The legal standard for a search warrant was stated by the Supreme Court in Aguilar v. Texas , 378 U.S. 108 (164). The standard to apply when the facts necessary for probable cause are based on an informant and not the direct knowledge of the officer swearing the affidavit for probable cause is as follows:

The Nunes Memo confirms that the basis for the FISA warrants to spy on Trump associates was the Steele “dossier,” paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton. The Memo reveals that the FBI also paid for it. The persons who signed the FISA applications are James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente. The Memo confirms that the political origins of the Steele Dossier, that it was bought and paid for by Hillary and the DNC, were not disclosed to the FISA court.

“Although an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some of the underlying circumstances from which the affiant concluded that the informant, whose identity was not disclosed, was creditable or his information reliable.”

This is significant because when applying for a warrant based on information from an informant, the applicant must state why the informant is reliable. In this case, the informant is Steele. In the typical case, the applicant states that the informant has provided reliable information in the past, or that the informant’s information has been verified and it must state how it was verified. The FISA application should have informed the Court why Steele is credible. The FISA application should have informed the Court that Steele was paid by the DNC, Hillary, and even the FBI authorized payment. The Steele Dossier has the additional problem that Steele obtained information from Russians whom he paid.

This should have been disclosed, because application relies on the information given by Russians paid by Steele, and relayed to Steele. This is double hearsay. This means the Court must be advised why the Russian agents, paid by Steele, are reliable.

Comey, McCabe, and maybe others misled the FISA Court by not disclosing all the critical facts about how the dossier was obtained. This means that there was no probable cause for the warrants, and all evidence obtained as a result of the warrant should be suppressed, which means it cannot be used in a criminal prosecution.

The disclosure of these facts explains the hysterical reaction of the Dems and Comey. Comey seems unhinged. He tweeted on Friday, after the release:

"Dishonest and misleading memo wrecked the House intel committee, destroyed trust with Intelligence Community, damaged relationship with FISA court, and inexcusably exposed classified investigation of an American citizen. For what? DOJ & FBI must keep doing their jobs."

Comey did not specifically deny any of the conclusions and facts in the Memo. He did not say what facts, if any, are “dishonest.” He is free to give a news conference, as he did when he gave Hillary a pass, and explain why he signed a FISA application without informing the Court that the Steele dossier was paid for by Hillary and the DNC. He can explain why he did not believe this affected the credibility of Steele.

Comey is correct that the Memo may have destroyed the relationship with the FISA Court because now the Court knows it was misled by the Obama FBI and Obama DOJ.

Comey is also correct that the Memo has “wrecked” the Intelligence Committee because now it is confirmed that the Democrats on the committee knew that the FISA warrants were based on the discredited Steele Dossier, but the Democrats kept lying that Trump “colluded” with Russia to divert attention. The only thing “wrecked” is whatever credibility Adam Schiff and the Dems had.

Comey’s concern that the Memo disclosed the investigation of an American citizen, Carter Page, makes no sense. We knew that Page was investigated. Comey should be concerned that Page was investigated based on a FISA warrant that lacked probable cause because Comey did not fully inform the Court about Steele.

Comey is also correct that this destroyed trust with the Intelligence community. But it is because the Intelligence community, led by Comey, did not fully inform the FISA Court.

Comey ignores the obvious point that it is the conduct of Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and others in the Obama FBI and Obama DOJ that caused the lack of trust. The Memo only discloses and confirms the conduct of Comey and the others.

Comey and the Dems are blaming the messenger, the memo, instead of those who used the Steele dossier.

Comey approved an application for a FISA warrant that he knew was unverified. Comey testified before Congress in June 8 2017 that he briefed President-Elect Trump on January 6, 2017 about the Steele Dossier.

Comey’s prepared text reads:

“The IC leadership thought it important, for a variety of reasons, to alert the incoming President to the existence of this material, even though it was salacious and unverified.”

It seems that Comey had a good reputation before he became involved in the Hillary investigation. Comey needs to come clean about the Hillary investigation and the investigation of Trump if he wants to restore his reputation. He knew the dossier was unverified yet he used it to get the FISA warrant. He knew Hillary violated the law with the unsecure email server but he gave her a pass. He represented to the Court that the dossier was credible when he knew it was “unverified.”

Comey needs to tell the truth about why he obtained the FISA warrant using the unverified Steele dossier, and why he gave Hillary a pass.