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.
-
-
Replying to @emptywheel @qjurecic and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Marys_musings @qjurecic and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @qjurecic and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Marys_musings @qjurecic and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @qjurecic and
What I said is what the PCLOB statement says. How are you not getting that 702 gets noticed in court from that statement? What is the standard you believe applies?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Marys_musings @qjurecic and
Wait, you're working off PCLOB, not actual knowledge of any court cases? Also, no, that's not what PCLOB says. I could explain what happened w/the 8 defendants who got noticed, bc standard changed, but in perhaps just once case was it bc a suspect was first IDed via 702.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @Marys_musings and
And there are a long list of defendants who clearly were but who never got 702 notice, including some for whom the warrant for content was obtained a year into the case.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @emptywheel @qjurecic and
It's not unusual for someone to be investigated for a year before a FISA warrant is issued. Despite what people like to say, it is not easy to get a FISA.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Marys_musings @qjurecic and
Please tell that to someone who has made that allegation, not someone who has laid out repeatedly how rigorous FISC can be. Also, reminder, we're talking 702, not Title I. Have you ever actually used 702 in a case?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Also, to clarify: 1) Indictment mentions PRISM content. 2) No FISA notice given. 3) A year after the indictment, warrant for PRISM content obtained from other MJ. You see the problem there? That defendant was given 702 review w/o notice bc it was so laughable.
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.