Just who signs subpoenas anyway???

[Roland99]

I sent a few links re: the DoJ subpoenas of AP phone records to a right-wing acquaintance to show him that judges were involved and it wasn't just the DoJ going willy-nilly after the AP.

His reply: "I don't see where judges were involved."



Uhhhhh....

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Most federal agencies have the power to issue administrative subpoenas.

Depending on what's going on, a judge isn't necessarily required.

[OnyxCollie]

2. He was right.

Holder: Deputy Signed Off on AP Subpoenas
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/16/headlines#5162

Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before Congress on Wednesday amidst controversy over government spying on the Associated Press. The Justice Department has admitted to seizing the work, home and cellphone records of almost 100 AP reporters and editors. The action came as part of a probe into the leaks behind an AP story about how U.S. intelligence thwarted a Yemen-based al-Qaeda bombing plot on a U.S.-bound airplane. Speaking to the House Judiciary Committee, Holder continued to maintain the subpoena was not his decision after having recused himself from the case last year.

Attorney General Eric Holder: "The decision to issue this subpoena was made by the people who are presently involved in the case. The matter is being supervised by the deputy attorney general. I am not familiar with the reasons why the subpoena was constructed in the way that it was, because I’m simply not a part of the case."

Holder went on to confirm the official who signed off on the monitoring was his direct subordinate and longtime friend, Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Asked for his views on a hypothetical scenario in which hundreds of journalists’ phone records are subpoenaed, Holder said he could not rule it out.

[Roland99]

3. great...

see...this is why we needed a REAL A.G. and staff under him. Imagine if RFK, Jr had been A.G?

[Yo_Mama]

4. No judge was involved

Normally it would be the AG, but Holder told Congress yesterday that he had recused himself from the investigation before the subpoena and that he though the Deputy AG had approved it.

DOJ can issue subpoenas on its own. Normally, when a subpoena is issued for phone records they first inform the press of the fact, which allows the press to take it to court for judicial review if they disagree with it. This didn't happen.

The regs governing this process are here:
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/regard-toll-interrogation-indictment-19679461

Much of the dispute is about the fact that they weren't followed (or weren't followed correctly).

[Roland99]

5. So, are we dealing with incompetence or maliciousness?

[Yo_Mama]

7. I'd say it was an attempt to intimidate potential whistleblowers

I read the regs. They were not followed. According to what Holder said in his testimony, the regs could have been followed. He says no, but it is obvious that when you are issuing a subpoena retroactively, following the notice/negotiation procedure in the regs would not prejudice the investigation. The only reason for not doing it would be to prevent AP lawyers from going to a judge to get it quashed as overbroad.

I think this was a very deliberate attempt at intimidation of those that would speak to the press. They even seized the records for the AP phone in the House of Representatives.

Holder also said yesterday that there were other such subpoenas that had been issued.

Those regs have been in effect since the 1980s. It is true that they are internal regs and contain a provision that they are not meant to provide legal rights, but the fact is the regs were drawn up to prevent abuses that infringed upon the constitutional right to freedom of the press. This has been commonly understood for decades, and now all of sudden this is thrown out?

I don't see any reason why a free people should accept this.

Holder has prosecuted government whistleblowers very aggressively. This is not the first protest that has been made. Here's a flipping BLOOMBERG article from last year:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-18/obama-pursuing-leakers-sends-warning-to-whistle-blowers.html

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/obamas-whistleblowers-stuxnet-leaks-drones
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/war-whistleblowers-robert-greenwald-s

Thus, we are heading ever further down a continuum that leads to tyranny.

At the end of the Bush administration it looked like we were pushing back somewhat against the trend (for example, with the 2007 resumption of FISA having to issue all foreign wiretaps), but now we have proof that in fact we regressed astonishingly.

This is not a partisan issue, no matter how much some may believe it is. It touches upon the very basic function that a free press has in a democracy. I don't think the GOP truly does care very much about this issue - heaven help us all if the Democratic party decides it doesn't.

[BlueCheese]

6. I had the same confusion.

The above posters are correct-- many federal agencies can issue administrative subpoenas.