Do we still have a Fourth Amendment?

[Seriati]

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.

Chairman Schiff took it upon himself to subpoena phone records of a number of people, including a journalist (with first amendment issues) and a person he knew to be a practicing attorney (which has been established as a violation of the attorney client privilege), without probable cause.  At the time he issued the subpoena, no impeachment resolution had been passed by the House, which arguably means he did so solely  under Congress's authority to subpoena in connection with legislation (though no legislation was contemplated).  Even if done pursuant to an impeachment, the subpoena would radically exceed the power of the DOJ to obtain a subpoena.  The DOJ would be rightfully castigated for subpoena's of journalists records trying to catch leakers for example, particularly if they didn't have probable cause and couldn't grab an attorney's records without a judge signing off.

AT&T granted the information to Schiff, notwithstanding that there is no authority at law for them to do so.  The statute permits them to share only with consent of the person whose records are sought or to federal investigators in the law enforcement agencies (there is no Congressional right at law).

He did this in secret, which prevented the rightful aggrieved persons from challenging his actions.  He did this without probable cause or any judicial review. As used by Schiff, Congress apparently has the unbrideled power to investigate someone looking for a crime on a fishing expedition, violating any rights or laws they want and all historical norms, and then release that information publicaly, where presumably any prosecutor, state or federal, is free to take notice of it even though it would have been illegal for them to collect it.

So is there still a fourth amendment?

[D.W.]

I haven't been following this very closely, but one thing I read was that both of these two examples were the OTHER side of records subpoenaed. 

Has that explanation been debunked and the journalist / attorney were the subjects of the subpoena? 

[Wayward Son]

Could you please be specific about which journalist and attorney had their phone records subpoenaed, so we know exactly what you are talking about?

Because it sounds like this comes down to whether there was probable cause or not, which is very specific to the circumstances.

[TheDrake]

Metadata is not protected under the 4th in these circumstances. Ask Rand Paul.

This act was brazen and shameful. While it may not have been illegal (because Congress writes its own rules on investigations) it certainly was wrong. It certainly tramples on rights normally held dear by the left.

Part of the problem also lies with our “third-party doctrine” in privacy law, something I’ve been fighting for years. It goes like this: your records are not necessarily your records if they are held by a third party – like a phone company, an Internet service provider, a credit card company, or a physician.

We actually don't know who was the target of the subpoena, because that's not disclosed. It actually isn't relevant to the discussion of right or wrong, legal or not.

[Pete at Home]

Hang on -- wasn't it Trump and the GOP that voted to make it legal to let big corporations like AT&T do what the hell they want with our personal data?

[Crunch]

Exposing the phone records of journalists and attorneys as they speak to clients is awesome. I look forward to Trump doing this during the senate trial. I mean, since you’re all cool with it, it’s gonna be great, right?

[TheDrake]

It's funny that you think the existence of a call is privileged communication. Go look at all such phone records subpoenas and show me a criminal who wasn't talking to a lawyer at some point.

[D.W.]

I look forward to Trump doing this during the senate trial.

  I hope that this is just being snarky but sometimes I think people really DO look forward to this.  They salivate at the thought of the other side crossing a line so that they can gleefully rush forward and exploit every new possibility and probably a few of their own, instead of, you know, holding people accountable, or trying to stop future occurrences of abuses.

Not that my question was answered.  But obviously some believe there was abuse.  Or is this just a poorly reasoned deflection?

[Crunch]

It's funny that you think the existence of a call is privileged communication. Go look at all such phone records subpoenas and show me a criminal who wasn't talking to a lawyer at some point.

I didn’t claim they were privileged communications.

[Crunch]

I look forward to Trump doing this during the senate trial.

  I hope that this is just being snarky but sometimes I think people really DO look forward to this.  They salivate at the thought of the other side crossing a line so that they can gleefully rush forward and exploit every new possibility and probably a few of their own, instead of, you know, holding people accountable, or trying to stop future occurrences of abuses.

Not that my question was answered.  But obviously some believe there was abuse.  Or is this just a poorly reasoned deflection?

There is some snark there but only some. Obama spied on journalists, it was cool. Schiff now doing the same is cool. The idea that this is ok is now out there. The precedent is set. There is nothing to hold anyone accountable for any more.

Trump is not exactly known for restraint and will build on that precedent and approval from liberals to take it to the next level. We all know he will. The desire to take down Trump at any cost does have a price, you guys are gonna pay it.

[TheDrake]

It's funny that you think the existence of a call is privileged communication. Go look at all such phone records subpoenas and show me a criminal who wasn't talking to a lawyer at some point.

I didn’t claim they were privileged communications.

Then why make a big deal about it being a lawyer?

I tend to agree with rand Paul that every citizen should have their Metadata protected. I'll support that legislation whenever either party gets off their ass to do so.

[Pete at Home]

I look forward to Trump doing this during the senate trial.

  I hope that this is just being snarky but sometimes I think people really DO look forward to this.  They salivate at the thought of the other side crossing a line so that they can gleefully rush forward and exploit every new possibility and probably a few of their own, instead of, you know, holding people accountable, or trying to stop future occurrences of abuses.

Not that my question was answered.  But obviously some believe there was abuse.  Or is this just a poorly reasoned deflection?

There is a certain poetry when karma comes back for its own.

Even when it’s the great Cicero being legally assassinated based on an emergency anti corruption law that Cicero himself championed.   I mourn the passing of a personal hero but I have at some point realize that in the poetic justice sense he had it coming.  Trump embodies leftist sins against the human mind and society and there is poetic justice in his systematically bringing leftwit chickens home to roost.

OTOH, in the immortal words of Tim Rice’s fictional Che Guevara narrator. it’s our funeral too.”

[TheDrake]

when you look at those facts, they produce this incredibly compelling pattern of the FBI playing the FISA court; overstating information, omitting information that’s important, cherry-picking details.”

These findings are clear evidence of manipulating FISA. I don't get why people don't think, maybe this is just standard practice with FISA warrants. It doesn't have to be politically motivated. FISA COURT BAD.

This along with the nefarious National Security Letter abuse need to be fixed. For everybody. It can also be used to get meta-information "held by a third party" in an administrative subpoena.