The Biden Administration okayed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing congressional phone records knowing the subpoenas were unconstitutional ...

[toobfreak]

The Biden Administration okayed Special Counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaing congressional phone records knowing the subpoenas were unconstitutional

Where were all of the federal district judges in putting a stop to it?

 

[Crepitus]

He thinks sitting US Senators are going to destroy phone records that are in the custody of the phone company? WTF?

Of course you don't find that unreasonable, you consider anyone that disagrees with your cult's dogma to be a "trumpling."

He thinks RWNJs will try to destroy anything linked to those calls.

And he's likely right, since the next honest tRumpling will be the first honest tRumpling.

And you know that's why they are pissed off. They didn't get enough warning to delete anything.

 

[Rawley]

He thinks RWNJs will try to destroy anything linked to those calls.

And he's likely right, since the next honest tRumpling will be the first honest tRumpling.

And you know that's why they are pissed off. They didn't get enough warning to delete anything.

Tell me Creepyasfuck. How do Senators Marsha Blackburn, Lindsey Graham, Bill Hagerty, Josh Hawley, Ron Johnson, Cynthia Lummis, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Tommy Tuberville go about destroying internal records at AT&T?

Do these Trumplings of yours have magical powers that none of us mere mortals possess?

Boesberg is a left wing scumbag hatchetman and has no business sitting on any bench.

 

[otto105]

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.

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.” ​

​

...​

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

False

 

[struth]

Demafacist gonna demafascist.

 

[excalibur]

 

[berg80]

So, the Biden junta was the fascist they and Dems accuse others of being.

GFY.

Jack Smith's attorneys defend special counsel's analyzing GOP lawmakers' phone data as "lawful"

Attorneys for former special counsel Jack Smith called his actions "entirely lawful, proper and consistent with established Department of Justice policy."

www.cbsnews.com

 

[jknowgood]

Feel free to prove that.

There are plenty of them, we need to get rid of them.

 

[Crepitus]

There are plenty of them, we need to get rid of them.

Can't prove it, huh?

As expected.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The warrants and subpoenas were fine.

Cult pap.

 

[jknowgood]

Can't prove it, huh?

As expected.

They are stopping Trump from deporting illegals. Why didn't they do it with Obama, dumbass?

 

[TimFitz]

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.

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.” ​

​

...​

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

This essay contains a number of dubious assertions.

“

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.” ​

The operative words here are”(3) destruction of or tampering with evidence; (4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.” ​

​

All of those behaviors were openly evident in the conduct of the Trump regime. Documents and evidence regularly disappear. Evidence still is openly tampered with. deliberate omissions followed by cover up are more or less standard zone has no farther to look than the Epstein case). The history of Trumps lies, obfuscations also support the way the subpoena was carried out.​

​

The fact that virtually all of the GOP Congressional leadership was read into the plot is not in dispute either. Several were active co conspirators.​

 

[TimFitz]

I'm sure you think that means something but all I see is pissed off tRumplings tryinh to get revenge, which has been the theme song for this entire worthless, fucked up, administration.

This is also a noise machine campaign to rewrite history and portray themselves as victims.

They have mounted efforts to excuse Jan 6th again. This is not the only wordy but dubious argument. There is an even more ridiculous and self serving one in the Wall Street Journal.

 

[TimFitz]

He thinks sitting US Senators are going to destroy phone records that are in the custody of the phone company? WTF?

Of course you don't find that unreasonable, you consider anyone that disagrees with your cult's dogma to be a "trumpling."

Yes he does.

Trump regime officials engage in this kind of behavior routinely.

Obstruction of Justice is a Trump thing.

And since many of the GOP Congressional leadership was read in to the insurrection scheme, and quite a few participated in the false electors scheme (a which was designed to compliment the mob attack), there is every reason to expect that several sitting USSenators and Congressmen tried to do just thst.

 

[Rawley]

Yes he does.

Trump regime officials engage in this kind of behavior routinely.

Obstruction of Justice is a Trump thing.

And since many of the GOP Congressional leadership was read in to the insurrection scheme, and quite a few participated in the false electors scheme (a which was designed to compliment the mob attack), there is every reason to expect that several sitting USSenators and Congressmen tried to do just thst.

Stop being such a tool for your masters. You know why they didin't give you names of any GOP COngressmen that have ever destroyed phone records? Because there are none.

This is absurd and this asshole should be impeached.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

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.” ​

​

...​

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

If all of this is true, seems like Biden was up to a lot of shenanigans

 

[Oddball]

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.

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.” ​

​

...​

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