emptywheel

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?

This is exactly what I said. Notice is actually broader than I suggested above ( I only mentioned prosecution of USP). If 702 is used in court, the defendant gets notice. You are saying they are not being given notice.

No. You said if a case came from 702 it had to be noticed in court. That is incorrect. Nor is it the standard. Of course if that happened we'd have 1000 of 702 notices rather than ... 8.