.@LizaGoitein just suggested newly approving back door searches on content incl domestic comms not novel legal issue
https://www.emptywheel.net/2017/06/27/usa-freedom-act-booster-misses-opportunity-to-note-fisc-blew-off-usaf/ …
-
-
If you meant to say Collyer violated USAF you'll want to correct your testimony.
-
Nothing in my testimony was factually inaccurate. I didn't say (or mean to say) anything about Collyer.
-
So when you said "for the most part" FISC had appointed an amicus for novel decisions, was Collyer included in that?
-
Do I really have to explain what "for the most part" means?? In MOST significant cases, FISC has appointed amicus. Obviously not in April.
-
And ... when the FISC doesn't do so, what are they obligated by law to do?
-
Something Collyer didn't do. What's your point? None of that makes what I said inaccurate.
-
Sorry. I thought it would be useful to mention that Collyer didn't just not appoint an amicus but violated the law. Seems significant.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Right, but if it's significant or novel for purposes of needing appeal, it's also significant or novel for purposes of needing an amicus.
-
A pity your testimony didn't mention Collyer's failure to even consider one then.
-
Agree, a pity. Not "affirmative damage" though. And it's harder than you think to hit every major point when answering these Qs.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.