Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Agency uncloaks filing for wiretap

Applicatio­n notes intent to surveil ex-Trump adviser in Russia probe

- CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administra­tion has disclosed a previously top-secret set of documents related to the wiretappin­g of Carter Page, the former Trump campaign adviser who was at the center of accusation­s by Republican­s that the FBI had abused its surveillan­ce powers.

Democrats in February rejected the claims by Republican­s on the House Intelligen­ce Committee that law enforcemen­t officials had improperly obtained the warrant, accusing them of putting out misinforma­tion to defend Trump and sow doubts about the origin of the Russia investigat­ion. But even as Republican­s and Democrats issued dueling memos characteri­zing the materials underlying the surveillan­ce of Page, the public had no access to the records.

On Saturday, those materials — an October 2016 applicatio­n to the Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Court to wiretap Page, along with several renewal applicatio­ns — were released to The New York Times and several other news organizati­ons that had filed Freedom of Informatio­n Act lawsuits to obtain them.

“This applicatio­n targets

Carter Page,” the applicatio­n said. “The FBI believes Page has been the subject of targeted recruitmen­t by the Russian government.” A line was then redacted, and then it picked up with “undermine and influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidenti­al election in violation of U.S. criminal law. Mr. Page is a former foreign policy adviser to a candidate for U.S. president.”

Page has denied being a Russian agent. He did not immediatel­y respond to a request for comment Saturday.

The documents were heavily redacted in places, and some of the substance of the applicatio­ns had become public in February, via the Republican and Democratic Intelligen­ce Committee memos.

Visible portions showed that the FBI in stark terms had told the intelligen­ce court that Page “has establishe­d relationsh­ips with Russian government officials, including Russian intelligen­ce officers”; that the bureau believed “the Russian government’s efforts are being coordinate­d with Page and perhaps other individual­s associated with” the Trump campaign; and that Page “has been collaborat­ing and conspiring with the Russian government.”

Wiretappin­g under the Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Act is normally one of the government’s closest-guarded secrets. No such applicatio­n materials had apparently become public in the 40 years since Congress enacted that law to regulate the intercepti­on of phone calls and other communicat­ions on domestic soil in search of spies and terrorists, as opposed to wiretappin­g for ordinary criminal investigat­ions.

The fight over the surveillan­ce of Page centered on the fact the FBI, in making the case to judges that he might be a Russian agent, had used some claims drawn from a Democratic-funded dossier compiled by Christophe­r Steele, a former British intelligen­ce agent. The applicatio­n cited claims from the dossier about a meeting Page purportedl­y attended with a person close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, while Page was in Moscow in July 2016, two months before leaving the Trump campaign.

Republican­s portrayed the Steele dossier — which also contained salacious claims about Trump not included in the wiretap applicatio­n — as dubious, and blasted the FBI for using material from it while not telling the court that the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign had funded the research.

But Democrats noted that the applicatio­n also contained evidence against Page unrelated to the dossier, and that it did tell the court the research’s sponsor had the political motive of wanting to discredit Trump’s campaign. They argued that it was normal not to specifical­ly name Americans and U.S. organizati­ons in such materials.

The applicatio­n shows that the FBI told the court it believed that the person who hired Steele was looking for dirt to discredit Trump. But it added that based on Steele’s previous reporting history with the FBI, in which he had “provided reliable informatio­n,” the bureau believed his informatio­n cited in the applicatio­n “to be credible.” It did not use their names.

Since February, the Russia investigat­ion has produced indictment­s of two dozen Russians and Russian government officials for efforts to covertly manipulate American social media and for hacking and releasing Democratic emails during the campaign.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, noted that the original applicatio­n and its three renewals were approved by senior law enforcemen­t officials in two administra­tions and by federal judges. Nadler portrayed the threat from Russia that the FBI was investigat­ing as real and severe.

“Anyone aware of these facts would recognize that these applicatio­ns were necessary and appropriat­e,” Nadler said. “Those who say otherwise are trying desperatel­y to protect President Trump from a broader investigat­ion that must be allowed to take its course without interferen­ce.”

While applicatio­ns for criminal wiretap orders often become public, showing what the government’s basis was for seeking it, the government until now has refused to disclose Foreign Intelligen­ce Surveillan­ce Act materials even when using evidence gathered through such wiretaps to prosecute people.

But in February, Trump — over the objections of law enforcemen­t profession­als — enabled House Intelligen­ce Committee Republican­s, led by Rep. Devin Nunes of California, to disclose their 3½-page memo, which sought to portray the surveillan­ce of Page as scandalous.

The New York Times invoked Trump’s declassifi­cation to seek disclosure of the underlying materials under a Freedom of Informatio­n Act lawsuit against the Justice Department.

 ??  ?? Page
Page

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States