Why officers of the court sometimes perpetrate frauds on the court.

Ace brings our attention to an article in the Federalist by Mollie Hemingway which Ace headlines: The Grassley/Graham Memo is Even More Damaging Than the Nunes Memo, and Obliterates Many of the Progressives' and NeverTrumpers' Key Wishcasting Defenses of the FISA Application

But first, let's hear what Ace thinks:

The FISA application represented to the court that the Yahoo article was independent corroboration, claiming Steele hadn't spoken to the press, and therefore Isikoff's article must come through some separate, independent channel of information.

This was a lie all along. But at first, it was only Steele's lie.

However, when Yates, Rosenstein, etc., singed the renewal applications, they did not update their application to inform the court that their previous representation had been false, that Steele had lied to them about when he spoke to the press, and in fact that Steele's association with the FBI had been terminated due to this misconduct.

They had a duty as officers of the court to tell the judge that.

Yet, they concealed it, once again.

Now if you're thinking, "Well, I can sure see why they concealed that, because that would destroy not only their renewal application but the original application too" -- yes, you can now see why officers of the court sometimes perpetrate frauds on the court.

It's the same reason any unethical litigant conceals material information from the court:

Because they know the truth would hurt them.

So they lie.