Both proposals address problems that arose while the government was surveilling Page, who served as a volunteer foreign policy adviser for the Trump campaign.Which is entirely irrelevant if the DOJ won't pursue those leaks, and charge the leakers. We're pretty sure we know who it was, and it's a limited pool of suspects. Also, Barr Supports House’s FISA Bill, Says It Addresses ‘Past Failures’. Yeah? Prove to me you'll actually enforce it.
The wiretaps against Page were first revealed through a leak to The Washington Post on April 10, 2017. Unidentified sources told the newspaper that the FBI had obtained at least one warrant to conduct surveillance on Page.
The leaker of the classified information has not been publicly identified.
The new bill would increase the maximum prison sentence from five years to eight years for making intentionally false statements to the FISA Court.
And that's where Trump stands, Fox, Trump warns of possible veto for FISA bill until ‘attempted coup’ investigated
Mark Tapscott at ET, FISA Reauthorization May Not Be Done Deal as Critics Rally, Trump Sounds Cautionary Note
But as Congress grappled March 12 with the coronavirus crisis while hurrying to finish up work before leaving town for next week’s recess, angry critics of the last-minute reauthorization were encouraged by a Trump tweet:Sundance at CTH, Amid Ongoing Fight FISA Will Lapse – McConnell Hopes to Assemble Vote Next Week, But Trump May Veto…
“Many Republican Senators want me to Veto the FISA Bill until we find out what led to, and happened with, the illegal attempted ‘coup’ of the duly elected President of the United States, and others!”
I find myself in alignment with Rand Paul who says the laws should be changed so that *ONLY* foreigners can be targeted by FISA, and for all investigative issues involving Americans the DOJ/FBI should be forced to go to a traditional Title-3 Court to ask for a search warrant or surveillance. This approach is a more reasonable assurance for Fourth Amendment protection.Via Wombat's In The Mailbox: 03.12.20 Don Surber says Just Say No To FISA.
Bill Barr is lobbying to renew FISA.From Just The News, John Solomon reminds us FBI’s Russia collusion case fell apart in first month of Trump presidency, memos show, but they kept after it anyway, and set up the appointment of Mueller (really the "re-authorization" of original team, with Mueller as the titular head), with the secondary goal of setting up an obstruction of justice trap.
No. Obama used it to spy on Donald John Trump. Until Barr holds anyone -- and I mean anyone -- accountable for this fascist, totalitarian sedition, Barr has about as much credibility as Susan Rice on the subject.
The law is supposed to protect American citizens.
Instead this law allowed the government to spy on Americans in the name of national security. The FBI led by James Comey perjured itself in federal court, and Bill Barr refuses to lift a finger to punish these felons.
Roger Stone is in prison -- after an early morning FBI raid -- for lying.
Until Comey is frog-marched and perp walked, I do not want to hear about Barr and his Bull Durham bull. I fell for their con. I fell for the con about Comey holding Hillary accountable for abusing classified information. Instead the FBI destroyed evidence and gave immunity to her staff.
Some whistleblowers receive more protection than others. From Da Wire, Government Agency Reopens Case Against Trump-Sympathetic Whistleblower. Don't you dare blow the whistle on the "Deep State"
A whistleblower who was forced to resign after he brought attention to waste, fraud, and abuse at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is getting a second chance to prove his case.Mark Weaver at Human Events, Judge in Roger Stone Case is Pushing the Boundaries of Judicial Ethics.
As The Daily Wire previously reported, whistleblower Mark Moyar spent months reporting several instances of waste, fraud, and abuse at USAID but was forced to resign after the USAID inspector general (IG) – appointed by President Barack Obama in 2015 – allegedly denied his due process rights after he was accused of disclosing classified information in a book he wrote two years earlier. Moyar contends the allegations are “spurious and unsubstantiated” and are retaliation for his whistleblower complaints.
During his trial, Judge Jackson barred Stone from speaking publicly about his case, which is permitted in extreme circumstances, most commonly when such commentary has a high likelihood of biasing a jury. Continuing Stone’s gag order, however, even after the jury was dismissed, has no rational basis in law and violates the First Amendment.She certainly hasn't shown any interest in an obvious case of a tainted jury forewomen.
Jackson’s political sponsor, D.C. congressional delegate Eleanor Norton Holmes, told USA Today that the judge “can do anything she wants to do.”This isn’t the only occasion in which Judge Jackson acted out-of-bounds. More recently, she inappropriately criticized the Department of Justice for how it makes internal management decisions, a topic well beyond the purview of a judge. She also offered a personal opinion on the extent of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election, which was an issue not before her court. Even more erratic was her hostile commentary against Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who has reported on her actions.
While she can exercise her own right to free speech and generally say what she wishes, judges are bound by legal dictates and ethical obligations. Judge Jackson has absolutely no jurisdiction, for instance, over Carlson. Zero.
If she takes the next step and attempts to enter a court order of any sort against Carlson—or any reporter not standing in her courtroom—she will not only be subject to a stinging appellate reversal, she will present Congress with a strong case for impeachment for failure to abide by the “good behavior” clause of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. That’s because, by law and tradition, judges only have power to issue orders against people and entities involved in the case, such as parties and witnesses. On issues of contempt of court, a judge also has authority to issue rulings affecting people who are physically in the courtroom. Attempting to issue an order beyond those parameters would be a shocking abuse of judicial branch power that would call for a corresponding legislative branch check.
My schadenfreude is only enhanced as Michael Avenatti held in ‘rat-infested’ cell that 'reeks of urine': report (Fox News).