My apologies for the link.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/what-is-the-bush-administ_b_13144.html
01/02/2006
EXCERPTS
After 24 years of idleness, in September 2002 the Court of Review heard its first case because the Bush Administration tried to expand the coverage of FISA jurisdiction to allow prosecutors and local law enforcement agencies to be involved in the surveillance program and to have access to information obtained through the surveillance. FISC modified their requests before accepting them and the Bush Administration appealed. At the September 9, 2002, hearing before the Court of Review, the Bush Administration was represented by ten members of the Department of Justice, led by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who had become famous when he presented the Bush-Cheney case to the Supreme Court during the 2000 presidential election dispute. Other notables included James A. Baker, in his role as counsel for the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, and John C. Yoo, the administration go-to guy to legally justify anything the Bush Administration wants to do. The Justice Department team was joined by Spike Bowman, a lawyer for the FBI, and David S. Addington, a lawyer representing Vice-President Cheney’s office. Lawyers supporting the FISC decision were not allowed to be present, so the ACLU and others later submitted a written brief to the three justices. The convening of the Court of Review was so novel that the justices had to ask the Justice Department lawyers who submitted the surveillance applications (the Attorney General’s staff) and how often the FISC met to consider the applications (once a week).
(snip)
The Administration also wanted to change the phrase “the purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information” to “a significant purpose of the surveillance….” This qualifying word could open the door to all manner of other “purposes” for surveillance. When the Court of Review judges tried to get the Justice Department officials to clarify what other purposes there might be besides suspicion of terrorism or espionage, Olson and Baker were evasive.
07/12/16
FBI to give deleted Clinton emails back to State Dept.
The FBI will give the State Department thousands of deleted work-related emails that it uncovered while investigating Hillary Clinton’s private server.
The bureau said in a letter filed with a federal court late Tuesday afternoon that, now that the investigation into Clinton is over, it would turn over the emails over to the State Department for record-keeping.
“During the course of the investigation, the FBI obtained certain information that may include agency records of the State Department,” general counsel James Baker told the department.
“In accordance with our policies and procedures, the FBI will be providing this information to your department for review and determination of record status pursuant to the Federal Records Act and subsequent FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] processing as appropriate.”
According to FBI Director James Comey, investigators “discovered several thousand work-related” messages that were not among the roughly 30,000 emails Clinton gave to the government in 2014. The former secretary of State and her lawyers deleted approximately half of the 60,000 emails on her server, claiming at the time that they were purely personal and did not belong in the government’s hands.
The FBI recovered the emails through digital traces left on decommissioned servers and via the inboxes of people with whom Clinton communicated, Comey said.
The State Department did not indicate whether it would release the thousands of new emails to the public, as it did with the 30,000 emails she had already handed over.
https://www.scribd.com/document/318128236/show-temp-3
Great Post!