DOJ Hid from FISA Court that Surveillance Targets Were Members of Congress and Key Oversight Staff

A sample breakdown from the report

​The first reactions to a report issued last week by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz centered on the man-bites-dog irony of the Justice Department having spied on the nominee to head the FBI, Kash Patel. The underlying story is far bigger and as significant as any other of recent surveillance scandals – Horowitz revealed that the government’s lawyers failed to inform a judge in the secret FISA Court that their applications for surveillance were to spy on Members of Congress and senior congressional aides on committees that oversee the Department of Justice.
 
It’s as if you asked a friend if you could borrow her car to go to the store but forget to tell her that the store is in Mexico. Justice Department prosecutors showed just about that level of mendacity in 2017 when they sought communications of Members of Congress, including then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Rep. Erik Swalwell (D-CA), 20 Democratic staffers, as well as Patel and 19 other Republican staffers.
 
The intent of the request was to reveal if there was cause-and-effect between their emails and journalists at The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN, who wrote stories in those outlets based on a classified leak of “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized” documents. As it turned out, no crimes or leaks were discovered. Horowitz reveals that DOJ obtained 40 Non-Disclosure Orders forcing communications providers to secretly provide the records of Members of Congress and staffers, with some of the search orders extended up to four years – even though the request involved leaks around the same time frame in 2017.
 
Horowitz concludes:
 

• “The Department’s decision to compel the production of non-content communications records of Members of Congress and congressional staffers implicated the constitutional rights and authorities of a co-equal branch of government ...

 

• The Justice Department’s actions “risks chilling Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch because it exposes congressional officials to having their records reviewed by the Department solely for conducting Congress’s constitutionally authorized oversight duties and creating, at a minimum, the appearance of inappropriate interference by the executive branch in legitimate oversight activity by the legislative branch.”

 
The Justice Department’s policy did not, at that time, have an internal policy governing the compelled acquisition of congressional communication records from third-parties. Perhaps feeling the heat from outraged Members of Congress, Justice established the requirement in future applications to inform the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section and a U.S. attorney before surveilling Members of Congress and their staffers in this way. Horowitz found that process insufficient, calling on a new policy that requires the informing of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.
 
Concerning the surveillance of journalists, Horowitz found that the Justice Department did not comply with all of its internal provisions. For example, a committee dedicated to applications for media surveillance was not convened, as required by Justice Department policy. That policy also required informing the Director of National Intelligence, which the Justice Department did not do in at least one instance.
 
PPSA believes the intelligence agencies are surveilling Congress in many other ways. That is why we have sued not just the Department of Justice, but also the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and the State Department to learn if these agencies are surveilling current and former Members of Congress with oversight responsibilities over those very agencies.
 
If the intelligence community is surveilling Members of Congress on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, then it is a case of the overseen overseeing the overseers. This danger is made much worse by House policies, where relatively few House staffers have security clearances that would allow them to help their bosses keep the intelligence agencies in check.
 
We hope at a minimum that the House will widen staffer clearances, as the Senate has done, to assist in greater oversight of these agencies. We especially hope that incoming President Trump will have his people dig into the practice of surveilling Members of Congress and bring it to light.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS