FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer Responds to Chairman Nunes and Chairman Goodlatte

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | February 15, 2018 | sundance

[Texas Fossil]

Moments ago FISA Court Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer responded to the requests from the House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes and House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte. (full pdf’s below – #1 and #2)

There are nuances in each response specific to the statutory roles of each Chairman and the specific requests made by each committee.  Reflected in Judge Collyer’s responses is a need for careful consideration of each unique request.

♦House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes holds primary oversight authority over the aggregate Intelligence Community (IC).  Chairman Nunes has requested the transcripts from the FISA Court during the DOJ/FBI Title-1 surveillance application over their target, U.S. person Carter Page.

♦House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte holds primary oversight authority over the Department of Justice -including the FISA court- and has requested the actual FISA Title-1 application as submitted by the DOJ/FBI for surveillance of Carter Page.

Judge Collyer responds to both legislative branch chairman from the position of “never previously receiving such requests.” There are separation of power challenges, but also an understanding inherent in the response to Chairman Goodlatte of the unique statutory oversight his committee holds.

[Texas Fossil]

it is only Congress constant abdication of its own powers that has made the executive and judiciary dominant over it.

BUMP!

[Texas Fossil]

Yes. All of that is reality.

[kabar]

Actually, Judge Rosemary Collyer is one of the good guys. She produced the 99 page document that criticized the abuses of the government in the FISA process. If you read her responses, she is recommending that Nunes and Goodlatte go to DOJ for a faster response and she added that she has no objection to the Executive Branch providing access to the subject material.

Judge Collyer is raising constitutional issues about the prerogative of the court to release such information. Overall, I see her response as being a positive one. She is putting the ball in the hands of DOJ and the Executive Branch. Perhaps, Trump should step in and signal his willingness to give this information to Congress.

[kabar]

I suggest you read Judge Collyer’s responses to Nunes and Goodlatte. It will make things much clearer on the judge’s position. She is not the villain in this case.

[Texas Fossil]

They all should all be chased down the streets.

I'm no fan of Globalist, GHWB.

[Texas Fossil]

This Star Chamber is real and will not be televised.

[kabar]

Nunes has not seen the FISA application. DOJ only allowed one Congressmen and two staffers from each party to see it. Goodlatte has seen it as well as I presume Feinstein.

[Steven W.]

I generally agree - release of the April 2017 Court order was within the jurisdiction of the Court i.e. it was the Court's work product that was produced though I'm not sure if her signoff was required for DNI Coats to declassify. In this case it would presumably be a signed + stamped copy of the FISA warrant. She indicates that F-I/D-J has most if not all of the relevant documents and suggests there was no transcript (understanding is sometimes these applications can even take place by phone). She provides clearance for feds to turn over relevant docs to Congress so they can't seek any further cover. She notes that this request is the first ever received and it's "novel" worthy of consideration (as it is). There is precedence involved here and, under any other circumstances, we don't want Congress demanding + receiving all kinds of things from judiciary; the problem here is that the highest Court(s) and law enforcement agencies have been corrupted ;(

[LesbianThespianGymnasticMidget]

I am not. Rank and file FBI are petrified. It wasn’t just at the top. The whole damned thing was weaponized.

[hadrian]

I wholeheartedly agree, Rosemary Collyer is “one of the good guys.” In my experience with her she went after anyone who broke the law, no matter which side, and that was a big reason she didn’t get renominated to her former position. When I talk to people about my 35 years of Federal service her name is at the top of the list for fairness, intelligence, and being a decent person looking out for the working men and women of the U.S. I can’t think of a higher endorsement.

[xkaydet65]

Problem with getting rid of Sessions is McConnell will never allow the Senate to approve a nominee that would go forward with this investigation or one who would further Trump policy in exposing DC corruption. Sessions is as good as you are going to get and unfortunately I think his presence in the Trump campaign WAS just another insurance policy in case Trump won.

[Cboldt]

-- If she were to find out that the DOJ/FBI has different versions of the same FISA application there would be hell to pay. --

Metaphorically speaking. She'd shun the offender out of her court, and that would be the end of it. The public would not be apprised. Would be an embarrassment to the court and the court won't allow that.

I appreciate your respect for Collyer in the matters you've had before her, but even the mafia runs an honest front. There is no reason to believe that Collyer has integrity in everything she does. Judging from her answer to Nunes, she is good at being non-responsive and demanding.

[Cboldt]

The reason the FISA court exists is to provide a venue to launder the government's warrantless surveillance, and to mollify a gullible public into the false belief that the government seeks warrants before it conducts surveillance.

The public would be pissed if it knew how much of its communication was "snooped" without a warrant.

The only remedy for 4th amendment violations is evidence tossed from a criminal case. The criminal and civil penalties are totally toothless.

[Cboldt]

Public disclosure of a redacted FISC April 2017 order and opinion was by DOJ, not by the court.

[Cboldt]

An issue that Congress is pursuing is the integrity of DOJ. In other words, Congress is telling the judge that there may be two versions of the application. One presented to Congress by the DOJ, and a different one presented to FISC. He answer, to get the application from DOJ, is not responsive to the request. Congress already has the DOJ version.

[Windflier]

...or, he is carrying on his own secret investigations, and doesn’t want to spill the beans before he’s ready.

Sessions recused himself under oath, from having anything to do with matters concerning the 2016 election.

Understand, his recusal is a legally binding proscription, which forbids him from having anything to do with these investigations.

Sessions isn't 'working behind the scenes', or helping the white hats in any way. It would be illegal for him to do so. He also has not resigned, so that a real AG can be put in place to do the job.

[hadrian]

But in this case it would be to “shun” the only party/offender that comes before the FISA court - DOJ/FBI seeking warrants to wiretap/surveil. And my respect goes beyond having matters “before her”; I worked directly for and with her on major cases where she exercised her nonreviewable statutory discretion as to whether to prosecute or not. She made hard decisions that went contrary to the interests/hopes of those who supported her original nomination [but decisions that were consistent with the law], thus knowingly torpedoing her chances of renomination.

[FreeReign]

What baffles me is that he is actively trying to obstruct the work of the Nunes committee.

I don't think Sessions is actively trying to obstruct justice.

He's simply recused from these investigations and he's left somebody else in charge, obstructing justice, Rob Rosenstein.

[Thibodeaux]

Troll alert!!

[Cboldt]

-- But in this case it would be to "shun" the only party/offender that comes before the FISA court - DOJ/FBI seeking warrants to wiretap/surveil. --

As you know, she'd shun the offenders on a personal one-by-one basis.

-- And my respect goes beyond having matters "before her"; I worked directly for and with her on major cases ... --

Okay, so expand my observation from "matters before her" which has a narrow clinical definition, to matters you are sufficiently aware of. I don't doubt your observations. I am simply unwilling to extend them to the point of considering Collyer to be trustworthy in all matters.

-- She made hard decisions ... thus knowingly torpedoing her chances of renomination. --

Renomination? Judges hold office for life / good conduct. Her FISA stint is at CJ discretion, and time limited by statute.