Disturbing – FISA Court States No Hearings Conducted Before Issuing Title-1 Warrant Allowing Surveillance Over Trump Campaign

CTH: Well this is troubling on many levels.  According to a responsive filing from the FISA Court (full pdf below), there wasn’t any hearing on the sketchy FISA application submitted by the DOJ/FBI to conduct FISA Title-1 surveillance on Carter Page.

Even more disturbing, according to the secret court, it is customary to just accept and review the FISA applications as presented without judicial inquiry into the content.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced that in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the Justice Department (DOJ) admitted in a court filing last night that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.  

MORE

15 Comments on Disturbing – FISA Court States No Hearings Conducted Before Issuing Title-1 Warrant Allowing Surveillance Over Trump Campaign

  1. face it … the FISA Court is nothing more than a rubber-stamp for the DOJ to conduct illegal surveillances

    another circumvention of the Constitution … brought to you by George W. Bush & the Deep State after the 9-11 panic, & spanked to hard & ridden wet by the Obama regime

    Trump needs to abolish FISA yesterday!




    13
  2. I’m not so sure this ought to be “troubling”. I’m not up to speed on how the FISC procedures differ from other courts, but when OKing a normal search warrant I don’t think judges hold actual hearings. They get a probable cause affidavit, ask questions of the affiant if they have any, and then sign off on the warrant.

    I wish there were a hearing, though, especially if the FISC judge who OKed those Title I warrants was Rudy Contreras, Strzok’s good buddy.




    8
  3. ” it is customary to just accept and review the FISA applications as presented without judicial inquiry into the content.”
    I dunno, in my mind I hear that translated as – ‘it is customary to accept and review our pay check without doing our sworn duty, or any work at all really. ‘

    But maybe they just had a foolish false expectation that they were dealing with honest people.
    However, they are paid to catch incompetent work and make sure it was corrected before signing.

    Either option. Why have the FISA Court ? They don’t appear to be doing anything useful. Blind oversight.




    7
  4. Uncle Al is correct. In Federal courts, a judge often rules on an issue without a hearing. Tone will be held if the judge has questions. The judge decides.

    The parties have already stated their respective positions in writing.
    Saves them having to listen to lawyers talk.




    3
  5. Xe has already proven existential contempt for The Bill of Rights, by participating. I should also pay the posse billable hours to show up and pretend to work? What? Oh… I mean I should also pay the posse billable hours to show up and pretend to work!




    0
  6. From what I can tell, a hearing might not always be required for FISC cases, but a judge is supposed to make that determination for each case. It seems to me that if the FBI / DOJ (or other agencies) request to conduct surveillance on a candidate in the middle of a presidential election campaign that any honest judge with any integrity would damned well hold a hearing to determine if the government has an extremely valid reason to spy on the campaign of a candidate that might be the next president.

    Honesty would dictate that at the minimum a hearing would be held to determine how far the government could go with its surveillance under such sensitive circumstances as a current presidential campaign just months before the election …… at least if the judge had any interest in fairness and actual justice. By all appearances, this whole deal was a scam from the very start and everybody including the FISC judges knew it (or most certainly should have aggressively questioned such surveillance against a American citizens considering that the whole thing is supposed to be about FOREIGN intelligence issues).

    This link is to the rules for the FISC courts with the section on hearings below.

    http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

    Title V. Hearings, Orders, and Enforcement
    Rule 17. Hearings.

    (a) Scheduling. The Judge to whom a matter is presented or assigned must determine whether a hearing is necessary and, if so, set the time and place
    of the hearing.

    (b) Ex Parte. Except as the Court otherwise directs or the Rules otherwise provide, a hearing in a non-adversarial matter must be ex parte and conducted within the Court’s secure facility.

    (c) Appearances. Unless excused, the government official providing the factual information in an application or certification and an attorney for the applicant must attend the hearing, along with other representatives of the government, and any other party, as the Court may direct or permit.

    (d) Testimony; Oath; Recording of Proceedings. A Judge may take testimony under oath and receive other evidence. The testimony may be recorded electronically or as the Judge may otherwise direct, consistent with the security measures referenced in Rule 3.




    3
  7. @Czar of Defenestration September 1, 2018 at 4:44 am

    This is ‘rubber stamped’ by Chief Judge Collyer, without a hearing. BTW – I’m not suggesting wrongdoing on her part, more that she was hoodwinked.

    Even if one is not a raving social justice warrior, it’s still mean to publicly ridicule the mentally challenged.




    1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.




Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!