Thread by @alexhamilton74

THREAD: PAGE FISA HEARING?

1. After @JudicialWatch revealed FISC didn't hold a hearing on the Carter Page FISA application, the issue became "does FISC typically hold hearings?" That misses the point.

The question is, "Should FISC have held a hearing in THIS case?"

2. There's no question - Rule 17 of the FISA Rules of Procedure anticipate that there may be hearings.

"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"

fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/…

3. So the FISC rules of procedure say there can be hearings. But that's not even the critical issue. The issue is - did Congress intend for there to be hearings in cases like *this* that are so unique and consequential?

So we have to look at the relevant statute, 50 USC Sec 1803

4. Here, we see that Congress anticipated that a FISA case may include a "question of exceptional importance", and included this section stating that FISC may hold a hearing *en banc* in such a situation.

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50…

5. You might say that relying on the credibility of an opposition researcher hired by Candidate #2 based on his unverified 3rd/4th level hearsay to get a wiretap covering everyone on Candidate #1's campaign would be a "question of exceptional importance", right?

6. So given the "exceptional importance" of spying on a campaign based on unverified opposition research, did FISC hold an en banc hearing on the matter? No, they did not. But do they ever? That's where it really gets interesting

7. In 2013, the ACLU filed a motion with FISC for declassification of NSA bulk collection data after the Snowden release. On January 25, 2017, FISC ruled ACLU didn't have standing to see/request the declassified docs. The judge: Rosemary M. Collyer

8. But her decision conflicted with a prior ruling by Judge Soyer who said ACLU did have standing, so on March 27, 2017 FISC met en banc pursuant to FISC Rule 49. Collyer wrote the dissent, but the majority of FISC vacated her decision 6-5.
fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/…

9. So in the middle of the 4 Carter Page FISA warrants, FISC *did* meet en banc to resolve a major issue, but for a different case. And the judge whose decision they overturned & who wrote the dissenting opinion was Collyer, who approved the first Page FISA warrant 3 months prior

10. And guess what?! Someone *did ask* to submit an amicus curae brief for an en banc hearing on the Page FISA warrants. Can you take a guess who DENIED the request and said there was no en banc proceeding going on? You guessed it - Rosemary Collyer
fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/…

11. Now here's where it gets REAL interesting. I've been thinking about @_ImperatorRex_'s theory that the first FISA warrant (Collyer) was really an 1805(e) emergency warrant issued by Lynch without FISA approval

https://twitter.com/_ImperatorRex_/status/1035712034350948352

12. I think that's possible, but then I thought - what about the June 2016 rejected FISA warrant? What if *that* was an 1805(e) emergency warrant approved by Lynch, and FISC rejected it when DOJ sent certification 7 days later? Makes sense, right?
@_ImperatorRex_

13. And what happened in June 2016 that might have triggered Lynch to approve an emergency FISA warrant (and at least get 7 days of free spying)?

WaPo - June 14, 2016: "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump"
washingtonpost.com/world/national…

14. So on June 14, 2016 DNC "committee officials", Crowdstrike (DNC & Hillary contractor), and "U.S. officials" (FBI) tell WaPo: it was Russia!

But what else do they say? Russia stole oppo research on Trump!

They were *already* planning the "Russia has kompromat" on Trump plot

15. Then, wouldn't you know, 6 days later on June 20 Christopher Steele pens a memo saying Russia has kompromat on Trump.

So what's the theory about Lynch signing an emergency FISA warrant?

16. June emergency FISA warrant theory:

June 14: DNC, Crowdstrike & FBI fabricate "Russia did it" story & leak to WaPo
June 14: Lynch uses story to authorize emergency 1805 FISA warrant
Spying
June 20: Steele writes "pee" memo for app to FISC
June 21 (deadline): FISC denies it

17. Now here's where it comes full circle. If I'm right, then Collyer is the one who rejected the June FISA app because Rule 18 says if a judge denies an application, any subsequent application on the matter must be referred to that judge

18. If my theory is correct, then Judge Collyer rejected the June FISA app based on Crowdstrike (and maybe Steele June 20 memo), got another app in October w/ Steele's Aug 19 memo 3rd/4th level hearsay to spy on Trump right before election, approved it...

19..and didn't think that was an "exceptionally important" issue worthy of an en banc hearing, but she was simultaneously working on the ACLU case which would get an en banc hearing in March 2017, where she argued to keep FISA docs hidden & gets overturned fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/…

20. Now do you think there should have been a FISC hearing on the Carter Page FISA application?

@_ImperatorRex_
@TheLastRefuge2
@themarketswork
@drawandstrike

ADDENDUM: the following is a related thread that expands on this one

https://twitter.com/alexhamilton74/status/1037357228381097984?s=21

To clarify this point: I'm not suggesting that Hillary/DNC told Steele what to say in the June 20 Dossier. I'm suggesting they planted the idea that Russia may have kompromat on Trump, then called Steele and said "give us something showing Russia has dirt to blackmail him"