Republican Reps. Jim Jordan (OH) and Mark Meadows (NC) on Thursday wrote a 5-page letter to presiding FISA judge James Boasberg demanding answers about David Kris’s appointment to oversee FISA reforms.
Last Friday, Judge Boasberg announced in an order that he appointed Obama-era national security leader at the DOJ David S. Kris as amicus counsel to review the reforms the FBI will be making to its FISA application process.
This order was in response to the FBI abusing the FISA process after it obtained a total of four FISA warrants on Carter Page.
David Kris is an anti-Trump activist who wrote several articles at “Lawfareblog” lying about Rep. Devin Nunes and President Trump.
David Kris also fired off a tweetstorm where he defended the illegal spying on Trump’s campaign and called the Deep State coup a ‘conspiracy theory.’
This appointment is “unacceptable” Meadows recently said and now he is demanding answers.
In a letter obtained by The Gateway Pundit, the GOP Congressmen stated that “if the FISC’s goal is to hold the FBI accountable for its serious misconduct, Mr. Kris does not appear to be an objective — or likely effective — amicus curiae for several reasons.”
The letter pointed out that Mr. Kris, an Obama-era DOJ official, frequently defended the FBI’s existing electronic surveillance practices and boasted that he had “high confidence that the [FBI] provided the court with enough information to meaningfully assess Steele’s credibility and the provenance of the other information on which they relied.”
Secondly, the congressmen pointed out that Mr. Kris opined that the FISA applications “already substantially undermine the President’s narrative and that of this proxies…”
The DOJ IG report of course revealed Carter Page was illegally spied on, once again proving David Kris to be wrong in his assessment.
Thirdly, David Kris minimized the FBI’s actions after the DOJ IG report documented serious FBI misconduct, Meadows and Jordan wrote.
Meadows and Jordan gave Judge Boasberg until January 30th to provide the following information:
1. Please identify with specificity all the candidates you considered to serve as amicus curiae to assess the government’s response to Judge Collyer’s order dated December 17, 2019.
2. Please explain whether the FISC reviewed and considered Mr. Kris’s writings and statements about Carter Page and the FBI’s electronic surveillance of Mr. Page prior to appointing Mr. Kris as amicus curiae. If not, please explain why not.
3. Please explain whether the FISC reviewed and considered Mr. Kris’s writings and statements about the memorandum issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence dated January 18, 2018, prior to appointing Mr. Kris as amicus curiae. If not, please explain why not.
4. Please explain what specific steps the FISC will take to better protect the civil liberties of American citizens who are not represented in ex parte proceedings for electronic surveillance.
5. Please explain whether the FISC intends to review FBI filings in other matters to determine whether, as Judge Collyer wrote, “the government … provide[s] complete and accurate information in every filing with the Court.”20 If not, please explain why not.
6. Please explain whether you believe that the FISC bears any responsibility for the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Carter Page.
7. Please explain with detail when the FISC first received any indication that information contained in the FBI’s surveillance applications for Carter Page was misleading or false. Please explain what actions, if any, the FISC took at that time to address the FBI’s misconduct.
8. Please explain whether the FISC conducted any internal review to examine the accuracy or validity of information contained in the FBI’s surveillance applications for Carter Page prior to the release of the Justice Department OIG’s report. If so, please explain the scope and process of the FISC review and any findings or information it generated.
9. Please explain with specificity what disciplinary action, if any, the FISC intends to pursue for attorneys who knowingly filed false or misleading information with the FISC with respect to applications to surveil Carter Page.