The FISC's restrictions seem entirely reasonable based on the IG report, not sure why TSA has a hair up his ass about my characterization. FBI goofed the process.
IG also said the investigation had a good faith basis and no political motive, and that there was no partisan spying.
I accept that both can be true. TSA can't.
There's a much larger problem here: the FISC being, for all intents and purposes, a secret court and sort of paralegal system. It's a system where LEO can send requests without informing the accused, thus violating their due process.
wasn't the FISC created to rein in an out of control FBI? to create some possibility of accountability where there had been even closer to none?
Not disagreeing with you, just trying to think this through.
but why is LE bearing the brunt of this ? Because trump team said so?
if a foreign govt is infiltrating us citizens and us citizens are receptive to their overtures (as trump team was)
why should LE not be allowed to investigate in secret?
why would you warn the us citizens (who might actually be committing treasonous acts) before investigating?
FBI was completely authorized to investigate without telling the players/possible suspects.
The FBI ed up in some of the process and rules of evidence-
but
the JUDGES - should bear the brunt of this responsibility -not just the FBI
what if there was treasonous activity and the FBI just tipped everybody off? Well wouldnt any foreign govt have a free pass in the future?
How often are suspects notified of requests for search warrants?
Lying to the FISC, hiding exculpatory evidence, and submitting forged do ents in order to obtain a FISA warrant is just a goof in the process by the FBI
epitome of flakiness Carter Page wants to be reparations for legal expenses.
They’re served with the warrant, at the very least. That certainly acts as notification. In this case there’s no such thing, while the ‘investigation’ does go through fairly personal matters.
IIRC, the FISA court was created in the Nixon years to address persecution against media and rival politicians from government. It’s hard to stomach we even had a pseudo-legal process for that. I get that the risk of not having it means we could have bad actors in those areas, but it’s also an affront to our justice system, which, BTW, handles secret and confidential requests all the time.
I might be wrong on this, but democracy thrived just fine in this country before the 70s and the FISA law.
does law enforcement typically notify somebody that they're being wiretapped?
No, not particularly in pen/trap cases, but we're now talking about much larger types of data collection.
My issue with the FISC is that it's a paralegal system established by statute (AFAIK), unlike the judicial proper which gets it's power delegated by the Cons ution itself.
And so checks and balances that would normally apply to the judiciary do not necessarily apply to it and as we diverge more and more, do the warrants they issue actually have the same validity as the judiciary ones? Do they have any validity at all, at least to the extent of warrants as mentioned in the 4th amendment?
It's like the executive and/or Congress one day declaring that they're going to have an 'enemy combatant' kangaroo court that's not a military tribunal but not the judiciary either. And also wrapped in secrecy, because they can.
I think I can kind of see what El Nono is saying. The very idea of a secret court undermines privacy, due process and accountability. I also get that due process rights do not generally attach to investigation.
Perhaps the tension is more literary than legal, I'm not a lawyer.
And fortunately, I suppose, not yet a suspect.
There's even questions of what is an 'investigation' in this case? By the time they ask the court for a warrant, they already combed through a gazillion communications from everyone, and zeroed in some potential target.
Who gets to sit at the table and argue that a warrant might be too broad? By the time a potential criminal case is built up, and filed in the legit justice system, you can challenge the evidence, but you can't challenge the collection, you can't inquire how it was obtained, etc. It's all secret, and prodding too much will raise the natsec card.
Just go back to the basics of law enforcement.
You follow the evidence.
You try and ahdere to the rules of law, you have level upon level upon level of rules, policies, criminal code of conduct/procedures, etc...
you get a report or a phone call - or as was the case in this investigation-
you get passed info from our allies intel - who just alerted the USA intel to red flags regarding russia ramping up their ery- and red flags when several trump team idiots were receptive-
these red flags corroborated the red flags the usa intel already had (but of course they did not TELL the foreign intel players what they had or did not have- they just collected evidence...
combine this with what every human being had heard with their own ears
(”russia, if you are listening...” (russian spy - at a trump speech coincidentally being picked out of an audience and serving trump up a question of russia/us relations- which trump praised putin...trump firing comey and then bragging about it to the russians in the oval office mtg where only russians were allowed and zero usa personnel/press)
add in with the other secret info/evidence the fbi had gathered -
and then all of this goes up the chain- that level reviewed everything and approved some paths/rejected others...
go to the next supervisory level- same process....and the next and the next....
months later and thousands of pieces of evidence later-
it went to the FISA court where the ball was dropped by both FBI personnel and COURT/JUDGES -
but there is a basic law enforcement process that was followed and at times mistakes were made
but the ALTERNATIVE?
throw out the baby out with the bathwater...because TRUMP
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
