excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 28,372
- 57,349
- 2,290
So, the Biden junta was the fascist they and Dems accuse others of being.
Makes perfect sense, the left always accuses others of what they themselves do and are doing.
thefederalist.com
Makes perfect sense, the left always accuses others of what they themselves do and are doing.
The Biden Administration okayed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing congressional phone records knowing the subpoenas were unconstitutional, emails released last week revealed. That same trove of documents also established the illegality of the nondisclosure orders issued by the courts to prevent the telecommunication providers from alerted the members of Congress of the unconstitutional seizure of their toll records.
Last week, as the nation turned its attention ahead to travel and turkey, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released another two dozen documents related to the Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing of congressional phone records. A May 17, 2023 email from the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice to Smith’s team proves explosive, with the Public Integrity Section “concur[ring] in the subpoenas for toll records for the identified Members of Congress.”
This email may represent the first public evidence that the Biden Administration’s DOJ knew the special counsel’s office planned to subpoena congressional Republicans. But the scandal is even greater because in “concurring” in Smith’s use of subpoenas to target communications of members of Congress, the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section expressly acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the proposed course of action.
“As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a Member’s legislative calls violates the Speech or Debate Clause in the D.C. Circuit,” Principal Deputy Chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section John Keller wrote in a May 17, 2023 email to two top members of the special counsel’s team. Significantly, that email then cited the controlling precedent of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, 497 F.3d 654, 662 (D.C. Cir. 2007), citing that appellate court decision’s holding that under the Speech or Debate Clause, “[t]he bar on compelled disclosure is absolute.” That email also cited In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589, 594 (3d Cir. 1978) as establishing “[t]he caselaw is clear that a legislator asserting the invasion of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege by use of a grand jury subpoena to a third party may intervene and oppose such use.”
Notwithstanding the clarity of the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Rayburn House Office Building, “that a search that allows agents of the Executive to review privileged materials without the Member’s consent violates the [Speech or Debate] Clause,” the Biden Administration agreed with Special Counsel Smith’s decision to subpoena the congressional Republicans’ telephone records. The oxymoronically named Public Integrity Section justified its concurrence based on its “understanding of the low likelihood that any of the Members listed below would be charged,” and therefore “the litigation risk should be minimal here.”
In other words, the Biden Administration ignored Smith’s blatant violation of congressional Republicans’ constitutional rights under the Speech or Debate Clause because the special counsel’s office was unlikely to criminally charge any of the congressional Republicans — and therefore, there was little “litigation risk” that a court would exclude the unconstitutionally seized evidence.
That the Biden Administration’s DOJ and the special counsel’s office viewed the subpoenaed congressional Republicans as uninvolved in any of the supposed criminal activity under investigation related to the 2020 election proves significant for a second reason: Several federal judges or magistrates entered nondisclosure orders under the Stored Communications Act, meaning the telecommunication providers were directed not to “disclose the existence of the Subpoena to any other person (except attorneys for PROVIDER for the purpose of receiving legal advice).”
But the Stored Communications Act authorizes a nondisclosure order only if a judge finds there is “reason to believe” that notifying an individual of the subpoena would result in “(1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (2) flight from prosecution; (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence; (4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.”
...
Last week, as the nation turned its attention ahead to travel and turkey, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released another two dozen documents related to the Arctic Frost investigation into President Donald Trump and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing of congressional phone records. A May 17, 2023 email from the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice to Smith’s team proves explosive, with the Public Integrity Section “concur[ring] in the subpoenas for toll records for the identified Members of Congress.”
This email may represent the first public evidence that the Biden Administration’s DOJ knew the special counsel’s office planned to subpoena congressional Republicans. But the scandal is even greater because in “concurring” in Smith’s use of subpoenas to target communications of members of Congress, the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section expressly acknowledged the unconstitutionality of the proposed course of action.
“As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a Member’s legislative calls violates the Speech or Debate Clause in the D.C. Circuit,” Principal Deputy Chief of the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section John Keller wrote in a May 17, 2023 email to two top members of the special counsel’s team. Significantly, that email then cited the controlling precedent of United States v. Rayburn House Office Building, 497 F.3d 654, 662 (D.C. Cir. 2007), citing that appellate court decision’s holding that under the Speech or Debate Clause, “[t]he bar on compelled disclosure is absolute.” That email also cited In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589, 594 (3d Cir. 1978) as establishing “[t]he caselaw is clear that a legislator asserting the invasion of the Speech or Debate Clause privilege by use of a grand jury subpoena to a third party may intervene and oppose such use.”
Notwithstanding the clarity of the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Rayburn House Office Building, “that a search that allows agents of the Executive to review privileged materials without the Member’s consent violates the [Speech or Debate] Clause,” the Biden Administration agreed with Special Counsel Smith’s decision to subpoena the congressional Republicans’ telephone records. The oxymoronically named Public Integrity Section justified its concurrence based on its “understanding of the low likelihood that any of the Members listed below would be charged,” and therefore “the litigation risk should be minimal here.”
In other words, the Biden Administration ignored Smith’s blatant violation of congressional Republicans’ constitutional rights under the Speech or Debate Clause because the special counsel’s office was unlikely to criminally charge any of the congressional Republicans — and therefore, there was little “litigation risk” that a court would exclude the unconstitutionally seized evidence.
That the Biden Administration’s DOJ and the special counsel’s office viewed the subpoenaed congressional Republicans as uninvolved in any of the supposed criminal activity under investigation related to the 2020 election proves significant for a second reason: Several federal judges or magistrates entered nondisclosure orders under the Stored Communications Act, meaning the telecommunication providers were directed not to “disclose the existence of the Subpoena to any other person (except attorneys for PROVIDER for the purpose of receiving legal advice).”
But the Stored Communications Act authorizes a nondisclosure order only if a judge finds there is “reason to believe” that notifying an individual of the subpoena would result in “(1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (2) flight from prosecution; (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence; (4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.”
...
Jack Smith Intentionally Violated Republicans' Constitutional Rights
New docs released by Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed that Special Counsel Jack Smith intentionally violated congressional Republicans' rights.
thefederalist.com
