emptywheel

And, AGAIN, this is getting tedious. I'm not saying DOJ is lying. I'm saying the standard is NOT that you have to say where a lead came from. That's not lying. That's parallel construction.

I've asked you several times to tell me what the standard is. The tedious thing is that I tried to have a productive discussion & you're playing hide the ball & mocking me. If that's what you enjoy, that's fine. I'm cool w/leaving it at that you are right about everything.

The standard as applied, with a few exceptions (Mohamud--you've heard of him, I hope), is that only if the actual intercept content goes into trial is it noticed. Tips off back door searches or chat rooms don't.

3rd time - not discussing cases. As applied means what you believe it to be based on the low number of cases w/notice of which you are aware. But, as previously noted, you are right about everything, so we're good here. I hope you will join me in prayer for Brady's throwing hand.

So you want me to discuss cases (which I have, to which you haven't responded, or acknowledged) but you won't bc doing so would make it clear you HAVE used 702 in a case that wasn't noticed. Fair enough. The current standard is no one is getting notice. Zero.

Cool. I'm actually a stay-at-home mom of 12 and made all this stuff up, so it all worked out. Have a nice night!

Your response to me discussing cases and you not was to suggest I was accusing you of making it all up. Not actually what I've said at all. I'm just someone on the Intertoobz who can count to 8 which seems to be more than DOJ transparency can handle.

Bottom line is that although you say you're not accusing DOJ of lying, that's exactly what you are doing (see transparency comment). I can't vouch for today's DOJ, but the DOJ I knew recently followed the derived from standard. I can't make you trust your government. Your choice.