LOL. Is that even a Muslim thing, like they'll be smote by Allah where they stand if they say that?
What's next you'll ask AWS to pinkie-swear he's not a shill
You are so fucking dim xD
I denounce Muhammad and Allah
.... wait, or do I?
You know who's also not a Muslim? The guy Q posted unnecessarily used to denounce McCain. He could have used any source (even dare I say non MSM) but he chose that for YOUR benefit.
Because you're a clueless, worthless fat housewife who admits she has no idea about Jews, Zionism, conspiracies, or anything at all.
FWIW - SCOTUS will have no bearing on HRC and the Cabal's fate. Their fate has already been determined.
"
Criminal defendants in the Article III judicial system have an automatic right to appeal to federal
courts of appeal and then a right to petition the Supreme Court for final review. In contrast,
defendants in military cases typically may not appeal their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court
unless the highest military court, the CAAF, had also granted discretionary review in the case"
SCOTUS appoints the FISC judges, but there is a FISC appeals court in between, known as the FISCR. I have no idea if SCOTUS actually gets involved in FISC rulings.
The bigger question is, there would have to be grounds for a SCOTUS review. And then there is the appeals process through FISCR. I'm more inclined to believe that there is so much evidence to support illegal spying activities. And that no defense counsel will be able to assemble a reasonable argument in front of a non-corrupt judge as to why an appeal above FISCR to SCOTUS would be needed. I'm pretty sure "they have it all".
FISCR reviews denials, right? But the more apt point, would be or perhaps should be, approved FISA activities. Not sure is FISCR has oversight of approved FISAs though - do you know?
Not to my knowledge. I saw some stats the other day (didn't save the link) but under Hussein the number of FISA warrant apps went up significantly with the vast majority of them being approved. And a very high percentage, of the very few denials, were sent back to "build a better case". And it was a very low percentage of those which were approved upon appeal. (Now I'm kicking myself for not saving that infographic). I recall average warrant applications being in the high 400s per year. They have dropped significantly under Trump. And more denials.
Hm, I had it in my head that FISCR only review previous FISC decisions that were denied (but not the ones that were approved) - can't seem to find a link for that though. Too many dustbunnies in my old geezer skull, p'haps.
I guess that makes sense - FISA warrants that are approved, could only be theoretically appealed by the same govt agency that applied for the warrant in the first place, and why would they appeal an approved one? Hence, FISCR only sees reviews for denied or modified warrants.
The FISCR has jurisdiction to review the denial of any application under FISA by the FISC. The FISCR’s review of the FISC’s denial of an application for surveillance is limited. After a "motion of the United States" to transmit the FISC’s record, the FISCR may either affirm or reverse the FISC judge's decision. If the FISCR determines that the application was properly denied, it must "provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision." Under the USA Freedom Act, the FISC is required to certify for review by the FISCR questions of law in the orders it has issued that affect the “need for uniformity” or where consideration “would serve the interests of justice.” In response, the FISCR may give binding instructions to the FISC or require the FISC send the complete record to the FISCR for it to decide the entire matter itself. Finally, the FISCR can also review the FISC’s decisions on third party challenges to orders under FISA (e.g. an order for an individual to produce tangible things or a connected gag order, and electronic service providers directed to assist the government).
The Supreme Court has statutory jurisdiction to review FISC opinions under certain circumstances. The Court may review on a Writ of Certiorari filed by the United States any decision of the FISCR affirming the denial of a government application to the FISC. Additionally, the FISCR certify “any question of law . . . as to which instructions are desired,” and the Supreme Court may then give binding instructions to the FISCR or require the FISCR send the complete record up and decide the entire matter itself. The Court may also review FISCR decisions on a third party challenges. In reviewing a FISCR decision, the Supreme Court “may” appoint one of the designated amicus curiae or another individual to provide briefing or other assistance.
They review any and all decisions made by the FISC as best as I can tell. The court was only created in 1978 and due to "minimization procedures" aka classify the fuck outta everything there isn't a lot of precedent to go on. That, and it's all classified.
If you want to know more, dig into the guts of EO12333.
anotherdream ago
Holy fuck that bitch is desperate. Damn. Shit is getting real.
P.S. Thanks Srayzie! - So glad to read the back and forth between all you guys. - Keep it up!!
DANKGHIDORAH ago
Poor Saint Peter.
auralsects ago
LMAO. You fucking dunces fall for "muh Islamic extremists" every time. Even with my helpfully pointing it out so often.
That's how I know you are totally mind-enslaved by The Kikes. And that's AFTER you admitted kikes did 9-11!
Wait til you learn the Muslim Brotherhood, Salafism, etc. were all manufactured by British intelligence+kabbalists like 150 years ago.
TOTAL. ABJECT. AMATEURS.
srayzie ago
Denounce Allah and Mohammad for once. Straight out say that you do not love, follow, or worship Allah or Muhammad!
auralsects ago
LOL. Is that even a Muslim thing, like they'll be smote by Allah where they stand if they say that?
What's next you'll ask AWS to pinkie-swear he's not a shill
You are so fucking dim xD
I denounce Muhammad and Allah .... wait, or do I?
You know who's also not a Muslim? The guy Q posted unnecessarily used to denounce McCain. He could have used any source (even dare I say non MSM) but he chose that for YOUR benefit.
Because you're a clueless, worthless fat housewife who admits she has no idea about Jews, Zionism, conspiracies, or anything at all.
You are seriously a pitiful figure lmao
Shizy ago
You continue to deny it, but that's something only a muzzie would say!
srayzie ago
@beautifullyinvisible @anotherdream @aaronkin
srayzie ago
@drain0 @Caveman_in_a_suit @bopper @blacksmith21 @ben_matlock
srayzie ago
@hst @heretolearn @fuggbenis @fuckingmockies @fartyshorts @erickaliberhall
EricKaliberhall ago
Tack srayzie. Keep up the great job!
fartyshorts ago
Oh my, Q's busy today!
srayzie ago
@picman @pby1000 @oh_well_ian @neskuaxa @nana66
pby1000 ago
Got it! ,
srayzie ago
@molochhunter @mad_as_hell @lightlytoasted @lag-wagon @kevdude
srayzie ago
@scablifter @rickflairwoooooo @reddit_traitor @qualityshitposter @plankO
srayzie ago
@whyaserverwasbuilt @wahwahweewah @vindicator @shizy @sharipie
AlienEskimo ago
Hillary must be terrified of what will happen to her once Trump's SC pick takes his seat on the bench
Blacksmith21 ago
FWIW - SCOTUS will have no bearing on HRC and the Cabal's fate. Their fate has already been determined.
" Criminal defendants in the Article III judicial system have an automatic right to appeal to federal courts of appeal and then a right to petition the Supreme Court for final review. In contrast, defendants in military cases typically may not appeal their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court unless the highest military court, the CAAF, had also granted discretionary review in the case"
AlienEskimo ago
Do you think SC oversight of FISC/FISA activities will play no role in this?
Blacksmith21 ago
SCOTUS appoints the FISC judges, but there is a FISC appeals court in between, known as the FISCR. I have no idea if SCOTUS actually gets involved in FISC rulings.
The bigger question is, there would have to be grounds for a SCOTUS review. And then there is the appeals process through FISCR. I'm more inclined to believe that there is so much evidence to support illegal spying activities. And that no defense counsel will be able to assemble a reasonable argument in front of a non-corrupt judge as to why an appeal above FISCR to SCOTUS would be needed. I'm pretty sure "they have it all".
AlienEskimo ago
FISCR reviews denials, right? But the more apt point, would be or perhaps should be, approved FISA activities. Not sure is FISCR has oversight of approved FISAs though - do you know?
Blacksmith21 ago
Not to my knowledge. I saw some stats the other day (didn't save the link) but under Hussein the number of FISA warrant apps went up significantly with the vast majority of them being approved. And a very high percentage, of the very few denials, were sent back to "build a better case". And it was a very low percentage of those which were approved upon appeal. (Now I'm kicking myself for not saving that infographic). I recall average warrant applications being in the high 400s per year. They have dropped significantly under Trump. And more denials.
FISCR reviews previous FISC decisions: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/public-filings
Now I have to read the one with JW to see what that's about.
AlienEskimo ago
Hm, I had it in my head that FISCR only review previous FISC decisions that were denied (but not the ones that were approved) - can't seem to find a link for that though. Too many dustbunnies in my old geezer skull, p'haps.
Edit: hmmm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Court_of_Review
I guess that makes sense - FISA warrants that are approved, could only be theoretically appealed by the same govt agency that applied for the warrant in the first place, and why would they appeal an approved one? Hence, FISCR only sees reviews for denied or modified warrants.
Blacksmith21 ago
P11 too. PDF warning: http://www.fisc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/FISC%20Misc%2018-03%20Judicial%20Watch%20Inc%27s%20Motion%20For%20Publication%20of%20Transcripts%20180725_2.pdf
AlienEskimo ago
Hmmm, so the first appeal to FISCR occurred in 2002 (although the FISA court was established in 1978): https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/fiscr111802.html
Blacksmith21 ago
Read down a little bit. Table showing # of warrants per year. Interesting numbers, though not sure if I can conclude anything concrete from it:
These guys do great work like Judicial Watch: https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/fisa/stats/default.html
AlienEskimo ago
I hadn't even heard of them before today, reading your replies led me to do some extra digging
Blacksmith21 ago
Tom Fitton should have his face carved alongside Flynn, Trump and Rogers at the next Mt. Rushmore.
And I live in the Swamp ; )
AlienEskimo ago
Thanks
Blacksmith21 ago
If you're tracking, check this: https://www.theepochtimes.com/surveillance-court-held-no-hearing-on-carter-page-spy-warrant_2639478.html
AlienEskimo ago
Hm, read that... also found this:
https://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/fisa/fisc/
Blacksmith21 ago
FISCR is the appeals court and "IG" for FISC. I think that's the simplest definition.
Blacksmith21 ago
They review any and all decisions made by the FISC as best as I can tell. The court was only created in 1978 and due to "minimization procedures" aka classify the fuck outta everything there isn't a lot of precedent to go on. That, and it's all classified.
If you want to know more, dig into the guts of EO12333.
bopper ago
Thanks for the info!
And now Rahm Emanuel is OUT. And his employees say they are shocked, it was totally unexpected.
Oh_Well_ian ago
Chicago organ/human trafficking OPS is being rolled up.
Watch killings dramatically drop over the next year.
Arrvee ago
Who is replacing him? The middleman of these organizations can be more dangerous than the figureheads.
bopper ago
Yeah, I haven't heard.