You can personally object to it all day long. Doesnt mean its illegal or an abuse of powers. Feel free to contact your congress critter and request they change the law.
But I have a feeling if this was the other way around you guys would be ok with it
Nope. The cat’s out of the bag and “we” will all see where this goes? I believe it’s an abuse of power that can be punished in a court of law? I’m content to say my piece and now watch where this all goes?
You mean. …
Even the modest protections of the ECPA, however, do not apply to Congress’ efforts to obtain phone call log information. In fact, virtually no federal statute applies to Congress, so it is not unusual that the ECPA doesn’t either. Rather, Congress, as a separate, co-equal branch of the federal government, has the power to issue its own subpoenas to compel the production of records and information.
It’s always funny that it’s the same old trip with you…
There is no need for it to fall under criminal…wrong again. Wanna try for strike three? Go ahead punt and talk about how you have no strikes.
There was also no legitimate legislative purpose behind it.
Again, I’m thinking I’ll go with the former Federal Judge and Prosecutor’s call on it.
Literally zero of this will happen because its not reality. You didnt even read what I quoted huh? If you did you would have backed down on this idea of yours…but noooooooooo we always have to double down on these things because there has to be something there…some evil plot
If the subpoena is appropriate in terms of congressional power to investigate and it is not procedurally defective in some way, the only other legal bar to enforcing a congressional subpoena is the assertion of a constitutional privilege or right. The Bill of Rights applies as fully to Congress as it does to the executive branch, and thus the Fourth Amendment can be raised as a bar to a congressional subpoena. But, as the Supreme Court ruled in Smith that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to phone call log information, it doesn’t protect against disclosure of these records.
Your opinion is irrelevant of what you think is legit and what is not. I’ll go with court history vs your tv pundit.
Now recycle some more
I will highlight the hypocrisy of the dems who, with the majority in the House told the Reps to go pound sand, they made the decisions, now turning around and whining about how the Reps won’t take what they want into consideration and to go pound sand.
As usual, libs want it their way every time.
Everyone wants it there way everytime. You, I, my wife, my kids.the dogs and the cats
Yeah, I know. Turn the other cheek, take the high road, etc.
Those old 180’s are coming around faster than I thought
In your “legal opinion” is a criminal subpoena the only type of subpoena?
Do you also agree with Judge Andrew Napolitano’s view as articulated in the link below?
Just for reference for the “civil libertarians” in this thread, AT&T alone, from Jan 2019 - June 2019, received 104,374 subpoenas. Here is a breakdown:
Subpoenas 104,374
Criminal 92,944
Civil 11,430
Verizon received 68,192 subpoenas during the same timeframe…
Subpoenas don’t typically require a judges approval…
“to be first, you must be last”
Do the Senators take an oath at the start of the impeachment trial to be impartial?
What needs to be noted is that the witnesses who should appear in the Senate trial ostensibly would clear Trump. The fact that the Republicans don’t want those witnesses to testify implies that their testimony would not in fact clear Trump; rather their evidence would prove the impeachment case.
In most instances, a subpoena can be issued and signed by an attorney on behalf of a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice law. If the subpoena is for a high-level government official (such as the Governor, or agency head), then it must be signed by an administrative law judge. In some cases, a non-lawyer may issue a subpoena if acting on his or her own behalf (known as pro se representation).
Is it your interpretation that this is not “high-level” enough?
Why do we bother? I just explained Congress has wide berth with this issue and they dont need a judge to sign off…yet you constantly ignore facts for your own reality.
Then you have to take on impeachment and Congress gets even more powers that the courts are not going to ■■■■ with…but yeah let’s all pretend Adam did some shady ■■■■ because we need to constantly process out this sludge.
Innocent people dont hide, but these guys have never been actually innocent. We all know trump hung around mobsters.
Never get your legal advice from a web page titled “What is a Subpoena?”
https://litigation.findlaw.com/going-to-court/what-is-a-subpoena.html
Do Parnas or Giuliani fit either of those categories?
…of “high-level”? That’s what I just asked you? According to the source, a judge’s signature is required under such circumstances. I suspected that was the case and stated that. You disagreed but now what’s being shown, does not appear to support your assertion.
