Mediaboss Marketing

The F.B.I.s investigation of the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, we can now say with assurance, was a train wreck. In his report, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz cataloged a damning list of egregious errors, omissions or misrepresentations in filings to the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approved nearly a years worth of wiretaps on Mr. Page.

Many Republicans have taken this as proof that the investigation was hopelessly contaminated by anti-Trump political bias. That would be the optimistic scenario. Unfortunately, its probably much worse than that.

If the F.B.I. botched its applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants against Mr. Page because of political bias, after all, problems of the sort Mr. Horowitz identified are most likely unique to this case. The bureau obtains about 1,500 FISA warrants each year, and an overwhelming majority have no connection to domestic politics. The solution is also similarly simple: Toss out the bad apples who acted on political motives and add a few layers of safeguards for the tiny fraction of cases that are designated sensitive investigative matters because they do intersect with politics.

That might be a reasonable response if we were confident the Page investigation represented an outlier or aberration. The chilling reality, however, is that we have no idea whether thats the case.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week, Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, zeroed in on this point. When she asked Mr. Horowitz whether finding mistakes in a FISA application was a fairly unusual occurrence, he responded, I would hope so.

Americans deserve a stronger assurance than hope that their Fourth Amendment rights are being respected. The sheer quantity of serious defects in the FISA applications targeting Mr. Page which officials consistently told Mr. Horowitz received far more review than normal, because agents understood the applications would doubtless attract controversy and scrutiny raises an obvious and disturbing question: If theyre this sloppy with a target involved in a presidential campaign, how bad is it in ordinary cases, which the public will never learn about and which are unlikely to ever be the topic of congressional hearings?

We neednt worry so much about that, of course, if the defects of the Page warrants were products of political animus against the Trump campaign. But the report provides very little reason to think thats the case. The case for supposing bias is the culprit here leans heavily on the former F.B.I. agent Peter Strzok, now notorious for a voluminous history of text messages denigrating Mr. Trump and suggesting that he would not become president because we will stop it. But while Mr. Strzok played a supervisory role in the earliest stage of the Page investigation, its hard to tie him to the specific problems Mr. Horowitz identifies. As the report notes, Mr. Strzok was not the primary or sole decision maker on any investigative step and at one point opposed FISA monitoring of another Trump campaign staff member that case agents proposed. Moreover, the problems Mr. Horowitz documented in the initial FISA application filed under Mr. Strzoks watch were significantly less serious than the outrageous omissions and misrepresentations to the court that occurred in the subsequent applications to renew the wiretap, after Mr. Strzoks role in the investigation had ended.

With one significant exception an F.B.I. lawyer responsible for improperly altering an email related to the final renewal application Mr. Horowitz didnt find signs of Mr. Strzoks intense animus among others who worked on the FISA warrants. The report notes that among the huge quantity of internal communications reviewed, the inspector general identified a small number of text messages and instant messages in which members of the investigation team discussed political issues and candidates, but that these did not raise significant questions of potential bias or improper motivation.

If theres an explanation for the errors Mr. Horowitz documents suggested by his reports, its not political bias. Its confirmation bias.

The F.B.I.s interest in Mr. Page and its suspicions that he might be a Russian intelligence asset predated his involvement in presidential politics. He had reportedly been the target of a FISA warrant in 2014 and was the focus of yet another counterintelligence investigation opened in April 2016 by the F.B.I.s notoriously Trump-friendly New York field office, months before the bureau started an inquiry into potential links between the Trump campaign and Russias election interference operation. When investigators got wind of Christopher Steeles notorious dossier, which made Mr. Page a pivotal figure in a well-developed conspiracy of cooperation between Mr. Trump and the Kremlin, it would have seemed like confirmation of what they already suspected.

Having adopted this theory, investigators began to exhibit classic signs of confirmation bias, readily absorbing new information that fit the model theyd built, while overlooking or explaining away facts that didnt fit. The worst misrepresentations to the court that Mr. Horowitz uncovered are sins of omission new information the bureau obtained as the investigation progressed that should have led it to question previous representations it had made to the court.

The many layers of review FISA applications go through laid out in a set of rules known as the Woods Procedures were ill equipped to detect this sort of problem, because the Woods Procedures focus on confirming that facts in the application match documents in the F.B.I.s case file. But you cant fact check a claim that doesnt exist which means the process is bad at detecting important information that has been left out. Officials who reviewed later applications also told Mr. Horowitz that they typically focused on the new information in each submission. That means assertions theyd made early on ended up effectively being taken for granted: Nobody was revisiting early assumptions to see whether they still held up in the face of new data.

If this explains why the Page investigation went increasingly off the rails, its an explanation that has little to do with partisan politics at its heart. But that would mean theres little reason to think the Page investigation is special in this respect. Theres an urgent need, then, for the inspector general to do more such deep dives and figure out just how pervasive the problem really is.

Fortunately, the inspector general is already taking a first step in this direction, having begun a review that will examine the F.B.I.s compliance with the Woods Procedures in FISA applications that target U.S. persons. But in itself, thats not enough: While Mr. Horowitz found violations of the Woods Procedures in the Page case, they werent the most serious distortions. Those occurred precisely because the Woods Procedures arent well calibrated to catch material facts that get left out. To do that, youd need to do the kind of intensive and comprehensive case-by-case review conducted in the Horowitz review, not just run Woods vetting a second time to see whether the results tally.

Doing this sort of deep dive for a representative sample of FISA applications will, of course, be both expensive and extremely time consuming. But its well worth it to find out just how badly our surveillance state is broken.

Link:
The Chilling Reality of Bias at the F.B.I. - The New York Times

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee debated articles of impeachment drawn from a densely argued, sharply worded 300-page report that the Democratic majority on the House Intelligence Committee produced. It is an investigative tour de force, written for posterity. In considerable detail, using interviews and records, it describes, for example, how President Trumps top personal adviser, Rudolph W. Giuliani, traipsed across Europe, circumventing diplomats as he furthered the presidents direct political interests. It also delves into the circumstances behind Mr. Giulianis repeated contacts with a reporter, John Solomon of The Hill, and marshals a case that Mr. Solomons reporting helped push a false and damaging narrative about the then-serving American ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.

The committee chairman, Representative Adam Schiff, believed that a detailed description of Mr. Solomons contacts with Mr. Giuliani and with Ukrainians were germane to the core of the case for impeachment against Mr. Trump, because the report speaks to the flood of misinformation that may have persuaded President Trump to act so recklessly.

But those who care about the vitality of journalism should here take a pause and ask why they dont feel disturbed. John Solomons investigative articles for The Hill may have been wrong, they were often misleading, and they were (judiciously, unwittingly?) used to further a conspiracy to oust a respected American ambassador. Mr. Solomon is a dogged, prideful investigator who worked with The Associated Press and The Washington Post before his political inclinations became more manifest and his penchant for accepting conclusions congenial to Republican partisans became a calling card.

But in revealing whom Mr. Solomon talked with, and when, Mr. Schiff and his committee have created a new pathway for the government to find and reveal a reporters sources and to question his or her motives. That is wrong. The legislative branch should not use its subpoena power to police journalism.

Mr. Schiffs pathway could easily be considered a precedent. And the government does not need more encouragement to out a journalists sources. The executive branch, in the institutions of the Department of Justice and the F.B.I., has used metadata call records and routing information not protected by the Fourth Amendment to document reporters contacts with their sources in a number of cases in which the source has subsequently been imprisoned. The public interest case for prosecuting leakers is easy to make. But we should note that the governments obligation to protect national security and a reporters duty to uncover abuses of executive power often clash. Whom you side with at those junctures depends on which tribe you belong to. Im a journalist, so I often side with the journalists.

I do have a big problem when journalists wittingly or unwittingly collude with foreign governments to degrade the institutions of democracy that we rely on. And while Im tempted to assert that Congress has no business ever poking its nose into reporting, I cant deny the circumstances that collided here; Mr. Solomon is part of this story. But to deny him any First Amendment protection of his work is to fail to see beyond the immediate ramifications of Mr. Schiffs decision. If Republicans regain control of the House, what would prevent them from using the same tactic to pummel the press for stories its members dont like? Ah, but what if the reporters have been consorting with liars and cons, as seems to be the case here?

Well, the worst people often have the best available information, and judgment calls are a humble part of the journalistic enterprise. Congress should recognize this and acknowledge that it is important.

Mr. Schiff did not subpoena Mr. Solomon directly, and his staff seems to believe that this settles the matter. But it should not. Mr. Schiff has effectively punished a reporter for reporting. And punishments that might be levied for errors in reporting and for apparent partisan bias should never come from the government. Journalists who dont object to this investigative practice will conspire to make it much easier for future entities in government to harass reporters who are pursuing the truth.

It pains me to see some of our most respected advocates for press freedom default to the view that Congresss procedures were duly followed and, while there may be some ickiness in the air, Republicans who have complained about Mr. Schiffs methods have no right to complain about intrusive government. This argument does not track, though, especially during a week when the Justice Departments inspector general revealed serious and potentially material deficiencies in the F.B.I.s application to renew a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act order against Carter Page, a low-level Trump foreign policy aide whom the F.B.I. suspected might have a been a conduit for the Russian government to control or influence the Trump campaign. (There is no evidence that Mr. Page, a serial entrepreneur with some dubious friends, served in this role.)

Another way to minimize the First Amendment implications of Mr. Schiffs decision is to note that President Trump represents (and indeed has become) a far worse threat to a free press than any consequence of a procedurally appropriate congressional investigation. I agree with the statement of value: that Mr. Trump has beguiled, bewildered and bullied the press to a point of real danger. Labeling the press the enemy, arguing for looser libel laws, threatening broadcast licenses, gleefully encouraging his followers worst assumptions about the role of reporters all but invites us to consider him a national security threat the way some of his own appointees came to. But Trump being Trump is not an excuse for lowering the threshold for First Amendment vigilance elsewhere. Indeed, we should raise our voices even louder when other institutions of government make public a more casual appreciation of the First Amendment. Making sure that Congress passes rules that limit the use of subpoenas to inspect or reveal reporter-source relationships should be a priority.

Much of what the public knows about President Trumps conduct in office comes from journalists who have not been cowed by the enormous power wielded by the executive branch and its investigative capabilities. The civic emergency within which we are working will be exacerbated if we excuse or brush off an abuse of power because it supports our side.

Marc Ambinder (@marcambinder) leads the Annenberg digital security initiative at the University of Southern California. He also teaches national security reporting.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Originally posted here:
Did Schiff Poke a Hole in the First Amendment? - The New York Times

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has agreed to withdraw a fine against a Texas man who, after successfully passing through an airport security metal detector and then being randomly selected to pass through a whole-body imaging scanner, chose not to board a flight rather than be subjected to a third search an invasive pat-down by TSA agents.

Jonathan Cobb was fined $2,660 by TSA and charged with interfering with airport screening after he politely refused, based on past traumatic experiences with TSA, to be subjected to a pat-down search at George W. Bush International Airport and opted instead not to board his ticketed flight. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute came to Cobbs defense, challenging the $2,660 fine as excessive and successfully arguing that Cobb had a Fourth Amendment right to opt out of the search and elect not to travel.

What we are witnessing is an unofficial rewriting of the Fourth Amendment by government agencies and the courts that essentially does away with any distinctions over what is reasonable when it comes to searches and seizures by government agents, said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People.

The rationale, of course, is that anything is reasonable in the war on terrorism. By constantly pushing the envelope and testing the limits of what Americans will tolerate, the government is thus able to ratchet up the level of intrusiveness that Americans consider reasonable.

As Justice Robert H. Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials, recognized, Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual, and putting terror in every heart.

Jonathan Cobb was scheduled to travel to Chicago from Houstons George W. Bush International Airport on February 25, 2019. Prior to boarding his ticketed flight, Cobb entered a TSA screening area. After passing through the metal detector without any alarms, Cobb was randomly selected for additional screening and told to proceed through the Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) scanner.

Although Cobb offered to remove his belt because he feared it would cause an alarm, the AIT operator instructed him to leave the belt on. The machine did alarm and Cobb was told that he must submit to a third search a pat-down of his body.

Cobb politely and calmly refused, telling the agents that he would rather leave the airport and miss his flight than submit to a pat-down.

After Cobb refused to submit to the pat-down, he was taken to a private area, where a TSA supervisor told him he must submit to a pat-down because of the AIT alarm.

Cobb explained that his refusal to endure a pat-down search was based upon a traumatic TSA screening in 2012 when he was selected for a pat-down, which he found excessively invasive and demoralizing; however, Cobb offered to allow a full visual inspection of his person or to reenter the AIT scanner without his belt. TSA agents reported the matter to local law enforcement.

When Cobb continued to insist, calmly and firmly, that he would not submit to the pat-down and would instead choose to miss his flight, police escorted Cobb out of the airport.

Two months later, Cobb received a notice that he was being fined $2,660 dollars for interfering with TSA screening.

In coming to Cobbs defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys argued that Cobb had a Fourth Amendment right to opt out of traveling rather than be subjected to an objectionable pat-down search by TSA screening agents. Affiliate attorney Jerri Lynn Ward of Garlo Ward assisted The Rutherford Institute in defending Cobb.

Founded in 1982 by constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people whose constitutional and human rights have been threatened or violated.

Read more:
TSA drops fine against Texas man who refused search - Overton County News

The first 10 amendments of the U.S. Constitution, commonly referenced as the Bill of Rights, were ratified on Dec. 15, 1791.

The first U.S. Congress approved 12 amendments to the Constitution in 1789, but only the proposed third through the 12th articles were actually adopted as amendments on this day 228 years ago.

Here are the Bill of Rights:

First Amendment:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Second Amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Third Amendment:No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth Amendment:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Fifth Amendment:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Sixth Amendment:In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Seventh Amendment:In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact, tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Eighth Amendment:Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Ninth Amendment:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Heres what happened to the two proposed articles of the 12 introduced in the first U.S. Congress:

The first proposed article, known as the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, established when and by how many representatives in the U.S. House would increase based on population counts.

By the proposal, with nearly 330 million people, more than 6,000 people would be in Congress.

The article is still technically pending before the states, but based on the number of states 27 more states would need to ratify the proposed article.

The second proposed article, which set rules about when congressional salary takes effect, was adopted 202 years, seven months and 10 days after it was proposed.

In 1982, Gregory Watson, a then-19-year-old sophomore at University of Texas Austin, claimed the proposed article could still be ratified in a paper for government class, according to news reports.

He was given aC, despite an appeal to his professor.

Watson campaigned to complete the ratification ended on May 5, 1992, when it became the 27th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you for reading the Journal-News and for supporting local journalism. Subscribers: log in for access to your daily ePaper and premium newsletters.

Thank you for supporting in-depth local journalism with your subscription to the Journal-News. Get more news when you want it with email newsletters just for subscribers. Sign up here.

Visit link:
Bill of Rights Day: Can you name the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution? - Hamilton Journal News

The following is from Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson. Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

If you think youre hearing more accounts than ever about improper government intrusion into our lives, youre a lot like author and journalist David Kirby. He researched that for new book When They Come For You: How Police and Government Are Trampling Our Liberties and How to Take Them Back.

Sharyl: When you say, When They Come for You, who is the They?

Kirby: The they can be anything from a local social services agent in your community, to the president of the United States. This goes on at the state, federal and local level. It goes on in red states and blue states, rich states, and poor states, big cities, and small towns. I found violations of the Fourth Amendment, the First Amendment, freedom of speech, people having their homes raided without a warrant. People having their cars taken away from them because they were suspected of a crime even though they didnt commit a crime. People in debtors prison because they cant pay their court fees and fines, and of course child protective services that come in the middle of the night, and just yank your kid away.

Sharyl: Do you think theres been an escalation in events like this, or are we just able to find them, and notice them more?

Kirby: Its a very good question. Theres not a lot of hard data unfortunately. There is more monitoring. Social media, people have cameras with them everywhere so its more noticeable. But I do think it is getting worse. I think particularly with surveillance, with the First Amendment, with freedom of the press, freedom of protestors. I think it started after 911, the PATRIOT Act. It got worse under Obama, as you well know, with surveillance of the media. Now I think its getting even worse, particularly cracking down on protesters, spying on protestors, and doing things like threatening to sue media outlets for libel, or wanting to change the libel laws.

Sharyl: Many Americans say, I obey the law. If the government wants to surveil me, look at my computer, I dont really care. Is there a counterpoint to that?

Kirby: I mean thats the Fourth Amendment. Its the most threatened amendment in our country, I think, after the First Amendment, which is a close second. But we need to protect those protections for everybody, and once you just acquiesce and say, Well, its okay if theyre listening in on my phone call, then the door starts opening wider and wider.

Sharyl: Is it fair to say you consider yourself a liberal, or a liberal Democrat?

Kirby: Im a lefty. Yes. Left of center.

Sharyl: Do you notice any division? Is one party or the other better or worse at any of this?

Kirby: Theyre both bad to be honest. I can pick apart, and my book does, and Im equally critical of the Obama Administration as the Trump Administration. A lot of my stories take place in blue states.

Sharyl: But what do you attribute that to, if there isnt even an ideological divide into where this happens?

Kirby: Well, I think when you talk about ideology, I think people on the far left and on the far right are actually a lot more united over these issues than they realize. People on the left dont like government intrusion any more than anybody else does. It is more of a libertarian point of view. I call myself a lefty libertarian, which sounds oxymoronic, but I figured it out. I would say people like Rand Paul is certainly bringing these things up once in a while. He has sponsored some bills in Congress. They go absolutely nowhere. He does get Democratic cosponsors. There are people, progressives, who are interested in reforming these issues, and reigning in the government. But like I said, it goes nowhere.

Sharyl: What would you say is the takeaway message you would like people to walk away from reading your book with?

Kirby: Know your Bill of Rights. Read them, study them, know what protections you are offered under them in case you ever need to use them, and if you are concerned about these things, its up to us. These are our personal freedoms, and they are under attack.

A new report from Pew Research Center says a majority of Americans, 64%, are concerned about how much data is collected about them by the government online.

Watch the interview by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/politics/when-they-come-for-you

Read more from the original source:
When They Come for You - Sharyl Attkisson