On the recordMay 20, 2015
I thank the Senator from Connecticut for that question. I think one of the points my friend was making through the question had to do with the whole idea of relevance, which is sort of an amazing thing. I think the quote from the privacy and civil liberties commission really hits the nail on the head--that they cannot be regarded as relevant to any FBI investigations required by the statute without redefining the word ``relevant'' in a manner that is circular, unlimited in scope, and out of step with the case law. The interesting thing is that we want a body that works a little more like a court, and I know the Senator from Connecticut has been in favor of having a special advocate and trying to make it more like a courtroom. I think you can only get the truth if you have people on both sides. If you have people on one side, it is an inevitability that the truth is going to be lost and you are going to list in one direction. I think that will be a huge step forward, but it does boggle the mind that we can have them arguing that this is relevant to an investigation that has not yet occurred because we are collecting data and then we are going to mine it at some other time for some investigation. So it couldn't be relevant to an investigation because there is not yet an investigation when they are collecting the data. And no FISA Court seemed to question that, so it concerns me as to whether it is a very good kind of undertaking at finding the truth.…
Source
govinfo.gov




