the info, like a case agent. You can’t get a warrant on the case agent’s credibility; you’re supposed to give court reasons to rely on actual sources.

    McCarthy said even if there are only news articles to “verify facts” or if the Woods File is completely empty, that it is not criminal

    The Woods File is a procedure, not law

    Liked by 5 people

    • Sidney Powell says:

      This does not comport with what any court I’ve ever practiced before considers to be “verification.” WHat is criminal is lying to a court, deliberately misleading, illegal spying, lying to Congress–there’s a buffet of potential offenses from which to choose depending on the actual evidence. I believe the evidence will show they all knew it was bogus. That is why they had to break all protocols to put all this together. Bruce Ohr tried to cover himself by his words, but his actions and those of the FBI in using the crap speak much louder. They did not try to verify it because they knew it was concocted.

      Liked by 36 people

      • kathyca says:

        Agree. Just because your “procedure” doesn’t ensure a good faith basis for a FISA application (or any other submission to the court), that doesn’t mean you don’t still need one.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dutchman says:

        Barr said something in his testimony, to the effect that as he reviewed the Mueller report, he didn’t question the findings, that he started from the assumption that his subordinates (Mueller) were accurately representing what they found in their investigation.

        Can’t sight exact words, but he said or implied this is “how it works” in the DOJ.

        SOUNDS like this was the SOP, thruout the FBI and DOJ. Everyone up thevline just signs off on the work of their subordinates, so long as all the i’s are dotted, and t’s are crossed.

        Typical of buerocracies, where they don’t seem concerned with what IS, only with what can be documented.

        Wouldn’t happen in private industry; can’t imagine a supervisor in a private company blindly accepting the work of a subordinate, without questioning its validity.

        Well, COULD happen, but since Supervisors job could be on the line, less likely. Perhaps the job security in gov’t service fosters this attitude?

        Liked by 5 people

      • Kleen says:

        Thank you! I believe you, I think the bigger question for me is how long they have been playing this game and how many innocent people were spied on for political reasons?

        They all seemed very comfortable doing what they did.

        FISA abuse is an old problem.

        Liked by 8 people

      • Sidney, Attorney General Barr is looking for proper predicate for the FISA warrant. Whether this Woods file has crap in it or not… he seems to be looking for real evidence that would be the predicate to open the investigation. He told Fox News’ Bill Hemmer he has more questions now than when he started. Has the entire process been perverted by these cretins? My guess is, Hell Yes! No way is what this group did legal, NO WAY!

        Liked by 3 people

    • Ilcon says:

      McCarthy says. So effing what. He works for the enemy.


  11. Ted says:

    I thought she demonstrated incompetence as a lawyer. Read the discussion on the espionage act. The questioning beautifully reveals that she did little-to-no research on the history of the espionage act and therefore she has absolutely no basis for her argument regarding intent.

    She is not even competent at downplaying her relationship with Lisa Paige. Again, the questioner allows her to come across as disingenuous, especially when her text and emails are read to her.

    She simply looks partisan, and even worse, pliable.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Adam says:

    So, what is the purpose of a FISA judge? Do they have rule against a request?


  13. Yancey Ward says:

    This basically would mean that probable cause is a complete fiction. I am pretty sure it is not a fiction, and that the FBI and the FISA court have abused the civil rights of lots of Americans.

    Liked by 17 people

  14. Kleen says:

    From Tweeter:

    Andrew McCarthy said the woods file is not a law. It’s just a procedure

    Breaking it is not a crime.

    Apparently Muller is author.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Breaking established procedure violates the 5th amendment.

      Liked by 2 people

      • NJF says:

        The “rule” was put in place BECAUSE of previous misconduct of Mueller’s DOJ.

        Can’t make it up. If McCarthy is correct, lying to the court is still a big issue, and they broke all kinds of “rules” with their actions.

        I’d really love to see Adm Rodgers poke his head up.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Kleen says:

      I meant to say: not complying or breaking the procedure is not a crime.

      Liked by 1 person

      • violating constitutional rights is a crime.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Kleen says:

          Ohhhh I agree with you! I’m angry. All I’m saying is, these people write their own rules.
          They hide under classified information, it’s like organized crime. Knowing what we know is one thing. Making a legal case to see them rot in jail, is a different story.

          And I hope Barr doesn’t mess up and they all walk on some minor technicality.

          I would not dissmiss McCarthy’s point. What if????

          Sidney Powell is extremely knowledgeable and very smart.
          But she has also seen their corruption and games first hand.

          Assuming Horowitz, Barr, Huber etc are all serious about justice then we have reasons to be optimistic.

          We will find out soon. That’s why I am happy but looking at what everyone is saying.

          Liked by 3 people

    • Firefly says:

      Procedures are the way a particular agency, such as FBI or CIA, will comply with the laws. Breaking the procedures is not breaking any law. However, if procedures weren’t followed and a violation of the law occurs then it can be used to show willful, malfeasance, or intentional violation of the laws.

      It’s been reported for decades the IC has “interpretations” of the law that they write procedures for. So that will ultimately become apparent or danced around. There’s plenty already to show information laundering intentionally violating the law and procedures. I doubt Barr and Durham are going to accept the FBI playing dumb- it’s not a dumb or unintentional mistake. Barr alluded to this when he said he’s not getting answers and what they say doesn’t hang together (I.e the IC are lying). If it were done by the book they would not be evasive and hiding.

      Barr knows Halper did this back win the 1980s with a group in the Reagan administration. Similar cries of treason resulted in new procedures and laws. Barr referred to the Vietnam days too where laws we set in place to avoid this. Barr can’t whitewash this like Wray did calling for training. The only thing that will deter this from happening again is indict, prosecute and jail sentencing for those found guilty. If Barr were to whitewash this then we would know for sure we’re not a constitutional republic anymore.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. cheryl says:

    She knew what she said was BS to cover her ass and they let her get by without her testimony being challenged. I can hardly believe that a phony Yahoo story and a phony dossier (that they knew beforehand was phony) is enough to get a foreign-spy warrant to be able to legally spy on American citizens. I guess time will tell.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. chojun says:

    If this is true, then this is why Brennan, Comey, McCabe, et. al are confidently trotting around the talk/news circuits. They didn’t break the law, apparently.

    If this is true, then there needs to be a massive declassification of everything even remotely associated with this. The laws need to be changed. If no-one is prosecuted by this, and if the laws aren’t changed, then this system *WILL* be abused again.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Nigella says:

      They did a good job covering their a**es…DeGenova said as much last night on Laura

      Liked by 2 people

    • Roni says:

      Chojun, my thoughts as well about these clowns on the PR circuit (circus). Remember Comey’s “in the woods” Twitter….”so many questions”? He knows he’ going to get away it because of the Wood’s Procedure.
      And permitting an article from the liberal, ass kissing media to be cited in a FISA app is beyond the pale.
      It’s all a sham.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. I’m having problems with this.

    I understand that our Fourth Amendment threshold of “Probable Cause” may not apply when there’s a perceived threat from a foreign entity or an American aligned with a foreign entity, but I still think the lower threshold of “Reasonable Suspicion” would still have to be met to surveil a US person.

    The definition of Reasonable Suspicion has to do with what a reasonable man would consider suspicious. I don’t think that threshold has been met with any of this. Hell, if the allegations made against Carter Page in the affidavit were asserted with any degree of reason (they claimed outright that he was an agent of Russia) he should have been detained, isolated and interrogated rather than being the subject of a long term surveillance with the two hop provision.

    This stinks to high hell and if they paper this over, we’re in a completely different world (country) where there are NO constitutional protections for citizens.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Yancey Ward says:

      Actually, to use FISA against a US citizen the way it was used against Page still requires probable cause. The application literally has to say this- that the evidence makes it more likely than not that Page is a Russian agent.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Here’s an analysis / explanation of what I was trying to articulate from 2006.
      A lot of legalese, so I just skipped to the last paragraph. Note how prominent the word “predicate” is used….hmmm where have I heard that word used lately?

      I think we’re OK.

      Liked by 8 people

      • Mark L. says:

        Thanks for the link


      • Revelation says:

        This is the crux of it. If Mifsud was employed to plant the “Russia has Hillary’s email” into PapaD so that Downer could report him repeating it later, then the reasonable suspicion criterion is not met. It was a a setup.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Dutchman says:

          FBI Can entrapt, we have seen numerous cases reported. CI gets subject to say, on tape no doubt, that subject wants to commit ‘terrorist act’, blowing something up. Then CI introduces FBI undercovers, posing as suppliers of explosives.

          When subject takes possesion of explosives, they bust him.

          In sn espionage investigation ‘sting’ they would have posed as russian agents, and exchanged $ for US info.

          In corruption (Abscam) $ for favors.

          And rightly or not thats considered ‘legal’. The thing is, IF thats what they are SAYING they were doing, where is the point where undercover FBI, posing as Russians, give PapaD (or another “Trump campaign official” phony Clinton or DNC emails, and once exchanged, make the bust?

          That they didn’t do this makes it clear, this WASN’T an attempt at a ‘legal’ entrapment, it was ONLY to get a FISA warrant.

          WHERE is the EXCHANGE?? There ISN’T one! So much for “by the book”, this was a “throw the book away” operation.

          Liked by 2 people

      • cardercash says:

        I think we’re OK, too.


      • Battleship Wisconsin says:

        This is the text of the very last paragraph of the 2006 CRS analysis of how the concept of probable cause is applied to a FISA warrant:

        “Probable cause is bit different under FISA. Ordinarily, probable cause speaks to the probability of the existence of a certain fact, e.g., probable cause to believe a crime has been,is, or is about to be committed and that the search will result in the discovery of evidence orcontraband. FISA authorizes issuance of a surveillance or search order predicated upon the probability of a possibility; the probability to believe that the foreign target of the order may engage in spying, or the probability to believe that the American target of the order may engage in criminal spying activities, 50 U.S.C. 1805(a)(3)(A), 1824(a)(3)(A), 1801(b)(1)(B),(b)(2)(A). But it is the predicate not the standard that is changed. The probable cause standard is the same in FISA as in a criminal context: would a prudent individual believe that a fact is probably true. It is the focus that is different. Would a prudent individual believe that spying may occur.”

        As I interpret this paragraph and speculate about about its possible application in a criminal trial, if any of those directly involved in the preparation and submission of the FISA warrant against Carter Page ever face criminal charges and then choose to go to jury trial, the defense will claim that their client was a prudent individual who had reason to believe that criminal spying activity was either in progress, or that it might occur. If the judge in the trial allows that argument to made, then at least one juror will accept this argument and vote for acquittal.


  18. Benedict Comey says:

    Hang em high.


  19. Justin Green says:

    Okay, but there’s an issue with hiding solely behind the middle school term paper footnotes…

    1) Exculpatory evidence was still not presented to the court.
    2) Illegal spying occurred prior to obtaining the FISA.
    3) Lying to Congress.
    4) Obstructing justice by redacting or attempting to improperly classify materials to hide department failures or criminal activity.
    5) Mueller’s own deletion of potential evidence (government property).
    6) Illegal unmasking.
    7) Leaking.

    I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. Any rational person would certainly not find it acceptable, FISA or otherwise, that the source of a claim can also be used to verify the claim in a completely circular fashion. Document as many footnotes as you want and call it a procedure, it’s still fraudulent.

    Liked by 7 people

    • zimbalistjunior says:

      correct it is all, at the very least, obstruction of justice,
      prosecute the top 50 people for this.

      we may only ‘win’ 5 of the cases. (i personally think we would win 40-45).

      that would be fine..enough pussy footing around. the other side cites the pointless accusation levied on 13 Russians as evidence of worngdoing. let us cite the prosecutions of 50 members of the Deep State.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Krashman Von Stinkputin says:

      The other issue….


      He has been 6 steps ahead of everyone here…
      When asked: “What did Mueller mean by EXONERATE?”
      Barr responded: “I don’t know”


      He knows the game being played and exactly HOW they are playing it.

      “What they are annoyed about is THEY didn’t have an opportunity to spin” (Hemmer interview)

      If he’s the real deal, Barr will see right through middle school footnotes and the Woods procedure being implemented merely as a fancy form of copy-editing.


  20. Kleen says:

    Andy McCarthy
    May 18
    Replying to
    I wouldn’t make this about the Woods Procedure. It’s basic: Steele was not the SOURCE; he was the ACCUMULATOR/PURVEYOR of the info, like a case agent. You can’t get a warrant on the case agent’s credibility; you’re supposed to give court reasons to rely on actual sources.

    Undercover Huber
    May 18
    Agree and your analogy (approx) of the great case agent who says his snitch saw some drugs in a target house is a good one. It doesn’t matter how credible the *agent* it, it’s how credible the snitch is and is he in a position to know that the drugs are really there

    Roscoe B Davis
    May 18
    You’re conflating the level of probable cause with a Title 1 vs a Title 3 birds of a different feather. No way to compare title 1 surveillance to title 3 search and seizure as far as probable cause requirements

    Roscoe B Davis
    May 18
    I think to Andy’s point, Steele is listed as Source-1 when in fact he’s not a source at all, that’s a deal killer before you ever try to approach the level of Woods for verification and accuracy. Steele was just a pass-through, for unverified gossip, not a source

    May 18
    Earlier today, McCarthy said even if there are only news articles to “verify facts” or if the Woods File is completely empty, that it is not criminal

    The Woods File is a procedure, not law

    Roscoe B David
    May 18
    But when you swear an affidavit to a court and it’s false, that is a crime

    Liked by 1 person

  21. SharkDiver says:

    If this IS true, why is this theory just NOW coming out? Would this not be common knowledge? Something doesn’t sound right about all this.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Yancey Ward says:

      It is only now “coming out”, because everyone at the FBI involved in this knew they hadn’t followed the Woods Procedure. Ms. Moyer knows it, but because she is particularly liable for following it, decided she would try to make it look like she followed it by claiming it is something other than what it actually is.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mark L. says:

      Thank you!


    • Mike Dennis says:

      It’s coming out “just now” because you wait until there are seconds left in the 4th Q before you launch the Hail Mary pass.

      Liked by 2 people

  22. mr. deacon says:

    Ask any teacher that has had a parent or principal on their case for personal reasons or are trying to cover for themselves. The “fact” that a rumor is being circulated about you insures your guilt regardless of the source or accuracy of the claim. Under this system the “verifiable facts” are that a claim was made against you. Trump? Kavanaugh?

    Liked by 2 people

  23. John Q Public says:

    I think judges may have different ideas about that…


  24. srmikeinohio says:

    Water board every one of these M F’ers !!!

    Liked by 3 people

  25. dutzie60 says:

    Must be why 99.9999999% of the FISA request are granted. Nothing needed except ‘I want one’. Oh, and I have the napkin as documentation.

    Liked by 7 people

  26. Yancey Ward says:

    If you willfully violate someone’s civil rights under the color of law, you can be charged criminally. You have a Woods Procedure for a reason- it there to make sure you don’t violate an American’s civil rights in searches and seizures.

    Liked by 4 people

    • cboldt says:

      You have a Woods Procedure for a reason- it there to make sure you don’t violate an American’s civil rights in searches and seizures.

      That’s the same reason for FISA in the first place. And it should be no shocker that the law that purports to protect civil liberties is used to undermine them. The FISA law gives a legal defense when the snooping violates civil rights.

      Every time Congress has hearings and passes law that purport to protect the public, the show is a SHAM, aimed at mollifying a gullible public. All the while, the government grows more powerful and less accountable.

      Liked by 1 person

  27. Nigella says:

    So if this is true, the President doesn’t need to release the FISA’s? I am depressed

    Liked by 1 person

  28. Yancey Ward says:

    If Moyer’s claim was really correct (it’s not), then you don’t even need a court to approve the application. I mean, if any hearsay is adequate, then you don’t need a court and a judge to approve the application. The court and the judges are there to ensure that the government isn’t just using surveillance with no probable cause at all.

    Liked by 2 people

  29. kathyca says:

    If I understand this analysis correctly, I disagree. Even if the Woods Procedure – performed correctly — satisfies minimum legal standards, it appears that the procedure was NOT performed correctly. Moyer is not stating what the law requires in terms of the Woods Procedure, she’s saying what was actually done.

    Here’s an excerpt from article about what the Woods procedure should look like. It goes beyond providing a source, no matter how non-credible.Notice how it focuses on verifying the accuracy of facts and corroboration sufficient to “meet the legal standards for the court.”

    * * *
    The FISA application then travels to the Justice Department where attorneys from the National Security Division comb through the application to verify all the assertions made in it. Known as “Woods procedures” after Michael J. Woods, the FBI Special Agent attorney who developed this layer of approval, DOJ 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 – 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!), a lawyer from DOJ takes the FISA application before the FISC, comprised of eleven federal district judges who sit on the court on a rotating basis. The FISC reviews the application in secret, and decides whether to approve the warrant.
    * * *

    Liked by 10 people

    • Kleen says:

      My understanding is that the Woods File is just an internal procedure. It’s not a law.

      I read that Muller is the author. If true, it’s all you need to know….

      Why was he hand picked to be the SC?

      These crooks are slick and they hide under classified information.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cboldt says:

        Woods is the author, and yes, it is nothing more than an internal FBI/DOJ procedure. It was handy when the FISC was new, and it and the FBI worked out their negotiations in total secrecy.


  30. tav144 says:

    Then where is there footnote for Steele’s SOURCES?!
    Sure they’ve footnoted Steele, but where is the footnote for the sources he cites?

    Liked by 1 person

  31. xenosonice says:

    So you say “Pretty please, with cherries on top, can I get a FISA Warrant?”

    And the judge says “Since you asked so nicely, why not?!”

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Bob, Esq. says:

    The Woods procedure is irrelevant.

    The answer is in Footnote 8; something they can’t walk back or claim was oversight or negligence.

    The FBI/DOJ (James Baker) designed Footnote 8 to conceal that their evidence for a FISA warrant against the Trump campaign was created by Fusion GPS on behalf of the Clinton campaign. Footnote 8 demonstrates consciousness of guilt and scienter in furtherance of a treasonable conspiracy to affect the outcome of a presidential election and thence overturn it by framing the duly elected president for high crimes and misdemeanors; thereby subverting the constitution and laws of the United States.

    Liked by 13 people

    • bertdilbert says:

      Why is everyone worried about the FISA being good when the FISA was the insurance policy to cover the illegal spying that occurred before the FISA? There is no Woods file on the illegal spying. Carter Page was probably a willing participant in the warrant anyways. He went where the FBI told him most likely.


      • Bob, Esq. says:

        Even if you catch a fraud red-handed, he’ll slip through your grasp like an eel if he’s not logically precluded from raising defenses of mistake, misunderstanding, and the like. Accordingly, catching a fraud requires cutting off all lines of retreat by showing he did exactly what he intended to do.

        James Baker sealed all their fates with one footnote.


        • WRB says:

          This comment and many others along the same lines all point to the need for AG Barr to treat this as a RICO investigation. The “small group” has acted as a criminal organization embedded in the federal gov’t, and should be treated as such.

          Liked by 1 person

  33. Kleen says:

    This abuse is not new.

    February 06, 2019 – 03:30 PM EST
    Mueller hauled before secret FISA court to address FBI abuses in 2002, Congress told


    Liked by 4 people

  34. gary says:

    appears to me that this is merely sally moyers opinion. a fisa judge that got lied to will most certainly read more into the woods rules.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Tiffthis says:

    What I don’t want is the guilty party that used the FISA court to be pardoned because they didn’t know at the time it was unconstitutional- “they are innocent and following protocol.” That would be total BS. Lying to an unconstitutional court is still a crime, no?

    Liked by 1 person

  36. snellvillebob says:

    This does not excuse their crimes when top people in both the FBI and DOJ were told by a reputable woman in the State Department that Steele was full of BS and his dossier was a fraud, days before the first FISA warrant application was made.
    An honest employee would have slammed on the brakes on the application. A criminal employee would ignore the warning and proceed with the application.

    Liked by 5 people

  37. mazziflol says:

    Yup…just like Obama told us 2 years ago… #ByTheBook.
    They all pass go and collect 200M$ from book deals.


  38. archie says:

    Of course they get away! They are professionals that came up through the ranks and they know how to survive.
    Where are the god dang republicans in the Congress and State Houses? And what about the dumb republican electorate? That’s how they get away. UniParty from cradle to grave from dog catcher to Speaker of the House.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Zorro says:

    If we don’t need to follow procedures then we don’t need document redactions either.

    Liked by 3 people

  40. @ChicagoBri says:

    After 9/11 the government scared us in to thinking we needed to build up a massive surveillance apparatus that, cough, cough, would never be used against Americans. The government lied. Tear it down (the internal spying apparatus, not the government – yet.)

    Liked by 6 people

  41. Streak 264 says:

    Then Barr lied about the spying, Huber is all made up, IG wasted time on a non issue, Dims are running scared for nothing and we are being played?
    Not buying this at all.
    All though I have had a theory that this whole thing from both sides is nothing but a book selling clickbait scheme.
    I have actually started backing of on clicking on these articles whether good or bad for us because if any of this were illegal people would already be in prison and we would be talking about why they are in prison rather than why they should be there.
    This whole scam is all over the place and far too depressing.

    Liked by 2 people

    • grandmotherpatriot says:

      While it is depressing it should also be motivating to continue to fight for our Republic.
      I do not feel that Barr lied but I would like to see President Trump release the unredacted FISA Warrants.

      Liked by 2 people

  42. Max Tadpol says:

    Disgusting. All of it.


  43. george says:

    How do you know that her interpretation is legally accurate? She may be slanting everything to avoid any criminal prosecution of her colleagues and herself.

    Liked by 4 people

  44. mb says:

    Hugh Hewitt, Andy McCarthy, and Joe diGenova all worked on FISA in the beginning and are saying thats not how the Woods were designed or implemented. I dont doubt thats the card they intend to play, but the FISC itself ought to have something to say about that.

    Liked by 3 people

  45. cboldt says:

    FWIW, this method of reaching a conclusion is also typical of court proceedings. Info presented by the government is presumed accurate, correct, thruthful, etc. And all it takes to sustain that is “trust.” In other words, conflicting evidence can be dismissed “just because it is not from a trustworthy source, like the government.”

    The system is rigged. It is self-serving, and it is fundamentally dishonest.

    Liked by 4 people

  46. Bob, Esq. says:

    Two scenarios on Trump-Russia investigators — and neither is comforting

    By Sharyl Attkisson

    Liked by 1 person

  47. ristvan says:

    Lurking Lawyer here.
    What Sidney Powell said upthread agrees with my independent legal research on any warrant application, FISA ‘Woods’ being a particularly important case. Ms Moyer’s statement may be her FBI take, but it is just wrong as a matter of law. When a LEO or Lawyer (officer of the court) attests to a warrant request, they are required to attest that the facts are correct to their knowledge and belief. NOT ‘we have a paper that recorded somebody said something’. The SOMETHING should be true ‘to knowledge and belief’. We can prove ‘Somebody said something’ is the equivalent of inadmissable hearsay evidence. Basic 2L first semester ‘Rules of evidence’ stuff.

    Liked by 14 people

    • grandmotherpatriot says:

      Thank you for that clarification.

      Liked by 1 person

      • WES says:

        Patriot: I might add that a lot can depend upon who in Congress was asking Moyer questions.

        If the questioner is Uniparty then they will happily go along with Moyer’s BS and not call her on it.

        After all they don’t want anybody to be able to get to the bottom of this “matter”!


    • cboldt says:

      “It’s not a lie if you believe it” – George Costanza

      My point is that Moyers engages in garden variety common twisting of rhetoric or reality or law. See decades of federal appellate court application of the Presser case for the opposite of what it actually says [“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question (2nd Amdment) out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”]

      It should not be a shock that the FBI interprets its own standards in a self-serving way. See Wray, Horowitx concluded nothing was done wrong. This is institutional rot, and it is pervasive across all government.

      Liked by 1 person

    • NJF says:

      From my understanding every renewal requires additional “evidence” to be presented in order to continue survllience. What would that be in this case? AND, if at any time they come to find out something in the application is false, they are supposed to go to the judge for a “re-evaluation”

      None of these procedures were followed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TwoLaine says:

      100%. She’s just ignorant.


    • Dutchman says:

      So, what this released testimony tells us, is NOT what ‘is’, but what she and others in the process believed ‘is'(the law), or what they want us to BELIEVE they thought the law was.

      Leads to ‘well, o.k. I guess your right, thats NOT the law,…but we THOUGHT it was so,….you know, INTENT,…whst Comey said. We didn’t INTEND to break the law, to illegally spy on a Presidential campaign, in order to cover up earlier illegal spying, and to overturn an election. No, we are only guilty of misunderstanding of subtle legal concepts,…we dinna do nuffin! We were just Stupid,..not CRIMINAL!

      Every one of these peoples testimonies, statements, etc. are going to be ‘self-serving’, and trying desperately to excuse their behavior.

      Don’t get sidetracked, frustrated or discouraged. These people live to spin, and have spent their adult lives focused not on what IS, but on shaping the narrative of what IS.

      The swamp is neverneverland, and reality is far, far away.


    • YeahYouRight says:

      But that IS the fig leaf! They can say that these bogus “facts” before them were the best information available at the time.

      They either*think* they’re covered, or they *are* covered. We shall see.


    • BitterC says:

      Skimming the Page FISA, it appears the only person that signed it declaring it is true under penalty of perjury is the Supervisory Special Agent.

      There are a lot of redactions, but it looks like Yates & company merely certify the “verified application” is necessary


  48. Revenant says:

    So the “Verified Affidavit” if I understand correctly, is simply a recitation that the sources listed in the Affidavit (and in the Woods file), say what they say. Not that they are, in fact, true. The affiant does not need to have personal knowledge of the truth of anything in the affidavit, except that the sources (which may be NYT Articles) say what they say.

    No wonder the courts give 99% of the FISA applications sought. What a joke.


  49. mb says:

    This from Hugh Hewitt should give us some relief:

    “My Washington Post column earlier this elicited some comments from a Bureau veteran of more than 2 decades, one with extensive FISA experience:

    1. If Carter Page cooperated in 2013-14 in the investigation when Russian intelligence tried to recruit him, that means he had a “handler” in Counter-Intelligence — an agent who worked with him in 2013-14 because he cooperated and the Russians were prosecuted. The first thing that would have normally happen when Page turned up in the Trump dossier — when known to have previously been a cooperator– would have been to have his handler arrange to meet with him to talk. He’d cooperated before, and the first reaction to the new information would be that he would cooperate again. It would NOT have been to begin working up a FISA application on him. Page has denied that the FBI ever approached him in the summer of 2016.

    2. In a FISA warrant on a US citizen, you NEVER rely on information that can’t be verified. If it can’t be verified, its taken out of the application. Agents fight to keep stuff in, even when thinly sourced, but the lawyers at FBI and DOJ are constantly removing stuff that they think isn’t adequately sourced. The fact that Steele was a former MI6 agent is nice, but its not a substitute for being able to verify the sources that gave Steele the information. Doing a FISA on a US Citizen, based on the premise that he’s engaged in espionage, is a HUGE step, and its not done on thin sourcing. The fact that Steele was retired, and working for pay — as opposed to being active and working only on behalf of his government — works against Steele’s credibility. He’s being paid to produce shaded information, not necessarily “truthful” information — which would be the presumption if he was still an active MI6 agent. So it normally would have been required for him to identify his sources — not keep them confidential. If he was an active MI6 agent, then you would respect his need to keep his sources confidential for future work. But he’s not acting on behalf of the British government, so that deference no longer applies. His information would not be accepted simply on his say-so. He’s selling his services, and wants to get paid, so he has a motivation to provide what his patron is looking for.

    3. The Grassley memo says that the FISA renewal in January 2017 states the FBI disclosed that Steele was terminated as a Source in “October, 2016”, without specifying the date. The date exists — there is a “Source Termination” document in his file, and it has a date on it. If he was terminated BEFORE the FISA application was submitted on October 21, 2016, that is a massive red flag problem — the kind that gets people fired, and maybe prosecuted. If the FISA application went forward with information from Steele AFTER the date Steele was terminated as a source, that’s a violation of Bureau policy that would result in termination. The fact that the date is omitted in Grassley’s memo — as if it wasn’t in the underlying document Grassley or his staff read — is a noteworthy omission because that date was known when the January 2017 renewal disclosed the termination to the FISC, and its omission is almost certainly not accidental. This is the same kind of purposeful omission as the failure to specify that the Clinton campaign and the DNC paid for Steele’s work.

    4. Whenever a key source in a FISA Application is terminated for misconduct, you do NOT wait for the next renewal to inform the FISC of the development. Policy is to file a disclosure of the change in circumstances with the Judge who issued the warrant, and leave it to the Judge to determine whether the new information requires rescinding the warrant. Only the Judge knows whether the information from that particular Source was crucial in the Judge’s determination that the application made a sufficient showing to justify issuance of the warrant. It was shocking to see that the termination of Steele was only disclosed to the FISC at the time of the first renewal approximately 3 months after Steele was terminated.

    5. Whenever a FISA source is terminated for misconduct, that source’s information cannot be relied upon in the renewals. Normally the renewal is justified based on intelligence that is gathered during the first 90 days. Its normally not necessary to rely on the original source as justification to renew the FISA warrant UNLESS your surveillance is NOT turning up information about the target’s foreign entanglements. You only rely on the original PC if your surveillance is not providing you new PC information. But you would NEVER be allowed to rely on a terminated source’s information to continue PC when the surveillance is not providing sufficient new PC. So it makes no sense — as stated in Grassley’s memo — for the Bureau to continue to rely on Steele’s dossier information as PC in the 90, 180, or 270 day renewals. If there is new PC generated by the surveillance, then there is no need to use the terminated source. If there is no new PC from the surveillance, its a violation of policy to rely on the information from the terminated source as a substitute. The fact that the Bureau continued to present the Steele information in the renewals SUGGESTS — though is not necessarily conclusive — that there was insufficient intelligence coming out of the surveillance to provide new PC to continue the surveillance.

    6. The idea that a Yahoo News article could be cited in a FISA application as “verification” of a source’s information is “Laugh Out Loud” funny. If such a claim was made in a regular FISA application, the first line of legal review would call and ask if that was included as a joke. The story in question cites anonymous sources. So you have Steele quoting anonymous sources, and Isikoff citing anonymous sources. The idea that they constitute verification of each other when the Bureau has no idea who they are or why they would know what they told Steele/Isikoff is simply “Through the Looking Glass” stuff. The fact that something like that survived FISA review confirms that the FISA process was corrupted. Its just beyond the pale — its that ridiculous.

    7. When it became known that the info in the September 23, 2016 Yahoo News article matched pretty much exactly the information provided by Steele to the Bureau, and Steele denied having any contact with the press on the subject of his work, that would normally have led to a decision that Steele be polygraphed to see if he was being deceptive in his denial. If he had been polygraphed and passed, that would have been disclosed as the basis for believing his denial. The fact that he wasn’t polygraphed is a big tell that the “fix” was in — they feared he would fail. The idea that an Agent would write in the application — as Grassley’s memo says — ” The FBI does not believe [Steele] directly provided this information to the press”, relying only on Steele’s denial of having done so — MI6 or not — is laughable. Again, it goes back to the gravity of seeking a FISA warrant on a US citizen.

    As you can see, veterans of the FISA process have collective eyebrows raised, and both this Bureau veteran and the retired federal judge quoted in my column have much more recent FISA experience than mine from the Reagan-era DOJ.”

    Liked by 9 people

  50. alliwantissometruth says:

    First of all, if anyone here knows Ms. Moyer, please tell her I’d like to give her a case of shampoo as a gift

    Secondly, the way we’ve allowed our “government” to operate for so long, where they write their own rules and can squirm out of accountability with vague verbiage, it’s going to take something above and beyond legal jargon and precedent (which they’ll manipulate) to convict these scumbags

    It’s probably going to take getting a few of them to sing. If one or two start naming names and start revealing what was said behind closed doors in private, it’ll open the floodgates and we’ll see scumbag after scumbag throwing each other under the bus

    I hope those on Trumps side have enough on certain players to start applying real pressure

    All it takes is one domino to fall, otherwise, they could pull this off

    Liked by 2 people

    • YeahYouRight says:

      I bet they think they are covered because, on the 7th floor, they had the manual out and thought Yahoo news qualified as verification, and Woods procedure was just pinpointing footnote 22 to citation 22, not making sure content passed the laugh test. I think these administrators told themselves what they wanted to hear, believing there was no way Trump could ever prevail against their best efforts.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s