https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/public-filings/corrected-opinion-and-order
https://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Misc 19 02 Corrected Opinion and Order JEB 200305.pdf
Помимо прочего, интересно, как судьи FISA видят сейчас историю с Картером Пейджем. А видят ее они так:
Problems with the Carter Page Applications
Omissions of material fact were the most prevalent and among the most serious problems with the Page applications. For example, information about Page's prior relationship with another U.S. government agency was not disclosed to the Court, including: (1) the other agency's approval of Page as an operational contact from 2008 to 2013; (2) his notifying that agency of his prior contacts with certain Russian intelligence officers (at least one of whom was discussed in the FISA applications); and (3) that agency's assessment that Page was candid in describing those contacts. <…> Those facts were relevant in assessing the import of more recent contact Page was alleged to have had with other individuals connected to the Russian government. Further, when pressed by the FBI declarant about the possibility of a prior relationship between Page and the other agency during the preparation of the final application in June 2017, the FBI OGC attorney added text to an email from the other agency stating that Page was "not a source." <…> The FBI declarant relied upon that altered document in signing the final renewal application, which did not correct the omissions. <…>.
All four Page applications relied on information from reports prepared by Christopher Steele for his employer, which Steele also gave to the FBI <…>. Specifically, the Steele reporting relied on in the applications indicated that: (1) the Kremlin controlled derogatory information about Hillary Clinton compiled over many years and had been feeding information to the Trump campaign; (2) during a July 2016 trip to Moscow, Page discussed future cooperation and the lifting of Ukraine-related sanctions against Russia in a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, Chairman of Rosneft and a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and also discussed divulging derogatory information about Clinton to the Trump campaign with Igor Divyekin, a highly placed Russian government official; (3) Page was an intermediary between Russia and the Trump campaign in a "well-developed conspiracy of cooperation," managed by Trump's then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, which led to Russia's disclosure of hacked Democratic National Committee emails to WikiLeaks in exchange for agreeing to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue; and (4) at Page's suggestion, Russia released the DNC emails to WikiLeaks to swing voters to Trump. <…>.
As stated in the applications, Steele obtained this information from a primary sub-source, who had, in tum, obtained the information from his/her own source network. <…> The FBI did not, however, advise DOJ or the Court of inconsistences between sections of Steele's reporting that had been used in the applications and statements Steele's primary sub-source had made to the FBI about the accuracy of information attributed to "Person 1," who the FBI assessed had been the source of the information in Reports 95 and 102. <…>. The government also did not disclose that Steele himself had undercut the reliability of Person 1, telling the FBI that Person 1 was a "boaster" and an "egoist" and "may engage in some embellishment." <…>.
Information bearing on Steele's personal credibility and professional judgment was also omitted or mischaracterized. <…>. The information that was included overstated the significance and corroboration of Steele's past reporting and was not approved by Steele's FBI handling agent, as required by FBI procedures. <…>. In addition, although from the outset the applications acknowledged the likely political bias of the person who had hired Steele, see, e.g., id. at 143 (citing footnote 8 of the initial application, "The FBI speculates that the [person who hired Steele] was likely looking for information that could be used to discredit [Trump's] campaign."), information that confirmed the political origins of the Steele reporting was not <…>. Information concerning Steele's own personal bias was also left out of the renewal applications <…>. (The government did provide the Court with information concerning Steele's motivations and reliability obtained from DOJ attorney Bruce Ohr in a July 2018 Rule 13(a) letter, <…>, but that was long after the expiration of all FISA authorities relating to Page.)
The government also did not disclose in the final application that the FBI had learned that Steele had been the direct source of information in a September 2016 news article, which was described in all four applications and generally tracked much of Steele's reporting <…>. Because the applications stated that the FBI assessed that either the person who employed Steele to conduct the research or the law firm that had hired Steele's employer had provided the information to the media, <…>, the government made clear that the news article was not being used to corroborate the Steele reporting. Nevertheless, Steele's sharing of the information he gave to the FBI with the media would have shed further light on his motivations. The FBI's assessment that he had not been the direct source of the information should have been corrected.
Finally, the government omitted statements Page made to a confidential human source that contradicted the FBI's theory of the case. In support of the contention that Page was participating in a conspiracy with Russia by acting as an intermediary for Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, the government included statements Page had made to the source in October 2016 that tended to support that theory, but omitted statements he had made to the same source that did not <…>. The government also omitted Page's statements to a confidential human source that he intentionally had "stayed clear" of efforts to change the Republican platform <…>, as well as evidence tending to show that two other Trump campaign officials were responsible for the change <…>. Both pieces of information were inconsistent with the government's suggestion that, at the behest of the Russian government, Page may have facilitated a change to the Republican platform regarding Russia's annexation of part of Ukraine.