Biden FBI spied on 8 senators: Arctic Frost Investigation

#27
#27
whodeycin85 said:
Pretty sure the response is because the ICE wants to access to illegals phones..and the left was up in arms...but are cool with this...
And when you couple this with the new Russia hoax info it shows a pattern.
Click to expand...
I don't follow. This phone data case goes back to 2021. I assume it is related to the Jan 6 protest / riot.
 
#28
#28
whodeycin85 said:
Pretty sure the response is because the ICE wants to access to illegals phones..and the left was up in arms...but are cool with this...
And when you couple this with the new Russia hoax info it shows a pattern.
Click to expand...

Go back to the number of people the Biden Administration jailed as long as they could to intimidate, harass, embarrass and bankrupt. The public FBI raids carried by CNN.

Remember the old saying that whatever the democrat party messaging is they are already doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, Smallvol#1 and InVOLuntary
#29
#29
McDad said:
Is the FBI not allowed to look at phone data as part of an investigation?
Or is this a problem because they only looked at R phone data?
Click to expand...
I guess the distinction is was this an actual authorized investigation? And if it was, what was it based on to give the FBI probable cause for an investigation?

We have seen the Dems falsify things to get investigations before. The fear may be more of the same.

I think we need more detail to know one way or the other
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and Smallvol#1
#30
#30
McDad said:
Is the FBI not allowed to look at phone data as part of an investigation?
Or is this a problem because they only looked at R phone data?
Click to expand...
From Google AI:

Generally, the FBI needs a warrant to see your phone data as part of an investigation.

Subpoenas and Grand Juries: In the context of the investigation into the January 6th Capitol attack, the FBI obtained phone records of senators using a subpoena authorized by a grand jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, whodeycin85, volfanhill and 2 others
#31
#31
LouderVol said:
I guess the distinction is was this an actual authorized investigation? And if it was, what was it based on to give the FBI probable cause for an investigation?

We have seen the Dems falsify things to get investigations before. The fear may be more of the same.

I think we need more detail to know one way or the other
Click to expand...
I did some more digging. The FBI was given authority by a grand jury subpeona.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#32
#32
The problem here is that no warrant was obtained. I hope there's fallout as in prosecutions on this. If that doesn't happen then it's a nothingburger. It rarely happens
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#35
#35
LouderVol said:
No warrant, but a subpoena
Click to expand...
I guess we'll have to wait for this to work its way through the legal process but I don't think a subpoena is enough to satisfy the 4th amendment

A subpoena would mean that the individuals have to produce requested information and by definition knew they were being surveilled. These Congressmen are claiming that they did not know. That doesn't sound like a subpoena to me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smallvol#1
#36
#36
volfanhill said:
lol yea you do. They need 60 votes. Unless you want them to do, what all sides agree is the nuclear option, and eliminate the filibuster. Which would then make the minority party powerless. The FF wanted to insure the majority couldn't run rough shod. Imagine what the GOP would ram down your throat if there was no check to their majority
Click to expand...

85SugarVol said:
#CodifyTheFilibuster

One of these days, one of the parties, is gonna 86 it. And it’s gonna suck, bigly.

It’s one of the few, good, worthwhile things the R’s could do - find the combination of R & D votes, and lock it in.
Click to expand...
Which establishes the majority’s obligation to negotiate, right?

P.S. I don’t think you can codify rules for future Senates, I think it would have to be an amendment.
 
#38
#38
It's a nutty system we have where we constantly go through these shutdowns. We furlough employees. Work doesn't get done but they eventually get paid for those days. We may be going through this again next month. Crazy way to run a gov't
 
#40
#40
Sea Ray said:
I guess we'll have to wait for this to work its way through the legal process but I don't think a subpoena is enough to satisfy the 4th amendment

A subpoena would mean that the individuals have to produce requested information and by definition knew they were being surveilled. These Congressmen are claiming that they did not know. That doesn't sound like a subpoena to me
Click to expand...
It already went through the court. If there was a potential violation, surely someone would have raised a concern.
I can wrap my head around one side going after another side, but what doesn't make sense is that people would jeopardize their reputation or livelihood to do so.
 
#41
#41
RockyTop85 said:
Which establishes the majority’s obligation to negotiate, right?

P.S. I don’t think you can codify rules for future Senates, I think it would have to be an amendment.
Click to expand...
Presumably, yes.

I’m not sure the mechanics, and “codify” may be the wrong word. But I envisioned a law passed with 60 votes and signed, that would then take 60 votes to undo.

You think it would have to be an amendment, though?
 
#42
#42
Sea Ray said:
I guess we'll have to wait for this to work its way through the legal process but I don't think a subpoena is enough to satisfy the 4th amendment

A subpoena would mean that the individuals have to produce requested information and by definition knew they were being surveilled. These Congressmen are claiming that they did not know. That doesn't sound like a subpoena to me
Click to expand...
In terms of “holding people accountable” there’s probably not anything here. It’s a pretty common practice (I think it’s still DOJ standard practice) with strong arguments on both sides as to whether there’s an expectation of privacy in the information obtained that outweighs the intrusion.

Maybe it is a good example for why we should require the better practice of obtaining a warrant (although I’m not sure many people would have more faith in a warrant, at this point).
 
#45
#45
RockyTop85 said:
Which establishes the majority’s obligation to negotiate, right?

P.S. I don’t think you can codify rules for future Senates, I think it would have to be an amendment.
Click to expand...
Sure and they should. However if there like in the sand is we aren't funding the healthcare stuff, and the Dems are saying they won't budge unless they get the HC stuff back then they are both not negotiating
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top