Assuming this went down as described, I believe you still need a judge to issue a warrant to get the messages from the carrier. That would require strong evidence that this data is needed for a criminal investigation.
Assuming the DOJ proceeds with an investigation, maybe these texts are recoverable. But I wouldn’t expect anything before that.
I don’t think congressional subpoena would need evidence of a crime. Just a legislative purpose.
You’re right - the committee already issued subpoenas to Verizon for records related to the Capitol attack and for Mark Meadows’ records specifically. In both cases, the requests were contested by the targets, and unless I missed an update, it’s still working its way through the courts.
Reading Verizon’s responses, it sounds like they generally comply with a subpoena, but only after notifying the targets and giving them the opportunity to contest it. So who knows how that would work in this case. Would the Secret Service contest it? Could the individual people?
I’ve read somewhere here that whenever there is ambiguity in a legal contract, and the two parties contest it, the ambiguity is ruled against that party that drafted the contract. If they wanted some clause to be in effect, it was their job to put it in the contract.
Under that same theory, I have no problem assuming the deleted messages to be as damning as possible against the ones who deleted them. If they wanted the messages to exonerate them from any wrongdoing, then they should have kept them.
Secret Service is part of DHS. While the head of the Secret Service is a holdover from the previous administration the Secretary of DHS is a Biden appointee. It seems likely to me Secretary Mayorkas of DHS would direct the Secret Service to comply with any subpoenas that may come along regarding these text messages. The current Director of the Secret Service, James Murray has announced his retirement as of 7.30.22 so he will be gone soon. Even if Republicans in Congress can delay any needed confirmation of a replacement it still strikes me as likely the DHS Secretary can order compliance with a subpoena.
I do not know for certain, but is it possible that delicate government information might not use cell towers but instead go through military satellites the way military secrets are conveyed? I remember when satellite phones were introduced, but those ran through commercial birds. Surely the Secret Service uses highly encrypted governmental communication birds??
I would think that any SS agent that works with, or has contact with the President has Top Secret clearance. They better have that background check for it.
So getting anything from any cell phone carrier or whatever network that is set up, is gonna be difficult at best.
That one’s known as spoliation, and you have the effect of it correct:
Even without decrypting the individual messages, who was where while talking to whom could be useful evidence.
But it’s not the SS that needs to comply. If the SS deleted them, then it’s the carrier who needs to comply.
If the SS as an agency has standing to contest the request, then you’re right that they probably wouldn’t under the current DHS leadership. If the individuals would have standing to contest, then it would be a different situation.
This seemed somewhat questionable to me, for a variety of reasons, so I checked Google. It seems to be a soft rule, when the drafter is a big company with lots of money and fancy lawyers as the drafters, versus a random joe with limited legal counsel.
For most other situations, the rule is not used.
But note that the court must make a finding that the loss of records was “intended” to deprive the other side of records. “We accidentally lost it”, or, “It was deleted as part of routine practice” doesn’t get the spoliation instruction you’ve referenced.
But why does DHS need a subpoena to get their own data from the cell carrier with whom they have a contract? Why can’t they just request it under their contract with the cell carrier?
Secret Service is just a branch of DHS.
Generally they wouldn’t. But likely somebody is playing silly buggers and hoping to get away with it or at least delay/annoy proceedings
ETA: or just incompetent - I would hope the Secret Service and DHS in general were staffed with the best and brightest but the last several years have given lie to this notion repeatedly
Yeah, I used to hold the USSS in very high regard. Between Carol Leonnig’s book and this Ornato guy and other Trumpers, their stock has really plummeted.
“Everything Trump touches dies.”
If the court believes such claims, at least. If the Secret Service “accidentally” lost the messages just from those two days, that doesn’t look like an accident at all.
Oh I certainly agree. But this is a legal hurdle (intent to deprive) that must be met. Simply losing the evidence, no matter how convenient it may be, is not enough to trigger an inference that it was prejudicial to those who lost it.
So what will be the response?
“You don’t have the right to see them.” ?
“They’re deleted. That means they’re really gone!” ?
Long legal battle streaching into who knows when?