Share this page!

Julian Sanchez Profile picture
Twitter logo
30 Apr, 4 tweets, 1 min read
This seems pretty unfair; the IG report was clear that the serious defects with the Carter Page FISA applications (especially the later ones) were down to material omissions by the FBI. The system is not set up to enable legal reviewers to catch that. washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-cour…
There are definitely points where the reviewers could & should have kicked the tires harder, but the fundamental problem was their dependence on the information the case agents choose to share (or, as in this case, fail to share).
The better version of this critique is that the amicus role is more usefully filled by folks with a civil liberties background, not someone whose natural disposition is going be to side with their former DOJ colleagues.
Leaving Carter Page aside, the function of the amici is to *push back* on FBI/DOJ where appropriate. Some baseline level of familiarity with the process is important, but I can think of a long list of folks more likely to do that than a NSD alum.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Julian Sanchez

Julian Sanchez Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @normative

Julian Sanchez Profile picture
30 Apr
One reason this belief is sticky is that press (understandably) keep saying there’s “no evidence” of fraud. What there actually is, is a huge amount of terrible “evidence” of fraud. All of which is easily—but in the aggregate not briefly—debunked.
So CNN says “no evidence” and people disposed to believe say: “Aha, they won’t even address all the proofs I saw in Mike Pillow’s videos & on OAN & in Parler threads.” And if you do address some, there are a dozen other ones you didn’t, or you didn’t address every aspect, etc.
An overloaded information ecosystem is a great petri dish for motivated reasoning, because even if enough people with the relevant legal or procedural or technical expertise take on the thankless task of refuting all this stuff, no normal person actually has time to read it.
Read 8 tweets
Julian Sanchez Profile picture
27 Apr
“Owning the libs” often seems to be the only defining feature of the artist formerly known as conservatism. On its face, this should be weird: Why should so many people be so invested in what they imagine will make strangers mad? Strangers who mostly will never know or care?
It seems like a sort of fantasy version of acting out for attention. “I feel small and unimportant. But in my imagination, urban grad students are enraged that I eat meat and endanger my loved ones. When I imagine them mad, I imagine they care what I do, therefore I matter.”
Call this exhibit A. Nobody knows this oaf is unvaccinated when he walks into Target. Nobody is “shaking.” But imagining them shaking lets him imagine he’s significant. It’s all a little heart on the sleeve though, isn’t it?
Read 5 tweets
Julian Sanchez Profile picture
1 Apr
The discussion around “vaccine passports” would be immensely improved if we could separate two questions: (1) Is it desirable to have a secure mechanism for authenticating vaccine status for at least some use cases, and (2) when & where is such authentication appropriate?
The answer to (1) is pretty easy: “Yes, obviously.” We already have a mechanism of sorts—those little cards everyone posts on their Instagram post-jab—it’s just not particularly secure. Anyone with a printer can make one.
Clearly (2) is a lot thornier and more contentious. I think for the most part we should give private entities latitude to determine the circumstances where verification is necessary—it’s cumbersome enough that I doubt many will do it frivolously. But it’s a separate question.
Read 7 tweets
Julian Sanchez Profile picture
30 Mar
I keep seeing this being misinterpreted. The judge is evaluating a potential charge of *making terrorist threats* (like announcing you’ve planted a bomb in a public building, which is harmful & a crime whether you really have or not).
With respect to *that specific charge* the judge is being totally reasonable. Talking on a private small group chat might well be (an element of) conspiracy to commit the crime you’re talking about, but it’s not a public threat.
If you were talking about kidnapping someone (or doing some other violence) on a publicly accessible forum, then the very same conversation might indeed be a terrorist threat.
Read 5 tweets
Julian Sanchez Profile picture
24 Feb
One of many, many, many things I don’t understand about Imaginary 230 is that online fora with OBVIOUSLY non-neutral moderation policies have existed since long before 230.
Political & Religious boards. Listservs. Chat rooms. Blog comment sections. Online games. Thousands upon thousands upon thousands of different platforms and sub-platforms. All protected by 230. Like many folks, I’ve made use of all of these since way back in college.
Never, in all that time, did I hear anyone ever suggest that any of these platforms had some legal obligation to be neutral. That gay chats had to allow anti-gay trolls. That I would open myself to legal liability if I deleted comments on my blog I found rude or unpleasant.
Read 6 tweets
Julian Sanchez Profile picture
15 Feb
@juliagalef @slatestarcodex Well, the post is still thoughtful and interesting. But yeah, I think if you pushed a little, you’d find almost nobody actually categorically opposed to content warnings. The real dispute is which cases are appropriate & which are merely performative.
@juliagalef @slatestarcodex Imagine a film class studying “Straw Dogs” or “A Clockwork Orange.” How many people are seriously going to say it’s inappropriate to warn the students up front that these films contain disturbing scenes of sexual violence? Virtually nobody, I’d wager.
@juliagalef @slatestarcodex If, OTOH, we’re talking about “trigger warnings” for classism & sexism in, I don’t know, 19th century novels, the objection isn’t really to content warnings pe se. It’s that adults don’t need to be told 19th century novels are classist & sexist...
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @normative has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @normative!

Read all threads by @normative