25 Jan 2018 4:14 pm
Speaking of looking like a fool, you're the imbecile who's trying to debate this not in the thread where my documentation is which you haven't read, but in your thread.Misty » 25 Jan 2018 3:56 pm » wrote:Of course not. You can't.
Because the FISA court NEVER 'documented very extensive abuses of power and many crimes.'
I proved that in my last post.
When are you going to stop trusting sites like Gatewaypundit that post distorted and misleading ****?
They make you look like a fool, not that you need much help in that.
How freaking stupid is that?
The court is writing in legal terminology, but given that, it's quite obvious the court agrees with my take on this.
FISA Court Finds "Serious Fourth Amendment Issue" In Obama's "Widespread" Illegal Searches Of American Citizens
Profile picture for user Tyler Durden
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/24/2017 - 09:52
TwitterFacebookRedditEmailPrint
A newly released court order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) found that the National Security Agency, under former President Obama, routinely violated American privacy protections while scouring through overseas intercepts and failed to disclose the extent of the problems until the final days before Donald Trump was elected president last fall. In describing the violations, the FISA court said the illegal searches conducted by the NSA under Obama were "widespread" and created a "very serious Fourth Amendment issue."
These new discoveries come from a recently unsealed FISA court document dated April 26, 2017 and center around a hearing dated October 26, 2017, just days before the 2016 election, in which the FISA court apparently learned for the first time of "widespread" and illegal spying on American citizens by the NSA under the Obama administration.
"The October 26, 2016 Notice disclosed that an NSA Inspector General (IG) review...indicated that, with greater frequency than previously disclosed to the Court, NSA analysts had used U.S.-person identifiers to query the result of Internet "upstream" collection, even though NSA's section 702 minimization procedures prohibited such queries...this disclosure gave the Court substantial concern."
.
.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05- ... egal-searc
