There’s a reason or at least a conflict of interest that shouts to be recognized as the reason why the FISA warrant that was first denied by the full and secret FISA court in June of last year to wiretap the Trump campaign was approved just over three months later.
If one looks into the way the FISA judges are appointed to their positions, from which they engage in decision making that is out of the public eye and scrutiny, it is striking how little oversight there is. The appointments are made by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and, while Chief Justice Roberts was appointed by Republican George W. Bush, four of his five FISA appointments were judges appointed to their federal positions by either Bill Clinton or Hussein Obama. Roberts is often seen as a wild card, with his positions often a nail-biter or a surprising, complete, unmitigated disaster, as he demonstrated with Obamacare.
FISA decisions are made by a single judge and apparently those on the Lynch DOJ Trump spying program had the misfortune of drawing a judge who was a throwback to the old days of judicial integrity and putting country ahead of Democrat politics. They were turned down. The problem they faced is that it is not a simple matter of filing again and hoping for a better judge if you’re denied. Those decisions can’t be heard again by another judge.
The remedy that is provided for appeal is a separate court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review. Judges in that body are set at a panel of three, who hear the cases en banc. Currently, and during the period of time in which Hillary Clinton’s sponsor, Hussein Obama, sought to spy on her opponent, the three judge panel was composed of a much more favorable mixture.
Democrats claim to be lovers of diversity, but that’s only when it works to their advantage in fundamentally transforming America. When it come to judges to hear an appeal to spy on Hillary Clinton’s opponent, they prefer uniformity, judges appointed by her husband. They like unity of purpose just as much as diversity, sometimes.
The judges who ruled in favor of granting a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign were all nominated to their previous positions by Mr. Trump’s adversary’s husband. William C. Bryson was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1994, Josė A. Cabranes was also nominated by Bill Clinton in 1994, and Richard C. Tallman was nominated by Bill Clinton in 1999. Tallman was formerly seated on the 9th Circuit Court, so his liberal credentials are beyond dispute.
Democrats have been frothing at the mouth insisting that Attorney General Sessions recuse himself because he happened to have a meeting with a Russian diplomat, something consistent with his duties as a US Senator on the Armed Services Committee. We might have thought it would have occurred to these potentially biased jurists to similarly disqualify themselves from the hearing. That’s foolish talk, they’re Democrats and aren’t so morally encumbered.
Thank you for reading and sharing my work – Facebook is trying to starve us out of existence, having cut literally 98% of our traffic over the last year. Your shares are crucial for our survival, and we thank you. We’ve also created a presence on Gab.ai and MeWe.com, although their reach is presently much smaller, the continued abuse by Facebook of conservative voices leaves us no option. We’re remaining on Facebook for the time being, as we make the transition. Please take a look when you have a chance or if we “suddenly disappear” from Facebook as has happened to many other truth-tellers. They’ll either starve us out or take us down, one way or another, sooner or later. Now and in the future, please look for me, Rick Wells, at http://www.facebook.com/RickRWells/ , http://www.gab.ai/RickRWells , https://mewe.com/profile/rick.wells.1 and on my website http://RickWells.US – Please SUBSCRIBE in the right sidebar at RickWells.US – not dot com. I’m also at Stop The Takeover, https://www.facebook.com/StopTheTakeover/ and please follow me on Twitter @RickRWells.