Source: FBI Agent Told Congress The Bureau Used Leaked Stories To Obtain Spy Warrants

Source: FBI Agent Told Congress The Bureau Used Leaked Stories To Obtain Spy Warrants

An FBI special agent told Congress earlier in August that the bureau has used leaked news stories as justifications to obtain surveillance warrants against American citizens, a source familiar with the testimony tells The Daily Caller News Foundation.

During a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary and House Oversight Committees on Friday, Special Agent Jonathan Moffa told congressional investigators that the FBI and Justice Department have leaked stories to the press and then used them to obtain warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

“He more or less admitted that the FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press and then used stories from the press as justifications for FISA warrants,” a source who took part in Moffa’s interview told TheDCNF.

North Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Meadows referred to Moffa’s comments in a tweet on Monday night.

“We’ve learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA’s Unreal,” wrote Meadows, a member of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee.

“Tomorrow’s Bruce Ohr interview is even more critical. Did he ever do this?” he added.

click link for article...

It has been one hell of a Monday thats for sure.

Anyone else feel like this is intentionally being slow walked to the public in preparation for whats coming down the pipeline on this mess?

I know the usual characters have been alluding to major revelations along with their tick toc comments. Trump announced that after the midterms the DOJ is reopening its investigations into Clinton. That would be in addition to the 6 or so active ones already underway.

The info from this agent refutes Brennan and Comeys testimony as well. Lets see how those involved react since they have been denying this from the go. I am also curious how this is going to affect the SC and his prosecutions.


Gotta love this -

Moffa worked closely on the Clinton email investigation with Peter Strzok, the former deputy chief of FBI’s counterintelligence division who was recently fired for sending anti-Trump text messages. Strzok and Moffa took part in the July 2, 2016 interview with Clinton about her use of a private email server to exchange classified emails. (RELATED: Abedin And Cheryl Mills Faced No Charges After Lying To FBI)

Moffa was the other agent with Strzok when they interviewed Clinton.

The other issue with this info would be those people who were given immunity when they first investigated Clinton. Plea deals are contingent on not breaking anymore laws, cooperating with law enforcement and not lying about anything in interviews, either directly or by omission.

If the requirements are broke then immunity deals are null and void.

a reply to: Xcathdra

”He more or less admitted that the FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press and then used stories from the press as justifications for FISA warrants,” a source who took part in Moffa’s interview told TheDCNF.

I’ll take the allegation with a grain of salt.

I know it’s true and that this whole thing was a scam.

I’m just not holding my breath for the birds to sing.

Q said “BIG week ahead” yesterday, I wonder if this is what he was talking about...

a reply to: vinifalou

Fair points..

As for Q it sure seems like it.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I think I have the same feelings about this as many on this site. I’ll believe it when I see it (someone going to jail or get prosecuted).

I am just beaten down with all the blatant corruption and no action. We could face jail time for something so minuscule but they (politicians ) get away with literal murder at times.

a reply to: Xcathdra

If the Bureau considers the source to be reliable, why not use a "leaked" source to obtain a FISA warrant?

a reply to: DJW001

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?

Just manufacture evidence? Make the case stick?

Jesus Christ on a cracker, did you just misunderstand the discussion?

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Just manufacture evidence? Make the case stick?

Please answer the question. If an informant goes to a reporter and tells him about criminal activity, and that journalist has a reputation for telling the difference between a real story and a scam, why shouldn't the FBI use that story to begin an investigation?

ETA: I understand what the Daily Caller is claiming, based on a tweet from a biased pro-Trump congressperson. We do not know whether that part of the claim is true or not. Note the phrasing:

“He more or less admitted that the FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press and then used stories from the press as justifications for FISA warrants,” a source who took part in Moffa’s interview told TheDCNF.

So, maybe less than more, and from an anonymous source at that. Methinks someone jumped from "we use media rreports to obtain FISA warrants" and "yes, we sometimes leak to see who startles" to "we leak to obtain FISA warrants." And even if they did, if the information is good, what's wrong with that?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?

Just manufacture evidence? Make the case stick?

Jesus Christ on a cracker, did you just misunderstand the discussion?

Did you read the OP's source?

This is a fluff story.

“He more or less admitted that the FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press and then used stories from the press as justifications for FISA warrants,” a source who took part in Moffa’s interview told TheDCNF.

More or less?

We've learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA's

Suggesting our suspicions are true?

There is no indication that the FBI provided information to Isikoff.

And on and on.

I'd wait for more info and context to see what really comes out.

As of now, this appears to be a poorly written propaganda piece, coming from a source known for poorly written propaganda pieces.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Just manufacture evidence? Make the case stick?

Please answer the question. If an informant goes to a reporter and tells him about criminal activity, and that journalist has a reputation for telling the difference between a real story and a scam, why shouldn't the FBI use that story to begin an investigation?

Trumo has one of his allies in the doj leak a story to Sean Hannity that Hillary is working with the Chinese to undermine his trade deal

Hannity runs the story

The fbi uses Hannity and his story as a reason to get wiretaps shading Hillary and people connected to her

Now do you see why this is a gross abuse of power?

a reply to: Grambler

You seem to be conflating a "leak," which is the unauthorized release of real information, with fabricated stories. Why is that?

a reply to: introvert

Lets find out. The FBIs track record is abysmal.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: DJW001

Are you freaking kidding me?!?!?

Just manufacture evidence? Make the case stick?

Jesus Christ on a cracker, did you just misunderstand the discussion?

Did you read the OP's source?

This is a fluff story.

“He more or less admitted that the FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press and then used stories from the press as justifications for FISA warrants,” a source who took part in Moffa’s interview told TheDCNF.

More or less?

We've learned NEW information suggesting our suspicions are true: FBI/DOJ have previously leaked info to the press, and then used those same press stories as a separate source to justify FISA's

Suggesting our suspicions are true?

There is no indication that the FBI provided information to Isikoff.

And on and on.

I'd wait for more info and context to see what really comes out.

As of now, this appears to be a poorly written propaganda piece, coming from a source known for poorly written propaganda pieces.

No, your post is FLUFF.

You're intentionally trying to derail, you even read the source wrong, "there is no indication that the FBI provided information to Iskoff"....

Here is where you pulled that from,

"In its applications for the FISA warrants on Page, the FBI cited an article published on Sept. 23, 2016 by Yahoo! News that relied heavily on Steele as a source. The FBI did not acknowledge that Steele was a source for the article, which was written by Michael Isikoff. (RELATED: DOJ Releases Carter Page FISA)

There is no indication that the FBI provided information to Isikoff. The veteran reporter cited a congressional official as a source, as well as a “senior U.S. law enforcement official” who said that the allegations against Page were “on our radar screen.”

In other words, FBI did NOT acknowledge that Steele was a source for the article, written by Isikoff and no indication
that FBI provided a source, because its all SPECULATION.


This part is a beauty,

"Steele revealed in a court filing in London in 2017 that he briefed several reporters prior to the campaign, including from Yahoo!, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The New Yorker and Mother Jones.

The FBI said in its applications that investigators did not believe that Steele was a direct source for the Yahoo! report."

LMFAO, thus the s# show and the need to get to the bottom of this.

We know you don't care and honestly we don't care that you don't care, so keep on derailing and crapping all over the place because we're getting close to the corruption 😌

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: introvert

Lets find out. The FBIs track record is abysmal.

And so is the track record of all these "sources".

How may times have we been down roads like this, just to find out there was a whole lot more context to it all, if it were even true at all?

C'mon. This isn't your first rodeo.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Grambler

You seem to be conflating a "leak," which is the unauthorized release of real information, with fabricated stories. Why is that?

Excuse me? No, that would be you and the liberal media, what happened to all that fizz last week and Trump agaisnt the ropes? 🤣

a reply to: Xcathdra

There are some here that do not understand the fisa process.
Obtaining fisa warrants with "stories" is a felony. Those who signed the applications are in deep trouble.

Awesome thread and great OP.

Star + Plus flag.

Keep up the pressure and bring these hacks down so we can celebrate and say, "told ya so".

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Xcathdra

There are some here that do not understand the fisa process.
Obtaining fisa warrants with "stories" is a felony. Those who signed the applications are in deep trouble.

Precisely and that will be there undoing, you can almost SMELL IT.

a reply to: Arnie123

In other words, FBI did NOT acknowledge that Steele was a source for the article, written by Isikoff and no indication that FBI provided a source, because its all SPECULATION.

No. It means the FBI did not feed the story whatsoever to the reporter in order to cite the story as a source for the warrant.

You know...the point of the damn OP.

We know you don't care and honestly we don't care that you don't care, so keep on derailing and crapping all over the place because we're getting close to the corruption

You're right. I don't care about the opinion of people that cannot even read properly.

a reply to: introvert

I wonder if you hold the same standard for main stream media sites as "obvious propaganda"?

It seems despite being someone who claims to be non partisan, you always find a reason to sugg7est any story that points to any wrong doing by anyone in the intel community or democratic party is fake or propaganda.

In fact, you did suggest that your criteria for why there needed to be an investigation into trump was his teams connections to russia, but then somehow claim that hillarys teams connections to russia are not a reason to invetsigate.

As for this article;

The daily caller is a reputable as any source you would routinely discuss saying trump committed crimes.

Using language like "more or less" or "are suspicions are true" does not somehow discredit this article.

Just because there is no evidence the Isikoff story was leaked by the fbi doesnt mean its a not a big story that the fbi leaks t the press and then uses that to get fisa warrants.


In fact, even if that didnt happened to trump but to other people, no matter what their politics, that is still corrupt and wrong.

And as for the isikoff story, even if the fbi didnt leak it, we know steele was the source, so it was the fbi using steele as an anonymous source in an article to confirm steeles own dossier, and we know that warrant was resubmitted and granted several times after the fbi knew steele was leaking to the press.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Arnie123

In other words, FBI did NOT acknowledge that Steele was a source for the article, written by Isikoff and no indication that FBI provided a source, because its all SPECULATION.

No. It means the FBI did not feed the story whatsoever to the reporter in order to cite the story as a source for the warrant.

You know...the point of the damn OP.

We know you don't care and honestly we don't care that you don't care, so keep on derailing and crapping all over the place because we're getting close to the corruption

You're right. I don't care about the opinion of people that cannot even read properly.

Wow, so you can't determine acronyms AND are unable to read the context of a source properly, so aggressive you mad bro?

Chill out.

I know, I get it, things haven't been going your way and now that its all coming to light, everything you championed, defended will all be for naught and that says alot about your character, as should others as well, so what? Own it, live it, keep your head up champ 😚