5 ms·

It's actually closer to 99%. I think I heard they only rejected one warrant in the last calendar year. Its surprising that it's taken something of this magnitu

It's actually closer to 99%. I think I heard they only rejected one warrant in the last calendar year. Its surprising that it's taken something of this magnitude for people to realize this the whole idea of the FISC is a very bad idea. I know the original idea was to use against terrorist organizations and individuals who they knew were terrorists, but the extensive use of warrantless searches against US Citizens is a very, very dangerous thing.

creaghpatr 7y ago
At a minimum we gotta get rid of the 2 or 3 hops permitted of the surveillance; theoretically, most of the campaign's communications could have been swept up in the collection process and examined by investigators. More about the '2 or 3 hops': https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-s-secret-warrant-surveil-carter-page-should-scare-all-ncna852131 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-s-secret-warrant-s...
vkou 7y ago
> It's actually closer to 99%. Folks often bring out this number, as if it is something to be outraged about. What do you think is the rate at which non-secret courts approve warrants? In Utah, the approval rate is 98%. [1] Warrants have always been a rubber-stamp process - the main purpose of which is to create a paper trail, and to prevent wide-reaching fishing expeditions. [1] https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01/14/warrants-approved-in-just-minutes-are-utah-judges-really-reading-them-before-signing-off/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01/14/warrants-approved-in-...
- jessaustin 7y ago
  A paper trail is less useful to the public when every document is classified. There is little reason to suspect that the FISA court has prevented "wide-reaching fishing expeditions".
  - vkou 7y ago
    All currently known evidence indicates that the FISA-stamped warrants that were sent out to tech companies were targeted, in that they identified particular individuals that should be surveilled. So, yes, FISA did seem to accomplish one of the two purposes of warrants. I agree that a secret paper trail isn't particularly useful.
    - jessaustin 7y ago
      I consider an investigation to be "a fishing expedition" whenever there is no good reason at the beginning of the investigation to suspect that the target has committed a particular crime. Every time a FISA warrant has been publicized, it has fit that criterion. Following Cardinal Richelieu, any person subjected to enough surveillance may be convicted of something.
      - vkou 7y ago
        You may think that way, but judges don't. If you are a gang leader, and you call someone twice a day, any judge will absolutely sign a wiretap warrant targeted at the person you are calling.
mc32 7y ago
NPR was asking a former FBI person exactly that allusion and their response was pretty much, “because few mistakes are made”. Yeah, I’m sure...
- evunveot 7y ago
  The only somewhat encouraging thing to me in the IG report was that the FBI's lawyers refused to submit the FISA application initially because there wasn't enough meat to the suspicions about Carter Page. They reversed their decision only when the investigators decided to credulously include the allegations from the Steele dossier. The optimistic take on this would be that maybe it's a big black eye to your career if you get rejected by the FISC, so they're careful about what they take there. Of course, it was an FBI lawyer who later doctored an email from the CIA to say Carter Page was not working with the CIA when the email actually said he was, allowing them to renew his surveillance two more times. But hopefully that guy goes to jail.

creaghpatr 7y ago

At a minimum we gotta get rid of the 2 or 3 hops permitted of the surveillance; theoretically, most of the campaign's communications could have been swept up in the collection process and examined by investigators. More about the '2 or 3 hops': https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-s-secret-warrant-surveil-carter-page-should-scare-all-ncna852131 https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/fbi-s-secret-warrant-s...

vkou 7y ago

> It's actually closer to 99%. Folks often bring out this number, as if it is something to be outraged about. What do you think is the rate at which non-secret courts approve warrants? In Utah, the approval rate is 98%. [1] Warrants have always been a rubber-stamp process - the main purpose of which is to create a paper trail, and to prevent wide-reaching fishing expeditions. [1] https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01/14/warrants-approved-in-just-minutes-are-utah-judges-really-reading-them-before-signing-off/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/01/14/warrants-approved-in-...

jessaustin 7y ago
A paper trail is less useful to the public when every document is classified. There is little reason to suspect that the FISA court has prevented "wide-reaching fishing expeditions".
- vkou 7y ago
  All currently known evidence indicates that the FISA-stamped warrants that were sent out to tech companies were targeted, in that they identified particular individuals that should be surveilled. So, yes, FISA did seem to accomplish one of the two purposes of warrants. I agree that a secret paper trail isn't particularly useful.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    I consider an investigation to be "a fishing expedition" whenever there is no good reason at the beginning of the investigation to suspect that the target has committed a particular crime. Every time a FISA warrant has been publicized, it has fit that criterion. Following Cardinal Richelieu, any person subjected to enough surveillance may be convicted of something.
    - vkou 7y ago
      You may think that way, but judges don't. If you are a gang leader, and you call someone twice a day, any judge will absolutely sign a wiretap warrant targeted at the person you are calling.

mc32 7y ago

NPR was asking a former FBI person exactly that allusion and their response was pretty much, “because few mistakes are made”. Yeah, I’m sure...

evunveot 7y ago
The only somewhat encouraging thing to me in the IG report was that the FBI's lawyers refused to submit the FISA application initially because there wasn't enough meat to the suspicions about Carter Page. They reversed their decision only when the investigators decided to credulously include the allegations from the Steele dossier. The optimistic take on this would be that maybe it's a big black eye to your career if you get rejected by the FISC, so they're careful about what they take there. Of course, it was an FBI lawyer who later doctored an email from the CIA to say Carter Page was not working with the CIA when the email actually said he was, allowing them to renew his surveillance two more times. But hopefully that guy goes to jail.