Press rumor has it that the DOJ’s IG report will call out an FBI lawyer for falsifying an email used by the FISA court to authorize the FBI to spy on monitor a Trump 2016 campaign advisor. Press rumor further has it that the IG report also will say the court would have authorized the…monitoring…regardless.
Let’s assume that first rumor is true. This is no minor matter; this is no loaf of bread stolen to feed the man’s family, in which some compassion might be felt for the felon. This was a loaf of bread stolen because the man could. This was a loaf of bread stolen explicitly to hurt someone else. And in the end, this was a far more serious crime than merely stealing a loaf.
The FBI lawyer will have lied on a government form. This FBI lawyer will have lied under oath when he swore to the authenticity of his document submittal. This FBI lawyer will have lied to a court, altering the data on which the court relied—of necessity—as it reached its ruling.
The second rumor may well be plausible, but it remains speculation—there’s no way to evaluate the fact of the matter of such counterfactual surmise. Even if accurate, though, even if the court would have reached the same decision had the FBI lawyer not lied, or even not submitted the document (altered or not) at all, the fact remains the FBI lawyer will have lied. Under oath.
If the first rumor is true, the sanction must begin with the permanent loss of his law license, in all jurisdictions, include jail time, and then proceed from there.
It’s even more heinous, IMHO, because the court in question is intentionally non-adversarial. There is no opposing view presented. The court MUST be able to rely on the veracity and integrity of submissions when weighing a request.
It clearly cannot, and so must be changed. This instance – was it really the only one? – demonstrates the flaw.