emptywheel

Prosecution is not the only option in the intel world. On what do you base your idea of what the reality is? What did FBI say to suggest it is applie differently for CI?

And yet there are a ton of prosecutions against Chinese related targets. FBI has made it clear that only CT defendants have gotten noticed (which is what the record reflects, tho even there there are a good number we know didn't get notice).

Still curious how FBI made it clear. I'm not disputing it (not yet anyway) - I don't know to what you are referring. Are you suggesting there is no Title I FISA collection on Chinese targets?

For starters, me calling up PAO and saying, "When Wray said X, are you really saying Y" and them saying only CT defendants have been noticed of 702. I'm not suggesting no TI on Chinese targets--as I've said, I've had sources confirm that's a great focus of it.

So, you're saying DOJ is lying to federal courts about the source of the intel that kicked off investigations & haven't been caught? I'd need a lot more than your personal supposition re: the likely origin of T1 orders before I'll believe that. I've seen no evidence of it.

Hmm. Bob Litt has gone on the record saying that DOJ doesn't have to reveal that. You telling me Bob Litt is unreliable? I'll let him know. As I hope you're familiar that's not the FISA standard, at all. And I'm not dumb enough to believe it is.

Any person whose comms were acquired under 702, whether or not he was a target of acquisition or is a USP, must be notified by the govt before any info obtained/derived from 702 is used against him in any legal proceeding in the U.S. Paraphrase from PCLOB report, citing 1806c&d.

Thank you!!! Just as I said, entirely different than the standard you just suggested. Glad you corrected yourself. Anything else I can help you with?