Some new questions as FISA court malfeasance details come out

One rule of leadership is that if you can't delegate, you are dead (metaphorically).

Secretive Surveillance Court Rebukes FBI Over Handling of Surveillance of Trump Aide

Presiding judge describes recent Inspector General report as 'troubling'

Consequently, there is a very high probability that the public rebuke of the FBI by a FISC judge could not have been issued without the knowledge and concurrence of Chief Justice Roberts.  The chief justice alone has complete and absolute ownership of the FISA process.  One wonders why it took so long, since many of the DOJ I.G. findings of fraud on the court, initiated by some very nasty FBI agents, were already in the public domain.

A simple phone call to the attorney general by a senior staff member of the chief justice could have much earlier verified such perfidious behavior and thus very early on forged an Executive Department, Judiciary Branch partnership to protect our Fourth Amendment rights against such egregious surveillance state abuse.

Now with the FISC process being called into question, another issues raised is, exactly why did a FISC judge recuse himself from the court?  Since the abuse of power using a secret court for political gain by our sworn protectors was so horrendous, the disinfectant of sunshine must be used to find out exactly what triggered FISC judge Rudy Contreras recusing himself.

The time factor of public knowledge of the Strzok/Page e-mails can be a starting point:

"I can't imagine either one of you could talk about anything in detail meaningful enough to warrant recusal," Page said to Strzok in one text, making an apparent reference to Contreras.

"Really?" Strzok replied. " 'Rudy, I'm in charge of espionage for the FBI.' Any espionage [warrant request that] comes before him, what should he do? Given his friend oversees them?"

It is unclear whether any concerns about Strzok or his relationship with Contreras were behind the recusal, and it is possible that Contreras stepped down from the case in an abundance of caution, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

Not in the Wash Post musings is, how early did Chief Justice Roberts know and involve himself when the two lovers, Strzok and Page, were discussing having the fix in with a federal judge?  This is not a trivial point, because if it turns out that Chief Justice Roberts knew and did nothing, it can be seen as a serious lapse in judgment.  A reporter covering the Supreme Court could easily ask exactly why Judge Contreras recused himself, and did the chief justice have any role?

As an aside  the e-mail exchange in my opinion shows how lawyer Lisa Page is either stupid or clueless or both.

I suspect that this opening round is just the beginning of one of the most historic legal reckoning periods in U.S. history.  It is long past time to return our sacred law and order process to being fair, honorable, and accountable to the rule of law.

One rule of leadership is that if you can't delegate, you are dead (metaphorically).

Secretive Surveillance Court Rebukes FBI Over Handling of Surveillance of Trump Aide

Presiding judge describes recent Inspector General report as 'troubling'

Consequently, there is a very high probability that the public rebuke of the FBI by a FISC judge could not have been issued without the knowledge and concurrence of Chief Justice Roberts.  The chief justice alone has complete and absolute ownership of the FISA process.  One wonders why it took so long, since many of the DOJ I.G. findings of fraud on the court, initiated by some very nasty FBI agents, were already in the public domain.

A simple phone call to the attorney general by a senior staff member of the chief justice could have much earlier verified such perfidious behavior and thus very early on forged an Executive Department, Judiciary Branch partnership to protect our Fourth Amendment rights against such egregious surveillance state abuse.

Now with the FISC process being called into question, another issues raised is, exactly why did a FISC judge recuse himself from the court?  Since the abuse of power using a secret court for political gain by our sworn protectors was so horrendous, the disinfectant of sunshine must be used to find out exactly what triggered FISC judge Rudy Contreras recusing himself.

The time factor of public knowledge of the Strzok/Page e-mails can be a starting point:

"I can't imagine either one of you could talk about anything in detail meaningful enough to warrant recusal," Page said to Strzok in one text, making an apparent reference to Contreras.

"Really?" Strzok replied. " 'Rudy, I'm in charge of espionage for the FBI.' Any espionage [warrant request that] comes before him, what should he do? Given his friend oversees them?"

It is unclear whether any concerns about Strzok or his relationship with Contreras were behind the recusal, and it is possible that Contreras stepped down from the case in an abundance of caution, to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.

Not in the Wash Post musings is, how early did Chief Justice Roberts know and involve himself when the two lovers, Strzok and Page, were discussing having the fix in with a federal judge?  This is not a trivial point, because if it turns out that Chief Justice Roberts knew and did nothing, it can be seen as a serious lapse in judgment.  A reporter covering the Supreme Court could easily ask exactly why Judge Contreras recused himself, and did the chief justice have any role?

As an aside  the e-mail exchange in my opinion shows how lawyer Lisa Page is either stupid or clueless or both.

I suspect that this opening round is just the beginning of one of the most historic legal reckoning periods in U.S. history.  It is long past time to return our sacred law and order process to being fair, honorable, and accountable to the rule of law.