[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 ;(

[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.

[kabar]

It is clearly an interim reply. She is explaining why she must give it more deliberation. However, she offers the suggestion that getting DOJ to make the decision will probably provide a faster response. Judge Collyer is not against releasing the information.