Right now, federal grand juries are investigating the insurrection

[StarfishSaver]

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]

1. TY for the reminder

[soothsayer]

2. Aren't there right ways and wrong ways? Legal and illegal ways?

I’d want a right and legal way.

[StarfishSaver]

3. Me, too

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]

8. Saying the subpoenas were legal is a half truth, is it not?

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]

13. Yes - the subpoenas were probably legal but improper and an abuse of power

But, that's on Barr and his DOJ, not on Apple, as you indicate.

[triron]

11. My question is: how could they get a grand jury to do this? Jurors are that gullible?

Maybe I just don't understand what a 'grand jury' is.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Grand juries give prosecutors very wide berth

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]

12. I totally understand that it is not up to Apple or Google to decide whether the motivation was

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]

16. The grand jury subpoena was likely legal

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]

18. So, we're down to an illegally obtained legal subpoena. One wonders how many of these are issued

and used to prosecute---and persecute.

[FoxNewsSucks]

4. Your point is made, but

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]

6. Custodians don't get to decide whether to comply with grand jury subpoenas

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]

5. There is "predication" for both of those individuals. I am not aware of any such predication

for either Schiff or Swalwell.

Is not the major problem with the seeking of the orders rather than the compliance with them?

[StarfishSaver]

7. The custodian of the records sought has no role in assessing "predication"

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]

9. You said you are a lawyer.

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]

17. Atticus is right

But using subpoenas as political weapons doesn't make the subpoenas themselves illegal.

[gab13by13]

19. I respect your opinion,

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]

10. I understand that. That's why I mentioned the responsibility of those who SOUGHT

the orders.

[triron]

15. You have more clearly asked what is bothering me.

[Bev54]

20. Yes and I have no problem if they let them know now, after the fact

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.