The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is well-positioned to clear up the question of whether the FBI and Justice Department presented misleading information when they sought orders to surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
Sophia Brill is an associate in the litigation department at Morrison & Foerster LLP, in Washington D.C. She was previously an attorney in the National Security Division of the Department of Justice, where she worked on a range of legal policy and appellate matters. She is a graduate of Yale Law School.
Subscribe to this Lawfare contributor via RSS.
Cabinet-level officials should declare under oath that the process leading to the latest iteration of the ban did not have any pre-ordained outcomes.
At 9:01, Judge Pohl takes the bench, authority-emanating robes and all. All parties are present, including the five accused. Prosecutor Robert Swann notes the continued presence of FBI personnel and an NYPD officer, who might eventually serve as witnesses. KSM lawyer David Nevin rises, in order to preserve his objection to those persons ever taking the stand.
Our first (and, as we'll soon discover, only) order of business is AE133, and who can hear what, of the defense’s confidential conversations with their clients.
We begin with AE20, regarding the time for the defense to respond to government motions. The court thinks its moot.