Timeline for What scope does Title I Fisa have as it pertains to other US citizens not explicitly targeted by the warrant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 8, 2018 at 16:51 | comment | added | hszmv | @Dunk Keep in mind that, incompetence/complacency as I used it was not intended as a defense for the offender(s) to get out of jail free over the issues, only a possible mitigating factor as to why it occurred. I'm of the never attribute to malice what can be claimed by stupidity school, so until there is evidence suggesting the former. Another problem is that the judges could become complacent and didn't scrutinize the application the way he would for a public warrant. At this stage it's too early for me to be critical of either party as I would want to see the application. | |
| Feb 7, 2018 at 23:51 | comment | added | Dunk | ...quite frankly, even the appearance of impropriety with regards to FISA should be enough for immediate firing and I think should be enough for criminal charges but I'm sure that latter view would require a change in the law. | |
| Feb 7, 2018 at 23:46 | comment | added | Dunk | @hszmv-FISA warrants are supposed to be treated quite different from ordinary warrants. The government is supposed to jump through all the extra hoops before granting one because the power is so over-reaching. Thus, there's no ability to claim incompetence/complacency. The only choices are dereliction of duty or malice. If an ordinary warrant was issued inappropriately then eventually the defendant's lawyer will get to see the warrant and can get the case tossed. With FISA warrants, the defendant's lawyer never gets to see the warrant, EVER. Thus, the extra obligations on the government. | |
| Feb 7, 2018 at 18:12 | comment | added | hszmv | @TheApprentice: Per the memo, it seems Nunes (and other Republicans) believe that the Warrant was obtained through an abuse of process. This abuse could be because of incompetence/complacency (they didn't check some of the unverified or false incidents in the dossier close enough to realize it was problematic) OR actual malice (they withheld evidence or lack of evidence contained in the dossier from the judge when applying for the warrant, making it seem like better evidence than it was). | |
| Feb 7, 2018 at 18:04 | comment | added | hszmv | @TheApprentice: You're not wrong. However, the ideal situation of the warrant would not put unlimited surveillance on Trump Tower (or other facilities used by the campaign). Supposedly, if then-candidate Trump was to pick up the phone for a call that Page was not involved with, it would subject to the 72 hour period and then destroyed. As what was and wasn't collected under this warrant isn't publicly available, I won't speculate on the collection.+ | |
| Feb 6, 2018 at 21:52 | vote | accept | Apprentice | ||
| Feb 6, 2018 at 21:52 | |||||
| Feb 6, 2018 at 18:54 | comment | added | Apprentice | ..(continuing) but why not, if according to the dossier there may be a conspiracy and Page might conceivably make further contact with the Trump campaign? Is this beyond the scope of the FISA warrant? It's not clear to me that it is. It seems that one could make an argument that it is part of the collection on Page, subject to all the masking requirements you mentioned. I would love to confidently rule this out, but it seems hard given the secretive nature of the FISA courts and the precedents they establish. | |
| Feb 6, 2018 at 18:52 | comment | added | Apprentice | Thank you for your answer, this is helpful context but there is a subtlety you aren't quite addressing. Let's take this specific case. Carter Page was only subject to the FISA Title I Warrant after he left the campaign. Suppose he was no longer in official communication with the campaign or transition at this point. The dossier suggests Page was part of a broad plot centered at the Trump campaign. Your analysis suggests that the warrant would not allow masked surveillance at Trump Tower, for instance, in the hope that Page would call. | |
| Feb 6, 2018 at 18:02 | history | answered | hszmv | CC BY-SA 3.0 |