DiabloWags said:
To be more specific . . .
"As you are aware, there is some litigation risk regarding whether compelled disclosure of toll records of a Member's legislative calls violates the Speech or Debate Clause in the D.C. Circuit," Principal Deputy Chief of the DOJ's Public Integrity Section John Keller wrote in a May 17, 2023 email to two top members of the special counsel's team.
Keep reading:
===
In other words, the Biden Administration ignored Smith's blatant violation of congressional Republicans' constitutional rights under the Speech or Debate Clause because the special counsel's office was unlikely to criminally charge any of the congressional Republicans and therefore, there was little "litigation risk" that a court would exclude the unconstitutionally seized evidence.
That the Biden Administration's DOJ and the special counsel's office viewed the subpoenaed congressional Republicans as uninvolved in any of the supposed criminal activity under investigation related to the 2020 election proves significant for a second reason: Several federal judges or magistrates entered nondisclosure orders under the Stored Communications Act, meaning the telecommunication providers were directed not to "disclose the existence of the Subpoena to any other person (except attorneys for PROVIDER for the purpose of receiving legal advice)."
But the Stored Communications Act authorizes a nondisclosure order only if a judge finds there is "reason to believe" that notifying an individual of the subpoena would result in "(1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; (2) flight from prosecution; (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence; (4) intimidation of potential witnesses; or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial."
Yet in subpoenas sent to Verizon for the records of (R Congressmen) Special Counsel Smith sought a nondisclosure order. *** Judge James Boasberg
found "reasonable grounds to believe that such disclosure will result in destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation."
Given that the special counsel's team with the concurrence of the DOJ believed it unlikely that any of the congressional Republicans would face criminal charges, it is inconceivable that the special counsel's office would nonetheless represent to a court that there were "reasonable grounds" to believe disclosing the subpoena to the members of Congress would result in the destruction or tampering of evidence, intimidation of witnesses, or otherwise jeopardized the investigation."