Would be far more helpful if we knew 1) it wasn't FISA and 2) which magistrate allowed the warrant.
-
-
Replying to @lawrence15 @TheAlanNoble
I would bet a nontrivial amount that this wasn't a FISA. No real reason to go the FISA route for a non-covert physical search of a USP.
4 replies 5 retweets 43 likes -
Again, WaPo has seen the warrant. It's not a FISA order.
5 replies 7 retweets 39 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @normative and
WaPo seeing it doesn't mean it's not FISA. But wouldn't it also be less likely to be FISA since this is probably a criminal investigation?
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @Robyn_Greene @normative and
You're suggesting that Paul Manafort is the first human being to see a FISA warrant used against him?
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @normative and
I'm not suggesting that at all. Not even remotely sure how you got that from my tweet. I'm saying 1. WaPo cld see it if it's FISA and /1
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Robyn_Greene @emptywheel and
2. Why use FISA if this investigation has moved from being FI in nature to criminal. Makes more sense it wouldn't be FISA. /end
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Robyn_Greene @normative and
I agree it doesn't make sense to use FISA, esp since 1) NYT says BSA materials seized 2) criminal money laundering investigation > year old
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @Robyn_Greene and
But had ANYONE seen a FISA warrant, this story would read very differently.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @normative and
Gotcha. I thought you were saying if it was a FISA warrant WaPo wouldn't have seen it. Misunderstood.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
We are admittedly in an era of unprecedented leaks, incl FISA transcripts. That, too, would be unprecedented (and unlikely).
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.