Deal To End Shutdown Lets GOP Senators Sue Biden’s DOJ For J6

[Valletta]

The bill, which passed the Senate on Monday night, includes language that would allow eight Republican senators to sue the Justice Department for alleged privacy violations after their phone records were subpoenaed during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2023 investigation. The provision retroactively makes it illegal, in most cases, for federal investigators to obtain a senator’s phone data without notifying them—and allows those affected to seek up to $500,000 per violation, plus legal fees and costs according to Reuters.

NEW: Deal To End Shutdown Lets GOP Senators Sue Biden’s DOJ For J6

Legislation moving through Congress that aims to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history contains a clause that could hand several Republican senators large payouts tied to the Biden administration’s investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. The bill, which passed the Senate on...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

I missed this part of the bill. The money isn't important, what I hope is that eventually the facts will come out and people will be held accountable so that never again will the power of the executive branch be so abused in going after political opponents. One intelligence agency was caught illegally spying on a friend of mine, there was just one small article in the news and it was just an overall attitude of boys will be boys.

 

[Nithavela]

Sounds like the government is going to sue itself and then settle with itself.

 

[Valletta]

Sounds like the government is going to sue itself and then settle with itself.

The future is my concern. Judge Boasberg should be impeached and convicted and those involved should be prosecuted.

 

[Nithavela]

The future is my concern. Judge Boasberg should be impeached and convicted and those involved should be prosecuted.

Do you agree in principle with things "retroactively" being made illegal?

It is my impression that in most cases, things can only be made illegal from the moment the law is passed.

What about non-senators? Shouldn't they have similiar protection afforded to them?

 

[Valletta]

Sounds like the government is going to sue itself and then settle with itself.

There's already an obvious Constitutional violation, I haven't seen the wording but I believe it can only help them in pursuing the extent of the violation.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

There's already an obvious Constitutional violation,

Is there though? Prosecutors requested a subpoena, got one based on showing probable cause, and collected the information that the subpoena allowed them to. Your disagreement with the prosecution's argument doesn't make it unconstitutional.

 

[Valletta]

Is there though? Prosecutors requested a subpoena, got one based on showing probable cause, and collected the information that the subpoena allowed them to. Your disagreement with the prosecution's argument doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I understand if multiple witnesses comes in and in says a senator is taking bribes, they want to catch the senator in the act. Still, given that Congress oversees the executive branch they need pretty solid evidence to move forward against even one U.S. Senator and secretly use subpoenas. In this situation, for events from well in the past. they ended up secretly surveilling 430 individuals and entities, including nine United States senators. Nine senators, each a political opponent of the administration, including senators who had uncovered a good deal of executive branch misconduct. Donor lists and phone records were included, and President Trump was also added. Of the 430 you would expect the evidence to be stronger against some and less against others, but 430 were so compelling as to issue secret subpoenas. How many convictions? Zero. How many indictments based on pursuing all of this massive evidence worthy of secret subpoenas? Zero. We've already uncovered how the executive branch improperly colluded with social media to stop Trump from getting elected, putting out known false stories. In this case it surely looks like the separation of powers clause was violated by executive branch officials who had politics dominating their actions rather than evidence.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I understand if multiple witnesses comes in and in says a senator is taking bribes, they want to catch the senator in the act. Still, given that Congress oversees the executive branch they need pretty solid evidence to move forward against even one U.S. Senator and secretly use subpoenas.

I don't see how that follows. At any rate, the judge apparently thought that the evidence was solid enough to issue the subpoenas. And, generally speaking, subpoenas of phone records are always "secret" in the sense that the cops don't tell you that they're doing it.

In this situation, for events from well in the past. they ended up secretly surveilling 430 individuals and entities, including nine United States senators. Nine senators, each a political opponent of the administration, including senators who had uncovered a good deal of executive branch misconduct. Donor lists and phone records were included, and President Trump was also added.

Given that the alleged crimes being investigated involved all of these people, I think that's pretty normal.

Of the 430 you would expect the evidence to be stronger against some and less against others, but 430 were so compelling as to issue secret subpoenas. How many convictions? Zero. How many indictments based on pursuing all of this massive evidence worthy of secret subpoenas? Zero.

Yes, we know - the cases against Trump were all dropped once he won the presidency again. That doesn't mean that they didn't have merit.

In this case it surely looks like the separation of powers clause was violated by executive branch officials who had politics dominating their actions rather than evidence.

In your totally unbiased opinion, of course. Explain - how does this violate the separation of powers?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Sounds like the government is going to sue itself and then settle with itself.

You sound disappointed that corruption is meeting accountability.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I don't see how that follows. At any rate, the judge apparently thought that the evidence was solid enough to issue the subpoenas. And, generally speaking, subpoenas of phone records are always "secret" in the sense that the cops don't tell you that they're doing it.

Given that the alleged crimes being investigated involved all of these people, I think that's pretty normal.

Yes, we know - the cases against Trump were all dropped once he won the presidency again. That doesn't mean that they didn't have merit.


In your totally unbiased opinion, of course. Explain - how does this violate the separation of powers?

Great! So you would be totally fine with Trump spying on ANTIFA activists and illegal aliens to prosecute and deport, should he follow the same protocols used against conservative parents speaking out against liberal school boards.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"The provision retroactively makes it illegal,"

Constitution says:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

 

[Nithavela]

"The provision retroactively makes it illegal,"

Constitution says:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Is that part of the constitution that has been replicated in the Trump Bible?

Anyway. I'm sure the GOP can find enough democratic support to ammend that part of the constitution.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Great! So you would be totally fine with Trump spying on ANTIFA activists and illegal aliens to prosecute and deport, should he follow the same protocols used against conservative parents speaking out against liberal school boards.

I have no legal issues with anyone following the law.

 

[Valletta]

I don't see how that follows. At any rate, the judge apparently thought that the evidence was solid enough to issue the subpoenas. And, generally speaking, subpoenas of phone records are always "secret" in the sense that the cops don't tell you that they're doing it.

The judge has the right to present evidence at his impeachment trial to try and to justify the subpoenas. The fact that no indictments can after surveillance of 430 people does not bode well for him. It is possible, however, that the evidence presented to the judge was falsified.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The judge has the right to present evidence at his impeachment trial to try and to justify the subpoenas.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself - no one has even brought articles of impeachment against him yet (edit - actually, looks like someone did), which would then need to pass the House before going to a trial in the Senate. Regardless, this isn't about the judge. You're claiming that the subpoenas were illegal and violated the constitution. If you make that claim, you need to demonstrate it.

The fact that no indictments can after surveillance of 430 people does not bode well for him.

Why not? We've already established that the cases were dropped for political reasons. Also, not really "surveillance" - they got records of call time, duration, and numbers dialed for specific, past, dates. Surveillance implies real-time monitoring.

 

[Valletta]

I think you're getting ahead of yourself - no one has even brought articles of impeachment against him yet (edit - actually, looks like someone did), which would then need to pass the House before going to a trial in the Senate. Regardless, this isn't about the judge. You're claiming that the subpoenas were illegal and violated the constitution. If you make that claim, you need to demonstrate it.

‘Arctic Frost’ Scandal: 51% Favor Impeaching Judge Boasberg

A narrow majority of voters agree with impeachment proceedings against a federal judge involved in the Biden administration’s “Arctic Frost” investigation that secretly targeted Republicans in Congress.

www.rasmussenreports.com

We will see how the country reacts as more information is forthcoming.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The bill, which passed the Senate on Monday night, includes language that would allow eight Republican senators to sue the Justice Department for alleged privacy violations after their phone records were subpoenaed during Special Counsel Jack Smith’s 2023 investigation. The provision retroactively makes it illegal,

Retroactively? That'll withstand a court challenge, I'm sure.

in most cases, for federal investigators to obtain a senator’s phone data without notifying them—and allows those affected to seek up to $500,000 per violation, plus legal fees and costs according to Reuters.

NEW: Deal To End Shutdown Lets GOP Senators Sue Biden’s DOJ For J6

Legislation moving through Congress that aims to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history contains a clause that could hand several Republican senators large payouts tied to the Biden administration’s investigation into the Jan. 6 Capitol breach. The bill, which passed the Senate on...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

I missed this part of the bill. The money isn't important,

If the money isn't important, why not cap it at $1?

what I hope is that eventually the facts will come out and people will be held accountable so that never again will the power of the executive branch be so abused in going after political opponents.

lol, seriously?

Is there any Republican corruption you guys won't swallow?

One intelligence agency was caught illegally spying on a friend of mine,

sure they were

 

[RocksInMyHead]

‘Arctic Frost’ Scandal: 51% Favor Impeaching Judge Boasberg

A narrow majority of voters agree with impeachment proceedings against a federal judge involved in the Biden administration’s “Arctic Frost” investigation that secretly targeted Republicans in Congress.

www.rasmussenreports.com

We will see how the country reacts as more information is forthcoming.

Public opinion is largely meaningless when it comes to impeachment. Or do you think that President Trump should be impeached too? After all 52% of Americans support the idea (at least back in April - it may be higher now): https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-...americans-support-impeachment-rc-aso-memo.pdf