.@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/ …
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel
I literally said the opposite. "[In] the FISA Court’s decision on back door searches...there were a number of...very novel legal issues."
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @LizaGoitein
No. You mentioned that re appeals in decisions with amici. Not this one.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @LizaGoitein
If you meant to say Collyer violated USAF you'll want to correct your testimony.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Nothing in my testimony was factually inaccurate. I didn't say (or mean to say) anything about Collyer.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LizaGoitein
So when you said "for the most part" FISC had appointed an amicus for novel decisions, was Collyer included in that?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Do I really have to explain what "for the most part" means?? In MOST significant cases, FISC has appointed amicus. Obviously not in April.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LizaGoitein
And ... when the FISC doesn't do so, what are they obligated by law to do?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel
Something Collyer didn't do. What's your point? None of that makes what I said inaccurate.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Sorry. I thought it would be useful to mention that Collyer didn't just not appoint an amicus but violated the law. Seems significant.
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.