Adam Schiff Subpoenas Phone Records of His Political Rivals

 

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA)

There’s a lot of attention being paid to this impeachment theater, but why isn’t there more outrage about Adam Schiff’s subpoena of the phone records? I know Congress has the power of subpoena, but a conventional subpoena has to go through a court where probable cause must be demonstrated. Is there no restriction if Congress does it?

Schiff subpoenaed the records of a fellow member of Congress (Devin Nunes), a journalist (John Solomon), and the president’s personal lawyer (Rudi Giuliani).

Not only was Schiff trampling on due process and the Fourth Amendment, but he threw in the First Amendment, separation of powers, and attorney client privilege as well.

The victims need to sue and take this all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Justice demands that Congress should demonstrate the same level of probable cause that a prosecutor would have to show, or our rights as citizens mean nothing.

If Schiff can disregard the rights of those people, what chance do you and I have?

Published in Politics
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    Hang On

    All of this scaffolding was started under the Bush administration and Republicans went along with it and abetted it. 

    Explain that statement, please.

    • #31
  2. Guruforhire Inactive
    Guruforhire
    @Guruforhire

    I Walton (View Comment):

    What amazes me is that all the Democrats I hear or know, are not outraged by the whole process. I didn’t realize what kind of danger we’re facing from ordinary Democrats. Those with Federal power have shown their colors for years, but this is scary.

    Yes this is the actual problem.

    The fact that this is partisan AT ALL, is a wrecking ball to the viability of the republic.

    • #32
  3. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Hindsight is, of course, 20/20.  Most of the difficulties the president is now facing can be directly attributed to the moment he took office when the Dems and Nevers colluded to bring down the administration by the tolerance of moles and outright enemies of Trump within the White House and other areas of government, particularly the State Department which was heavily staffed by Clinton people.  Although he hasn’t drained the swamp, he has certainly exposed it as we watch the unelected bureaucrats influencing the coup currently taking place in the halls of Congress.

    • #33
  4. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    JesseMcVay: I know Congress has the power of subpoena, but a conventional subpoena has to go through a court where probable cause must be demonstrated. Is there no restriction if Congress does it?

    The restriction is that the legislative branch has to figure out a way to enforce it when the target refuses to comply.

    If the subpoena is directed at the named individuals, they just thumb their noses at Schiff. If the subpoena is directed at a telephone company or other external holder of records, the telephone company will probably refuse to comply. Most of its incentives are to refuse to comply. If the telephone company did comply, then the telephone company would lose lots of customers as those customers worry about the privacy of their information. Compliance would also set up a precedent that could generate a significant administrative burden for the telephone company, if the legislative body then starts demanding telephone records for a lot of people. If the telephone company does respond, it is most likely to be a suit in a regular court to demand a court ruling that the telephone company is not obligated to provide the information demanded by the subpoena.

    . . . 

    Just because some government entity or agency demands information from a citizen does not mean the citizen must provide that information. Congress demanded from then-Attorney General Holder information about gun-running to Mexico, Holder refused to provide the information, Congress cited Holder for contempt-of-Congress, and Holder is running around freely and the information was never provided to Congress.

    . . .

    I now see that AT&T did hand telephone call records over to Rep. Schiff without even a nod to concerns about the privacy of its customers. So much for my confidence in the telephone company’s incentives to provide at least the appearance of supporting its customers. I will need to rethink my current AT&T mobile phone plan, and my plan to switch to AT&T internet service. 

    Did Rep. Schiff threaten AT&T with adverse legislation to get the records (otherwise known as extortion)? 

    • #34
  5. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    I now see that AT&T did hand telephone call records over to Rep. Schiff without even a nod to concerns about the privacy of its customers. So much for my confidence in the telephone company’s incentives to provide at least the appearance of supporting its customers. I will need to rethink my current AT&T mobile phone plan, and my plan to switch to AT&T internet service. 

    Did Rep. Schiff threaten AT&T with adverse legislation to get the records (otherwise known as extortion)? 

    The most recent issue of Smithsonian magazine has a brief article about how AT&T held up the use of automatic answering machines for 50 years, because it thought they could also be used to record conversations, which capability would cut down phone use by 1/3, according to one of their estimates.  They thought their customers valued their privacy. 

    • #35
  6. DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Type Monkey
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    I now see that AT&T did hand telephone call records over to Rep. Schiff without even a nod to concerns about the privacy of its customers. So much for my confidence in the telephone company’s incentives to provide at least the appearance of supporting its customers. I will need to rethink my current AT&T mobile phone plan, and my plan to switch to AT&T internet service. 

    AT&T remains the only company that had me shouting at multiple customer service reps over the phone. I mean, my Rico-persona aside, I am generally a calm and collected individual. But AT&T had me stomping around the house yelling into the phone for about a half hour straight.

     

    • #36
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.