>FISA has a clause where a target of a FISA warrant can agree to being surveilled

(Do you mean FISC?)

How that agreement is obtained might make it inadmissible in a court of law. If Carter Page was under some sort of duress to agree, this might constitute a violation of his Fifth amendment rights - which is the right against self-incrimination.

That however assumes Carter Page is a non-willing witness.

>It is likely that Page had done this in the past when he was an FBI informant.

Is consent on a warrant by warrant basis? If so, consent on previous warrants wouldn't translate to automatic consent on another. To permanently waive ones right and be continuously monitored would violate Fourth amendment to such an enormous degree no judge would allow such an agreement to stand, even if that is what has happened here.

If the FBI did not document and submit the consent on the warrant when it was applied then it cannot be submitted as evidence as the basis for the warrant, because that would be an extremely open to abuse: apply sloppy reasoning, get evidence, force perp to retroactively give consent justifying the surveillance, magically make it appear post de facto. That would be a huge no to any judge with brains.

>Page didn't really have a history of foreign contacts that the FBI could use to show that he was actually an agent of a foreign power.

>That all becomes irrelevant if Page signs a waiver/agreement to be surveilled.

I think the latter is legally impossible, for two reasons:

1) They cannot directly surveil a US citizen as it's a law that only targets foreign powers or agents. To be able to say 'you consented' would require that Carter Page be privvy to secret information, and to my knowledge he doesn't have the classification level. No-one would openly agree to being surveilled without knowing why, and being an informant (someone who passes on information) isn't the same as being surveilled (someone being watched).

That's why the NSA does all it's shit with GCHQ - GCHQ targets the Americans, NSA targets the Brits, they exchange data as a 'workaround'.

2) If they had no proven evidence of any real involvement with foreign agents, then the consent is an exercise in redundancy, because they would need to explain why they're surveilling Carter Page. They can't say 'in the hopes of catching some foreign agents somewhere', they would need to specify their concerns.

Shortstop:

If it was extremely vague and using consent, it wouldn't stand up.

If it was precise or based on something, they don't need the consent.

If they had the consent, they wouldn't have fished for the dossier. You see what I mean?

>What are your thoughts Anons?

Wouldn't stick. Even if that was the case, people would scream frame-up or set-up - planting people into a political party with prior consent to be surveilled reeks of political meddling from the FBI, and this wouldn't be the first time they've done that (Vietnam era anti-war protests, Plumbers, Watergate etc). I would find the idea of someone consenting to be surveilled and then joining the party to be even more explosive because it implies there's no longer need for a warrant - only a sellout.

If Carter Page had any good legal advice, lawyers always scream at people to 'say nothing' and 'never give consent'.

Why never give consent? If you give consent:

1) Anything that happens during the search (EG damage to your property) isn't reimburseable

2) Even if innocent, a corrupt officer can 'find' things to charge you with. A non-corrupt officer will just waste your time.

3) If guilty, even less reason to consent.

4) If they have probable cause and they break something during a search, they have to reimburse you.

5) They can literally seize any assets of yours for any and all reasons (look into 'forfeiture' laws). If they see you have a large wad of cash in the back, they would likely seize it. In-fact, if you have anything nice, they can seize it as 'evidence of a crime'. They are not obliged to return it to you. They often don't.

6) The officer can find additional things to provoke further searches. He sees an item with blood on it (the blood is yours), now they have probable cause to suspect a homicide.

7) If corrupt, they can claim the search never happened - there's no warrant or paperwork for it, so how will you prove otherwise?

8) If you're innocent, you have nothing to prove. You're assumed innocent by default. Allowing a search gives them the opportunity for them to prove that you're guilty of anything.

Long story short: never consent to anything.

>>2179530

>(Do you mean FISC?)

The FISA application process has a number of criteria (think avenues) that can be used to get a warrant.

>Is consent on a warrant by warrant basis?

It is per application. If he consented in the past he would have to consent again for it to be legal. My thoughts are that he most likely consented in the past, which if true, would mean he would most likely agree to it again.

(Note: That last part is not based on evidence but a guess. I do not know if Page did so or not but it makes logical sense since Russia is considered to be very savvy in it's own intelligence gathering methods, both Human Intelligence and with communications/Cyber.)

>If the FBI did not document and submit the consent on the warrant when it was applied then it cannot be submitted as evidence as the basis for the warrant.

We don't know what is in the FISA application. If Carter did agree, it would be in the FISA application. It would also be a reason why the DOJ/FBI refuses to release the full FISA application.

>1) They cannot directly surveil a US citizen as it's a law that only targets foreign powers or agents.

Well here is the kicker….under FISA you can directly surveil a US citizen if they consented to it AND if there is a Foreign Intelligence target (which the dossier established for the FBI). The focus is not on the person that consented but on the "foreign powers" that they are in contact with.

Remember, the first application failed. Then the dossier was submitted and the next application was approved.

>To be able to say 'you consented' would require that Carter Page be privvy to secret information, and to my knowledge he doesn't have the classification level.

This is not correct. Carter Page would not need to be privy to secret information or have a clearance. He just needed to be in contact with a foreign power. Again, the dossier established that for the purpose of the FISA Court.

>2) If they had no proven evidence of any real involvement with foreign agents, then the consent is an exercise in redundancy, because they would need to explain why they're surveilling Carter Page.

That is most likely why the first FISA application failed and why the dossier was used. The dossier wasn't just used to try to make Trump look bad in the Press. It was used in the FISA application. It wasn't verified or corroborated. It is nearly impossible for the FISA Court to grant a warrant on Carter Page using it unless he consented and the focus was "supposed" to be on the Russians. The FISA court would have approved because it isn't violating anyone's rights and the target is a foreign power.

>Shortstop:

>If it was extremely vague and using consent, it wouldn't stand up.

>If it was precise or based on something, they don't need the consent.

I believe it was deliberate. Insert Carter Page, who consents, attempt to get a FISA warrant off that and it fails due to no foreign power. Add in dossier, which helps establish a foreign power and FISA warrant is approved.

The biggest takeaway here is the reverse targeting aspect. The FISA warrant regardless of the origins, can only legally focus on the foreign power (Russia). If they looked into anyone else in the Trump campaign, it would be extremely illegal.