Below is my column on Fox.com on the new disclosures of secret orders targeting now FBI Director Kash Patel and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. It is only the latest example of the abuse of the investigatory powers by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Here is the column:
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith has long operated under Oscar Wilde’s rule that “the only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.” Over the last few months, the public has learned of a wide array of secret orders targeting members of Congress, Trump allies, and others. Now, the Administration has learned that FBI Director Kash Patel and White House Susie Wiles were also targeted by Smith in 2022 and 2023 when they were private citizens.
Smith was a controversial choice as Special Counsel because of his history of excessive legal arguments and tactics, including his unanimous loss before the Supreme Court in tossing out the conviction of former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell.
His tendency to stretch the law to the breaking point also did not play well with juries in high-profile cases, as in his case against John Edwards, which ended in acquittal.
Despite such criticisms, Smith immediately returned to his past pattern of tossing aside any restraint or caution. Even Democrats this year expressed objections to his targeting of Republican members of Congress, including former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
Smith told carriers not to tell members of Congress that their calls were being seized. Not only did such records reveal potentially confidential sources, ranging from journalists to whistleblowers, but Smith’s gag order prevented Congress from responding to check the abusive demand.
Now, the Administration is alleging that Smith and the prior Administration effectively buried the targeting of Patel and Wiles. It took a year into the new Administration for these orders to be uncovered.
The early accounts of the orders contained equally disturbed elements. Reuters reported that “in 2023, the FBI recorded a phone call between Wiles and her attorney, according to two FBI officials. Wiles’ attorney was aware that the call was being recorded, and consented to it, but Susie Wiles was not.”
It is astonishing to hear of a lawyer agreeing to the FBI recording of an attorney-client meeting as a general matter. However, to do so without informing your counsel would be a breathtaking invasion of such protected communications.
There is much we still do not know.
On its face, these orders appear consistent with the earlier abusive demands. Smith had virtually no basis for targeting Republican members and Trump allies. It was a fishing expedition in which Smith simply compiled lists of every well-known ally of President Trump.
There are also concerns over the response to this controversy. There are reports of 10 FBI employees being fired. Agents often carry out the orders of superiors in such investigations. The Administration should assure the public that these agents were afforded due process before being ousted due to their work on orders.
The recently disclosed files from these investigations are an indictment of Smith himself. He was given a historic mandate to investigate a former president. Rather than exercise a modicum of restraint to show the public that this was not a partisan effort, Smith yielded to his worst temptations in targeting a long list of Republicans.
In his prior testimony, Smith offered little to justify these orders beyond a shrug that such secret orders routinely occur. However, he was targeting a “who’s who” listing of top political opponents to President Biden and the Democrats.
To make matters worse, Smith struggled to release damaging information (and even schedule a trial) on the very eve of the 2024 presidential election. Every action that Smith took only magnified his agenda to influence the election. He became a prosecutor consumed by his antagonism toward Trump and his unchecked power.
Nothing was sacred for Smith. His demands in the investigation from the courts included a wholesale attack on free speech values.
Ultimately, these files are not only an indictment of Jack Smith but also of former Attorney General Merrick Garland, who failed to exercise his authority to oversee Smith and protect core constitutional values.
It is essential that Congress and the Administration fully investigate Smith’s surveillance demands. Smith has long demanded accountability for others while evading such accountability for his own actions.
If past orders are any indication, the Patel and Wiles orders were likely based on sweeping generalities and demands for absolute secrecy. That is the signature of Jack Smith. Indeed, Smith appears to have replicated his increasingly infamous record with the collapse of two high-profile cases and lingering questions over his judgment and actions.
He has again yielded to his temptations, and the public has paid the price.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
OT: It seems HIllary Clinton was justified about her concerns with the depositions conducted by Republicans. Boabert leaked pictures of the deposition in violation of committee rules. Hillary’s concerns were confirmed. Republicans are not trustworthy.
Because a picture of videotaped testimony that will be made public later was posted to SM ?
Because it was a violation of committee rules. You’re saying it’s ok to break the rules because it may be released later?
It showed the Clintons’s were right about their concerns. I’m sure you know why the incident showed Republicans cannot be trusted with what they say. You’re a big fan of trust, right?
Say it ain’t so!
A LEAK?
Who’da thunk it?
Let’s ask the communist-loving I-cant-read-the-Constitution Supreme Court!
No I am saying that violations of rules that do not result in harm are inconsequential unless they are also violation of rights.
Rules that result in loss of trust are inconsequential? I thought you were against such acts because destroy trust in government.
Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules. We’re Trumplicans and no rules apply to us.
At this point, what difference does it make?
😝😝🤣🤣Stop it, you’re killing me Smalls….
OH – And like Hillary Clinton is the bastion of Honesty.
One leaked photo, compared to decades of her leaked Russian Interference accusations and more.
Not even a contest buddy.
Say it ain’t so!
A LEAK?
Who’da thunk it?
Let’s ask the communist-loving I-cant-read-the-Constitution Supreme Court!
“The Administration should assure the public that these agents were afforded due process before being ousted due to their work on orders…” A REPUTABLE agent would have turned WHISTLEBLOWER after seeing this corruption. I have little sympathy for these 10 agents…
If these 10 FBI agents knew their actions to be wrong, why would they not have proactively informed management under the Trump administration and thus exposing Smith’s misdeeds? Now that they have been discovered, their inaction indicates that they harbored few or no concerns about monitoring the call of a political opponent to the then President Biden and that client’s lawyer. I do hope that these agents are accorded due process but why the wait?
This is yet another (among many) indication that Merrick Garland was singularly ill suited to the office of Attorney General and in the process did our country a grave disservice. We depend on someone minding the store and he apparently did little of that.
Professor Turley relies on broad generalizations to suggest Jack Smith engaged in misconduct, yet his argument avoids the specific legal mechanics that govern federal investigations. A closer look at the facts reveals that Smith’s tactics were consistent with established law and followed standard Department of Justice protocols. Crucially, Turley characterizes the subpoenas for records involving members of Congress as a violation of the Speech or Debate Clause, but he ignores the well-established Third-Party Doctrine affirmed by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Maryland (1979). In that case, the Court ruled that individuals have no “legitimate expectation of privacy” in the phone numbers they dial because that information is voluntarily turned over to a third-party carrier.
Unlike the United States v. Rayburn case, where the FBI physically seized a congressman’s files, Smith issued subpoenas to telecommunications carriers for “non-content” metadata—logs of dates, times, and phone numbers. Because these records belonged to the service providers and did not reveal the substance of any legislative discussion, they do not constitute “questioning” a member of Congress under the Constitution. This distinction was further clarified in Carpenter v. United States (2018), where the Court maintained that while long-term location tracking requires a warrant, the acquisition of basic toll records remains a standard investigative tool for corroborating witness accounts—such as whether Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani directed associates to contact senators to delay the certification of the election.
Furthermore, Turley describes these as “secret orders” while failing to mention their limited scope. The subpoenas were restricted to a narrow four-day window around January 6, 2021. In any other federal criminal probe, seeking the toll records of witnesses for a 72-hour period would be considered a routine, narrowly tailored investigative step rather than an “abusive demand.” The “secret” nature of these orders—standard nondisclosure or “gag” orders—is a tool authorized by federal judges under 18 U.S. Code § 2705 when there is a legitimate concern regarding obstruction of justice or the destruction of evidence.
Turley’s claim that Smith lacked restraint also involves a degree of selective outrage. Other Special Counsels have used these exact tools without facing similar criticism from him. For instance, Robert Hur, during his investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified documents, utilized subpoenas for records and metadata. Turley remained largely silent on those tactics, suggesting his current critique is based more on the targets of the investigation than the legality of the methods. Ultimately, the recent dismissal of the federal cases against Donald Trump was not a result of “legal excess” or a court finding of misconduct; rather, it was a voluntary move by Smith to comply with the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) policy against prosecuting a sitting president. This adherence to DOJ rules at the end of the probe further undermines Turley’s characterization of Smith as a prosecutor who “tosses aside restraint.”
Please stop lifting text without accrediting or referencing it.
That’s the only way I can tell that you and Gigi are not the same; at least Gigi admits it.
Thanks.
Lin, as a lawyer I’m sure you can find the references yourself. I know you’re not helpless or inept.
I referenced U.S. code, court cases and some paraphrasing of the cited rulings. I’m pretty sure you have enough to conduct your own research and analysis. Thanks
And since you are not a lawyer, guess you don’t understand what is a no-no, unless you are Claudine Gay. Are you?
No one trusts you to paraphrase – in your case that means deceive.
Everything the FBI does is “secret” FBI investigative records are secret by law, and by the 4th amendment.
But nothing the FBI does is so secret it is protected from the courts, Congress and even the president, AG or FBI Director,
That is what we have here,
No this is NOT standard procedure.
Nor is there any doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot you would be screaming bloody murder.
Why was Smith doing this ? Simple – because he did not have probable cause to get a warrant.
Why the secrecy ? Because Smith and his team did not want anyone to EVER know what they were doing.
In a criminal trial hiding what you are doing is evidence of consciousness of guilt.
John Say, that’s a lot of talk without evidence backing it up. Smith went had legal warrants signed by a federal judge.
I explained why there is a need for secrecy. I will reiterate,
The “secret” nature of these orders—standard nondisclosure or “gag” orders—is a tool authorized by federal judges under 18 U.S. Code § 2705 when there is a legitimate concern regarding obstruction of justice or the destruction of evidence.
It’s standard procedure.
You’re assuming a lot of things because you don’t know.
that’s a lot of explaining for something so simple. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Lin is a accomplished lawyer, who commands respect and has credibility.
You are nothing of the sort.
Had you made such a comment in person, to her face in my presence, I would challenge you to a duel.
And by blade or bullet, I would end you.
🙂
X there is no doubt that Smith and his team engaged in a massive amount of miscounduct.
Much of which is Criminal.
The only question is whether DOJ can successfully indict and prosecute smith.
“yet his argument avoids the specific legal mechanics that govern federal investigations.”
The relevant mechanism is that you can not violate the constitutional rights of anyone in the course of your investigation.
“A closer look at the facts reveals that Smith’s tactics were consistent with established law and followed standard Department of Justice protocols.”
Nope, not even close. Please cite another case in Which DOJ issued a warrant when the FBI said there was no probable cause ?
Please cite another case in which a prosecutor dangled a federal judicial appointment in front of the defense attorney to get his client to flip ?
Please cite another case in which members of congress had their communications records seized secretly without notifying key member of congress as required by law ?
Please cite any case where a non-targets lawyer volunteered to allow recording of privileged communications ?
This is just a few of the example of misconduct some of them criminal by Smith.
The issue is not just the speach and debate clause – there is federal law requiring law enforcement must notify the top members of congress when access the records of members of congress.
” Smith v. Maryland (1979). ” Carpenter v. United States 2018
is a significant Supreme Court case from 2018 that ruled the government must obtain a warrant to access historical cell site location information (CSLI) from cell phone providers, as this constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The decision emphasized the importance of privacy in the digital age, particularly regarding personal location data.
” Carpenter v. United States (2018), where the Court maintained that while long-term location tracking requires a warrant, ”
Please read the decision, because you are misrepresenting it.
“the acquisition of basic toll records remains a standard investigative tool for corroborating witness accounts—such as whether Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani directed associates to contact senators to delay the certification of the election.”
While unrelated, you point out your own error. You did not say “whether X & Y contacted senators” – But “whether X & Y contacted senators for some purpose you presume is evil”
BTW Trump or YOU are perfectly entitled to contact senators. You may do so to delay election certification, or seek to get them to oppose the Save Act.
.
“Furthermore, Turley describes these as “secret orders” while failing to mention their limited scope. “”
The scope of an illegal order is irrelevant.
You may not subpoena records of congressmen without notifying congressional leaders.
You may not violate attorney client priviledge except where you have probable cause the attorney is complicit in a crime.
Has Wiley’s attorney been indicted ?
There is no “I only violated the law or a persons constitutional rights a little” exception to the constitution
No the “secret” nation of these orders is not “standard” – The FBI files was for this was set as “prohibited access” that is not even a documented access catagory of FBI files.
A prohibited access file is a file that NO ONE at the FBI can search or find. These are extremely rare can only be opened by Deputy Directors, or Assistant Deputy directors, and more importantly they can not even be found by anyone – such as the next FBI director, without already knowing they exist and knowing the case number of the file.
These files were hidden from everyone – the courts, congress, future FBI directors, they are completely immune from search of subpeona, or even warrant.
It is not just that unauthorized people can not access these files, it is that there are no provisions in the FBI case system to determine these files even exist.
” The “secret” nature of these orders—standard nondisclosure or “gag” orders—is a tool authorized by federal judges under 18 U.S. Code § 2705 when there is a legitimate concern regarding obstruction of justice or the destruction of evidence.”
First the entire case file on these was secret to an unlawful extent. These files were immune to ANY oversite by courts, congress even others within the FBI
No Gag orders are not standard – though they have become more standard. and legitimat concern for obstruction or destuction of evidence can not be assumed it must be proven to a standard of probable cause.
“Other Special Counsels have used these exact tools without facing similar criticism from him.”
Were Hurr’s case files prohibitted access ?
“For instance, Robert Hur, during his investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified documents, utilized subpoenas for records and metadata.”
You assume that you have not established that. Nor have you established that Hurr did not get a warrant, Nor have you established that Hurr subpeonaed records of members of congress,
Smith’s case against Trump was not dismissed recently, nor was it dismissed on an OLC opinion.
The initial case was dismissed because Smith was not lawfully appointed – he was NOT a lawful Special Counselor.
John Say, my, my. Lots of words with little substance and evidence.
“X there is no doubt that Smith and his team engaged in a massive amount of miscounduct.
Much of which is Criminal.
The only question is whether DOJ can successfully indict and prosecute smith.”
Well duh, the “only” question. The answer has always been there and the reason why he hasn’t been prosecuted or indicted. Because there is no evidence of any crime or wrongdoing on Smith’s part. Remember, Trump’s DOJ has tried to prosecute many protesters, AG’s, and lawmakers and failed due to pure incompetence, lack of evidence and clear lack of probable cause. Heck, record numbers of grand jury indictments have been turned down and jury acquittals have been handed down because of it.
Allegations are not evidence John.
“The relevant mechanism is that you can not violate the constitutional rights of anyone in the course of your investigation.”
What rights were violated? You never seem to address them. Investigators have a LOT of leeway when conducting them and they are often approved by federal judges which ensure the law and legal procedure is followed. Can you pin point exactly what Smith did that would constitute violation of the law and cite your evidence?
“Nope, not even close. Please cite another case in Which DOJ issued a warrant when the FBI said there was no probable cause ?”
Another case that has nothing to do with the one you can’t refute? Since when does the FBI issued a warrant when they said there was no probable cause? Your statement makes zero sense.
““the acquisition of basic toll records remains a standard investigative tool for corroborating witness accounts—such as whether Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani directed associates to contact senators to delay the certification of the election.”
While unrelated, you point out your own error. You did not say “whether X & Y contacted senators” – But “whether X & Y contacted senators for some purpose you presume is evil”
John, clearly you don’t understand why the records are requested. To investigate they need data. They can request simple phone numbers, times, and dates to piece together other events and the fact that none of data contained any communications is legally not an infringement on their 4th amendment rights. Phone numbers, dates, and times are not violations of privacy.
“You may not subpoena records of congressmen without notifying congressional leaders.
You may not violate attorney client priviledge except where you have probable cause the attorney is complicit in a crime.”
Oops, but the records were not of the congressmen. They were records of the cell phone companies. The data Smith sought is not congressional information. Just numbers, dates and time of calls. No attorney client privilege was violated because no communications were disclosed.
“First the entire case file on these was secret to an unlawful extent. These files were immune to ANY oversite by courts, congress even others within the FBI”
Well they had to be. Because you don’t ask suspects if they can have permission to look through data that may implicate them. That is not how things work John. You really have a bad view of how the legal system works.
““For instance, Robert Hur, during his investigation into President Biden’s handling of classified documents, utilized subpoenas for records and metadata.”
You assume that you have not established that. Nor have you established that Hurr did not get a warrant, Nor have you established that Hurr subpeonaed records of members of congress,”
Huh?? Hur subpoenaed Biden administration officials not congressmen. He still used the same tools and statutes Smith did which are both legal.
It’s clear you make arguments based on allegations rather than facts.
everyone knows x is a liar
The American Justice system is a “construction” or a precedent based system. All legal actions in the USA are supposed to be constitutional. Past “constitutional” court rulings create precedent that future court rulings are built upon.
Alexander Hamilton – architect of the American Justice system – designed the system so all current and future court rulings follow “precedent” (follow past court rulings) unless the precedent is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional-construction figuratively creates a justice system that collapses upon its weight.
This is not partisan, both sides are guilty of this but the 21st Century unconstitutional-precedents after nearly 25 years haven’t corrected. Courts have not completely corrected early 21st Century rulings that allowed things like a “Unitary Executive Theory” or corrected unconstitutional covert blacklisting or torture.
So both parties have some work to do to correct these early 20th Century practices.
BREAKING:
The U.S. military used a laser to take down a Customs and Border Protection drone near the Mexico border, and FAA closed airspace near El Paso, Texas as a precaution to protect air traffic.
This is the second time the military has used this laser without advising FAA, and caused an air space closure.
In the first event they shot down a party balloon.
So to summarize, the US military is using a brand spanking new laser weapon to protect the border.
So far they have shot down a party balloon and a CPB surveillance drone.
This, in a nutshell, is what happens when you have an alcoholic talk show host in charge.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
The Whiskey Pete method.
https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:xssecj5xxsdutrelu7zzcly7/bafkreifs4jjp573fduh4ms7b6cwsb2fervedia5z7v5v45bpykwkez5pme@jpeg
We should take 100’s of party balloons to the border and watch the hilarity ensue!
The 12-year-old operating the laser is having a blast in more ways than one.
Hope they use lasers on ANON! Stop her/his daily Bullschiff!!
–Sounds like maybe Biden thought that Chinese espionage “weather balloon” that filmed as it wandered over protected air space across Alaska, Western Canada, and the U.S. -for seven+days in 2023- was just a party balloon !!!!!
Lin,
At first I chuckled at your comment but then thinking on it, seems completely plausible. Yeah, I could see it.
The US got to listen to every transmission from the balloon to get information about the quality of the system.
Friendly Fire. Shh…It Happens!
It’s kinda like a whole bunch of parasites from s—hole Somalia came to America and accidentally ran into $9 billion American cash welfare dollars just sitting there!
Oops! Sorry, actual Americans.
You are describing a very secure border where no invasion is occuring because of a large focus of resources.
And we have Trump to thank for that. It’s Awesome!
After all these years following the Trump classified docs case and the Trump election interference schemes he still doesn’t understand how the FBI’s investigative powers work? Looking to paint former special counsel Jack Smith as a legal renegade and lawless actor. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Contra to the claim of “indiscriminate” targeting, Smith’s legal team characterized the collection of data as “narrowly tailored.” For example, records related to Republican senators were limited to a four-day period (January 4–7, 2021) to specifically investigate telephonic activity surrounding the January 6 Capitol riots. Because many Republican Congressmen were suspected of coordinating or colluding with the Trump administration Smith had reason to to collect such data as part of his investigation.
Lawful federal investigations routinely use grand jury subpoenas to obtain “non-content” toll records (phone numbers, dates, and times, but not conversation contents). Smith’s attorneys stated these actions were “entirely lawful, proper and consistent with established Department of Justice policy”.
Turley likes to omit specific details about things like this because once you include them his narrative it falls apart. Every Congressman’s phone records were toll records meaning only the numbers, dates, and times were obtain. Not conversations or any other communications. Turley leaves out these kinds of details so his readers are left to assume the worst and think Smith obtain conversations which is not true.
The gag orders? Turley characterizes the orders to carriers as “preventing Congress from responding,” but such nondisclosure orders are standard when investigators have concerns about obstruction. Smith previously testified that investigators had “serious concerns about obstruction of justice” in these probes. This is standard procedure and it also applies to Congressmen who are considered suspects. Turley seems to think the law does not apply to Congressmen because they are…Congressmen.
The Kash Patel and Susie Wiles claims also omit a specific detail. Yes they were private citizens, but they were also close to those being investigated, like Donald Trump. He characterizes it as some sinister lawless conduct when it’s just standard procedure. It’s normal. And the Wiles attorney consenting to the call? That is pretty wild. That should be an issue taken up with Wile’s attorney not Smith. Why he consented I have no idea, but the fact remains that he indeed consented and that is not Smith’s fault.
While the Supreme Court did unanimously overturn Governor McDonnell’s conviction, the decision focused on narrowing the definition of “official act” under federal bribery law, a legal interpretation that had been standard for prosecutors across many administrations until that ruling. It’s not a “loss” in the sense that the Supreme Court redefined what “official act” means. They made it harder to prove bribery. A boon for Trump or any president or politician.
An acquittal in a high-profile case does not necessarily prove “stretching the law to the breaking point.” Prosecutors often bring difficult cases involving campaign finance when they believe a crime has occurred, and the outcome is ultimately decided by the jury based on the specific evidence presented. Turley should have brought Jeanine Pirro. Her record is now legendary.
Whistling past the graveyard I see.
“After all these years ….”
It all works the same for every criminal cast in existance ever – the FBI has no special power to violate constitutional rights.
“Contra to the claim of “indiscriminate” targeting, Smith’s legal team characterized the collection of data as “narrowly tailored.” For example, records related to Republican senators were limited to a four-day period (January 4–7, 2021) to specifically investigate telephonic activity surrounding the January 6 Capitol riots. Because many Republican Congressmen were suspected of coordinating or colluding with the Trump administration Smith had reason to to collect such data as part of his investigation.”
None of that changes the fact that the subpeona was illegal – beat that straw man to death.
Nor dos it change the fact that Wiley’s attorney client privildge was violated without probale cause of a crime involving Wiley’s attorney.
Nor does it change the fact that these records were deliberately hidden from congress, from the courts, from the rest of the FBI and from future FBI directors.
“Lawful federal investigations routinely use grand jury subpoenas to obtain “non-content” toll records (phone numbers, dates, and times, ”
Still a violation of the speach and debate clause of the coustitution
“Turley likes to omit specific details”
Correction
X like to omit specific details.
“The gag orders? Turley characterizes the orders to carriers as “preventing Congress from responding,” but such nondisclosure orders are standard when investigators have concerns about obstruction. ”
Yes, Smith did not want congress to know that the speach and debate clause was being violated.
“Smith previously testified that investigators had “serious concerns about obstruction of justice” in these probes.”
Your “concernes” do not constitute evidence. DOJ, FBI, SC’ s are not permitted to make claims out of thin air and presume them to be true.
” This is standard procedure”
Nope
“it also applies to Congressmen who are considered suspects.”
Doubly false. Smith never identified any members of congress as a target – FBI speak for suspect.
And no this is not standard procedure.
” Turley seems to think the law does not apply to Congressmen because they are…Congressmen.”
No he correctly asserts that Congressmen enjoy heightened protections because THE CONSTITUTION SAYS SO.
“The Kash Patel and Susie Wiles claims also omit a specific detail. Yes they were private citizens, but they were also close to those being investigated, like Donald Trump.”
So what ? Wiles attorney client privilege was violated. Smith did alot of that.
“He characterizes it as some sinister lawless conduct”
Because it is.
“when it’s just standard procedure. It’s normal.”
Nope.
” And the Wiles attorney consenting to the call? That is pretty wild. That should be an issue taken up with Wile’s attorney not Smith. Why he consented I have no idea, but the fact remains that he indeed consented and that is not Smith’s fault.”
You can not even ask an attorney to violate privildge, and you can not do so withoutt notifying the client.
Attorney client privilege belongs to THE CLIENT not the attorney.
Without either the permission of the Client or a courts determination that the Attorney was themselves part of a criminal action – something that requires a federal judge to conclude as metting a probable cause standard, Smith could not do this.
My Guess is that Wiles attorney KNEW that Smith would get nothing from the phone call, and that by cooperating with Smith he was settinng Smith up should there ever be consequences effecting Wiles. It is always a good thing to have a Special Counsel over a barrel for misconduct.
if you can be sure your client will not get in trouble.
“While the Supreme Court did unanimously overturn Governor McDonnell’s conviction, the decision focused on narrowing the definition of “official act” under federal bribery law, a legal interpretation that had been standard for prosecutors across many administrations until that ruling. It’s not a “loss” in the sense that the Supreme Court redefined what “official act” means.”
While you are correct that SCOTUSrejected Smith’s broad definition of “official act”.
You are incorect in claiming that was a change from prior norms. Showing up as government and speaking at private events is not sufficient to connect payment for doing to bribery.
SCOTUS found that bribery required
an act excercising government power. Not merely profiting privately because when you spoke your title was governor.
” They made it harder to prove bribery.”
No it made it just as hard as it is supposed to be. McDonnell did not proclude the successful prosecution of Sen. Menedez, nor would it preclude prosecuting Biden.
“An acquittal in a high-profile case does not necessarily prove “stretching the law to the breaking point.””
No bur a holding that law was not broad enough to support Smith’s claim does.
John Say,
“None of that changes the fact that the subpeona was illegal – beat that straw man to death.”
It was not illegal. The facts don’t lie John.
“My Guess is that Wiles attorney KNEW that Smith would get nothing from the phone call, and that by cooperating with Smith he was settinng Smith up should there ever be consequences effecting Wiles. It is always a good thing to have a Special Counsel over a barrel for misconduct.
if you can be sure your client will not get in trouble.”
There’s a big flaw in your “guess”.
The attorney agreeing to the call would still lose his license. That sort of conduct would never fly in any court of law. I thought you would know better. It’s much more likely that Kash Patel lied about it.
. Me thinks this blog is AI. The commentors haven’t addressed the SOTU much beyond pbinca’s observation. That’s odd.
AI went gaga after the illogical “election” coup of BO. The world collapsed and a mad rush of migrants went on the move because they don’t didn’t know the illogic , impossibility of it.
Prepare for regime change , Iran. Logical…
Toddles PT. Conservation of experience- action, reaction.
^^^ The first time in history when a coup had to change-out half the population and even MORE so EU and UK. Reason for migration is the coup. Fight by any means the fraud, the lie.
Freedom of speech played a major role and freedom of movement.
Toodles
I noticed the 12 year old hall monitor got his fingers stuck on stupid!
Every time I turn around I’m reading of yet another violation by Jack Smith. This latest may be criminal. If he hid information from the DOJ, that is obstruction. His antics with Wiles’ attorney smacks of a clear Constitutional violation. This man should, at the very least, be disbarred and stripped of all qualified immunity. I suspect that as we learn more details, criminal charges should be filed.
Suzie Wiles attorney just stated that he DID NOT consent to having the FBI wiretap their conversation making this a serious crime for Smith and Garland. If the FBI, note that I did say if, wiretapped a political operative without the consent of at least one party without a warrant it is a criminal offense. This is Watergate on steroids.
PS. The FBI agents are no better than Liddy, Hunt and McCord.
Of course you have proof of that? You’re a well known liar on this blog.
Geez, I even wrote the words “note that I did say if”. But I guess this Anonymous hack wants me to come up with trial level proof in order to give my opinion.
HullBobby,
Reading comprehension is not the hack’s strong point.
That’s no hack, that’s a psychopath. The language gives them away: “well known…”, “everyone knows…”. Always a reference to their mob in order to give their personal opinion some imagined weight. They also love ‘experts’ that just happen to agree with their delusions.
and I do have proof of this as everyone knows I am a well known expert know-it-all around here.
Hullbobby. What is her attorney’s name? Kash Patel made the claim and knowing it’s keystone Kash he’s more likely to be lying.
The lawyer in question has not been identified, for obvious reasons. If he did he would lose his license and be disbarred.
It’s more likely that the incident never happened because there are no records of the incident. Patel made the claim. The crazy par is he is now the Director of the FBI. Surely he can now provide the records himself and show proof of the claim. So why hasn’t he?
X, so you just state that Patel is lying after we have seen over a decade of Smith’s malfeasance?? Why doesn’t Smith refute the claim? Why is the attorney lying at threat of disbarment? Why haven’t the 10 agents fired come forward to dispute the claim? Why can’t you just admit that this was governmental overreach? I will criticize Trump and/or Republicans when the mess up, but you just can’t do it and it makes me wonder why.
Patel IS lying. He’s been an incompetent noob ever since he go the job as FBI director.
Malfeasance? Smith ran his investigations according to the law. Turley never mentions details of how these procedures and processes actually work. He generalizes to avoid it because he undermines the intent of his narrative which is to provide a misleading characterization of Smith’s conduct.
Why doesn’t Patel, the FBI director provide the proof. He has direct access to the alleged records.
If you’re asking why a lot of things didn’t happen it’s more likely it did not happen at all. Remember, it’s a claim made by Kash Patel.
“ Why can’t you just admit that this was governmental overreach?”
Because it was not overreach, it never was.
“ I will criticize Trump and/or Republicans when the mess up, but you just can’t do it and it makes me wonder why.”
When have you ever criticized Trump or Republicans? Because they have messed up in more way than you can count. For example, their fumbled and laughable attempt to prosecute Comey and James.
“Patel IS lying.”
Because you say so ?
“Malfeasance? Smith ran his investigations according to the law.”
Nope
“Turley never mentions details of how these procedures and processes actually work.”
Because you can not work arround the constitution.
“Why doesn’t Patel, the FBI director provide the proof. He has direct access to the alleged records.”
LIkely already headed to congress.
“Because it was not overreach, it never was.”
X
There is no way that wiretapping an attorney’s communications with their client is legal with or without the attorney’s permission without a warrant.
Attorney client priviledge belongs to the client. Only the client or a court can waive it.
To get a court to authorize this – Smith would have to prove that the attorney participated in a crime.
There is not a way that the facts we do not know changed the fact that this is unconstitutional miconduct on Smith;s part.
As to claims that Patel is lying – the files will likely be provided to the House.
. The POTUS? Autopen pardons.
In one of the greatest cases of mistaken identity since Donald Trump thought E. Jean Carroll was Marla Maples, House Republicans sent a subpoena to the wrong First Lady.
Instead of Melania Trump, who spent untold hours with the child rapist Jeffrey Epstein, they summoned Hillary Clinton.
They will soon regret it.
The Republicans on House Oversight have now established a precedent for First Ladies to be deposed about Epstein.
Can’t wait until Democrats take over the committee at the end of the year.
For those who keep bleating for a citation of the specific law under which to arrest and try Smith, et al.:
It’s called: “Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242). And it is a Federal crime.
Good. Now get some relevant incriminating facts and charge him. Opps, you’re not a federal attorney.
Turley– “He [Smith] has again yielded to his temptations, and the public has paid the price.”
But when will Jack Smith pay a price?
A pass for Smith will almost guarantee that Susan Rice’s evil and lawless revenge scheme will one day be put in motion.
Like all reasonable people, I wonder: When will the indictments and convictions come?
If Smith, like Obama, the Clintons and Biden can keep getting away with these unconstitutional atrocities, maybe it’s time for our new Fort Sumter moment.
Why isn’t Smith in an ORANGE JUMPER?
Why? Any ideas why he should?
Dear Prof Turley,
As far as I can tell, these ‘secret orders’ by SC Smith have not been ‘released’. Apparently, FBI Dir. Patel made these claims. .. and to be honest, Kash has not been batting anywhere close to 100% lately (see eg. the Kirk assassination).
Reuters, at least, ‘could not independently verify many of the details about Patel’s claims, including the full extent and timing of the seizure of phone records and the motive for doing so.’
Also, Judge Cannon recently ‘permanently blocked the release of Jack Smith’s report on classified documents.’
*Congress could enact another transparency law, and SCOTUS could issue a ruling .. . but, evidently, that’s no guarantee either.
Dr Turley, 30 of 48 comments on just the first page were by a single individual. Those comments tended largly to the insult flavor. Might I suggest you limit comments to one or two per topic just so I don’t have to wade through so much drivel.
Wade? If you just ignore them like everyone ignores yours. You’ll be fine.
Jim Robicheaux, you have noticed our resident narcissist Anonymous. You should consider more carefully the wisdom she offers. She has presented herself as an expert on so many things.
Books depicting 10 year old boys performing sexual acts on one another, MS- 13 tattoos on their knuckles, trans surgery on minors can be reversed, censorship on Twitter and Facebook was justified and Charlie Kirk deserved to die.
I am happy that she presents the positions of the Democratic Party with such clarity.
My hope is that she continues to express her opinions. Democrats are now admitting that all the wokesters like Anonymous are destroying their party. My bet is that once back in power they will revert
to their ways of old on the turn of a dime. Anonymous is just too slow to get the message.
Whew…. earth to TiT. Come in. Earth to TiT. Come in. You didn’t get the message. Come in TiT.
What’s the plural of anonymous?
TiT,
Well said.
I have stated many a time the Democrat party needs to get rid of the likes of the anonymous of the country. They are making the Democrat party look bad.
@Upstate @Thinkitthrough
Yep. Let them keep on talking. No sane person wants what they spew. I honestly do not know who they are even trying to win over or cajole at this point, but then again, narcissists only seek to please themselves. What is still a little surprising is that it’s tough to tell these trolls from people that hold actual office on the left these days (psst – that may be because they are of the same mind and from the same cohorts). It’s madness, and we cannot ever give the levers of power to them again, as I am pretty sure they were taking care of the day to day under Biden.
Jim Robicheaux,
Yes, the meaningless comments by the anonymous are rather tedious to have to wade through. But, as the good professor is a proponent of free speech, it is a bane we all have to suffer. As the good professor says, the key to free speech is more and better speech. That is why some of those who comment here have much more and better credibility then all the anonymous combined. Or, more likely, the one anonymous.
You keep repeating that silly screed. Shall we tell you the number of times you’ve posted it? And the IP address?
Can you tell us where we can find your credibility credentials? Or anyone’s’ here?
You just put your lack of credibility out for all to see. You would have to be Darren with sys admin privileges and access to the WP back end to see anyone’s IP address.
You see, I know more than you.
More? You’re the perfect definition of stupid. You screed overall that you never ever read anon’s comments, that everybody should boycott anons, yet you always respond indirectly. Repeating the same mistake over and over is the very definition of stupid.
And BTW, this blog is not your private play ground, allowing who can or can’t comment. You’re an ignorant little school yard bully. A mentally deficient child.
I have never said to boycott anyone’s comments. Just to generally ignore. I have never made a mistake.
I have never said who can or cannot comment. The closest I have is suggesting the professor makes for a pay to comment like paradigm with all monies going to a scholarship fund for economically disadvantage high school students who would compete via a written essay on the Constitution, or law. That money is then used for college or some other accredited vocation schooling.
Really? How so? Explain that to us.
And can you tell us where we can find your credibility credentials? Or anyone’s’ here?
There are to many roosters in the hen house
This shouldn’t be a 130-comment food fight. If secret surveillance powers were aimed at political opponents and lawyer-client lines got crossed, every adult should be appalled. Full stop. Jersey doesn’t matter.
OLLY,
Well said.
We now have more evidence of wrong doing. There should be a real investigation and if illegal activity is found, then charges should be brought forth. Follow the rule of law. If Republicans did the same, I would say the same thing.
Exactly.
OLLY,
Seems our leftist friends are rather desperate to deflect from the new evidence at hand with their comment bombs.
And who are those leftist friends?
Can you see ghosts too?
Nonsense. Trump could ‘shoot someone of 5th Ave.’ or blow-up civilian fishing boats in the Caribbean, and many here would give him the medal of honor. .. if not the Nobel Peace Prize.
I would. And a 6 bucks for a six-pack of Schlitz.
Trump doesn’t drink alcoholic beverages or smoke tobacco products. Get him a Big Mac and fries, he likes that or some really good golf balls, Titleist or Callaway.
And Schlitz beer doesn’t exist. Think you walked into that one.
It still exists, why there may be secret stashes of Schlitz Malt Liquor Colt 45 hidden away in the inner cities black market.
….. Or the Medal of Freedom Obama bestowed upon draft dodger Bruce Springsteen
Kill Springsteen.
Trapper John,
I always thought Springsteen was over rated.
Overrated? Its one word. Obviously you then missed much of his musical history, not being able to spell, that is.
What a lame, and childlike come back. Ohhh! I hit the space key inadvertently . . . oh, my!!!! Yes, I am laughing at you. And so are many people on this blog.
USF my favorite Springschmuck concert was back in the 80’s when someone threw a firecracker at him and it blew up in his face! A one key wonder he is!
Sure. Yeah, that’s rational point this blog was missing. 🙂
And what is the evidence?
What will you do with that evidence? How do you know he didn’t follow the rule of law.
Why an investigation? If any is found? That sounds like a partisan attack on a federal employee?
Adult. Wait, you thin k you’re an adult?