The Lessons of the Mueller Probe

[Zorro!]

Our government must make transparent, good-faith efforts to police itself, or risk losing legitimacy in the public’s eyes.

Andrew McCarthy's Testimony to Congress, Adam Schiff's Committee, which Mr. McCarthy states treated him respectfully and conducted themselves in a dignified manner:

There is an implicit understanding in our law: The awesome powers vested in our security agencies must not be used pretextually to carry out law-enforcement functions. This was the major controversy we dealt with in the 1990s. The infamous “Wall” imposed by internal Justice Department guidelines, which had the effect of impeding cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement investigators, was unwise policy driven by good intentions. The idea was to ensure that agents who lacked an adequate factual predicate to use criminal-law investigative techniques would not do an end-around on the Constitution by conjuring a national-security angle that would justify resort to foreign counterintelligence authorities — such as warrants issued under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). :
​

Why, pre-9/11, the "Wall" was there:

Law enforcement involves serious intrusions on our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, privacy, in some instances even life. Consequently, our law builds in due-process presumptions and protections to safeguard Americans. Search, arrest, and eavesdropping warrants, for example, may only issue based on probable cause that a crime has been (or is being) committed.

FISA bypasses important Fourth Amendment safeguards. Our law permits this for two reasons. First, the objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to build criminal prosecutions but to collect information. Second, the “target” of a counterintelligence investigation is a foreign power that threatens U.S. interests. Consequently, the typical counterintelligence scenario is not an effort to gather evidence against an American in order to arrest, indict, convict, and imprison that American.
​

Protecting American Citizens against FISA Spying:

Nevertheless, FISA does endeavor to give an American suspected of being a foreign agent some protections. A warrant may not issue unless the FBI and Justice Department demonstrate probable cause to believe the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity. The relevant FISA statute (50 U.S. Code, Section 1804(b)(2)) does not quite require probable cause of a crime; but it calls for something very close — a showing that the suspected activities may involve a violation of criminal statutes. To underscore that the required showing calls for a demonstration of grave and willful conduct, the statute speaks of taking direction from foreign powers to commit criminal offenses, engaging in such activities as sabotage or terrorism, or intentionally using false identities specifically on behalf of a foreign power — which, of course, makes more serious clandestine activity possible.​

AG Barr is currently undertaking an investigation to ensure that the Obama Administration met these thresholds before spying on their domestic political opponents.

Robert Mueller & Andrew C. McCarthy's Testimony -- Lessons of the Special Counsel Investigation | National Review

Things that do NOT meet the threshold for spying on Americans:

• Russian intelligence services attempt to coopt or dupe Americans into providing assistance. This would not be an adequate basis for a surveillance warrant against the unwitting American. Our law requires a showing of purposeful action on the foreign power’s behalf against our country.

Based on what is publicly known, including through the now-concluded Mueller investigation, there was never compelling evidence for the proposition that the Trump campaign was engaged in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin.

We have been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly 50 years because we understand that they are essential for the protection of the nation, but also that they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

It must be made abundantly clear to the American People that our government is deadly serious about policing itself. If that does not happen, there will be even more public demand for the restriction or even the repeal of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities.

 

[Toronado3800]

Our government must make transparent, good-faith efforts to police itself, or risk losing legitimacy in the public’s eyes.

Andrew McCarthy's Testimony to Congress, Adam Schiff's Committee, which Mr. McCarthy states treated him respectfully and conducted themselves in a dignified manner:

There is an implicit understanding in our law: The awesome powers vested in our security agencies must not be used pretextually to carry out law-enforcement functions. This was the major controversy we dealt with in the 1990s. The infamous “Wall” imposed by internal Justice Department guidelines, which had the effect of impeding cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement investigators, was unwise policy driven by good intentions. The idea was to ensure that agents who lacked an adequate factual predicate to use criminal-law investigative techniques would not do an end-around on the Constitution by conjuring a national-security angle that would justify resort to foreign counterintelligence authorities — such as warrants issued under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). :
​

Why, pre-9/11, the "Wall" was there:

Law enforcement involves serious intrusions on our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, privacy, in some instances even life. Consequently, our law builds in due-process presumptions and protections to safeguard Americans. Search, arrest, and eavesdropping warrants, for example, may only issue based on probable cause that a crime has been (or is being) committed.

FISA bypasses important Fourth Amendment safeguards. Our law permits this for two reasons. First, the objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to build criminal prosecutions but to collect information. Second, the “target” of a counterintelligence investigation is a foreign power that threatens U.S. interests. Consequently, the typical counterintelligence scenario is not an effort to gather evidence against an American in order to arrest, indict, convict, and imprison that American.
​

Protecting American Citizens against FISA Spying:

Nevertheless, FISA does endeavor to give an American suspected of being a foreign agent some protections. A warrant may not issue unless the FBI and Justice Department demonstrate probable cause to believe the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity. The relevant FISA statute (50 U.S. Code, Section 1804(b)(2)) does not quite require probable cause of a crime; but it calls for something very close — a showing that the suspected activities may involve a violation of criminal statutes. To underscore that the required showing calls for a demonstration of grave and willful conduct, the statute speaks of taking direction from foreign powers to commit criminal offenses, engaging in such activities as sabotage or terrorism, or intentionally using false identities specifically on behalf of a foreign power — which, of course, makes more serious clandestine activity possible.​

AG Barr is currently undertaking an investigation to ensure that the Obama Administration met these thresholds before spying on their domestic political opponents.

Robert Mueller & Andrew C. McCarthy's Testimony -- Lessons of the Special Counsel Investigation | National Review

Things that do NOT meet the threshold for spying on Americans:

• Russian intelligence services attempt to coopt or dupe Americans into providing assistance. This would not be an adequate basis for a surveillance warrant against the unwitting American. Our law requires a showing of purposeful action on the foreign power’s behalf against our country.

Based on what is publicly known, including through the now-concluded Mueller investigation, there was never compelling evidence for the proposition that the Trump campaign was engaged in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin.

We have been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly 50 years because we understand that they are essential for the protection of the nation, but also that they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

It must be made abundantly clear to the American People that our government is deadly serious about policing itself. If that does not happen, there will be even more public demand for the restriction or even the repeal of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities.

Random thoughts:

How many charges or convictions did Mueller bring?

The party of the Patriot Act (not that everyone didn't vote for it but we know who the tough on terror group is), but the party of the Patriot Act can't possibly complain about investigative overreach with out putting on their hypocrisy hats.

 

[Zorro!]

Our government must make transparent, good-faith efforts to police itself, or risk losing legitimacy in the public’s eyes.

Andrew McCarthy's Testimony to Congress, Adam Schiff's Committee, which Mr. McCarthy states treated him respectfully and conducted themselves in a dignified manner:

There is an implicit understanding in our law: The awesome powers vested in our security agencies must not be used pretextually to carry out law-enforcement functions. This was the major controversy we dealt with in the 1990s. The infamous “Wall” imposed by internal Justice Department guidelines, which had the effect of impeding cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement investigators, was unwise policy driven by good intentions. The idea was to ensure that agents who lacked an adequate factual predicate to use criminal-law investigative techniques would not do an end-around on the Constitution by conjuring a national-security angle that would justify resort to foreign counterintelligence authorities — such as warrants issued under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). :
​

Why, pre-9/11, the "Wall" was there:

Law enforcement involves serious intrusions on our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, privacy, in some instances even life. Consequently, our law builds in due-process presumptions and protections to safeguard Americans. Search, arrest, and eavesdropping warrants, for example, may only issue based on probable cause that a crime has been (or is being) committed.

FISA bypasses important Fourth Amendment safeguards. Our law permits this for two reasons. First, the objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to build criminal prosecutions but to collect information. Second, the “target” of a counterintelligence investigation is a foreign power that threatens U.S. interests. Consequently, the typical counterintelligence scenario is not an effort to gather evidence against an American in order to arrest, indict, convict, and imprison that American.
​

Protecting American Citizens against FISA Spying:

Nevertheless, FISA does endeavor to give an American suspected of being a foreign agent some protections. A warrant may not issue unless the FBI and Justice Department demonstrate probable cause to believe the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity. The relevant FISA statute (50 U.S. Code, Section 1804(b)(2)) does not quite require probable cause of a crime; but it calls for something very close — a showing that the suspected activities may involve a violation of criminal statutes. To underscore that the required showing calls for a demonstration of grave and willful conduct, the statute speaks of taking direction from foreign powers to commit criminal offenses, engaging in such activities as sabotage or terrorism, or intentionally using false identities specifically on behalf of a foreign power — which, of course, makes more serious clandestine activity possible.​

AG Barr is currently undertaking an investigation to ensure that the Obama Administration met these thresholds before spying on their domestic political opponents.

Robert Mueller & Andrew C. McCarthy's Testimony -- Lessons of the Special Counsel Investigation | National Review

Things that do NOT meet the threshold for spying on Americans:

• Russian intelligence services attempt to coopt or dupe Americans into providing assistance. This would not be an adequate basis for a surveillance warrant against the unwitting American. Our law requires a showing of purposeful action on the foreign power’s behalf against our country.

Based on what is publicly known, including through the now-concluded Mueller investigation, there was never compelling evidence for the proposition that the Trump campaign was engaged in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin.

We have been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly 50 years because we understand that they are essential for the protection of the nation, but also that they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

It must be made abundantly clear to the American People that our government is deadly serious about policing itself. If that does not happen, there will be even more public demand for the restriction or even the repeal of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities.

Random thoughts:

How many charges or convictions did Mueller bring?

The party of the Patriot Act (not that everyone didn't vote for it but we know who the tough on terror group is), but the party of the Patriot Act can't possibly complain about investigative overreach with out putting on their hypocrisy hats.

When a corrupt Administration submits lies to FISC so it can spy on political opponents, it's "investigative overreach"?

Beneath this nonsense you do have the glimmerings of a point: If this is not resolutely dealt with, with Justice for those that misused their authority to attack their political opponents, there will be demands to go back to the pre-9/11 days.

Who supports the law and who opposes it?
Unlike most bills in Washington, the 65-34 vote in the Senate did not fall on strict party lines. Opposition to the law came from a coalition of Democrats, led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and from libertarian-leaning Republicans including Rand Paul (R-KY).

Meanwhile, security minded Democrats, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), joined the majority of Republicans in supporting the law. Many in law enforcement, meanwhile, claim the law is an essential means of preventing terrorists attacks, and claim the privacy concerns are hypothetical or overblown.
​

Everything You Should Know About the Controversial FISA Surveillance Law

 

[whitehall]

So called "intelligence" agencies have been out of control since JFK used the CIA to train an illegal invasion army and LBJ let the CIA run his war in Vietnam. Just when we needed strong intelligence before 9-11 the CIA failed in it's mission. There is little doubt that the FBI was used in an attempted political coup. Somebody needs to go to jail and the intell agencies have to be overhauled

 

[Toronado3800]

Our government must make transparent, good-faith efforts to police itself, or risk losing legitimacy in the public’s eyes.

Andrew McCarthy's Testimony to Congress, Adam Schiff's Committee, which Mr. McCarthy states treated him respectfully and conducted themselves in a dignified manner:

There is an implicit understanding in our law: The awesome powers vested in our security agencies must not be used pretextually to carry out law-enforcement functions. This was the major controversy we dealt with in the 1990s. The infamous “Wall” imposed by internal Justice Department guidelines, which had the effect of impeding cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement investigators, was unwise policy driven by good intentions. The idea was to ensure that agents who lacked an adequate factual predicate to use criminal-law investigative techniques would not do an end-around on the Constitution by conjuring a national-security angle that would justify resort to foreign counterintelligence authorities — such as warrants issued under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). :
​

Why, pre-9/11, the "Wall" was there:

Law enforcement involves serious intrusions on our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, privacy, in some instances even life. Consequently, our law builds in due-process presumptions and protections to safeguard Americans. Search, arrest, and eavesdropping warrants, for example, may only issue based on probable cause that a crime has been (or is being) committed.

FISA bypasses important Fourth Amendment safeguards. Our law permits this for two reasons. First, the objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to build criminal prosecutions but to collect information. Second, the “target” of a counterintelligence investigation is a foreign power that threatens U.S. interests. Consequently, the typical counterintelligence scenario is not an effort to gather evidence against an American in order to arrest, indict, convict, and imprison that American.
​

Protecting American Citizens against FISA Spying:

Nevertheless, FISA does endeavor to give an American suspected of being a foreign agent some protections. A warrant may not issue unless the FBI and Justice Department demonstrate probable cause to believe the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity. The relevant FISA statute (50 U.S. Code, Section 1804(b)(2)) does not quite require probable cause of a crime; but it calls for something very close — a showing that the suspected activities may involve a violation of criminal statutes. To underscore that the required showing calls for a demonstration of grave and willful conduct, the statute speaks of taking direction from foreign powers to commit criminal offenses, engaging in such activities as sabotage or terrorism, or intentionally using false identities specifically on behalf of a foreign power — which, of course, makes more serious clandestine activity possible.​

AG Barr is currently undertaking an investigation to ensure that the Obama Administration met these thresholds before spying on their domestic political opponents.

Robert Mueller & Andrew C. McCarthy's Testimony -- Lessons of the Special Counsel Investigation | National Review

Things that do NOT meet the threshold for spying on Americans:

• Russian intelligence services attempt to coopt or dupe Americans into providing assistance. This would not be an adequate basis for a surveillance warrant against the unwitting American. Our law requires a showing of purposeful action on the foreign power’s behalf against our country.

Based on what is publicly known, including through the now-concluded Mueller investigation, there was never compelling evidence for the proposition that the Trump campaign was engaged in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin.

We have been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly 50 years because we understand that they are essential for the protection of the nation, but also that they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

It must be made abundantly clear to the American People that our government is deadly serious about policing itself. If that does not happen, there will be even more public demand for the restriction or even the repeal of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities.

Random thoughts:

How many charges or convictions did Mueller bring?

The party of the Patriot Act (not that everyone didn't vote for it but we know who the tough on terror group is), but the party of the Patriot Act can't possibly complain about investigative overreach with out putting on their hypocrisy hats.

When a corrupt Administration submits lies to FISC so it can spy on political opponents, it's "investigative overreach"?

Beneath this nonsense you do have the glimmerings of a point: If this is not resolutely dealt with, with Justice for those that misused their authority to attack their political opponents, there will be demands to go back to the pre-9/11 days.

Who supports the law and who opposes it?
Unlike most bills in Washington, the 65-34 vote in the Senate did not fall on strict party lines. Opposition to the law came from a coalition of Democrats, led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and from libertarian-leaning Republicans including Rand Paul (R-KY).

Meanwhile, security minded Democrats, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), joined the majority of Republicans in supporting the law. Many in law enforcement, meanwhile, claim the law is an essential means of preventing terrorists attacks, and claim the privacy concerns are hypothetical or overblown.
​

Everything You Should Know About the Controversial FISA Surveillance Law

Hey, if you are against the Patriot Act and its children we can probably find a middle ground.

 

[boedicca]

Our government must make transparent, good-faith efforts to police itself, or risk losing legitimacy in the public’s eyes.

Andrew McCarthy's Testimony to Congress, Adam Schiff's Committee, which Mr. McCarthy states treated him respectfully and conducted themselves in a dignified manner:

There is an implicit understanding in our law: The awesome powers vested in our security agencies must not be used pretextually to carry out law-enforcement functions. This was the major controversy we dealt with in the 1990s. The infamous “Wall” imposed by internal Justice Department guidelines, which had the effect of impeding cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement investigators, was unwise policy driven by good intentions. The idea was to ensure that agents who lacked an adequate factual predicate to use criminal-law investigative techniques would not do an end-around on the Constitution by conjuring a national-security angle that would justify resort to foreign counterintelligence authorities — such as warrants issued under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). :
​

Why, pre-9/11, the "Wall" was there:

Law enforcement involves serious intrusions on our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, privacy, in some instances even life. Consequently, our law builds in due-process presumptions and protections to safeguard Americans. Search, arrest, and eavesdropping warrants, for example, may only issue based on probable cause that a crime has been (or is being) committed.

FISA bypasses important Fourth Amendment safeguards. Our law permits this for two reasons. First, the objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to build criminal prosecutions but to collect information. Second, the “target” of a counterintelligence investigation is a foreign power that threatens U.S. interests. Consequently, the typical counterintelligence scenario is not an effort to gather evidence against an American in order to arrest, indict, convict, and imprison that American.
​

Protecting American Citizens against FISA Spying:

Nevertheless, FISA does endeavor to give an American suspected of being a foreign agent some protections. A warrant may not issue unless the FBI and Justice Department demonstrate probable cause to believe the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity. The relevant FISA statute (50 U.S. Code, Section 1804(b)(2)) does not quite require probable cause of a crime; but it calls for something very close — a showing that the suspected activities may involve a violation of criminal statutes. To underscore that the required showing calls for a demonstration of grave and willful conduct, the statute speaks of taking direction from foreign powers to commit criminal offenses, engaging in such activities as sabotage or terrorism, or intentionally using false identities specifically on behalf of a foreign power — which, of course, makes more serious clandestine activity possible.​

AG Barr is currently undertaking an investigation to ensure that the Obama Administration met these thresholds before spying on their domestic political opponents.

Robert Mueller & Andrew C. McCarthy's Testimony -- Lessons of the Special Counsel Investigation | National Review

Things that do NOT meet the threshold for spying on Americans:

• Russian intelligence services attempt to coopt or dupe Americans into providing assistance. This would not be an adequate basis for a surveillance warrant against the unwitting American. Our law requires a showing of purposeful action on the foreign power’s behalf against our country.

Based on what is publicly known, including through the now-concluded Mueller investigation, there was never compelling evidence for the proposition that the Trump campaign was engaged in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin.

We have been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly 50 years because we understand that they are essential for the protection of the nation, but also that they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

It must be made abundantly clear to the American People that our government is deadly serious about policing itself. If that does not happen, there will be even more public demand for the restriction or even the repeal of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities.

Random thoughts:

How many charges or convictions did Mueller bring?

The party of the Patriot Act (not that everyone didn't vote for it but we know who the tough on terror group is), but the party of the Patriot Act can't possibly complain about investigative overreach with out putting on their hypocrisy hats.

How many convictions did Mueller bring for non-process crimes?
What was the actual crime/predicate for the investigation in the first place?
How many American citizens did the Obama admin unmask (for political purposes)?

In RealityLand, Obama led a coup attempt against his successor. That is the real crime.

 

[MAGAman]

Lesson 1: Trump is innocent

Lesson 2: See Lesson 1.

 

[Zorro!]

Our government must make transparent, good-faith efforts to police itself, or risk losing legitimacy in the public’s eyes.

Andrew McCarthy's Testimony to Congress, Adam Schiff's Committee, which Mr. McCarthy states treated him respectfully and conducted themselves in a dignified manner:

There is an implicit understanding in our law: The awesome powers vested in our security agencies must not be used pretextually to carry out law-enforcement functions. This was the major controversy we dealt with in the 1990s. The infamous “Wall” imposed by internal Justice Department guidelines, which had the effect of impeding cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement investigators, was unwise policy driven by good intentions. The idea was to ensure that agents who lacked an adequate factual predicate to use criminal-law investigative techniques would not do an end-around on the Constitution by conjuring a national-security angle that would justify resort to foreign counterintelligence authorities — such as warrants issued under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). :
​

Why, pre-9/11, the "Wall" was there:

Law enforcement involves serious intrusions on our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, privacy, in some instances even life. Consequently, our law builds in due-process presumptions and protections to safeguard Americans. Search, arrest, and eavesdropping warrants, for example, may only issue based on probable cause that a crime has been (or is being) committed.

FISA bypasses important Fourth Amendment safeguards. Our law permits this for two reasons. First, the objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to build criminal prosecutions but to collect information. Second, the “target” of a counterintelligence investigation is a foreign power that threatens U.S. interests. Consequently, the typical counterintelligence scenario is not an effort to gather evidence against an American in order to arrest, indict, convict, and imprison that American.
​

Protecting American Citizens against FISA Spying:

Nevertheless, FISA does endeavor to give an American suspected of being a foreign agent some protections. A warrant may not issue unless the FBI and Justice Department demonstrate probable cause to believe the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity. The relevant FISA statute (50 U.S. Code, Section 1804(b)(2)) does not quite require probable cause of a crime; but it calls for something very close — a showing that the suspected activities may involve a violation of criminal statutes. To underscore that the required showing calls for a demonstration of grave and willful conduct, the statute speaks of taking direction from foreign powers to commit criminal offenses, engaging in such activities as sabotage or terrorism, or intentionally using false identities specifically on behalf of a foreign power — which, of course, makes more serious clandestine activity possible.​

AG Barr is currently undertaking an investigation to ensure that the Obama Administration met these thresholds before spying on their domestic political opponents.

Robert Mueller & Andrew C. McCarthy's Testimony -- Lessons of the Special Counsel Investigation | National Review

Things that do NOT meet the threshold for spying on Americans:

• Russian intelligence services attempt to coopt or dupe Americans into providing assistance. This would not be an adequate basis for a surveillance warrant against the unwitting American. Our law requires a showing of purposeful action on the foreign power’s behalf against our country.

Based on what is publicly known, including through the now-concluded Mueller investigation, there was never compelling evidence for the proposition that the Trump campaign was engaged in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin.

We have been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly 50 years because we understand that they are essential for the protection of the nation, but also that they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

It must be made abundantly clear to the American People that our government is deadly serious about policing itself. If that does not happen, there will be even more public demand for the restriction or even the repeal of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities.

Random thoughts:

How many charges or convictions did Mueller bring?

The party of the Patriot Act (not that everyone didn't vote for it but we know who the tough on terror group is), but the party of the Patriot Act can't possibly complain about investigative overreach with out putting on their hypocrisy hats.

When a corrupt Administration submits lies to FISC so it can spy on political opponents, it's "investigative overreach"?

Beneath this nonsense you do have the glimmerings of a point: If this is not resolutely dealt with, with Justice for those that misused their authority to attack their political opponents, there will be demands to go back to the pre-9/11 days.

Who supports the law and who opposes it?
Unlike most bills in Washington, the 65-34 vote in the Senate did not fall on strict party lines. Opposition to the law came from a coalition of Democrats, led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and from libertarian-leaning Republicans including Rand Paul (R-KY).

Meanwhile, security minded Democrats, including minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca), joined the majority of Republicans in supporting the law. Many in law enforcement, meanwhile, claim the law is an essential means of preventing terrorists attacks, and claim the privacy concerns are hypothetical or overblown.
​

Everything You Should Know About the Controversial FISA Surveillance Law

Hey, if you are against the Patriot Act and its children we can probably find a middle ground.

After those we have determined if it was misused against domestic opponents, if so, they need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Zorro!]

Our government must make transparent, good-faith efforts to police itself, or risk losing legitimacy in the public’s eyes.

Andrew McCarthy's Testimony to Congress, Adam Schiff's Committee, which Mr. McCarthy states treated him respectfully and conducted themselves in a dignified manner:

There is an implicit understanding in our law: The awesome powers vested in our security agencies must not be used pretextually to carry out law-enforcement functions. This was the major controversy we dealt with in the 1990s. The infamous “Wall” imposed by internal Justice Department guidelines, which had the effect of impeding cooperation between intelligence and law-enforcement investigators, was unwise policy driven by good intentions. The idea was to ensure that agents who lacked an adequate factual predicate to use criminal-law investigative techniques would not do an end-around on the Constitution by conjuring a national-security angle that would justify resort to foreign counterintelligence authorities — such as warrants issued under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). :
​

Why, pre-9/11, the "Wall" was there:

Law enforcement involves serious intrusions on our most fundamental freedoms — liberty, privacy, in some instances even life. Consequently, our law builds in due-process presumptions and protections to safeguard Americans. Search, arrest, and eavesdropping warrants, for example, may only issue based on probable cause that a crime has been (or is being) committed.

FISA bypasses important Fourth Amendment safeguards. Our law permits this for two reasons. First, the objective of a counterintelligence investigation is not to build criminal prosecutions but to collect information. Second, the “target” of a counterintelligence investigation is a foreign power that threatens U.S. interests. Consequently, the typical counterintelligence scenario is not an effort to gather evidence against an American in order to arrest, indict, convict, and imprison that American.
​

Protecting American Citizens against FISA Spying:

Nevertheless, FISA does endeavor to give an American suspected of being a foreign agent some protections. A warrant may not issue unless the FBI and Justice Department demonstrate probable cause to believe the American is knowingly engaged in clandestine activity. The relevant FISA statute (50 U.S. Code, Section 1804(b)(2)) does not quite require probable cause of a crime; but it calls for something very close — a showing that the suspected activities may involve a violation of criminal statutes. To underscore that the required showing calls for a demonstration of grave and willful conduct, the statute speaks of taking direction from foreign powers to commit criminal offenses, engaging in such activities as sabotage or terrorism, or intentionally using false identities specifically on behalf of a foreign power — which, of course, makes more serious clandestine activity possible.​

AG Barr is currently undertaking an investigation to ensure that the Obama Administration met these thresholds before spying on their domestic political opponents.

Robert Mueller & Andrew C. McCarthy's Testimony -- Lessons of the Special Counsel Investigation | National Review

Things that do NOT meet the threshold for spying on Americans:

• Russian intelligence services attempt to coopt or dupe Americans into providing assistance. This would not be an adequate basis for a surveillance warrant against the unwitting American. Our law requires a showing of purposeful action on the foreign power’s behalf against our country.

Based on what is publicly known, including through the now-concluded Mueller investigation, there was never compelling evidence for the proposition that the Trump campaign was engaged in an espionage conspiracy with the Kremlin.

We have been wrestling with national-security powers for nearly 50 years because we understand that they are essential for the protection of the nation, but also that they can easily be abused. It is essential that when serious questions arise about how they have been used, the FBI, the Justice Department, and the Congress conduct serious, searching inquiries to get to the bottom of what happened, and to take remedial action.

It must be made abundantly clear to the American People that our government is deadly serious about policing itself. If that does not happen, there will be even more public demand for the restriction or even the repeal of foreign-intelligence-surveillance authorities.

Random thoughts:

How many charges or convictions did Mueller bring?

The party of the Patriot Act (not that everyone didn't vote for it but we know who the tough on terror group is), but the party of the Patriot Act can't possibly complain about investigative overreach with out putting on their hypocrisy hats.

How many convictions did Mueller bring for non-process crimes?
What was the actual crime/predicate for the investigation in the first place?
How many American citizens did the Obama admin unmask (for political purposes)?

In RealityLand, Obama led a coup attempt against his successor. That is the real crime.

That's what AG Barr is investigation. Hopefully if the facts support your claim, we will also find violations of criminal statutes that can support prosecution, but we may find that a lot of the infractions are Administrative handled as employment misconduct, so the remedies are terminations, suspensions or disciplinary write ups.

 

[MAGAman]

That's what AG Barr is investigation. Hopefully if the facts support your claim, we will also find violations of criminal statutes that can support prosecution, but we may find that a lot of the infractions are Administrative handled as employment misconduct, so the remedies are terminations, suspensions or disciplinary write ups.

Barr and the IG will uncover many facts. Some we know about, some we have strong suspicions of that will be proven, or disapproven, or unproven.

Barr's power to declassify will delay the IG Report because it expands the IGs ability to investigate.