4 ms·

From the Director of the FBI, I would expect better than this. > query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval; or because,

From the Director of the FBI, I would expect better than this. > query applications either would not meet the legal standard to win court approval; or because, when the standard could be met, it would be so only after the expenditure of scarce resources That is exactly how it's supposed to work, right? If they don't qualify for a warrant, then the warrant will not be issued and it is the responsibility of the investigators to do the work and find probable cause to justify the warrant. > To be sure, no one more deeply shares Members' concerns regarding past FBI compliance violations related to FISA, including the rules for querying Section 702 collection using US person identifiers, than I do Based on the next quote, I do not think he shares any concern over abuse whatsoever. > hold our personnel accountable for misuse of Section 702 and other FISA provisions, including through an escalating scheme for employee accountability, including discipline and culminating in possible dismissal. If he did share the concerns about abuse, why not have the discipline process culminate in personal liability including fines, prison and more?

beerandt 3y ago
The FBI lawyer who was convicted of lying on a FISA application barely had to go a year before getting their law license back. He has no concern about abuse.
_8j50 3y ago
Yeah, resources are tax payer funded, not out of his pocket. He should show evidence of congress denying him a budget item to use that as an excuse.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> why not have the discipline process culminate in personal liability including fines, prison and more? I assume you mean "refer for potential criminal prosectution". Apropos of anything else, you'd have a hard time getting a federal employee contract to allow arbitrary fines to be issued against an employee, etc.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> From the Director of the FBI, I would expect better than this. Why? I mean, I know you mean this as lead-in for arguing for accountability. I do get that. But the wording - it is sticking with me. It sticks because US federal LEO & IC directors lie. Serially. Every administration. ~Every public remark. As in some directors do not tell one meaningful public truth throughout their term. Most directors lie at close to that rate. Generally they lie by omission and obfuscation but they will lie about plain facts, if necessary, to advance an agenda or defer accountability. Believing them by default is an absurd thing to do. The leadership directly below directors aren't well known to be better. When certain positions have a low-truth history that stretches for generations, maybe we should recognize that. We ought not accept their assertions as factual; any consideration should come with worthwhile vetting and analysis.
- thedaly 3y ago
  > When certain positions have a low-truth history that stretches for generations, maybe we should recognize that. We ought not accept their assertions as factual; any consideration should come with worthwhile vetting and analysis. Well said. I agree completely.

beerandt 3y ago

The FBI lawyer who was convicted of lying on a FISA application barely had to go a year before getting their law license back. He has no concern about abuse.

_8j50 3y ago

Yeah, resources are tax payer funded, not out of his pocket. He should show evidence of congress denying him a budget item to use that as an excuse.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> why not have the discipline process culminate in personal liability including fines, prison and more? I assume you mean "refer for potential criminal prosectution". Apropos of anything else, you'd have a hard time getting a federal employee contract to allow arbitrary fines to be issued against an employee, etc.

WarOnPrivacy 3y ago

> From the Director of the FBI, I would expect better than this. Why? I mean, I know you mean this as lead-in for arguing for accountability. I do get that. But the wording - it is sticking with me. It sticks because US federal LEO & IC directors lie. Serially. Every administration. ~Every public remark. As in some directors do not tell one meaningful public truth throughout their term. Most directors lie at close to that rate. Generally they lie by omission and obfuscation but they will lie about plain facts, if necessary, to advance an agenda or defer accountability. Believing them by default is an absurd thing to do. The leadership directly below directors aren't well known to be better. When certain positions have a low-truth history that stretches for generations, maybe we should recognize that. We ought not accept their assertions as factual; any consideration should come with worthwhile vetting and analysis.

thedaly 3y ago
> When certain positions have a low-truth history that stretches for generations, maybe we should recognize that. We ought not accept their assertions as factual; any consideration should come with worthwhile vetting and analysis. Well said. I agree completely.