Sources: The American Spectator.
The author claims that Nancy Pelosi’s J6 committee is unconstitutional in two ways. First, because it’s composition violates the rules that govern the formation of the committee. Second, because the committee has issued “general search warrants” that the Constitution expressly forbids (4th Amendment).
The claims seem legitimate to me and I hope the reported lawsuits prove successful. You’d think, however, that Congress would avoid unconstitutional behavior as a matter of course.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Here is some advice . . . Don’t hold your breath.
What we have here are losing losers whose criminal enterprise failed now trying to cover their tracks. It is not going to work. They have to answer for what they did. Politically, for sure and maybe criminally for some. It is the later that is likely the reason for their unwillingness to tell what they know. Conspiracy to overthrow the government by violence is actually a crime.
Side note, the source of your “information” currently has another article celebrating the departure of Chris Wallace from Fox News. And another article declaring that Lynn Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are . . . wait for it . . . Fascists. In other words, Mr. Roberts, your source is not trustworthy.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not trustworthy? Why, because you say so?
I notice that you don’t address the constitutional issues my post and the source focus on. Moving the goalposts makes you not trustworthy in my view.
I notice, too, that you assume the subjects of the committee’s investigation are guilty of crimes. Witch hunters and kangaroo courts think that way, and they are epitomes of being not trustworthy.
LikeLike
Is the 4th Amendment a trustworthy source? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 4th Amendment
OK, What is the probable cause for a general search of hundreds of people’s cell phone records?
Who has provided the oath or affirmation that there is criminal information on the particular phones?
and most of all, what particular thing is to be seized? Random embarrassing information about your political opponents does not count, you have to be able to specify what you expect to find that is related to the probable cause.
The committee’s general search warrants meet none of these tests.
LikeLike
“OK, What is the probable cause for a general search of hundreds of people’s cell phone records?”
Wait until you hear about what goes on at protests. Type the words “stingray phone tracker” into your search engine of choice and tell us what you learn.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You really ought to do more research before making your categorical statements. As a matter of fact, the state of the law on Legislative subpoenas – as opposed to law enforcement – is not what you think it is. It is a complicated area with a lot of nuances. I found this article which I thought was helpful. . .
https://www.justsecurity.org/78314/congress-access-to-individuals-private-communications-the-jan-6-committees-troubling-precedent/
If you read the article you will learn that “the Supreme Court has not addressed a Fourth Amendment objection to a congressional subpoena since it decided McPhaul v. United States in 1960.” McPhaul refused to submit to subpoenas of the HUAC committee and was convicted of criminal contempt. SCOTUS let his conviction stand. What goes around comes around.
Regardless of the real question of Fourth Amendment protections, The American Spectator is a joke of a site and not to be trusted by anyone with any sense. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, that would be the point of going to court then, wouldn’t it?
Smart phones did not exist at the time of McPhaul, and they are more than phones, they are the equivalent of giant filing cabinets filled with private information.
IMO, they are exactly what the 4th Amendment protects. If there were not an expectation of privacy, they wouldn’t have passcodes.
LikeLike
You are welcome to your opinion.
There are arguments both ways. See the article linked to above for both sides. Plus, nobody with any sense really believes that what they do on social media, through the air and over the internet is safe or private.
Further, there are requests versus demands for disclosures. So far as I am aware, phone companies have been requested to preserve data and not much more. That would be so that proper procedures for accessing such data can be organized and approved buy a court. Seems reasonable to me.
Again I am reminded of the timeworn legal adage . . . If the facts are against you, argue the law.
LikeLiked by 2 people
…” what you expect to find that is related to the probable cause.”…
So says the dentist not Constitutional scholar.
And the crime of Conspiracy to commit (insert felony here) is an automatic 10years in Club Fed. A riot at the Capitol to stop the legal counting of electoral ballots shows plenty of probable cause for those involved in the potential planning of said autoglope.
And remember that Congress can only REFER for criminal prosecution; the DOJ has the final say. You can ask Mr. Bannon and Mr. Meadows (potentially) about that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The American Spectator has devolved into a pro-Trump, anti-American caca factory. Same as The venerable Claremont Institute.
LikeLike
Perhaps you can be specific?
LikeLike
You don’t read what you post?
If you can’t see it, Dr. Semantics, then you truly are a blind Trumpist with no gift for original thought.
LikeLike
Benghazi went on for years with 7 hearings, subpoenas, and testimony.
It was about the administration events and responses concerning a terrorist attack on American government and American soil.
It was bipartisan, just like 1/6 investigation, but the Democrats had no problem assigning members. But opposition members were, and are currently, present in both investigations.
The 1/6 is about a planned terrorist attack on Congress in session doing the governments work in order to force an unconstitutional action by a sitting VP. Now we know the attack caused both members of Congress, family members, as well as conservative administration boosters at FOX to beg, implore, and demand action by the sitting POTUS to stop the violence and they were ignored.
Meadows, et.al. Have decided to ignore the committee and are pleading a blanket Fifth without showing up. I think that is illegal. But the idea is to first protect themselves for the complicit actions broaching treasonous behavior but also to blunt the investigation long enough to keep 1/6 out of the voters memories. Unfortunately for the coup plotters, the released texts make that pretty much impossible.
The more we learn, the more 1/6 is looking like a deliberate attempt to overturn a legal, transparent and fair election that has been scrutinized from here to the political galaxy with virtually zero evidence of fraud. Except by a handful of Trump followers voting for dead relatives.
Autogolpe may not be in our legal lexicon, but the overthrow of the government, extortion of election officials, and sending gangs to assault Congress in session certainly are.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The 1/6 is about a planned terrorist attack on Congress in session doing the governments work in order to force an unconstitutional action by a sitting VP.”
Sure. Let’s just assume every subject of investigation is guilty and require them to prove their innocence. And, while we’re waiting for Congress to complete it’s illegal prosecution, we’ll just keep a bunch of the protesters/political prisoners in a D.C. gulag without trial.
LikeLike
Congress is engaged in fact finding. It is NOT a prosecutor. That is just dopey blather.
Almost as dopey as referring to COURT decisions on holding a few of the most dangerous and violent offenders as a gulag. As a matter of fact, accused and especially non-white people are routinely held longer and in far worse conditions before trial than any of these terrorists has had to endure. It is wrong but they are not being singled out as whiny “conservatives” are claiming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Congress is engaged in fact finding. It is NOT a prosecutor.”
If you say so, but your say isn’t worth a hill of beans. Fact finding and a fishing expedition are just different names for the same thing.
LikeLike
It is not my say so. Duh. Congress cannot prosecute crimes. Period. You just got it wrong when referring to their “illegal prosecution.” Why not admit it?
The legitimate role of Congress to investigate the conduct of government officials and members of Congress is not in question as you seem to have understood very well when they went after Hillary Clinton repeatedly. Over far, far less.
If the inquiry is a “fishing expedition” the fish are biting. Damning evidence is filling the live well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You had no issues with the endless carousel of Benghazi hearings. What were they looking for?
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “You just got it wrong when referring to their “illegal prosecution.” Why not admit it?”
Actually, I refer to your own source to substantiate my assertion:
https://www.justsecurity.org/78314/congress-access-to-individuals-private-communications-the-jan-6-committees-troubling-precedent/
Your source says, “This authority [of Congress to issue subpoenas] is not limitless, however. It does not override the individual rights set forth in the Constitution, which may be raised as a defense in contempt proceedings.”
I also note, as American Spectator does, that the ranking Republican members of Pelosi’s select committee were not appointed by the House Republican leadership as required by Congressional rules, making the select committee itself illegal.
LikeLike
“… your say isn’t worth a hill of beans.”
And yours is?
Fact finding is exactly was investigations are charged to do.
Fishing expeditions are what some do on vacation.
Not hard to grasp, I would think.
Think positive. Clinton’s email issue was a serendipitous find while investigating another terrorist attack on American soil and institution. Maybe we can find Trump calling Putin with the “good news”of the attack.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL!
You still having trouble reading? There is NOTHING in the article I shared that says that Congress is a prosecutor. The main thrust of the article, in fact, is based on the distinction between the work of Executive Branch prosecutors and Congressional investigations. For example . . .
“Key constitutional safeguards that protect Americans’ privacy against intrusions by the executive branch – such as the requirement to obtain a warrant — are notably absent when it comes to congressional investigations. ”
Also, the quote from the piece that you repeat does NOT support your assertion in any way. I think it must be just poor reading skills. I would hate to think it is bloody-minded stupidity that keeps you from ever admitting an error. Even an obvious one such as this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Fact finding and a fishing expedition are just different names for the same thing.”
It’s called an INVESTIGATION. Something the GOP, Trump, his minions, and supporters fear the most because they know, deep down in their little Trumpist hearts, they know the truth and are afraid of what can happen to their orange-haired God-king.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why would you do that? The congressional investigation is just a fact finding committee, not a persecution.
About 40 of the 600 + arrested so far are in detention because they are facing serious charges of violence. “Gulag”? Hardly.
We know that the attack was specifically for getting Congress to stop its legal obligation and get the VP to break the law. Or was there another reason for the climbing gear, weapons, and extreme assaults on the police for hours on end while Trump did nothing. “Hang Mike Pence” was about putting his portrait over some mantles perhaps, but the committee will sort that out.
We patiently let Gowdy go through $7 million and a bunch of investigations about another attack on an American facility. The contention was that the administration stalled the rescue also. What’s wrong with some fact finding here?
It would be no big deal if the principles just took an oath and told what they knew in light of the texts imploring the president to stop the violence. Are they patriots or not? Or did they want to see the assault play out with a few injured or dead Congressmen?
Did you want that carnage? Tell the truth. We’re you secretly, or not do secretly, delighted watching thugs and gang members who were Trump loyalists beating the police so badly that 150 or so were hospitalized. You have declared that Democrats are communists, so why not?
Confession is good for the soul, no?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Try to wake up, Mr. Rothman. There was no Autogolpe.
Try to see what is happening through the American creed: Innocent until proven guilty.
LikeLike
I am wide awake, my good man, wide awake.
What is an autogolpe?
To start with it is very simple. An effort, political, extralegal and often violent, to keep a leader in power despite an election loss.
It fits almost textbook perfectly with Trump and his gang.
Congress won’t file charges, just asking questions.
The folks who have been charged by DOJ are the ones who broke the law, vandalized, beat police, and made the Capitol a war zone with Congressmen fleeing for their lives. And it was all well documented by both surveillance cameras and the gangs own cell phones…they were so proud of their actions.
And it seems to me that so we’re you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What were you watching on Jan 6th; Sex in the City reruns?
LikeLike
Innocent until proven guilty?
You mean like Hillary Clinton? Oh, wait. Lock her up!
LikeLiked by 1 person