Is the FISA court upset about its misuse by the FBI in the Russian collusion hoax?

John Solomon:

Silence of 'the lambs': The deafening quietude of the FISA court and John Roberts

...
This week, Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the conservative firebrand who, along with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), has driven the once reluctant House leaders to dig for much of the aforementioned evidence, sent his own missive to U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer. She is chief judge of the FISC.

His letter asked the obvious question: As a separate and equal pillar of government from Congress and the executive branch, does the judiciary have concerns with the FBI’s and DOJ’s conduct?

“Based on our investigation and open source information, the FISC may have not lived up to the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in approving U.S. citizens targeted without probable cause,” Meadows wrote. “We write to encourage you to investigate the possibility that FISA has recently been weaponized for political means.”
...
But a troubling whisper has begun inside the Justice Department. “FISAs aren’t required to include exculpatory evidence,” one official told me on background in a recent text message.

That emerging sentiment should alarm all of us, no matter our political stripe.

A court that excludes legal representation for the accused almost certainly will fail to protect civil liberty if it isn’t allowed to see proof of innocence or evidentiary flaws.
...

If the hearings do not require basic fairness, then Congress needs to take a new look at the statutes authorizing the FISA courts.