Ron Wyden to Dianne Feinstein: Pants on Fire

While the language about the FISA Amendments Act that Ron Wyden just got James Clapper to clear for release (first reported by Spencer Ackerman) doesn’t exactly call Dianne Feinstein a liar, it comes close.

Wyden got the following three statements cleared:

  • A recent unclassified report noted that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has repeatedly held that collection carried out pursuant to the FISA Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
  • It is also true that on at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
  • I believe that the government’s implementation of Section 702 of FISA has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law, and on at least one occasion, the FISA Court has reached this same conclusion. [my emphasis]

The unclassified report in question is the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report from the FISA Amendments Act extension mark-up.

Third, the numerous reporting requirements outlined above provide the Committee with extensive visibility into the application of these minimization procedures and enable the Committee to evaluate the extent to which these procedures are effective in protecting the privacy and civil liberties of U.S. persons. Notably, the FISA Court, which receives many of the same reports available to the Committee, has repeatedly held that collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [my emphasis]

The passage in question comes from DiFi’s additional views.

With this declassified language, Wyden is making clear how incomplete DiFi’s claims about the law are.

But don’t worry, James Clapper’s office says. They’ve rectified the problems. Of NSA violating minimization requirements, that is, not of the Senate Intelligence Committee Chair making grossly misleading comments to push for passage of the extension.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

13 Responses to Ron Wyden to Dianne Feinstein: Pants on Fire

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @TyreJim I thought it was legal so long as you have a half order of fries on the table? @dmataconis
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Anyway. Heading to bed. It's been absolutely hysterical chatting. Thanks.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Tho I agree, you defended Eli--good and bad--far more aggressively.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Starting where you said the Giants (or, oddly, the iggles) didn't qualify, but the Jehries (or whatev) did?
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty It was fun. As I said, I'll link back to this next season if Bravo reups the series.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Since you missed that entire point the conversation descended into you performing my point perfectly. To a T. Thanks!
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Every single time an NFC fan raise off-point comments to fluff their team? Proved the point. Not a gender issue. Abt surface
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Yes. ENTIRE CONVERSATION was premised on similarities in irrationality and cattiness bt NFC East fans and Real Housewives
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty So no. You can't find a link? Thought so. Bravo fodder. Like I said.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Still waiting for your link where I call you a "girl." Until then you're just Bravo fodder.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty No. No. You have missed the point entirely. But apparently have real gender insecurities.
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @MeritNotParty Go ahead link it.
2hreplyretweetfavorite