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.
http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf
>http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Rules%20of%20Procedure.pdf
Rule 45. Standard for Hearing or Rehearing En Banc. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C.
§ 1803(a)(2)(A), the Court may order a hearing or rehearing en bane only if it is necessary to
secure or maintain uniformity of the Court's decisions, or the proceeding involves a question of
exceptional importance.
(e) Jurisdiction and procedures for review of petitions
(1) Three judges designated under subsection (a) who reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbia, or, if all of such judges are unavailable, other judges of the court established under subsection (a) as may be designated by the presiding judge of such court, shall comprise a petition review pool which shall have jurisdiction to review petitions filed pursuant to section 1861(f)(1) or 1881a(i)(4) of this title.
So… why was Dearie from NY assigned??
Were ALL the other 3 judges unavailable.
really?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803
anon, these are the same FISC Rules you linked to. It's literally the PDF on that page and pursuant to U.S. Code › Title 50 › Chapter 36 › Subchapter I › § 1803
(A) The court established under this subsection may, on its own initiative, or upon the request of the Government in any proceeding or a party under section 1861(f) of this title or paragraph (4) or (5) of section 1881a(i) of this title, hold a hearing or rehearing, en banc, when ordered by a majority of the judges that constitute such court upon a determination that—
(i) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or
(ii) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
>>2823316 (You)
>>2823212 (You)
sauce:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1803
(ii) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.
THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE JUDGES WOULD NOT HAVE CALLED A HEARING IF THE FISA APPS WERE ABOUT (so-called) RUSSIAN AGENTS IN THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.
AND THEY WOULD BE (incidentally) SURVEILLING THE PRESIDENT!
ok will step away from the caps lock now.