Transcript of memo, links to EO & supporting cases

The authority to release the memo

The Framers divided the government into branches to diffuse power and guard against tyranny. The structure of the document confirms this purpose by embedding a notion of checks and balances.
NOT PEACE, BUT A SWORD: NAVY V. EGAN AND THE CASE AGAINST JUDICIAL ABDICATION IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The House Permanent Subcommittee On Intelligence first voted on the memo's release ti the House at large. The House then voted to release it to the public pending the President's approval. Checks and balances? Upheld.

Some would have you think that there is some crime in exposing state crime, political corruption, or subversion of our government...

A complicit media enables that attitude by engineering a false narrative the U.S. Justice Department was/is an independent fourth branch of government; unaccountable to congress and entirely separate from the executive branch.
“Tip of The Iceberg” – The Pending Intelligence Memo is The Beginning, Not The End…

Others simply don't have the brains to understand that the DOJ answers to the Executive power...

A 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Department of the Navy v. Egan has often been interpreted to support broad presidential authority over national security generally and over access to classified information in particular. Along with United States v. Reynolds, Curtiss-Wright, and a few other cases, Egan is regularly cited in support of strong, even unchecked executive authority and judicial deference to executive claims. It has become a cornerstone of national security law as practiced today.
A Critical Look at Navy v. Egan

The memo establishes crimes committed in the course of FISA applications in connection with an "investigation" into the Trump election team...

A declassified FISC Memorandum and Opinion dated April 26, 2017 has provided us with a great deal of background into how the security agencies made a habit of violating FISA law during the Obama administration.

The memo simply specified these crimes in relation to the Russain "collusion" story manufactured by the DNC in conjunction with corrupt members of the DOJ/FBI.

Let's look at the purpose of the FISA laws...

FISA was originally enacted in 1978 to provide the Executive Branch with a court-authorized process for conducting four specific types of electronic surveillance against foreign powers or their agents operating inside the United States
The FISA Amendments Act: Q&A

There are important restrictions on FISA activity

The government may not target someone located outside the United States for the purpose of targeting a particular, known person m this country or any U S person, regardless of location (often called ' 'reverse targeting").
The government may not target for acquisition "'any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition" to be in the United States
The FISA Amendments Act: Q&A

Here is what the memo revealed:

• direct link between DNC and pee dossier
• illegal use of FISA
• bias in DOJ/FBI
• connection of DOJ/FBI to DNC

Here are some of the names:

• Director James Comey (FBI)
• Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (FBI)
• DAG Sally Yates (DOJ)
• Acting DAG Dana Boente (DOJ)
• DAG Rod Rosenstein (DOJ)
• Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr (DOJ)
• Assistant Director Bill Priestap (FBI)
• Agent Pete Strzok (FBI)
• FBI Attorney Lisa Page

There are criminal penalties for such crimes

Compare 18 U.S.C. §§ 2516 to 2517 with 50 U.S.C. §§ 1802 to 1805. These procedures include judicial approval of surveillance applications; minimization of interceptions by surveilling officials; and limitations on the use of intercepted information. Moreover, both statutes impose civil and criminal sanctions on unauthorized surveillance activities. Compare 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 (criminal penalties) and 2520 (civil sanctions) with 50 U.S.C. §§ 1809 (criminal penalties) and 1810 (civil sanctions). On the other hand, one court has distinguished between these regimes, holding that "FISA regulates both aural and visual electronic surveillance conducted for foreign intelligence purposes, and [Title III] regulates aural electronic surveillance conducted for domestic purposes." United States v. Koyomejian, 970 F.2d 536, 540 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1005 (1992).
1073. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- 50 U.S.C. 1809

More simply,

An offense described in this section is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
50 U.S. Code § 1809 - Criminal sanctions
FISA violations

And the question of conspiracy

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

...any offense against the United States...

When beginning to draft a conspiracy indictment, the initial decisions a prosecutor must make include:
-Defining the object(s) of the conspiracy
-Determining the duration of the conspiracy
-Deciding which defendants to include in the conspiracy
Jury Instructions in Conspiracy Cases (p.49)

However, participation in a conspiracy, the bulk of the evidence makes the case

In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.
From the 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon Conspiracy

I would say that the Stzrok/Page emails develop intent quite clearly, as well as the fact that the other conspirators withheld data from the FISA applications.

Generally, as set forth in United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671, 686 (1975), the Government must prove the intent required to commit the underlying offense when charging the first type of conspiracy.
Jury Instructions in Conspiracy Cases (p.49)

But wait there is more...much, much more

today it is worthwhile remembering this is the beginning of exposing the corruption within the DOJ not the end
“Tip of The Iceberg” – The Pending Intelligence Memo is The Beginning, Not The End…

We haven't even had the OIG report issued yet; questions of conflict-of-interest, mishandling the investigation into the Clinton Espionage Act violations; Uranium One; lost and/or destroyed evidence...ad infinitum

References:
The House voted to release the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence "Memo"
Obama guilty of same Espionage Act violation as Clinton
The memo will be realesed, but how soon? FISA abuse and DOJ collusion
The mechanics of releasing the memo
A legal path to prosecution of the Deep State conspiracy - Military tribunals

My Books