If this sounds a lot like the findings of former Special Counsel John Durham that the FBI had no legitimate basis to open an investigation of the Trump campaign, it’s because it is very much like it.
Most outrageously, the April 2022 FISC opinion notes one FBI analyst conducted a batch query for over 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. The FISC opinion noted that the analyst who ran the query “advised that the campaign was a target of foreign influence, but [the Department of Justice’s National Security Division] determined that only eight identifiers used in the query had sufficient ties to foreign influence activities to comply with querying standard.”
It was outside the FISC’s purview to ask whether the congressional candidate received a defensive briefing from the FBI about the alleged foreign influence operation. It is within the purview of multiple congressional committees to ask that and other related questions about this episode, and they should do so immediately.
Defense contractors were the subject of some 467 queries, despite the fact that “there was no specific information indicating that the named companies were being targeted by foreign adversaries.”
There are many other examples of such surveillance and investigative overreach in the FISC opinion, but by now you probably get the idea.
So, were any government officials sanctioned for these violations? No.
While Judge Rudolph Contreras occasionally offered criticisms or admonishments to the FBI and the National Security Agency (NSA) – which also had its share of violations of Section 702 – Contreras’s solution to the problems he catalogued was to impose still more reporting requirements on the FBI and NSA.
Given that these and related violations have been going on almost since the day the FISA Section 702 provision was signed into law in 2008, how the imposition of additional reporting requirements will in any way prevent further violations of the law – and unauthorized domestic spying on Americans – remains a great mystery.
Contreras did offer that, given the history of FBI compliance violations in accessing stored Section 702 data, “it may become necessary to consider other responses, such as substantially limiting the number of FBI personnel with access to unminimized [i.e., raw, unredacted] Section 702 information.”
Setting aside the question of whether or not FISA Section 702-derived data has ever been responsible for stopping an attack on the United States (and there is no well documented example in the public record of that being the case), there’s a much better way to ensure FBI compliance with FISA Section 702 in the future: require FBI agents to get a probable cause-based warrant from a federal judge to access said data.
This is, after all, the standard required by the Fourth Amendment – and it has been the lowering of that standard by the Congress in 2008 via enactment of FISA Section 702 that has made these serial FBI and NSA violations of the rights of Americans possible in the first place. Absent such a reform, opponents of FISA Section 702 should do all they can to ensure it ends at 12:01am on January 1, 2024.