General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRight now, federal grand juries are investigating the insurrection
If one or more of them subpoenaed phone records of Marjorie Taylor Greene or Paul Gosar or other Republican Members as part of the investigation to determine whether they were involved in it, would anyone here want Apple or Google to refuse to comply?
empedocles
(15,751 posts)soothsayer
(38,601 posts)Id want a right and legal way.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But it's not up to Apple or Google to decide whether the motives behind a subpoena issued by a grand jury are right and legal.
The problem is with the subpoenas at issue is not that they were illegal. They were perfectly legal and within the power of the prosecutor to obtain. The problem is that that power was abused. That's not an issue that can be litigated by the third-parry custodian of the records sought can litigate.
gab13by13
(21,337 posts)What laws are on the books that govern these subpoenas? The last set of "rules" were written under the Obama administration. It is proper to investigate leaks of classified information and for you to say the subpoenas were legal is probably correct but did they violate DOJ rules? Was there probable cause, was there information, facts that warranted a subpoena of Schiff and a subpoena of Swalwell? It appears to me that these subpoenas were fishing expeditions trying to uncover dirt on 2 of MF45's political opponents, to bring them down. Not illegal, but not following DOJ guidelines.
I do agree with you that Apple had no choice in the matter.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But, that's on Barr and his DOJ, not on Apple, as you indicate.
triron
(22,002 posts)Maybe I just don't understand what a 'grand jury' is.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)It's not a trial but an investigation. And usually, when a prosecutor tells a grand jury it needs information for an investigation, the grand jury will authorize it.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)appropriate. But, I do not know how you come to your conclusion that the orders were "perfectly legal".
Are you saying that prosecutors in fact furnished sufficient predication? If so, what was it and how do you know?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)The request for it was probably an abuse of power.
Kind of like a president taking a bribe to grant a pardon. The pardon is within his power and will be legal, but he can still be charged with bribery or obstruction of justice.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)and used to prosecute---and persecute.
FoxNewsSucks
(10,429 posts)it's common knowledge that traitor green and the insurrectionists are the criminal's, with the request being made by a law-abiding admin. Adam Schiff is honorable, not a criminal, and the request was made by a sleazy grifting conman's admin.
So it's not exactly the same situation. It'll be interesting to see the media coverage. The coverage of Apple's behevior then and now shaped a lot of the comments people have made.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)based on their own assessments of whether the persons targeted are "criminals" or "honorable people."
Under your analysis, a phone company headed by a right winger could refuse to comply with grand jury subpoena for Marjorie Taylor Greene's phone records on the basis that they think the Biden administration is sleazy and engaging in a witch hunt against Greene whom they see as the salt of the earth.
That's not how the law or the criminal justice system works. And if anyone tried to argue to a judge that that was an appropriate cause for defying the subpoena in the resulting contempt of court proceedings, they'd likely be marched right off to jail.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)for either Schiff or Swalwell.
Is not the major problem with the seeking of the orders rather than the compliance with them?
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 11, 2021, 07:33 PM - Edit history (1)
But you're right - the problem is on the prosecutors, nor Apple.
gab13by13
(21,337 posts)I understand Atticus to mean that there was no predication to authorize the subpoenas. DOJ has rules that there must be evidence, a predication, before subpoenas are allowed or supposed to be issued. No predication makes the subpoenas political weapons.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)But using subpoenas as political weapons doesn't make the subpoenas themselves illegal.
gab13by13
(21,337 posts)and I have this stupid question. Everyone on cable news is saying how terrible, how unprecedented this is; my question; so if it is determined that MF45 directed Sessions/Barr to get dirt on his political adversaries without predication, what law was violated? MF45 did as much or more damage by violating norms, customs, rules than by violating laws. I mean abuse of power is an impeachable offense but I don't believe it is an actual law.
Atticus
(15,124 posts)the orders.
triron
(22,002 posts)Bev54
(10,052 posts)They only needed those days leading up to the insurrection, day of and maybe a few weeks after. They should already have it and I would love it to be leaked so we all know something is being done.