If he's not, then he shouldn't be able to get away with claiming Sovereign Immunity to avoid turning over to Judicial Watch the records pertaining to Schiff's secret subpoenas for phone records that Schiff issued during his Impeachment Theater. Those subpoenas led to the publication of the private phone records of Rudy Giuliani, Congressman Devin Nunes, journalist John Solomon, Trump attorney Jay Sekulow, attorney Victoria Toensing, and others.
Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit under the common-law right of public access to examine government records after it received no response to a December 6, 2019, records request (Judicial Watch v. Adam Schiff and U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (No. 1:19-03790).
Judicial Watch announced today [March 19, 2020] that Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the lawsuit against them for the controversial impeachment-related subpoenas for phone records, including those of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer. Schiff and the Committee are being represented by the Office of General Counsel for the House of Representatives.
In their 14-page motion Schiff and the Committee claim “sovereign immunity;” “Speech or Debate Clause” privilege; immunity from FOIA and transparency law; that the records are secret; and that Judicial Watch and public do not need to see them.
...
“Schiff’s new court filing to try to avoid disclosing his abusive subpoenas of confidential phone records suggests he and Congress can secretly subpoena and publish the phone records of any American with zero accountability under law to the people,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Speaker Pelosi and every House member should be asked if they agree that they are above the law and can spy on any American.”
To me, I think Fitton has a strong case against a claims of an increasingly imperial minded Dem House. Congress undoubtedly has investigative powers, but it is not a law enforcement branch of the government. We'll see whether the courts are intimidated.
And he has the audacity to say the things that he says while trying to hide under a cloak of immunity. He arguably violated the civil rights of those names you mentioned above.
ReplyDeleteWe seem to be less citizens and more subjects of this country.
Presumably the FOIA incorporates exceptions to disclosure that doesn't include that requested by Judicial Watch, so Schiff needs a creative theory for his exception. It'll be interesting to see how the courts deal with this. Schiff's claims, in part, sound preposterous.
ReplyDeleteThere's a real question whether Schiff's 'subpoenas' were in fact lawful.
DeleteI have long suspected Schiff's "subpoenas" weren't really subpoenas, but rather "cover-his-ass" letters that appear to be subpoenas, and which recipients may well have ignored.
DeleteHis reason for sending them out is if he received the phone call metadata illegally, such as a leak from SDNY. The "subpoena letters" simply are placeholders for how he really got his dirty hands on the records.
AFAIK, he may have never even sent the letters; but merely pretended to have done so, so no one would question how he got the metadata.
The harder he fights to not let anyone check into what really happened, and how he really got the data, the more I suspect my hunch is right.
As I recall, there was not a vote in the House for formal impeachment to begin. Rather, Nancy Pelosi declared her own Impeachment Inquiry. Thus the committee chairmen could only issue “requests” for testimony and documents. There may have been threats of subpoenas for those who did not comply with the “requests”, but formal court-ordered subpoenas could not be issued.
DeleteSchiff bolstered his committee by hiring lawyers from Lawfare; Nadler did the same. They managed the impeachment inquiry effort and were believed to have even composed the Eric Ciaramella’s faux whistleblower complaint letter. As diabolical as Schiff can be, he surely let Lawfare plan and stage manage all of the steps he took.
He had Ciaramella, who’d been aide to McMaster (removed from the WH for leaking) for quite a while. McMaster had placed Ciaramella in a position where he was said “to see and hear everything”. He had Vindman, who, with his brother an NSC lawyer, did the same. He surely had a number of other leaking former Obots in the White House. With Lawfare’s assistance, the impeachment was pieced together.
Some of us Southern Californians have known Schiff for far too long. He was a state legislator in our area for a few years; then was elected to Congress. He has hung on there since 2001. For most of that period, we were in his district. We hated him. But there weren’t enough of us to defeat him. He is a really bad man. Ambitious, greedy, covetous (he really wants to be president) … I would put nothing beyond him. Along the way Nancy Pelosi became his benefactor. She may have believed this ruthless man could be a great help to her...
All true. I believe the courts will have to push back to the current Dem drive to establish their House as the seat of government--an Imperial Congress. Self preservation dictates it.
DeleteTwo thoughts:
ReplyDelete1) So much for those long ago civics lessons touting the People as sovereign.
2) Aren't these the same folks saying, "It's foolish to think anyone needs a MAW (Militia Assault Weapon) because 'Trust us'?"
Tom S.
And yet he, Maxine, and Feinstein were just re-elected, and with quite a majority.
ReplyDeleteWhat the H is wrong with people?
The Democrats currently have a greater number of registered voters than either the Republicans or those registered No Party Preference. Schiff’s and Maxie’s districts are heavily Democrat. Because of a change in how primaries work, the top two vote-getters are in the runoff. Lately they have both been Democrats. Add to all this the fact that we have had some incredibly weak Republican candidates, and the story writes itself.
Delete