The operative here is mostly. There’s always the many small segments that listeners grab on to at any time. You never know when one of those will pop up.
The answer to your question is in the application that the judges approved, which we don’t have access to.
An initial surveillance request can be based on probably cause but the first follow-up, let alone the third, as in this case, would be based primarily on the results of the surveillance.
The dossier was part of the initial application but it would have had little weight once the judges could see whether the intelligence yield proved the surveillance worthwhile.
Remember, the point of the surveillance was not to gather evidence to verify the dossier, it was to gather evidence of criminal activity. So, a reasonable assumption was that the contents of the surveillance were indicative of criminal activity. Do you have any other explanation that makes sense and is consistent with court procedure?
I recall that, as well. It was so memorable because Fat Donald also promised a 10% middle class tax cut, that would be delivered after the election. Remember that?
Why hasn’t Fat Donald released the FISA applications?
We were assured by dimwitted luminaries such as Drunk Gregg Jarrett that it would expose “criminal malfeasance that would turn the stomach of all Americans”.