https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/court-orders-review-of-all-fisa-filings-handled-by-fbi-lawyer-facing-criminal-investigation

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/judge-gives-ex-fbi-agent-a-week-in-jail-for-spying-on-pro-trump-activist

Collyer: What did I know? I was just a FISC judge.

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2019/12/20/fisa-court-judge-collyers-concern-2018-devin-nunes-brought-issues-attention/

Where Was FISA Court Judge Collyer’s Concern in 2018 When Devin Nunes Brought These Issues to Her Attention?
Posted at 7:00 pm on December 20, 2019 by Elizabeth Vaughn
…
It’s great that she appears to be cracking down on these agencies in the wake of the IG’s revelations, but why did Judge Collyer fail to act when Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), then-Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, wrote to her in 2018 to express his concern that the FBI had acted improperly?

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel reported on Friday that Nunes sent a letter to Judge Collyer on February 7th, 2018 to tell her what his committee had found during their investigation of the FBI’s four applications.
..
The House Intelligence Committee has oversight jurisdiction of FISA. The Committee had just released the “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Abuses memo,” better known as the “Nunes memo” in which Nunes and his staff enumerated the ways they believed the FBI had deceived the FISA Court. (All of the allegations in the Nunes memo were confirmed by the Horowitz report.) One would have expected her to at least question the FBI and the DOJ over the issues Nunes had brought to her attention. Instead, she did nothing. Was she one of them?
…
Judge Collyer failed to act when she should have. Once the FBI’s abuses were revealed to the world, she was forced to respond. I consider that to be misconduct.

Maybe we ought to hold our applause for Judge Collyer.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RepHankJohnson/status/1207767044369899520

See link w/screenshots for letter and signatures. It’s a doozy.

YOU won’t get a break from a judge for ignorance.
The real question (by his own precedent) is: do the statutes speak to the intent of the dummy arguing said ignorance?

He may truly believe intent & (faux) ignorance matter, but a reasonable prosecutor may not agree with him.

One of the main points of Neo’s post is that Comey is essentially saying that he was just a very high level cog in the machine. A cog that doesn’t know what the other cogs are doing.

Well, when he signs on the dotted line, it means one of two things. Either he is claiming that he has read most of the documentation and maybe had some follow up conversations so that he does understand the whole chain of information or, he has such faith in the perfection or honesty and integrity of the whole chain that he is willing to stake his career on it.

Does the language in the statutes surrounding this issue allow for a claim of ignorance?

The Democrats have a different relationship with the permanent government than do Republicans. There is no resistance. Obama himself is secretive by default. It’s a reasonable wager it was accomplished orally, with no memorializing. We get a hint of it in one of Susan Rice’s e-mails.

That having been said, I can see these crooks doing this on their own authority. Brennan, Sztrok, and Weissmann are bad men.

Not many people he could flip on, as he’s a big prize. Brennan, Clapper, Yates, Lynch, Rice, and Obama, I suppose…