Home » The FISA court comes out of the closet

Comments

The FISA court comes out of the closet — 23 Comments

  1. This is false outrage, and most likely Judge Collyer playing CYA. Devin Nunes has been on this since February of 2018, even sent the judge a letter outling this very thing. It’s disingenuous for Collyer, 22 months later when it’s all blowing up, to now suddenly be shocked and dismayed.

    Until we see actual punishment for wrongdoing, nothing will change. If Collyer thinks the FBI lied to her court, then she should be calling for every single agent who had a hand in or signed off on a fradulent warrant should be hauled up on perjury charges tomorrow. Preferably at 4am by a SWAT team with a news crew tipped off beforehand.

  2. It is highly doubtful whether any of the partisan hacks in the FBI or in the other alphabet agencies will ever face any consequences for this “egregious deception” or for any other similar actions clearly demonstrating corruption and mendacity, the nature of which (despite the self-serving statements of Lisa Page and others) should be obvious to any intelligent person not blinded by ideology and fanaticism.

  3. The FISA court isn’t really a court because in a court you can defend yourself. The FISA court is more like a star chamber.

  4. Oooo! The FBI “has to swear to the truth of the facts submitted.” How quaint.

    To “swear” means to take an oath. Taking an oath is only meaningful to a person who believes that a supreme being will banish him to the fires of hell for all eternity if he lies.

    Take another look at this picture and tell me that an oath means anything to him.

  5. Every competent judge, when he finds out that a warrant was issued based on fraudulent evidence, would throw out all of the evidence gathered using the warrant, and reverse the convictions in any case that used the evidence, even tangentially.

  6. I’m not sure what the precise meaning of this part is,

    not just “based on activities protected by the First Amendment.”

    One might suppose that they will require things like photos and audio recordings of foreign agent contacts or similar.

    Other than that I don’t see this as anything but a restatement of the status quo of the last several years. Even the requested changes at the FBI could conceivably be satisfied by Director Chris Wray’s already proposed reforms. Gee, it’s almost like everyone is already on the same page.

  7. }}} I guess that’s a stern set of demands, according to the FISA judges. But to me and many others it seems highly inadequate. The entire structure of the FISA court – secretive, and without a chance for the target to defend his/herself – seems ripe for abuse. And if a system that exerts enormous power depends on the utter integrity of its participants and is performed in secret (which describes the FISA process), then watch out. That system will be abused.

    I’m not much of a fan of FISA and the concept in general, BUT…

    If they wish to show ANY integrity on their part, then they need to review this, and bring PERJURY charges to a number of agents who lied to the court. Bring Obstruction of Justice charges against them. Bring any and every relevant charge to bear.

    And I mean THEN — THROW the book at them. Nail them for the maximum term each of those charges allow.

    That is the only way to show that there is a severe penalty for lying to the court, particularly to the FISA court, which is obviously short-cutting certain protections under the law, though with a good intention.

    Then they need to set up an independent panel of FISA judges and others cleared for viewing such materials, and review them at various intervals for evidence of lies and deceptions — that is, look at a case granted FISA now, in five years, and ten years, and see if any evidence that the case was based on lies… then throw out any verdicts based on lies, and punish the liars.

    It doesn’t matter if the person in question is guilty as Sin, any more than it matters if OJ was guilty… cops cannot EVER think they can fake information to get someone “they’re sure of”. They have to be AFRAID of failing to follow the legal requirements for evidence.

    There is too much opportunity for corruption otherwise.

  8. Today I wrote a letter to the presiding judge asking her to set a public show cause hearing so that the public’s confidence in the federal judiciary could be restored.

    If any other lawyer or litigant did what the FBI and DOJ lawyers did in the Carter Page case there would be hell to pay. Big fines and maybe jail time.

    And I’m positive that a letter from a Nebraska lawyer will cause that hearing to be set! LOL.

  9. Obloodyhell:

    Conservatives are banking on Durham to bring criminal charges. But the beauty of a contempt hearing now is that it would not be double jeopardy if she sentenced them to jail and then Durham convicted in a separate case. And, of course, it would be an absolute hoot to see Comey, McCabe and Strzok take the 5th.

    IOW, contempt of court is separate from perjury.

  10. It seems to me, a non-lawyer, that as Irv says, above, evidence gathered from these irregular warrants should be declared invalidly collected and any charges based on it vacated. And it also seems to me that there should be perjury charges against those signing these warrant applications.

  11. Star Chambers tend to persist and become more and more tyrannical. Edgar Lee Masters notes:

    “In the Star Chamber the council could inflict any punishment short of death, and frequently sentenced objects of its wrath to the pillory, to whipping and to the cutting off of ears. … With each embarrassment to arbitrary power the Star Chamber became emboldened to undertake further usurpation. … The Star Chamber finally summoned juries before it for verdicts disagreeable to the government, and fined and imprisoned them. It spread terrorism among those who were called to do constitutional acts. It imposed ruinous fines. It became the chief defence of Charles against assaults upon those usurpations which cost him his life.”

  12. “these are “ex parte” proceedings (meaning only the FBI or the surveilling party, not the surveilled is involved), ” – Neo

    One portion of the cure, as OBLoodyHell suggests, is to widen the participants to include judges who would play the part of defenders of the surveilled, somewhat like the Devil’s Advocate, the popular title of the person appointed by the Roman Catholic Church to challenge a proposed beatification or canonization, or the verification of a miracle.

  13. “The FISA court comes out of the closet”
    .. not that any of the LIVs that only watch MSM would know that.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/mainstream-media-ignore-fisa-court-slamming-fbi-over-trump-related-surveillance-applications/

    To quote our esteemed hostess:
    https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/12/18/the-impeachment-vote-the-only-news-was-the-numbers/#comment-2471299

    My argument, and that of most people here who agree with me, is that Democrats and/or independents who buy this stuff are often very low information voters who are busy leading their lives and not paying a whole lot of attention. I know, because long ago (in a different atmosphere, however) I was pretty much like that. So I think I know a great deal about how such people tend to think. They also dismiss the idea that their sources of news – which they tend to not read in great depth, although they read some – are fundamentally biased. And you know what? If you don’t delve into it at all deeply, and you read only the MSM, you can remain quite convinced of what they say./b>

    … and what they don’t say, well, you never even know about that.

  14. Edgar Lee Masters notes… -Gerard Vanderleun

    That’s the same Edgar Lee Masters, the poet, who wrote “The Spoon River Anthology.” Which most people know by the poem, “Richard Cory,” from high school English or from the Simon & Garfunkel song.

    I didn’t know Masters was also an attorney, who even worked for Clarence Darrow.

    https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/richard-cory

    “Simon & Garfunkel”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAGKpoVFbmw

    Once upon a time American poets covered a broader range of people. More substantial too, I’d say. “Spoon River” is still a great read.

  15. It seems to me, a non-lawyer, that as Irv says, above, evidence gathered from these irregular warrants should be declared invalidly collected and any charges based on it vacated. –Kate

    Irv, Kate: It does seem classic “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”:

    Fruit of the poisonous tree (objection) is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the “tree”) of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the “fruit”) from it is tainted as well.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

  16. Please read this post of mine from 2013 about Clarence Darrow and poetry, as well as Darrow’s relationship with Edgar Lee Masters.

    neo: That post covered the waterfront!

    Free will is such a tricky topic. I remain firmly on the free will side, though I’ll grant it is more than a matter of saying, “I will…”

    When I was young, the poem “Invictus” sounded like more of the crap they taught us in high school. When I was older, I looked it up and discovered it was a damn serious poem by a young man in a damn serious situation — he had already lost one leg and had just been operated on the other, which he might lose as well.

    In that poem the poet, William Henley, was pinning his colors to the mast to remain resolute and strong, whatever life might bring him. I understood the poem differently after learning that.

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishments the scroll,
    I am the master of my fate:
    I am the captain of my soul.

    –William Ernest Henley

  17. All four FISA judges should be impeached for abuse of power and dereliction of duty.

    They are and have been part of the Swamp that needs to be drained. Their job was to make sure the FBI was not lying, partly by making sure everything said fulfilled all conditions.

  18. A good point made by Turley:

    https://jonathanturley.org/2019/12/16/an-apology-to-carter-page/

    After he was acquitted in a major fraud trial, former Labor Secretary Ray Donovan asked, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?” The trial was ruinous for Donovan, personally and financially, and the question was a fair one. Donovan, however, at least received a trial. Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page has never been given a fair hearing, let alone a trial, to clear his name. As the two political parties spin the results of a report by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, one matter remains unaddressed. Someone needs to apologize to Page.

    As Horowitz has now stressed, there is a difference between starting an investigation based on mere allegations and continuing the investigation based on known falsehoods.

    At what point does someone apologize to Page? He is, in fact, the victim of this criminal referral. He is the victim of what Horowitz describes as a “misleading” basis presented to the FISA court. He is a victim of media “groupthink” that portrayed him as the sinister link proving collusion with Russia, an allegation rejected by the FBI, by the inspector general, and by the special counsel. Of course, Washington does not work this way. Page served his purpose and the trashing of his reputation was a cost of doing business with the federal government for many members of Congress and the media. In recalling the question by Donovan, there is no such office. Page is simply supposed to disappear and leave his reputation behind.

  19. Carter Page is a modern day Richard Jewell, but Jewell got a no prosecution letter from the FBI after about 88 days. And then he got money from civil lawsuits.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>