emptywheel

So, nuance isn't your thing? Ok. Go Pats!

Is it, or is it not, the case that people (and I've got a number of people in mind) who got prosecuted off stuff that came in largely for an Intel function? In at least two cases, erroneously, I'll add.

FISA info is used in prosecutions - typically, for the targets of the FISA. It's not alway a terrorism charge because proving something else might be easier and disruption is one of our nat sec tools. 702 isn't used much. It's too difficult to get use authority. Which cases?

Yes, "702 is not used much" until after it gets laundered. We're back to that again. And NEVER directly used with the FG targets against whom (I've been told) FISA is actually used with more frequently. Because that would make the costs too obvious.

No. Not until after it gets laundered. 702 collection is always 702 collection and treated as such. What is the basis for your laundering theory?

We're agreeing. 702 is used to ID an American. A Title I order is obtained. And maybe if the person is likely they'll get TI notice, but not 702 notice.

If the FISA app is based on 702 collection and an American is prosecuted in a US court asked on the FISA take, the govt will disclose the use of 702 and it can be challenged in the CIPA litigation, just like Title I collection.

It is your affirmative claim that even Title I take based on info obtained under 702 is always noticed? Which would be 1) saying that 702 has only led to 8-10 people's prosecution and 2) 702 has never led to prosecution of Chinese-related target. That's your claim?