CNN only picks the best and brightest legal analysts.
Like Renato Mariotti.
Yeah, we know, we’ve never heard of him either but for whatever reason, he decided to take it upon himself and pick a fight with both Byron York and Brit Hume. Like we said, CNN only picks the best and the brightest …
HA HA HA HA HA. Oh, our sides!
See what we mean?
Conservative pundits like @brithume and @ByronYork have expressed “shock” that a judge granted authority to wiretap Carter Page based on evidence, with no hearing.
What exactly do they think would happen at a hearing? Carter Page wouldn’t be present—it’s a secret wiretap.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 2, 2018
Huh?
A “hearing” is generally when two sides argue before a judge about an upcoming decision. But the whole point of a wiretap or search warrant application is that they’re made by prosecutors *without* notice to the other party.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 2, 2018
Alrighty then.
So in this context, a “hearing” would be a judge meeting with prosecutors to discuss the application, which contains evidence and affidavits. Judges usually consider those meetings a waste of time. If judges have questions, they rarely need a formal meeting to convey them. /end
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 2, 2018
Dude.
Where exactly did you find the word “shock,” which you put in quotes in either Byron’s tweets or mine? What makes the handling of this FISA warrant to spy on a U.S. citizen & presidential campaign aide remarkable is that it was treated as routine.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 2, 2018
*popcorn*
What makes you think the judge treated it as routine?
If an application isn’t routine, a careful judge would carefully scrutinize the application, not conduct a “hearing“ with just the government present.
You’re right that you didn’t use the word shock. Others did—my apologies.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 2, 2018
Backpedal faster, Renato.
Trust us on this one.
The FISC regs clearly contemplate hearings when a judge chooses. Hard to imagine a better candidate for one than this case.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 2, 2018
What he said.
I can—a case that presented novel legal issues. In that case, a judge could invite other lawyers to present differing views as to what the law requires.
There appears to be nothing novel about the Carter Page wiretap.
— Renato Mariotti (@renato_mariotti) September 2, 2018
Ummm.
Apart from the fact that it involved an American citizen participating in a presidential campaign in full swing, nothing to see here.
— Brit Hume (@brithume) September 2, 2018
Nope. Nothing at all.
Byron York’s timeline backs Hume’s points up.
For those who so confidently declared that hearings are *never* part of FISA warrant application process, option of hearing is specifically provided for in FISC rules. See below, and thread from @DavidKris https://t.co/pG9g0C11bO plus my thread from yest: https://t.co/HLGjCqz8sQ pic.twitter.com/5CWxGjQJV7
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 2, 2018
Fallback argument is now that FISA hearings are not 'typical.' 1) I said that. And 2) Hard to imagine a more atypical case that one involving wiretapping an American over allegations of foreign infiltration of presidential campaign at height of campaign.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 2, 2018
Should add that I *hope* a proceeding in which judges approve wiretap that could reach deep into presidential campaign at height of campaign is atypical. https://t.co/xipDHuD0Jm
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 2, 2018
No kidding.
Is your revised take that the Page FISA app was treated in the normal fashion and that hearings are actually rare or at a minimum uncommon? https://t.co/ra9OSQv5Up
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) September 2, 2018
Good ol’ Josh.
Look out Byron, he blocks easy.
Not revised. And you could find answer just by reading my tweets; don't have to slog through a 5,000-word article.https://t.co/bXG8yO7Ihk
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 2, 2018
And then Byron found Renato’s tweet:
What are you quoting? I don't think I've used word 'shock,' or any synonym, for that matter. Don't see that @brithume has either. Could you please cite? https://t.co/Kpz4pdpS92
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 2, 2018
Ruh-roh, Raggy.
Renato doesn’t appear to have answered Byron.
Typical.
Related:
WHAT was he THINKING?! LOL! Beto O’Rourke’s pic-tweet proves the guy has ZERO self-awareness