Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-04-2019, 09:47 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573

legal questions on Dems spying on Giuliani


Giuliani is Trump's personal attorney, and the Democrats revealed they obtained some of Giuliani's phone records in the recent Impeachment Inquiry Report. Some questions:
1. Did they need a warrant?
2. Did they have a warrant?
3. Did it violate attorney client privilege?
4. Can Trump invoke a "fruit of the poisoned tree" legal manuever?
5. What exactly was in the obtained records?
6. Can Giuliani file a lawsuit, and against who?
7. What can he do to figure out who to sue?

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 12-04-2019 at 09:51 AM. Reason: demon whispers
  #2  
Old 12-04-2019, 09:58 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Are you proposing that criminals like Rudy have legal recourse to stop investigations into them?

Do you propose that non-Republicans have the same right to stop investigations -- like, say, can Hunter Biden sue Rudy?
  #3  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:03 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Are you proposing that criminals like Rudy have legal recourse to stop investigations into them?

Do you propose that non-Republicans have the same right to stop investigations -- like, say, can Hunter Biden sue Rudy?
This is General Questions, not Elections.
  #4  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:08 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Oops, I lost track. Apologies.
  #5  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:12 AM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 6,113
AT&T didn't specifically mention a subpoena, but they said that they were "required by law" to produce the records requested by Congress.
__________________
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy when it's used to argue against a concept. But it's perfectly appropriate when your point is that someone is an asshole. TonySinclair
  #6  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:21 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Can Trump invoke a "fruit of the poisoned tree" legal manuever?
In what proceeding? Congress is only bound by "legal maneuvers" to the extent that it relies on the courts to do work for it. You can't go to court to dismiss an impeachment because you think they did it wrong.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 12-04-2019 at 10:23 AM.
  #7  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:36 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Giuliani is Trump's personal attorney, and the Democrats revealed they obtained some of Giuliani's phone records in the recent Impeachment Inquiry Report. Some questions:
1. Did they need a warrant?
2. Did they have a warrant?
3. Did it violate attorney client privilege?
4. Can Trump invoke a "fruit of the poisoned tree" legal manuever?
5. What exactly was in the obtained records?
6. Can Giuliani file a lawsuit, and against who?
7. What can he do to figure out who to sue?
No, no, no, no, numbers and times, anyone he wants (but he'll lose), just make it up because any lawsuit would be baseless.
  #8  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:48 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,683
Answers below mixed in with your questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Giuliani is Trump's personal attorney, and the Democrats revealed they obtained some of Giuliani's phone records in the recent Impeachment Inquiry Report. Some questions:
1. Did they need a warrant?

No. Congress has the authority to issue subpeonas. I'm sure that's what they used.

2. Did they have a warrant?

I doubt it. They aren't criminal investigators and they can rely on their subpeona.

3. Did it violate attorney client privilege?

Not to my knowledge. Privileged information only covers communications between a lawyer and his client for the purpose of receiving legal advice and which they have kept confidential. The phone records are a list of phone numbers Giuliani called, a list of phone numbers that called him, and meta data about the calls such as how long the calls lasted and where the phone was at the time (e.g., to which fell phone tower it was connected). That is all information the phone company has, so it wasn't confidential between Giuliani and his client, and none of it is information that was conveyed between lawyer and client for the purposes of getting legal advice.

4. Can Trump invoke a "fruit of the poisoned tree" legal manuever?

No. There is no violation of Giuliani's rights and Trump lacks standing to assert rights for Giuliani. Group's rights have not been violated. This doesn't even involve a criminal proceeding in which the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would be relevant.

5. What exactly was in the obtained records?

Described above.

6. Can Giuliani file a lawsuit, and against who?

He can sue anyone he wants for any reason but he has no apparent grounds for a suit.

7. What can he do to figure out who to sue?

he should learn something about the law because he is an idiot who apparently knows nothing about it.
  #9  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:50 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,697
"What can Giuliani do about Democrat's SPYING on him? And please, no political jabs !"

Last edited by Ludovic; 12-04-2019 at 10:51 AM.
  #10  
Old 12-04-2019, 10:54 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Can anyone comment on whether the speech and debate clause would protect a congressional investigation from a lawsuit against a valid subpoena? I mean, on top of the subpoena being presumably valid.
  #11  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:19 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,944
Courts say yes if it involves a legitimate legislative purpose. From Wiki:

Quote:
As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.

The Court held in Eastland v. United States Servicemen's Fund[8] that Congressional subpoenas are within the scope of the Speech and Debate clause which provides "an absolute bar to judicial interference" once it is determined that Members are acting within the "legitimate legislative sphere" with such compulsory process. Under that ruling, courts generally do not hear motions to quash Congressional subpoenas; even when executive branch officials refuse to comply, courts tend to rule that such matters are "political questions" unsuitable for judicial remedy. In fact, many legal rights usually associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena. For example, attorney-client privilege and information that is normally protected under the Trade Secrets Act do not need to be recognized.
  #12  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:21 AM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 43,837
While there are factual questions involved, the OP is so free ranging (and also contains a political jab in the title) I think this is better for Elections.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

Last edited by Colibri; 12-04-2019 at 04:06 PM.
  #13  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:39 AM
TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 41,478
None of those questions are about the Dems spying on Giuliani since that never happened.
  #14  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:56 AM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
Trumpers have this desperate need to find that magic bullet that will make this all go away. Newflash: There is not going to be a technicality that causes all of this disappear. I know that accountability for one's actions is anathema to Republicans in regards to other Republicans, but none of their theories will nullify the corruption and wrongdoing that has been cataloged. They tried this with the Carter Page FISA warrant, the Steele dossier, Mueller's "conflicts of interest", the whistleblower speaking to House Intel staffers and being directed to the proper channels to report, now I guess the latest is spying on Giuliani. It's desperate flailing, that's all it is.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #15  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:14 PM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Trumpers have this desperate need to find that magic bullet that will make this all go away.
The magic bullet is when Mitch McConnell says it's all fine "because fuck you, that's why."
  #16  
Old 12-04-2019, 12:18 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
The magic bullet is when Mitch McConnell says it's all fine "because fuck you, that's why."
Well then the voters get the ultimate say. Both for POTUS and for the Senators that abandoned their constitutional duty. If that still isn't enough, then I guess we live in an authoritarian dictatorship.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #17  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:01 PM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snarky_Kong View Post
The magic bullet is when Mitch McConnell says it's all fine "because fuck you, that's why."
We need to put the Republicans on record as saying "because fuck you, that's why". History needs to judge these monsters.
  #18  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:51 PM
friedo's Avatar
friedo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
1. Did they need a warrant?
No.

Quote:
2. Did they have a warrant?
No.

Quote:
3. Did it violate attorney client privilege?
No.

Quote:
4. Can Trump invoke a "fruit of the poisoned tree" legal manuever?
No.

Quote:
5. What exactly was in the obtained records?
Call logs (who called whom and when and for how long.)

Quote:
6. Can Giuliani file a lawsuit, and against who?
Anybody can sue anyone for any reason they want. If Guiliani does so he is unlikely to win. Congress's subpoena and oversight power is very broad and no privileged information was obtained.

Quote:
7. What can he do to figure out who to sue?
Hire a lawyer, then get laughed out of court.
  #19  
Old 12-04-2019, 01:54 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,334
Quote:
We need to put the Republicans on record as saying "because fuck you, that's why"....
They don't say "Fuck", kinda doubt they even do it. Ewww! Sorry.

Last edited by elucidator; 12-04-2019 at 01:55 PM.
  #20  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:07 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
They don't say "Fuck", kinda doubt they even do it. Ewww! Sorry.
Unless they are in an airport men's room.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes

Last edited by Airbeck; 12-04-2019 at 02:07 PM.
  #21  
Old 12-04-2019, 02:29 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,114
Federal law provides the basis to get access to these records without a warrant, although a court order is usually required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 USC 2703
(c)Records Concerning Electronic Communication Service or Remote Computing Service.—
(1)A governmental entity may require a provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service to disclose a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications) only when the governmental entity—
(E)seeks information under paragraph (2).
(2)A provider of electronic communication service or remote computing service shall disclose to a governmental entity the—
(A)name;
(B)address;
(C)local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
(D)length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
(E)telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
(F)means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number),
of a subscriber to or customer of such service when the governmental entity uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena or any means available under paragraph (1).
(3)A governmental entity receiving records or information under this subsection is not required to provide notice to a subscriber or customer.
(d)Requirements for Court Order.—
A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation. In the case of a State governmental authority, such a court order shall not issue if prohibited by the law of such State. A court issuing an order pursuant to this section, on a motion made promptly by the service provider, may quash or modify such order, if the information or records requested are unusually voluminous in nature or compliance with such order otherwise would cause an undue burden on such provider.

Last edited by Moriarty; 12-04-2019 at 02:32 PM.
  #22  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:17 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Unless they are in an airport men's room.
(Ewww!)²
  #23  
Old 12-04-2019, 03:28 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,114
So I accidentally posted before ready (stupid work, keeping me busy)...the point I was trying to make with quoting the federal law regarding obtaining phone records is that it requires decidedly less than the probable cause required by the 4th amendment. How so? Remember that they don't get the records from the person who claims that it is private information but from the third party phone carrier who is not likely to invoke any claims of privacy.

From the statute, note the standard, which is certainly less than 'probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime':
Quote:
A court order for disclosure under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a wire or electronic communication, or the records or other information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation.
  #24  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:31 PM
RioRico is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airbeck View Post
Well then the voters get the ultimate say. Both for POTUS and for the Senators that abandoned their constitutional duty. If that still isn't enough, then I guess we live in an authoritarian dictatorship.
Yes, "voters get the ultimate say" - IFF they haven't been disenfranchised, suppressed, or their votes discarded or miscounted. Those ALLOWED to vote and be counted "get the ultimate say".

Meanwhile, the thread title is bullshit sad. It's not US Dems but Albanian dwarves who are tracking Rudy. Look, there goes one now!
  #25  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:35 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moriarty View Post
So I accidentally posted before ready (stupid work, keeping me busy)...the point I was trying to make with quoting the federal law regarding obtaining phone records is that it requires decidedly less than the probable cause required by the 4th amendment. How so? Remember that they don't get the records from the person who claims that it is private information but from the third party phone carrier who is not likely to invoke any claims of privacy.

From the statute, note the standard, which is certainly less than 'probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime':
IANAL but I don't think that statute applies, since there are no courts involved here. The phone records are sought be Congress.
  #26  
Old 12-04-2019, 04:52 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,696
Maybe this is a good time to pause for the OP to return and agree that these points are all correct, the Democrats weren't spying on Rudy, etc., and thank you all for the clarification and information.
  #27  
Old 12-04-2019, 06:20 PM
Moriarty's Avatar
Moriarty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Posts: 3,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
IANAL but I don't think that statute applies, since there are no courts involved here. The phone records are sought be Congress.
Indeed you are correct, and thanks for that!

But my - clumsily made - point still stands, I think. The law does not hold disclosure of phone records from a third party provider to the standard of the 4th amendment, wherein probable cause and a search warrant are required.

So, the OP is off base in thinking that there was some constitutional violation that occurred when congress got a hold of Giuliani's phone logs.
  #28  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:17 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Maybe this is a good time to pause for the OP to return and agree that these points are all correct, the Democrats weren't spying on Rudy, etc., and thank you all for the clarification and information.
I really hope Santa finally gives you that pony you've been wanting for so long.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #29  
Old 12-05-2019, 09:54 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I really hope Santa finally gives you that pony you've been wanting for so long.


I guess my concern is that keeping this thread alive (which I acknowledge I'm now doing), which started with a major misunderstanding on the OP's part, no doubt because his news sources aren't that great, only spreads the misinformation in the title.

In a perfect world, the OP would come back and acknowledge that his information sources were wrong on this one, thank everyone, and request that this thread be closed. In this world, I'm not hopeful, but I'm sure that we'll keep it going by bickering over details, none of which back up the OPs point.

Anyway, I probably won't be back to this thread. I'll be busy with my pony!
  #30  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:08 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
"What can Giuliani do about Democrat's SPYING on him? And please, no political jabs !"
"Do the spineless, hate filled Democrats who are wasting time and money investigating the completely innocent and big handed Donald Trump, have to even pretend to follow the law or can they get away with whatever they want to do, those idiotic bastards?

Please, no partisanship."

Last edited by Hamlet; 12-05-2019 at 10:09 AM.
  #31  
Old 12-05-2019, 11:58 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,950

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired and Cranky View Post
Answers below mixed in with your questions.
Please do not respond to posts inside the Quote tags.
That is a violation of board rules.
Look at friedo's post #18 for guidance on one way t provide responses.

From the Registration agreement:
Quote Box – Do not modify another poster’s words inside the quote box. For SDMB posters, the quote must be accurate, whether displayed using [QUOTE] tags or ordinary quotation marks. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses "..." or devices such as [snip]. You may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., "her [the sister's] friend"), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as "some blather" or "more nonsense" inside the [QUOTE] tags or quotation marks. We encourage accurate quoting of off-board individuals in a serious discussion; links are recommended. If it becomes apparent you're derailing a discussion with fake or misleading quotes of off-board individuals, we reserve the right to take action. Unattributed parody quotes are permitted in all forums provided they don't violate other SDMB rules. In the BBQ Pit forum only, parody quotes may be attributed to a parody username, provided that (a) the parody username is obviously satirical - we'll be the judge of obviousness; and (b) no other rules are violated. Quotes attributed to parody usernames are not permitted in other forums.

No malice intended, so no Warning issued. Please do not do this again.

[ /Moderating ]

Last edited by tomndebb; 12-06-2019 at 12:00 AM.
  #32  
Old 12-06-2019, 09:08 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post


I guess my concern is that keeping this thread alive (which I acknowledge I'm now doing), which started with a major misunderstanding on the OP's part, no doubt because his news sources aren't that great, only spreads the misinformation in the title.

In a perfect world, the OP would come back and acknowledge that his information sources were wrong on this one, thank everyone, and request that this thread be closed. In this world, I'm not hopeful, but I'm sure that we'll keep it going by bickering over details, none of which back up the OPs point.

Anyway, I probably won't be back to this thread. I'll be busy with my pony!
Or maybe I didn't misunderstand. Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal asserts Schiff's subpoena occured before it was legally justified:

Quote:
Strassel at the Wall Street Journal notes: “Mr. Schiff claims the ignominious distinction of being the first congressman to use his official powers to spy on a fellow member and publish the details.” She adds, quoting former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, that Schiff’s subpoena may have broken the law. Phone carriers cannot divulge call records without an individual’s consent, except for a legitimate law enforcement purpose: this was not.

Schiff ordered the phone records on Sep. 30, but the House impeachment inquiry was not properly authorized until Oct. 31, so he cannot claim the subpoena was justified. Strassel adds, citing constitutional law expert David Rivkin, that anyone swept up in Schiff’s phone snooping might have the right to sue.
(The quote is from
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...-on-opponents/
since the original Strassel article was behind a paywall for me.)

So SDMB legal eagles, is Strassel right?
  #33  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:10 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
So SDMB legal eagles, is Strassel right?
No.
  #34  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:18 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Or maybe I didn't misunderstand. Kimberly Strassel at the Wall Street Journal asserts Schiff's subpoena occured before it was legally justified:



(The quote is from
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...-on-opponents/
since the original Strassel article was behind a paywall for me.)

So SDMB legal eagles, is Strassel right?
I'm not going to click on a Breitbart link, nor do I have a WSJ subscription. I also have no reason to delve into the idiotic rhetoric of "spy", "properly authorized", "may have", and "might have".

What I will say, based only on the facts I know to be true, is that the whistleblower complaint was filed August 12th, the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees announce an investigation into Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine and the administration’s decision to halt aid on September 9th, Schiff subpoenaed Joseph Maguire to turn over the whistleblower complaint on September 13th, Pelosi announced support for the impeachment inquiry on September 24th, and the whistleblower complaint was "declassified" on September 26th. All of those occurred before Strassel's alleged date of the subpoena as September 30th. I know of nothing in the law that says the investigative powers of the House committees can only be used once an impeachment inquiry becomes "properly authorized". Do you?

Last edited by Hamlet; 12-06-2019 at 10:18 AM.
  #35  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:24 AM
Snarky_Kong is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,476
Breitbart is a neonazi propaganda site and Kim Strassel is a bad-faith reporter.

You'd ask better questions if you had better news sources.
  #36  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:30 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
I'm not going to click on a Breitbart link, nor do I have a WSJ subscription. I also have no reason to delve into the idiotic rhetoric of "spy", "properly authorized", "may have", and "might have".

What I will say, based only on the facts I know to be true, is that the whistleblower complaint was filed August 12th, the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees announce an investigation into Giuliani’s efforts in Ukraine and the administration’s decision to halt aid on September 9th, Schiff subpoenaed Joseph Maguire to turn over the whistleblower complaint on September 13th, Pelosi announced support for the impeachment inquiry on September 24th, and the whistleblower complaint was "declassified" on September 26th. All of those occurred before Strassel's alleged date of the subpoena as September 30th. I know of nothing in the law that says the investigative powers of the House committees can only be used once an impeachment inquiry becomes "properly authorized". Do you?
No, my knowledge of the law about all of this is scant.
That's why I asked my original General Question. From a layman's perspective:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Inquiry was kicked off with a formal vote, but the other stuff you cited wasn't. So: the Inquiry may have had the necesary legal muster to justify a subpoena that wasn't there when the phone records were subpoenaed. Can any SMDB legal experts cite the legal code on that?

When is someone going to accuse Strassel of being a Russian agent? LMAO (Sorry couldn't resist a joke.)
  #37  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:40 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
No, my knowledge of the law about all of this is scant.
That's why I asked my original General Question. From a layman's perspective:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Inquiry was kicked off with a formal vote, but the other stuff you cited wasn't. So: the Inquiry may have had the necesary legal muster to justify a subpoena that wasn't there when the phone records were subpoenaed. Can any SMDB legal experts cite the legal code on that?

When is someone going to accuse Strassel of being a Russian agent? LMAO (Sorry couldn't resist a joke.)
Your questions about the law have already been answered. See posts number 7, 8, 11, 18, and 21 at least. Can you at least read those and narrow down your questions to whatever remains to be answered in your mind? If you don't know the law, then these will explain it to you. If you do know the law and want to argue against what was posted, please do that (but that would call into question your quoted post). The other posters responded with the law -- do you accept those responses? What other open questions do you have if these are closed? Can you state them without the partisan jabs about Russian agents?
  #38  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:41 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,944
I envisioned random Democrats seeing Rudy out there and phoning it in to some central HQ in kind of a "Where in the world is Rudy Giuliani?" thing.
  #39  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:49 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
No, my knowledge of the law about all of this is scant.
That's why I asked my original General Question. From a layman's perspective:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the Inquiry was kicked off with a formal vote, but the other stuff you cited wasn't. So: the Inquiry may have had the necesary legal muster to justify a subpoena that wasn't there when the phone records were subpoenaed. Can any SMDB legal experts cite the legal code on that?
The power of the legislature to issue subpoenas is not contained in a singular legal code.

"While there is no express provision of the Constitution or specific statute authorizing the conduct of congressional oversight or investigations, the Supreme Court has firmly established that such power is essential to the legislative function as to be implied from the general vesting of legislative powers in Congress." From here.

“In short, there can be no question that Congress has a right—derived from its Article I legislative function—to issue and enforce subpoenas, and a corresponding right to the information that is the subject of such subpoenas. Several Supreme Court decisions have confirmed that fact.” Committee on the Judiciary v. Miers, 558 F. Supp. 2d 53, 84 (D.D.C. July 31, 2008).

As to the breadth of that power, the Supreme Court stated: "[t]he scope of [Congress’s] power of inquiry ... is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.” Eastland v. US Serviceman's Fund.

Finally: "The investigative power, the Court stated, “comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.”20 “[T]he first Congresses” held “inquiries dealing with suspected corruption or mismanagement by government officials”21 and subsequently, in a series of decisions, “[t]he Court recognized the danger to effective and honest conduct of the Government if the legislative power to probe corruption in the Executive Branch were unduly hampered.”22 Accordingly, the Court now clearly recognizes “the power of the Congress to inquire into and publicize corruption, maladministration, or inefficiencies in the agencies of Government.”23 From the above article.
  #40  
Old 12-06-2019, 10:54 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Your questions about the law have already been answered. See posts number 7, 8, 11, 18, and 21 at least. Can you at least read those and narrow down your questions to whatever remains to be answered in your mind? If you don't know the law, then these will explain it to you. If you do know the law and want to argue against what was posted, please do that (but that would call into question your quoted post). The other posters responded with the law -- do you accept those responses? What other open questions do you have if these are closed? Can you state them without the partisan jabs about Russian agents?
Well, 21 is about a criminal investigation, and I'm not sure this technically is one now, and even less so before the vote establishing the Inquiry. The only other cite in all the posts you cite that seems relevant is:
Quote:
As announced in Wilkinson v. United States,[7] a Congressional committee must meet three requirements for its subpoenas to be "legally sufficient." First, the committee's investigation of the broad subject area must be authorized by its chamber; second, the investigation must pursue "a valid legislative purpose" but does not need to involve legislation and does not need to specify the ultimate intent of Congress; and third, the specific inquiries must be pertinent to the subject matter area that has been authorized for investigation.
So what is the chamber and when did they authorize it?
  #41  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:01 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Well, 21 is about a criminal investigation, and I'm not sure this technically is one now, and even less so before the vote establishing the Inquiry. The only other cite in all the posts you cite that seems relevant is:


So what is the chamber and when did they authorize it?
Can you go step by step, like the other posters did and refute their responses please? Also, did you see Hamlet's post? Also, you only reference post 21, but I mentioned many other posts -- can you address those as well?
  #42  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:08 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
Can you go step by step, like the other posters did and refute their responses please? Also, did you see Hamlet's post? Also, you only reference post 21, but I mentioned many other posts -- can you address those as well?
That would be busy work. I assign you the task of understanding why my most recent question is where the thread is now: What is the chamber and when was the vote?
  #43  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:10 AM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,553
Presumably the "chamber" being referred to is either the House of Representatives or the Senate. And the vote was, presumably, when the committee was established and given its authority. In the case of the House Intelligence Committee, this would have been in the 1970s. Any other questions?

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 12-06-2019 at 11:10 AM.
  #44  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:16 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
So what is the chamber and when did they authorize it?
As I've already pointed out, 3 different house committees were involved in the investigation: House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees. As to when they authorized it, your cite indicates it was September 30th (I don't know myself), which, once again, was after those committees announced their investigation into the holding up of the aid to Ukraine.
  #45  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:22 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
Presumably the "chamber" being referred to is either the House of Representatives or the Senate. And the vote was, presumably, when the committee was established and given its authority. In the case of the House Intelligence Committee, this would have been in the 1970s. Any other questions?
That woud be a very broad "broad subject area". Where is their enumeration of those broad subject areas written? Until your post I thought the "broad subject area" would have to be "Trump/Ukraine". But I think you are saying back in the 1970's the house voted to issue subpoenas in such a broad manner that it could be used here. Again, point me to the text.
  #46  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:24 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
That would be busy work. I assign you the task of understanding why my most recent question is where the thread is now: What is the chamber and when was the vote?
I'm not actually confused on this issue, so I'm not interested in doing your research for you. However, since Hamlet and Dewey Finn were helpful enough to answer your questions, are you all set now? Are you re-evaluating your reliance on Breitbart for news and facts, given how wrong they've steered you here?
  #47  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:28 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
That woud be a very broad "broad subject area". Where is their enumeration of those broad subject areas written? Until your post I thought the "broad subject area" would have to be "Trump/Ukraine". But I think you are saying back in the 1970's the house voted to issue subpoenas in such a broad manner that it could be used here. Again, point me to the text.
Is this a thing with you? To just keep asking idiotic questions until people get tired of responding to you? And, when those idiotic questions are actually answered (We've covered the power of Congress to issue subpoenas, already), you simply ask the same damn question a different way?

Asking for a friend.
  #48  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:36 AM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,944
As far as I can tell, the question is moot.

Various committees issued multiple subpoenas to executive branch personnel starting back in October. Most of the recipients voluntarily complied. Some did not. I'm not aware of Congress proceeding to act on those rejecting the subpoenas, however. They did not compel any testimony or arrest those in contempt. I cite the legal principle of "no harm, no foul."

The House as a whole since did authorize the actual impeachment proceedings. Any forthcoming subpoenas are valid under any interpretation.

I understanding that this talking point is found everywhere in right-wing channels. It's just talk, intended to delegitimize the impeachment in the eyes of the public. There will not be, nor can there be, any legal action taken on a non-issue. The sole purpose is to raise anger and fool the gullible.
  #49  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:43 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,532
But what about the magic word? Did they use the magic word before engaging in the nefarious spying?
(Coming soon: gold fringe- required?)
  #50  
Old 12-06-2019, 11:44 AM
Hamlet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Where the Wild Things Are
Posts: 14,652
US Committee on Oversight.

Fun story:

"In 1997, the Republican majority on the committee changed its rules to allow the chairman, Dan Burton (R-Indiana), to issue subpoenas without the consent of the committee's ranking Democrat.[11] From 1997 to 2002, Burton used this authority to issue 1,052 unilateral subpoenas, many of them related to alleged misconduct by President Bill Clinton, at a cost of more than $35 million.[12]

By contrast, from 2003 to 2005, under the chairmanship of Tom Davis (R-Virginia), the committee issued only three subpoenas to the Bush administration.[12]

After Republicans retook the House in the 2010 elections, the new chairman, Darrell Issa (R-California), escalated the use of subpoenas again, issuing more than 100 in four years during the Obama administration.[13] That was more than the combined total issued by the previous three chairmen—Davis, Henry Waxman (D-California), and Edolphus Towns (D-New York)—from 2003 to 2010."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017