[quote=bearishgurl]
No, the US AG is part of the Presidential Cabinet. Under normal circumstances, an entity or person wishing to subpoena phone records would be required to send a “Notice to Consumer” or similar notice to the entity or individual for whom records were being sought a certain number of days in advance of the deadline for those records to be produced. This is to give the individual or entity served enough time to file a motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum.
This wasn’t done in this case. I don’t know what special powers the US AG’s Office would possess in order to get around this procedure.
Perhaps the semi-well-versed-in-Constitutional-law Pigg SK in CV can shed some light on how/why the AG got the AP to cooperate with their (improper?) SDT in the absence of proper notice, since Pigg scaredycat/Walter has been ignoring us of late.
Certainly the AP has permanent counsel chained to their ankle. There is much to learn here as to why Holder is seemingly large and in charge … but um, really isn’t.
Holder’s Lackey, Cole, stated that two months of phone records were obtained from the AP by subpoena
It is CLEAR here that the US AG was “representing” the CIA in the “acquisition” of the AP’s phone records of 20 of its reporters.[/quote]
I suspect the phone records didn’t come from AP. In fact, that’s gotta be the case, otherwise they (AP) wouldn’t have been surprised when they were notified after the fact. They probably came from numerous phone companies, which were served with the subpoenas. I can’t f’ing believe they didn’t get a warrant, but at least so far, there’s no indication that they did.
I’m guessing it’s the FBI that’s doing the investigation, not the CIA. More likely than not, the leak that they were investigating was a CIA leak, so they want some independence. Plus, I don’t think the CIA can legally do investigations domestically, except on TV.
