Since writing my post which energized you to ask if I am on Mueller's payroll..
I'll respond here, since this article is interesting. I, obviously, don't think you are on Mueller's payroll. I do think, though, that it is as defendable position as thinking that Rowley is a liberal. I don't have a clue why she referred to Waco and Ruby Ridge. But she also chose to capitalize the word INTEGRITY in her letter, and I think that deserves as much speculation.
This article here; well, this is getting a little old. Most recently, Newsweek "discovered" all about it themselves.
Read it here.
I you go to my comments there, you will find that it was originally reported on Sept. 19 by the NYTimes, which I found in an ABC article that is also linked in my comments. What is hilarious about the Newsweek slant is that they have Lambert dressing down Ashcroft (who was at that time campaigning for the Senate). The media would REALLY, REALLY, like to nail Ashcroft.
Anyhoo, the judges seemed to be most exercised about the liberal use of the "cut-and-paste" method used by Resnik, and probably felt that they were mass-producing surviellance requests. It is pretty clear that that was not the intent of the law in question. Therefore, the FBI wanted make sure every request was justified for unique reasons, and Rowley et. al. hit a brick wall. It is a classic case of crying wolf too often, and not have the credibility to pursue the wolf when he does show up. And it its very, very sad because a prompt search of that computer could have saved so many lives.
Yes, I agree the Newsweek effort is junk.
I can understand that this is a special court with sensitive privacy concerns but I am reluctant to accept the "boilerplate" scenerio for the reasons expressed in the post to Browardchad. If this scenerio is true, it will stand as object lession about burocrats, their over- reactions, and the laws of unintended consequenses.