@Fantom_Planet @frantownsend Federal Grand Jury subpoenas have secrecy provisions as well. Nobody objects to them. Why?
-
-
Replying to @AllThingsNatSec
@AllThingsHLS Because 1) an outsider reviews the probable cause 2) they'll be reviewed again in any trial.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel An outsider reviews the PC? Clearly you have never obtained a FGJ subpoena. Hah.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AllThingsNatSec
@AllThingsHLS And while gag MAY serve purpose, ALSO invitation for abuse.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel If POTENTIAL was the raison d'être for not doing invest there would be no preventions only reactive invest after bomb goes off1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AllThingsNatSec
@AllThingsHLS Doesn't follow. Few situations where having outside review is going to prevent investigation, esp w/emergency periods.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel I don't disagree. But in this case, I think the judge will be overturned, even in the 9th Circuit.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AllThingsNatSec
@AllThingsHLS Esp in the 9th. But that has as much to do w/ them being cowed by SCOTUS as anything else.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel My personal opinion is that 90% of NSLs could be replaced by FGJ subpoenas. It is the 10% in the margins that are problematic2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@AllThingsHLS I might argue that 80% could be FGJs, 10% required tweaked NSL rule, and 10% are out and out abuse.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.