Lord Spare Me From Ignorant Prating On The Intertoobs

 JMM is filling in the blanks with ignorance:

2/ I'll add to calling this "nothing". This was a well-predicated, completely legal and appropriate investigative techique for people who were demonstrably involved in or adjacent to the jan 6 attack and broader attempt to overturn the 2020 election. That doesn't mean their involvement was itself ..

3/ criminal. But that's never the standard in this kind of case. These were wire taps. They were reviewing call logs. An essential part of the investigation. So there's simply no way in which these senators are victims of some kind of prosecutorial abuse. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that ..

Nope. 🙂‍↔️ Not even. Not hardly.

The call records subpoenaed by Jack Smith are “public records” under 4th amendment jurisprudence. They are records maintained (and made) by the common carrier. The holder of the phone number has no privacy interest in them, as they don’t involve content information. Content IS generated by the user, and does create privacy protections that can be overcome by a court upon sufficient evidence and legal grounds. (“Legal grounds” is the point non-lawyers flounder on. Courts may examine facts closely, but they do so only to determine the proper application of the law to those facts. Non-lawyers strain at gnats and swallow camels by ignoring the legal issues (of which they are ignorant) and grinding the facts exceeding fine, thinking they are doing “legal analysis.” This is the primary problem with the “shadow docket” rulings: the Supremes pay attention to one fact (who is POTUS?) and ignore the law altogether. Ironies abound.)

Smith got the records via subpoenas. A subpoena is a court order directing a third party to act under pain of punishment (“sub poena”) for noncompliance. Smith didn’t snatch those records from the offices of the phone companies. A court ordered their release. Smith got the records so he could examine witnesses and be sure they weren’t lying, by omission or commission, about who they called, when. Such information is not protected by the 4th amendment; though under questioning you might want to invoke the 5th.

But you shouldn’t get paid $1 million for doing so.

As ever, criminal prosecutions are not tough enough on the usual suspects, but are excessive and tyrannical when equally applied to the rich and powerful. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.” It also forbids the rich facing a different process than the poor. But the rich really don’t like that.