Anonymous ID: e0cd69 Aug. 31, 2018, 1:57 p.m. No.2821665   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1828

>>2821433 LB LB LB

perhaps

but even then the judge would get the whole package to sign off on the warrant and it is not that unusual in ordinary cases

again we dont know their written requirements fucking secrets!

but if the judge didnt even get or review a package and just signed a warrant that would be damning no matter what and i doubt it cuz they cover their tracks paper wise

 

i tried to find the requirement but failed so far

 

my best guess is that (secret) fisa rules REQUIRE a hearing and none took place

Anonymous ID: e0cd69 Aug. 31, 2018, 2:09 p.m. No.2821828   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1857 >>1897 >>1902 >>1945 >>1954 >>1961 >>1983 >>2042 >>2184 >>2241

>>2821665

 

LAWFAG HERE - found it see (a)

 

>fisa rules DO NOT REQUIRE a hearing

 

sauce

Title V. Hearings, Orders, and Enforcement

Rule 17. Hearings.

(a) Scheduling. The Judge to whom a matter is presented or assigned must determine

whether a hearing is necessary and, if so, set the time and place of the hearing.

(b) Ex Parte. Except as the Court otherwise directs or the Rules otherwise provide, a

hearing in a non-adversarial matter must be ex parte and conducted within the Court's

secure facility.

(c) Appearances. Unless excused, the government official providing the factual

information in an application or certification and an attorney for the applicant must attend

the hearing, along with other representatives of the government, and any other party, as

the Court may direct or permit.

( d) Testimony; Oath; Recording of Proceedings. A Judge may take testimony under

oath and receive other evidence. The testimony may be recorded electronically or as the

Judge may otherwise direct, consistent with the security measures referenced in Rule 3.

 

FULL RULES

http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf

Anonymous ID: e0cd69 Aug. 31, 2018, 2:15 p.m. No.2821897   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1920 >>1983 >>2185 >>2254 >>2317

>>2821828

lawfag again

sorry anons but this does not seem BIB BIG BIG to me

no hearing was required

optics wise is the only effect but WTF cares about optics at this point?

 

even JW just complained that

 

โ€œIt is disturbing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance courts rubber-stamped the Carter Page spy warrants and held not one hearing on these extraordinary requests to spy on the Trump teamโ€ฆ

 

is that the best we can do?

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-justice-department-discloses-no-fisa-court-hearings-held-on-carter-page-warrants/

Anonymous ID: e0cd69 Aug. 31, 2018, 2:23 p.m. No.2821998   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2024

>>2821961

lawfag here

this is a slide from a legal POV

no validity what they imply

vetted many times on the board

 

that said - i do agree we are debt slaves and fucked over in many ways

but it isnt a legal arrangement that did it - it was political

Anonymous ID: e0cd69 Aug. 31, 2018, 2:26 p.m. No.2822027   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>2136

>>2821983

lawfag here

like i said - optics and politics wise its relevant

but triple BIG?

not based on what i know

judge relied on a sworn statement from top LEO officials

why have a hearing?

the msm narrative is BS - only a handful of warrants were denied on 10 years time