Jan. 6 rally organizers sue Verizon to block release of cell phone data to congressional committee

[brooklynite]

Source: Politico

Four organizers of the Jan. 6 rally filed a lawsuit Monday against Verizon, in an attempt to prevent the telecommunications company from releasing cell phone data with the congressional select committee investigating the attack on the Capitol.

In their lawsuit, Justin Caporale, Tim Unes, Megan Powers and Maggie Mulvaney argued the committee doesn’t have the proper authority to obtain the data. The Jan. 6 committee’s subpoena to Verizon, requesting, call, text and location information “lacks a lawful purpose and seeks to invade the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to privacy and to confidential political communications,” the suit says.

The suit says the plaintiffs have personally complied with the committee’s investigation, sitting for “lengthy” interviews and providing “thousands of documents to Congressional investigators.”

“The Plaintiffs are four private citizens who were not involved in any federal government activities or programs. They have only one apparent connection to the matter Congress claims to be investigating: They served as vendors to help staff a peaceful, lawful, orderly and patriotic assembly to promote First Amendment-protected speech,” the suit says.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/13/jan-6-rally-organizers-sue-verizon-524189

---

Isn’t there a saying: “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide”?

[Walleye]

1. Wait, they are saying there is a constitutional right to privacy

Republican legislator today in Texas just said the right to an abortion was made up out of whole cloth. It was based on the right to privacy

[underpants]

3. I caught that too

[Walleye]

5. Good. Glad I wasn't the only one. Too bad the Supremes don't listen

[bucolic_frolic]

2. The investigation has a lawful purpose & "peaceful, lawful, orderly and patriotic" it sure wasn't

So this is just bluster if you ask me

[Fullduplexxx]

4. Shills for congress critters

They have no standing

[Takket]

6. dumb legal question.........

if they think the committee doesn't have the right to their phone records, don't they have to sue the committee? How can they sue Verizon? Verizon has just been asked for the records, they have no dog in the fight. If I rob a Wendy's and the camera at the bank next door catches me running away, and the police ask for the tapes from the bank, i can't sue the bank and say "the police have no right to ask for your camera". Can I???

[oldsoftie]

21. You COULD, but as the post below yours says, it'll likely get tossed in a few minutes.

Hell, the committee probably already HAS the records!

[Takket]

7. whelp... this should be dismissed in about 5 seconds.........

https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/06/the-feds-dont-need-to-tell-you-or-get-a-warrant-to-collect-your-emails-and-phone-records/

from 2019:

Americans began querying how Schiff could have obtained the phone call records for the report. Some speculated that a secret warrant had been sought for them, that someone at the carrier (AT&T) had leaked them, that the National Security Agency had been tasked with obtaining them, or that a federal agency had issued a “natsec” letter to acquire them for the intelligence committee.

In reality, the government can obtain these records without taking any such extraordinary measures — and no judge even need be involved for Congress to get them. It can simply send a subpoena to the carrier.

This seemingly astonishing explanation exists because under current law, these records are not protected by any warrant requirement. First, based on Supreme Court precedent, obtaining these records is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.

In Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), the court said Americans did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the information showing who they spoke to on the telephone because the phone company possessed that information. With no reasonable expectation of privacy in that information, the court concluded police didn’t need a warrant to obtain it.

[Orrex]

10. Lol. Love it!

[Talitha]

13. Sweet!!!!!!!!

Thanks for this info!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

8. Fuck 'em

As one who made a career in the communication's business (Including 10 years with Verizon) law enforcement can subpoena call records provided they go through the proper channels.

You're right. As the conservatives always like to say, “You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide.”

[tishaLA]

9. The fire's getting hot, huh?

I love when people tell on themselves like this.

[Orrex]

11. "If I'd known you were gonna catch me, I wouldn't have talked about it on my cell."

[sinkingfeeling]

12. What is it that you're so desperate to hide?

[jalan48]

14. How long before this is decided and the Committee gets the information?

[gab13by13]

17. Exactly.

Steve Bannon's indictment was cut and dried yet his trial isn't until the middle of July, which he will probably appeal if he is convicted.

[jalan48]

18. Our problem is that Democrat's could become the minority party in a little more than a year.

The comparison to Watergate doesn’t apply. The Democrats were solidly in control of Congress , plus back then there were moderate Republicans. No one was afraid Nixon loyalists would take control and stop the investigation. We have a very short time frame to make something happen and the longer it drags out the less chance it has of succeeding.

[monkeyman1]

15. do the word treason hit home ! the noose is on the other neck now !!!

[gab13by13]

16. It is their strategy, Delay Delay Delay.

[William Seger]

19. We need to find out who is paying their lawyers (n/t)

[Historic NY]

20. Fuck around find out...

[Linda Ed]

22. When it comes to National Security

and committing a crimes, violence and murder on the U. S. Capitol ,,,you get the records ,,,no question..it's not a first amendment issue. First Amendment does not protect Trump from liability for his failure to act once his rally speech set serious federal crimes in motion.

[berniesandersmittens]

23. Mulvaney

Now where have I heard this name before?.....