Confirmed: The Obama DOJ Had Secret Rules For Obtaining FISA Warrants Against Journalists

The FISA court rules below are entirely separate from—and much less stringent—than the rules for obtaining subpoenas, court orders, and warrants against journalists as laid out in the Justice Department’s “media guidelines,” which former Attorney General Eric Holder strengthened in 2015 after several scandals involving surveillance of journalists

Confirmed: The Obama DOJ Had Secret Rules For Obtaining FISA Warrants Against Journalists

Most of us know about Obama's fisa fetish, but until now most of the details have been hidden. It's not just Trump that Obama abused his power against. This is what actual tyranny and actual attacks on the press look like.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There's already another thread going on this. Also, this actually made it hard to get a FISA warrant for a journalist as it added another layer of oversight.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I looked and didn't see it but I'm on my phone.

How is it more difficult if it's bypassing the media guidelines and not using them?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

There's already another thread going on this.

Since the other one is in the mud-pit I think we can keep discussing it here as well.

Also, this actually made it hard to get a FISA warrant for a journalist as it added another layer of oversight.

Could you elaborate on that?

Thanks.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

From the actual memo:

The Attorney General has determined that review of FISA applications targeting known media entities or known members of the media should occur at even higher levels than otherwise permitted by FISA and existing Attorney General orders.

Emphasis mine. This set up more stringent guidelines when it came to FISA applications involving journalists.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It seems like this only works for renewing applications?

I don't think that's the case if you're requesting for a new FISA.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

What's your point. They created media guidelines because they were caught spying on the media.

They said this is what we need to do to spy on the media.

Are they following those guidelines here?

I also noticed the wording days SHOULD occur. Should doesn't mean much.

a reply to: vinifalou

The way I read it is that the DOJ was requiring more eyes be put on a FISA application before it was submitted.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

What's wrong in this statement and source it.

The FISA court rules below are entirely separate from—and much less stringent—than the rules for obtaining subpoenas, court orders, and warrants against journalists as laid out in the Justice Department’s “media guidelines,” which former Attorney General Eric Holder strengthened in 2015 after several scandals involving surveillance of journalists during the Obama era.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: vinifalou

The way I read it is that the DOJ was requiring more eyes be put on a FISA application before it was submitted.

How you read it is not relevant. How they read it and what they did is.

This is less strict than the media guidelines they agreed to use.

I see what could be a direct benefit for American people from the release of FISA documents. That court is just a rubberstamp on the surveillance on the American people.

They approve 99% of all applications .

After the release of these documents it will come under fire. Which may lead to abolishment or restructuring with oversight .

I say burn it down

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A later memo lays out specific guidelines for what needs to be done. Namely that FISA applications must first be reviewed by the AG or Deputy AG before they can be submitted.

It seems like the big issues to take out of this is that FISA warrants are not subject to the Media Guidelines that were enacted in 2015, which was already known, and that the government has apparently used FISA warrants to monitor journalists in the past, which has always been a fear.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Less strict that the Media Guidelines but more strict than normal FISA applications. It's been known since the Media Guidelines were passed that it didn't cover NSLs and FISA warrants.

Now there is a very real conversation to be had about why the Media Guidelines don't apply to FISA and NSLs. But that doesn't seem to be the conversation Right Wing media want to have on this subject. They would rather fearmonger that there are special rules for obtaining a FISA warrant on a journalist. Which is technically true. But they leave out the part that those special rules make it harder to obtain a FISA warrant against a journalist as opposed to anyone else.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Exactly what I was trying to say. They used fisa to avoid media guidelines and sold it by saying it was more strict than regular fisa, but really it wasn't. From what I can tell it just needs the AG to sign off which he was going to do anyway under Obama.

This is what an attack on the free press actually looks like.

ETA: I don't care about spin of any side. I'm here to discuss what actually happened.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Xcalibur254

What's your point. They created media guidelines because they were caught spying on the media.

They said this is what we need to do to spy on the media.

Are they following those guidelines here?

I also noticed the wording days SHOULD occur. Should doesn't mean much.

You are correct.

"should" is a very loose term when it comes to Govt. Policy and is generally used when wiggle room is desired to allow for personal discretion.

"shall" is the term that is used when setting firm conditions for a policy.

No one accidentally uses them interchangeably, especially not for something as serious as a FISA warrant.

a reply to: watchitburn

This is my post in the other thread.

What I want is an independent non partisan group to look into the matter and see how these fisa warrants were used and not have an agenda and be willing to give the people the actual truth.

I am very uncomfortable with how our government is doing business.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Xcalibur254

From what I can tell it just needs the AG to sign off which he was going to do anyway under Obama.

Mhmmm.

Maybe that's why Q said "Lynch's talking".

ETA: We need to see those damn unredacted documents for yesterday!!

This type of stuff happens all of the time, why do people always think that it is news when it is "discovered" to be true? I bet you that there is not even one case in history where that didn't happen, the only news is that people think it is news.

a reply to: return35

It's news we have proof not just belief.