Is it surprising that nearly all of judges who serve on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA)– the court that gave the go-ahead to wiretap the Trump campaign–were appointed by Barack Obama?

In fact 10 of the 11 judges were Obama appointees including the corrupt Rudolph Contreras who was recused from the Michael Flynn case for undisclosed reasons, and granted the warrant based on fake material provided by the Clinton campaign after another judge denied it.

Trial lawyer Robert Barnes notes that the FISA court does not operate like other courts. Because the court’s jurisdiction is limited to legitimate security threats, its judges are supposed to hold the evidence they consider to a much higher standard.

 

 

As NPR noted in 2013, the FISA court has not really functioned like a typical federal court since 2008 when Obama took office. It “became less a court than an administrative entity or ministerial clerk,” said William Banks, director of the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism at Syracuse University. “They weren’t reviewing law anymore; they were simply sort of stamping papers as approved or filed.”

That a DNC sponsored document that was poorly written and riddled with spelling errors was considered to meet the court’s high standard raises serious concerns. It is also important to recognize the damage caused by the judges at the FISA court when they used their secretive status to influence America’s most important political election.

 

**To support the Media Equality Project, and our ongoing effort to fight back, click here **

Please join StopTheScalpings, a Facebook group also dedicated to fighting back.

Comments