@PatrickCToomey Couldn’t BR-76 be an order targeting an unambiguous AFP & available either way?
-
-
Replying to @normative
@normative Possible—but why would FISC proceed in that way if question in Nos. 77 & 78 was as easy and straightforward as the FISC said?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@normative Seems like it would just have answered the USAF question in No. 76 instead of punting it to Nos. 77 & 78.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey OH. Most likely: BC 76 pertained to an open investigation, covered by grandfather clause. No occasion to decide it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative:@emptywheel suggested that too, but i think it's less likely. odd to rely on grandfather clause when USAF provided new authority4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@normative Again, if USAF question was so easy, why resort to grandfather clause to avoid addressing it in targeted application?@emptywheel1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey@emptywheel If you just want fastest approval on your 20th routine records order in a running case "grandfathered!" gets it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @normative
@normative@emptywheel Could be. But if you had another secret bulk collection program going on May 31, you'd probably ask to restart it.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PatrickCToomey
@PatrickCToomey But your other bulk program's order probably didn't expire yet so no need for a new order till then.@normative1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
@emptywheel Doubt FISC would have authorized any bulk collection past sunset beforehand.@normative1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@PatrickCToomey I imagine itore likely if it had a July or Aug due date. Think the coincident one came from DOJ. @normative
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.