JRE #1536 w/Edward Snowden Now Available on Spotify:
Video Source
41 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
JRE #1536 w/Edward Snowden Now Available on Spotify:
Video Source
You must be logged in to post a comment.
False.
BLUF: The Court (CA9) did not overturn the lower Court's ruling that the program was Constitutional and authorised.
1. Statutorily authorised. Relevance requirement satisfied:
CA9 agreed with a 2015 2nd Cir ruling, Clapper (CA2). A ruling that was erroneous in itself. Sadly the Govt never got to appeal this because the UFA made it moot to do so – but another Fed Court did find Clapper to be deeply flawed across the board & importantly to CA9: Relevance. We know that CA2 never had access to what was shown to FISC, multiple times, and given specifics demonstrating relevance. Since CA9 uses this for statute analysis, as its base – CA9 is thus wrong, even if it did rule on the matter (again, it didn't).
The FBI affidavit for Dkt No.BR 09-09 by Bob Mueller details stats over 3 years (2006-08), of Full/prelims = 27, Intel info reports = 77 & 4 specific CT investigations to which BR has aided in, as well as BR tippers led to re-opening previously closed investigations
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1055907/pub_August%252019%25202009%2520Report%2520of%2520the%2520US%2520with%2520Attachments%252020130910.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y p.93
To quote the Federal Court that is binding, and has the expertise on the matter (unlike CA2 and CA9),
"Second Circuit rulings are not binding on the FISC, and this Court respectfully disagrees with that Court's analysis… to a considerable extent, the Second Circuit's analysis rests on mischaracterisations of how this program works… For the same reason, the Second Circuit's conclusion that the approach to relevance adopted by the FISC conflicts with the "other than a threat assessment" language of section 501 (b )(2)(A) is also unpersuasive. See 785 F .3d at 817." https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1052708/gid_c_00117.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
[6:21 PM]
As noted in the Brief in Moalin (this CA9 case), that in total (pre/post leaks), over 20 Judges, over 43 instances found the program to be authorised by statute, and Constitutional. In and out of FISC. https://archive.org/download/2016-wl-1558292/2016_WL_1558292.pdf
2. Court did not find Govt lied:
People claiming the Court found the Govt lied about the role & effectiveness of the program. this is based on a misunderstanding. Court actually said:
"Contrary to defendants’ assumption, the government maintains that Moalin’s metadata “did not and was not necessary to support the requisite probable cause showing” for the Subchapter I application in this case. Our review of the classified record confirms this representation. Even if we were to apply a “fruit of the poisonous tree” analysis, see Wong Sun, 371 U.S. at 487–88, we would conclude, based on our careful review of the classified FISA applications and related information, that the FISA wiretap evidence was not the fruit of the metadata collection. Again, if the statements of public officials created a contrary impression, that impression is inconsistent with the facts presented in the classified record."
Basically the defendant relied on his impression from Govt officials, to suggest that the "tip" or "lead" info from the program, had a role to play in his Title 1 FISA app – the Court, ruled that it played no probable cause finding, nor was introduced as evidence at trial. The Govt even said as much back in its 2016 brief, and never said otherwise.
3. Court did not rule program unconstitutional.
"For all these reasons, defendants’ Fourth Amendment argument has considerable force. But we do not come to rest as to whether the discontinued metadata program violated the Fourth Amendment because even if it did, suppression would not be warranted on the facts of this case."
[6:24 PM]
TLDR:
>CA9 (Moalin) doesn't rule on Constitutional grounds, nor statute auth (as it wasn't required) – just agrees with CA2 (clapper) – Moalin upholds convictions.
>CA2 (Clapper) is a flawed ruling from 2015, unable to be appealed due to UFA.
>CA2 wasn't given access to the classified record
>CA9 wasn't given classifid record either about the program aside from what pertains to the specific case of Moalin, thus unable to independently judge CA2's relevance ruling.
>Bulk CDR collection upheld by over 20 Judges, over 43 times in and out of FISC.
>Another Federal Court smacked down CA2.
>Classified record clearly demonstrates, as provided, relevance criteria was shown to FISC.