Why Is the NYT Suddenly Opposed to Declassifying the FISA Docs?
President Donald Trump told the Justice Department and the FBI to declassify unredacted versions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications used to get wire-taps on Carter Page. The president also called for other materials—such as Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele’s email correspondence—to be revealed. But by Friday, Trump had backed off, tweeting that the Department of Justice had persuaded him to let the DoJ inspector general vet the documents first. That way a “perceived negative impact on the Russia probe” could be avoided. It would also calm “key Allies” who had “called to ask not to release.”
But the pushback hadn’t just come from government. Some media made the case—a rather counterintuitive one for journalists to make—that the information not be released. Most prominently, the New York Times decried as terribly dangerous the very idea of making the FISA materials public. The headline of a September 18 article signaled the newspaper’s disapproval: "Ignoring Security Concerns, Trump to Make Russia Documents Public."
In the article, author Adam Goldman suggested that the remaining redactions of the FISA warrants regarding Carter Page should stay under wraps, given the concerns of the "intelligence community and members of the law enforcement." The intelligence crowd, you see, were angry that redacted versions of the FISA warrant applications had been declassified and released by the Trump administration in July. Goldman wrote that they “believed that the information should not have been made public and that its release set a dangerous precedent by making public secret methods of investigation."
According to the Times, it didn’t take long for the law enforcement establishment’s fears to be realized: Goldman has been talking to “[f]ormer and current F.B.I. officials” who “have expressed concern that the Republican efforts to out the materials could have long-lasting consequences, making it harder to recruit informants willing to help with investigations who are the lifeblood of law enforcement.”
The president and his partisans, the Times lamented, were putting party ahead of national security. “For months, Mr. Trump and some of his most fervent congressional supporter have clamored for the material’s release against the protests of the intelligence and law enforcement communities,” Goldman wrote. Trump’s order to release unredacted FISA documents was just “the latest instance of the president siding with Republican allies on Capitol Hill over federal law enforcement.”
And yet, there’s something rather strange about Goldman denouncing the release of FISA documents:
Back on February 5, the reporter filed a motion with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asking the FISC "to order publication of all of its orders authorizing surveillance of Carter Page.”
And not just that: Goldman (together with fellow Timesman Charlie Savage and the Gray Lady herself) also asked the court for all “the application materials and renewal application materials upon which those orders were issued."
The context, of course, was a little different back then. In February, the majority report of the House Intelligence Committee—the Nunes Memo—had just been published, and Democrats were looking for material that could be used to rebut it. They thought they would find that material in as-yet-unreleased materials from the FISA warrant applications. Revealing the records of the secret court was justified, Goldman argued to the FISC, “Given the overwhelming public interest in assessing the accuracy of the Nunes Memorandum and knowing the actual basis for the Page surveillance orders.”
An entire section of Goldman’s filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is devoted to the proposition that so much of the FISA warrants was already out in the open that one couldn’t argue to keep what’s left under lock and key.
The section is headed with this unambiguous statement in bold, capital letters, partially underlined: “ THERE IS NO LONGER ANY REASON FOR THE PAGE WARRANT ORDERS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS TO BE WITHHELD IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND DISCLOSURE WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST”.
Read More: https://www.weeklystandard.com/eric-felten/wh...-fisa-docs
President Donald Trump told the Justice Department and the FBI to declassify unredacted versions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant applications used to get wire-taps on Carter Page. The president also called for other materials—such as Bruce Ohr and Christopher Steele’s email correspondence—to be revealed. But by Friday, Trump had backed off, tweeting that the Department of Justice had persuaded him to let the DoJ inspector general vet the documents first. That way a “perceived negative impact on the Russia probe” could be avoided. It would also calm “key Allies” who had “called to ask not to release.”
But the pushback hadn’t just come from government. Some media made the case—a rather counterintuitive one for journalists to make—that the information not be released. Most prominently, the New York Times decried as terribly dangerous the very idea of making the FISA materials public. The headline of a September 18 article signaled the newspaper’s disapproval: "Ignoring Security Concerns, Trump to Make Russia Documents Public."
In the article, author Adam Goldman suggested that the remaining redactions of the FISA warrants regarding Carter Page should stay under wraps, given the concerns of the "intelligence community and members of the law enforcement." The intelligence crowd, you see, were angry that redacted versions of the FISA warrant applications had been declassified and released by the Trump administration in July. Goldman wrote that they “believed that the information should not have been made public and that its release set a dangerous precedent by making public secret methods of investigation."
According to the Times, it didn’t take long for the law enforcement establishment’s fears to be realized: Goldman has been talking to “[f]ormer and current F.B.I. officials” who “have expressed concern that the Republican efforts to out the materials could have long-lasting consequences, making it harder to recruit informants willing to help with investigations who are the lifeblood of law enforcement.”
The president and his partisans, the Times lamented, were putting party ahead of national security. “For months, Mr. Trump and some of his most fervent congressional supporter have clamored for the material’s release against the protests of the intelligence and law enforcement communities,” Goldman wrote. Trump’s order to release unredacted FISA documents was just “the latest instance of the president siding with Republican allies on Capitol Hill over federal law enforcement.”
And yet, there’s something rather strange about Goldman denouncing the release of FISA documents:
Back on February 5, the reporter filed a motion with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asking the FISC "to order publication of all of its orders authorizing surveillance of Carter Page.”
And not just that: Goldman (together with fellow Timesman Charlie Savage and the Gray Lady herself) also asked the court for all “the application materials and renewal application materials upon which those orders were issued."
The context, of course, was a little different back then. In February, the majority report of the House Intelligence Committee—the Nunes Memo—had just been published, and Democrats were looking for material that could be used to rebut it. They thought they would find that material in as-yet-unreleased materials from the FISA warrant applications. Revealing the records of the secret court was justified, Goldman argued to the FISC, “Given the overwhelming public interest in assessing the accuracy of the Nunes Memorandum and knowing the actual basis for the Page surveillance orders.”
An entire section of Goldman’s filing with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is devoted to the proposition that so much of the FISA warrants was already out in the open that one couldn’t argue to keep what’s left under lock and key.
The section is headed with this unambiguous statement in bold, capital letters, partially underlined: “ THERE IS NO LONGER ANY REASON FOR THE PAGE WARRANT ORDERS AND APPLICATION MATERIALS TO BE WITHHELD IN THEIR ENTIRETY AND DISCLOSURE WOULD SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST”.
Read More: https://www.weeklystandard.com/eric-felten/wh...-fisa-docs
1
