UPDATED: John Roberts: Buffoon Or Worse?

I embedded a series of tweets in the previous post on the corrupt FISC. Those tweets expressed the incredulity of all decent people that the new Chief Judge of the FISC, James Boasberg, has appointed an apologist for FBI criminality to review FBI proposals for reforming themselves. Mollie Hemingway has an excellent overall article--one among many commenters on the topic: Spy Court Picks FISA Abuse Denier To Tackle FISA Abuse--The appointment of a former official who served as an apologist for the FBI signals that the court isn't particularly concerned about the civil liberty violations catalogued by Inspector General Michael Horowitz. The one thing missing from Mollie's article is mention of the person responsible for the production of this farce: Chief Justice John Roberts. With this one act Roberts has probably unalterably destroyed any remaining shred of credibility he possessed and revealed himself simply as a tool and servant of the Deep State.

Who, exactly, IS David Kris? This is self description from the Lawfare blog:

David Kris is a founder of Culper Partners LLC. He previously served as assistant attorney general for national security, associate deputy attorney general, trial attorney at the Department of Justice, general counsel at Intellectual Ventures, and deputy general counsel and chief ethics and compliance officer at Time Warner. He is the author or co-author of several works on national security, including the treatise National Security Investigations and Prosecutions, and has taught at Georgetown University and the University of Washington. Randomly, but increasingly, when he submits material for prepublication review by the government, Mr. Kris has been directed to add the following disclaimer or its equivalent, which should be understood to apply to all of his published work unless otherwise indicated: “All statements of fact, opinion, or analysis expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official positions or views of the U.S. Government. Nothing in the contents should be construed as asserting or implying U.S. Government authentication of information or endorsement of the author’s views.”

To get some idea of what a jackass Kris actually is, there's no better place to look than this March 1, 2018, selection at The Lawfare Blog: The Irony of the Nunes Memo. Here are excerpts, arranged in a continuous fashion. Note that Kris actually suggests that Devin Nunes should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice for publishing his famou Nunes Memo, which has been completely vindicated by the Horowitz Dossier:

The central irony of the memo prepared by House intelligence chairman Devin Nunes, we now know, is that it tried to deceive the American people in precisely the same way that it falsely accused the FBI of deceiving the FISA Court. The key question going forward is whether the memo’s authors and sponsors will face any consequences for their dishonesty. 

The Nunes memo was dishonest. And if it is allowed to stand, we risk significant collateral damage to essential elements of our democracy. 

1. The Nunes memo’s fundamental claim was that the FBI misled the court about Christopher Steele ... 

Today we know that it was not true. Almost four weeks ago, based on my experience with the FISA program and those who administer it, I expressed confidence that the government “provided the court with enough information to meaningfully assess Steele’s credibility.” 

Nunes’s claim that the FBI misled the court was itself misleading. 

[The FBI] allowed the court to decide, based on all of the information presented, whether there was “probable cause” that Carter Page “knowingly” engaged in “clandestine intelligence activities” for Russia that involve, may involve, or are about to involve “a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States.” It’s disturbing that Page met that legal standard and that there was probable cause to conclude he was a Russian agent. 

2. It’s even more disturbing that a purported oversight memo would withhold key facts from the American people in accusing the government of withholding key facts from the court. 

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe and others believe that Nunes might be prosecuted for obstruction of justice, despite the Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause. If so, ..., Special Counsel Robert Mueller, might also get involved.

It's difficult to express just how wacked all this is, so I won't even try--except to note how mainstream Kris' views are among liberal legal types. Also that it's incredibly scary to think that Laurence Tribe was for many years considered a prime candidate for the SCOTUS.

For the rest, read Mollie at the link above. Here's a selection, which again leaves little doubt that Kris is 1) utterly wacked and living in some alternative universe of his own making, or 2) cynically dishonest:

When the applications to spy on Page — a man who was victimized by a false dossier alleging he betrayed his country and endured one year of intensive surveillance without being charged with any crime, much less any crime related to treasonous collusion with Russia to steal the 2016 election — were released, Kris appeared on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show to defend the FBI and lambast its critics. 

Maddow spun the release of those applications in such a way as to say they helped the FBI’s case that Page was a threat to national security who had lost his right not to be spied on by the government. Kris agreed, and claimed the FBI had done everything right in its surveillance process. Kris was presented as one of the few people who have ever had responsibility for the FISA process. He used his time to criticize Nunes, the member of Congress who first revealed the problems at the FBI in the face of derision by the media and other members of the Resistance. 

Kris falsely claimed that the applications “substantially undermine the president’s narrative and that of his proxies” and that if there were more investigation or transparency, it would “get worse and not better” for them. 

He said, though, that more investigation and release of information would be “dangerous.” He criticized the president, saying he was “free to make up whatever facts suit him” while the FBI was at a disadvantage by its desire to do things properly.

But that's not the real point. The real point is John Roberts.

ADDENDUM: I assume this is Roberts trying to show that there are no "Obama" judges--just judges. Well, Boasberg gave him the bird and showed him up as an empty suit.

UPDATE 1: Zerohedge has a good blog on this appointment: "A Ridiculous Choice" - FISA Court Sparks Firestorm, Appoints Conflicted, Anti-Trump Attorney To Oversee FBI Fixes. The quote is from Devin Nunes:

“It’s a ridiculous choice. The FBI lied to the FISC, and to help make sure that doesn’t happen again, the FISC chose an FBI apologist who denied and defended those lies. The FISC is setting its own credibility on fire.”

But the real point is that John Roberts has set his own credibility on fire.

UPDATE 2: Here's what I really find hard to understand. If you're John Roberts, you're where the FISC buck stops. If you're about to appoint a new chief judge of the FISC in these unprecedented circumstances, aren't you going to be just a bit more careful than usual? After all, we've just lived through three years in which the center of attention has been the Intelligence Community attempting to control a presidential election, following which the IC attempted to oust the president. We're now awaiting a hoax impeachment trial which probably wouldn't have occurred without all that passed during those preceding three years. And the FISC was front and center through all of this--it was an integral part of this constitutional crisis! Not only that, but FISA is up for renewal in the coming year.

What part of that does John Roberts not understand?

When he was about to appoint Boasberg, would he not sit him down and say, Now, Jim, we've got a pressing duty here to do right by the nation. What are your plans for dealing with this? And when Boasberg tells Roberts he'll appoint an expert adviser to help him, wouldn't Roberts tell him, Fine, Jim, but understand this--your adviser has to be someone who will not be seen as having a partisan axe to grind. You've got to check his tweeting, his blogging, his TV appearances. He can't have taken controversial--and especially not wacky--positions on anything to do with the FISC or FISA or the Russia Hoax.

Is it possible that Roberts never had that conversation? And if didn't, then what species of goof is he? Failure to have done so puts him about on a par with the Wise Latina. Can he be impeached and removed for constitutional malpractice?