A quiet (oral) request from the DOJ/FBI is noted in a late Friday release from FISA Court Presiding Judge James Boasberg. [LINK]
The previous deadline was January 28th. As noted the FISC has granted a one week extension until February 5th. [Some Possible Ramifications Outlined Here]
This is a hot mess. Remember, IG Horowitz said he only found evidence of a FISA warrant against Carter Page, no other Trump campaign or Trump administration official was investigated using a FISA application. That statement is a little more important now.
As I go back through my notes seeing if I can identify the downstream consequences impacted by a rather stunning sequestration effort, I find myself wondering if the HJC case(s) for 6(e) material and Don McGahn testimony might even be part of the pull-back material as a derivative of the special counsel probe’ use of the Carter Page Title-1 surveillance warrant. After all, there had to be an investigative reason for Mueller to want the renewal on June 29, 2017, long after Carter Page was gone from the Trump orbit.
Remember, the special counsel team used some form of pre-existing warrant authority to capture all of the Trump transition team emails and communication from the GSA, and then lied about it to the Trump White House. Perhaps National Security Letters (NSL’s).
The DOJ/FBI previously agreed to “sequester” all information and evidence received as an outcome of all four FISA warrants issued against Carter Page. Meaning, all material, in any court proceeding or subsequent secondary warrant on another target, application, filing, motion, prosecution or downstream use of the information gathered and obtained.
The DOJ and FBI stated they will now assemble all materials, from any location, that stemmed from the Carter Page FISA warrants. In essence, the FBI will now look and retrieve any evidence that stemmed as an outcome of the Carter Page FISA warrant. Some of this material *may* (perhaps likely) will be in the Special Counsel Mueller investigation.
[ie. a proverbial search for the fruit of a poisonous tree. Where is it?]
Once the sequestration has taken place, the DOJ will then be able to determine to the court what collateral impacts they have identified.
Worth noting in the second paragraph of the original order: “pending further review of the OIG report and the outcome of any investigations or litigation.” This was a statement made by the DOJ in response to the FISC. It is possible the ongoing investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham is part of this encompassing statement.
The second page of the order by Judge Boasberg is essentially him relaying the law surrounding FISA applications; warning the DOJ that false material submissions -which the DOJ has just admitted- are illegal; and Boasberg wanting to know answers to the same questions many of us have.
Essentially, Judge Boasberg is asking: what did the FBI do with the Title-1 surveillance warrant they received from the court? What material did they collect? Was that material then used in other proceedings and: “disseminated to DOJ prosecutors and other persons outside the FBI”?
The presiding fisa judge also wants to know what the DOJ is doing. Explain what “further review of the OIG report” means? Inform the court what “related investigations and litigation” pertains to, etc. The DOJ/FBI now have until February 5th to respond: