Posted on 12/17/2019 7:22:51 PM PST by bitt
During a stunning interview last Sunday Devin Nunes called for the FISA court to be deconstructed. In my opinion it was that statement, not the IG report, that spurred FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer to make a public order today.
Today, hours after Judge Collyer released her order, Devin Nunes responded to the review of the FISC by stating, accurately, Judge Collyer doth protest too much.
In this interview Devin Nunes outlines his February 2018 notification to the FISC about the specific fraud upon the court; and as a result of that (and a follow-up) notification, Nunes again takes the FISC to task for saying they were not aware. Collyer was aware because Nunes told her.
Accepting the totality of the FISC obfuscation, HPSCI ranking member Devin Nunes again calls for the dismantling of the FISA court process. WATCH:
.
Despite the media ignoring the scale of Nunes prior statements, this is not some just some arbitrary representatives’ opinion. Nunes was Chairman of the HPSCI when he informed the court of the abuse; and he is currently the ranking member of the same committee.
It is not a signal flare from the ranking member of the HPSCI to call for a structural removal of FISC authority. This is a nuclear blast from the primary person who previously guided the FISA re-authorization that permits the court’s existence.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
We don’t need a secret court.
Mark Levin: It's time for FISA court judges to face scrutiny Mar 1, 2018 - Youtube 10:20
So who holds these corrupt fisa judges to account ?
I’m not sure but I think it’s supposed to be Congress.
Deep state says to itself: Fine, dismantle FISA. We’ll spy on US citizens without warrants.
“Instead, their secret power has been turned against innocent U.S. citizens for political gain.”
Which everyone with two brain cells to rub together knew would happen the minute they created the damn thing.
In this interview Devin Nunes outlines his February 2018 notification to the FISC about the specific fraud upon the court; and as a result of that (and a follow-up) notification, Nunes again takes the FISC to task for saying they were not aware. Collyer was aware because Nunes told her.
______
Collyer....... too late. You are a fraud or you wouldn't have the filthy job.
Just as Congress has oversight of the executive branch agencies it creates, it should also have oversight of lower federal courts.
Obama's people committed great crimes. Judge Collyer facilitated the crimes and should be called to testify to Congress.
______
Just ponder the large number of individuals who may have the right to claim that THEY TOO HAVE BEEN DONE WRONG.
This is almost like taking performance enhancement drugs away from major league baseball hitters.
___________
Sounds good.
We need them to be in jail so we can be safe.
______________
RIGHT
AMEN! It has no basis in the Constitution.
They do that anyway. The FISA warrant on Carter Page was obtained in order to get the legal defense, not to enable the snoop in the first place. The campaign was already being spied on with human sources (no warrant required, no matter what).
SCOTUS law is that no warrant is required in order to obtain foreign intelligence. The "law required" comes from Congress, and there is a good argument that the law in an unconstitutional encumbrance on the executive - if we apply the SCOTUS position that no warrant is required. FWIW, the FISA law has "no warrant required" provisions too, but still requires the executive to file paperwork with the secret court.
FISA is just make work and a sham to make you THINK the government practices restraint in snooping. It never did and it never will. Plus FISA is expensive. Many clerks on both sides of the equation, mountains of paperwork.
The 4th amendment is an academic token. It appears in criminal lawsuits, mostly, and for that the cops have usually got a magistrate to rubber-stamp the warrant. Otherwise, 4th amendment is one area of law where the "reasonable expectation" is not defined by the public, it is defined by the court.
Otherwise, when you see the question "reasonable" in the law, it indicates a question for the jury.
On FISA, stop the sham. Go back to the way it was before 1973 or whenever FISA was passed. It is our job to inform the people that we live in a surveillance state. The government MUST deny that, so it does and will. Doesn't make the government claim true. Has the government ever told the truth about how much surveillance it undertakes? No.
The rot is not "a few at the top." The rot is systemic.
That said, I disagree that Nunes remarks move FISC. FISC is working to assuage the public. They know they are toast in Nunes eyes, and hope to pull the wool over the public's eyes.
Not that his matters. we see that Congress is not responsive or sensitive to public outrage.
Not just Collyear. I’d take a good look at Contreras, too.
Inherent contempt is generally not used to punish, it is used to compel. Short stints for punishment, for example outbursts in court. A few days to cooll off, chill out.
What FISC can do is forbid specific individuals from appearing before it. There is no sign it has taken this move.
In principle, courts are first self-policing (this is a joke), with the "teeth" coming from Congress's power to impeach and remove.
In practice, none of the government is accountable.
Contreras had nothing to do with the Page FISA. He did take the guilty plea of Flynn and then was recused. That is likely because of the Strzok/Page texts mentioning him..
From 10 months earlier!!
https://static.wixstatic.com/ugd/ff7ad7_a3c1fe25898044a780f705b1e5179ef6.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.