‘Too personally invested’: Republicans demand FISA court explain why Obama official picked to oversee reforms – Washington Examiner

A pair of Republican lawmakers demanded answers from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court about why it selected former Obama administration lawyer David Kris to oversee reforms in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act process.

Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina sent a letter Thursday to James Boasberg, the new presiding judge over the FISA court, asking him a series of questions about why picked Kris to serve as amicus curiae, a position that is supposed to provide impartial advice to the court.

"If the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court'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. At minimum the selection of Mr. Kris creates a perception that he is too personally invested on the side of the FBI to ensure it effectuates meaningful reform," the congressmen wrote in the letter obtained by the Washington Examiner.

Kris, a former assistant attorney general with the Justice Departments national security division during the Obama administration, has on the Lawfare blog and elsewhere spoken out in support of the FBIs Trump-Russia investigation and criticized the House Intelligence Committee's 2018 memo on alleged FISA abuses. Last week, he was selected last week to oversee the implementation of reforms in response to a scathing Justice Department watchdog report on serious errors found in the FBI's efforts to wiretap Carter Page, an American foreign policy adviser who helped President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Kris filed a letter with the FISA court on Wednesday where he said the reforms proposed by the FBI in the wake of the Horowitz report were "insufficient" thus far, and that the bureau "must restore" a "culture of accuracy and completeness" in the FISA process.

Jordan and Meadows laid out three main objections to Kriss appointment by the court.

The first was Kris has frequently defended the FBIs existing electronic surveillance practices including when he boasted about the rigorous process or FISA warrants prior to the early 2018 release of then-House Intelligence Committee Chairmen Devin Nuness FISA memo laying out FISA abuses by the bureau and then when Kris claimed that the FBI misled the court was itself misleading once the Nunes memo was made public.

Mr. Kris was wrong, the congressmen said.

The second was the former Obama official seemingly prejudged the FBIs conduct with respect to Carter Page when hundreds of pages of heavily redacted FISA applications on Page were released in the summer of 2018, when Kris claimed the FISA applications and renewals and predicted its going to get worse, not better for Page.

But, the congressmen said, the inspector generals report and testimony confirmed that the FBI illegally surveilled Mr. Page.

And third, following the Horowitzs reports release, Kris seemed to minimize the FBIs actions when he said the FBIs misconduct wasnt political and attributed the missteps to sloppiness by the FBI.

However, inspector general Horowitz testified that the office of inspector generals review did not rule out political bias or intentional misconduct, Jordan and Meadows said.

With three FISA provisions expected to sunset in March, House Republicans say they intend to make a stand against Kris. House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes said this week that Congress should consider abolishing the FISA court if "[the] Democratic Party gets to use these tools to attempt to remove presidents and target political operatives when they want to."

Jordan and Meadows emphasized their belief that the FISA court also has a heightened responsibly to protect the civil liberties of American citizens in proceedings where no defense lawyer is present.

The congressmen asked the spy court to tell them which candidates aside from Kris theyd considered and whether theyd taken Kriss writings and statements about Page, the Nunes memo, and the FBIs Trump-Russia actions into consideration when appointing him.

The duo also pressed the FISA court on whether it bore any responsibility for the FISA abuse against Page; when it first received evidence that the FBI was misleading the court and what it did in response; whether the court had conducted a review of the Page FISA filings prior to the Horowitz reports release; what disciplinary action the court was taking against FBI or DOJ lawyers who had misled them; whether the court was reviewing other FISA filings aside from the ones against Page; and what the court was doing to ensure FISA abuses dont occur in the future.

Jordan and Meadows set a deadline of Jan. 30 for the FISA court's responses.

More here:

'Too personally invested': Republicans demand FISA court explain why Obama official picked to oversee reforms - Washington Examiner