re: Comey Admits He Knew Democrats Financed ‘Pee’ Dossier Before FISA Warrant Signoff

quote:

---

Uh, the judges that signed off are pissed off,

---

quote:

---

Why do you think it matters?

---

quote:

---

Comey Admits He Knew Democrats Financed ‘Pee’ Dossier Before FISA Warrant Signoff
think about it....

the former head of the EFF BEE EYE, with nearly unlimited police power and resources admitted to knowingly using falsified information to begin using the most advanced spying apparatus on the planet to monitor a man running for president against who he thought should win.

THATS frickING INSANE

---

quote:

---

Full disclosure to the court as required by law.

---

quote:

---

Your outrage here is a function of you not understanding the process.

---

quote:

---

That’s not the standard.

---

quote:

---

Under FISA practice, the first set of interactions often take place at the staff level. The Court’s legal staff frequently interacts with the government in various ways in the context of examining the legal sufficiency of applications before they are presented in final form to a judge. Indeed, in the process of reviewing the government’s applications and submissions in order to provide advice to the judge, the legal staff interact with the government on a daily basis. These daily interactions typically consist of secure telephone conversations in which legal staff ask the government questions about the legal and factual elements of applications or submissions. These questions may originate with legal staff after an initial review of an application or submission, or they may come from a judge.

At the direction of the Presiding Judge or the judge assigned to a matter, Court legal staff sometimes meet with the government in connection with applications and submissions. The Court typically requests such meetings when a proposed application or submission presents a special legal or factual concern about which the Court would like additional information (e.g., a novel use of technology or a request to use a new surveillance or search technique). The frequency of such meetings varies depending on the Court’s assessment of its need for additional information in matters before it and the most conducive means to obtain that information. Court legal staff may meet with the government as often as 2-3 times a week, or as few as 1-2 times a month, in connection with the various matters pending before the Court.

---

quote:

---

additional facts to justify the government’s belief that its application meets the legal requirements for the type of authority it is seeking (e.g., in the case of electronic surveillance, that might include additional information to justify the government’s belief that a target of surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power . . . or that the target is using or about to use a particular facility . . .; additional facts about how the government intends to implement statutorily required minimization procedures . . .; additional information about the government’s prior implementation of a Court order, particularly if the government has previously failed to comply fully with a Court order; or additional information about novel issues of technology or law.

---