As I was reading the article you linked I began to ask myself, "how was a Search Warrant ever granted for this?" as the article, overall, makes it appear that the request itself seems to be strictly for political "payback" type of reasons. However, upon reading the last two paragraphs, it seems that Justice * may * actually have a valid legal reason for the Search Warrant and the requested information.
The last two paragraphs:
"The warrant, dated July 12, says that authorities will seize any information constituting violations of D.C. code governing riots that involve individuals connected to the protests on Inauguration Day.
More than 200 people were indicted on felony rioting charges in connection with the protests in Washington on Jan. 20."
With that said, I think the outcome of the hearing tomorrow (this Friday according to the article) should help clarify if Justice does, in fact, have valid legal grounds for the Search Warrant and if so, if the scope of the Search Warrant is also legal. Also, even if legal, just how broad or narrow those legal actions are currently should also be of interest to all citizens, imo.
Either way, the Search Warrant and the scope of the requested information alone does have my attention. I'm not a fan of the increased surveillance abilities of our government against citizens since 9/11 or what appears to be an ever increasing broadening of those same powers.
I don't agree with all the rioting and destruction of property, & the lack of police action to stop it and arrest the people actually rioting and destroying public and private property for any reason. The laws being used in this case that allowed Justice to be initially granted the Search Warrant may actually be laws that have been on the books for years, perhaps even prior to 9/11. (?)
I think more information will have to be made public about this specific case, and hearing, before a true decision about how I feel regarding this specific topic can be reached. One thing is for sure, I hope journalist and others will keep pressing for information over time and regardless of the outcome (good/bad legally) not allow this story to fade away or be covered up (whichever the case may end up). |
