Ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Ranking member of the Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations Mark Meadows (R-NC) are demanding answers from presiding Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge James Boasberg in regards to the appointment of David Kris to oversee the secret court’s reform process, according to a letter submitted to the secret court by the Republican lawmakers.

“Mr. Kris has frequently defended the FBI’s existing electronic surveillance practices,” the Republican lawmakers wrote. “In February 2018, as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) prepared to release a memorandum of findings about FISA abuses, Mr. Kris boasted about the rigorous process for FISA warrants.”

The lawmakers asked Boasberg to answer a number of questions, including an explanation as to “whether the FISC reviewed and considered Mr. Kris’s writ i ngs and statements about Carter Page and the FBI’s electronic surveillance of Mr. Page prior to appointing Mr. Kris as amicus curiae. If not, please explain why not.”

“The Sara Carter Show” first broke the news on Monday when Rep. Meadows told host Sara A. Carter that the Republican leaders were drafting a letter to send to the secret court judge.

“I can tell you that a few of us, are not only appealing this to the Judge who has now taken over the FISA process but we are also looking at this when it comes to renewing the FISA process within Congress,” Meadows told “The Sara Carter Show.” “Not only did it happen, but it happened deliberately and until we fix it all Americans are at risk,” Meadows warned.

Meadows and Jordan cited several examples of Kris’s bias in their recent letter. Kris has been an open critic of President Donald Trump and is considered an “FBI apologist.” He was selected “to assist the Court in assessing the government’s response” on Jan. 10, according to a letter Boasberg drafted.

“It is critically important that FBI applications accurately and fully reflect information known to the Bureau that is material to those applications,” said Boasberg in his letter.

Meadows and Jordan are asking the judge to submit answers to the following questions by January 30:

Please identify with specificity all the candidates you considered to serve as amicus curiae to assess the government’s response to Judge Collyer’s order dated December 17, 2019.

Please exp lai n whether the FISC reviewed and considered Mr. Kris’s writ i ngs and statements about Carter Page and the FBI’s electronic surveillance of Mr. Page prior to appointing Mr. Kris as amicus curiae. If not, please explain why not.

Please explain whether the FISC reviewed and considered Mr. Kris’s writings and statements about the memorandum issued by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence dated January 18, 2018, prior to appointing Mr. Kris as amicus curiae. If not, please explain why not. Please explain what specific steps the FISC will take to better protect the civil liberties of American citizens who are not represented in ex parte proceedings for electronic surveillance.

Please explain whether the FISC intends to review FBI filings in other matters to determine whether, as Judge Collyer wrote, “the government … provide[s] complete and accurate information in every filing with the Court.”20 If not, please explain why not.

6. Please explain whether you believe that the FISC bears any responsibility for the FBI’s illegal surveillance of Carter Page.

Please explain with detail when the FISC first received any indication that information contained in the FBI’s surveillance applications for Carter Page was misleading or false. Please explain what actions, if any, the FISC took at that time to address the FBI’s misconduct.

Please explain whether the FISC conducted any internal review to examine the accuracy or validity of information contained in the FBI’s surveillance applications for Carter Page prior to the release of the Justice Department OIG’s report. If so, please explain the scope and process of the FISC review and any findings or information it generated.