I&#x27;m not refuting it because it&#x27;s not new. The FISC court decided that back in 2002. See In Re Sealed case: 310 F.3d 717:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;federal&#x2F;appellate-courts&#x2F;F3&#x2F;310&#x2F;717&#x2F;495663&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.justia.com&#x2F;cases&#x2F;federal&#x2F;appellate-courts&#x2F;F3&#x2F;310&#x2F;...</a><p>&quot;
The &quot;wall&quot; emerges from the court&#x27;s implicit interpretation of FISA. The court apparently believes it can approve applications for electronic surveillance only if the government&#x27;s objective is not primarily directed toward criminal prosecution of the foreign agents for their foreign intelligence activity. &quot;
...<p>The minimization procedures allow, however, the retention and dissemination of non-foreign intelligence information which is evidence of ordinary crimes for preventative or prosecutorial purposes. See 50 U.S.C. § 1801(h) (3). Therefore, if through interceptions or searches, evidence of &quot;a serious crime totally unrelated to intelligence matters&quot; is incidentally acquired, the evidence is &quot;not ... required to be destroyed.&quot; H. REP. at 62 (emphasis added).&quot;<p>(note the house report cite: This is in fact, what congress intended)
Again, this came about because the FISA court tried to put a stop to these shenanigans <i>back in 2002</i> and then the reviewing court reversed them. So now they let it go, as they are required to.