I keep hearing conservatives and pundits on Fox News talking about how furious the FISA judge must be since he was lied to by the FBI and DOJ. It seems I have read somewhere that the FISA rulings almost always - as in nearly 100% of the time - grant the applications. If that's true it seems to me the FISA judges are really nothing more than rubber stamps and the whole FISA court proceedings are nothing more than a cover. It's just a process the government feels it has to show the public, a game they have to play before they get down to the real business of spying. An attempt to dupe the public that the Constitution is being followed. So, if the FISA judges are just a part of the game, are nothing more than rubber stamps, why does anyone think they are upset about being lied to? And are we supposed to believe the Trump scandal is the first and only time the FISA process has been a sham? I'm curious to hear what some of you think.
Something I Wonder About
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I couldn't agree more. I think the reason for this rhetoric is that the Repubs want the ability to use the FISA courts just like the Dems did. So they are trying to narrow the scope only to the submitters and not to the fallacies of the court itself.
I would love to know the stats of how many unmasking requests have been denied. That's where this gets really sticky as you are deliberately acting against US Citizens at that point. For that matter, how many of these FISA requests have been allowed against US Citizens.
The spy apparatus in the US was alive and well long before the Patriot Act. Clinton had Echelon which allegedly only intercepted calls going into or out of the US. I'm guessing if a call bounced off a satellite it was intercepted regardless of origin or destination.
Nobody argues against any search warrants or wiretap applications....there never has been anyone.
The arguing against the validity of such matters comes after someone is charged through a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the invalid action.
I brought this up earlier, the judges are a joke. The whole system needs to be junked or massively overhauled. Dems and Reps like to spy.
that being said
as i obviously don’t know the process
it would seem as human nature
there would be judges who stamp warrants and judges who look down from the bench and say no
97.2% approval gives law enforcement a wide berth to make a case when the genesis as you alluded to will be tried past the post
If Flynn or Manafort’s attorneys believe evidence against their client was obtained contrary to law then yes, they would be entitled to file and pursue a motion to suppress.
I get what you are saying, and don’t necessarily disagree (or fully agree).
An alternate explanation for 97.2% approval rate could be that “probable cause” for obtaining a warrant (FISA or otherwise) is not a very high evidentiary standard and law enforcement doesn’t presentapplications for warrants that might not meet that low standard for fear of losing the evidence they find after the fact. For instance, I know that I routinely advise our personnel to go get more evidence to be certain they have PC before getting a warrant because better safe than sorry if that warrant actually ends up getting crucial/critical evidence that you can’t make your case without.
I also recognize that I am looking at this from a criminal prosecution perspective and that there may have been political motivations beyond “catching bad guys” for obtaining such warrants. That is something I have never, and would never, be involved in.
I have been in telecom since the 90's. We started installing snooping equipment for the federal policing agencies during the Clinton presidency. The snooping equipment was required to stay in the gov't good graces and every call, at least on our network, ran through the snoop-capable equipment.
you and people like you are part of the solution
What do I really think? Deep state has dirt over everyone via illegal spying and that's how our fine representatives, the vast majority anyway, advance.
I think Chief Justice Roberts was blackmailed to vote for Ocare, and I think Scalia, who never gave in even though he was spied on and threatened, was murdered in TX for not playing along. That's what I think.
I think Chief Justice Roberts was blackmailed to vote for Ocare, and I think Scalia, who never gave in even though he was spied on and threatened, was murdered in TX for not playing along. That's what I think.
Last edited:
