Using an unreliable witness, and using unverified information generated from that individual, is not something that would go unpunished in civil court, if found out.
Well, the problem is Steele worked for British intelligence for a career and retired honorably from that. He also had a record of being a reliable witness with the FBI on past cases as a private investigator/consultant, which is consistent with his decades long career. He's also an expert in Russia, with extensive contacts in Russia, which lends him more credibility on his dossier, which centered on his specialty. So you're asserting facts you're pulling out of your rear end.
And if you know the legal standard for what can be included in a FISA warrant, cite it and identify the laws or standards violated by the FBI. What you're suggesting is if the FBI gets a tip from the roommate of a guy and the tip is he's constructing IEDs in his bedroom, that the FBI has to verify that allegation before getting a warrant to break the doors down or at least monitor his communications. I do not believe that's the standard.
In this case, you don't know how the FBI used the Steele information in the warrant application, so it's quite impossible for you to demonstrate that they used it in a way that violates law or even procedure. Four different FISC judges believed the evidence was sufficient, as did a series of people at DoJ and FBI including Trump appointees, and two of the renewals were after the issue became an incredibly volatile political situation.
So I'm wondering where else you're OK with this. Can I find a neighbor that hates you and use him as a witness to you acting suspiciously and get a warrant on you and go through all your stuff, you house, your finances, your entire history?
Of course something LIKE that happens routinely in this country. Warrants don't require proof of a crime, or else the warrant isn't needed. Often warrants are issued and the cops don't find what they expect to find. I'm sure national security warrants are also issued frequently and the target turns out to be innocent. There is no inherent problem with those events.
In the case of Page, we know that the dossier and the Yahoo article were only part of the evidence cited in the warrant application, so if the "neighbor" who is a retired cop who was in the drug dealing unit makes a bunch of allegations, which he sources to discussions with other neighbors and his observations of comings and goings at my house, and I've got a history (like Page did) of being a drug dealer (i.e. for this example compromised by Russian intelligence), and the warrant gets information from other people confirming the suspicions of that retired cop, then, yeah, I can probably look forward to a visit from the police or having my records searched, my phone tapped, etc..
