As President Trump seeks to invoke presidential immunity as an escape clause from prosecution over his payments to adult film stars and efforts to subvert the 2020 election, special counsel Jack Smith has taken several unexpected steps.
Recent news regarding authorities seizing cell phone records belonging to Trump associates may force judges and justices to address this matter.
What Happened?
Hillary Clinton’s new book, What Happened, provides an in-depth account of one of the most significant elections in American history. While fans will likely find her account encouraging and heartbreaking at once, many detractors may find it disappointing or incomplete compared to what they expected based on other reviews such as those written about James B Comey, Bernie Sanders, media coverage and Vladimir Putin.
It is introspective without being self-indulgent, arch without cruelty, and clear-eyed about the climate of gender and racial hostility that defined 2016 presidential campaign. Even with its stilted prose and contrived inspirational quotes, this is a necessary historical document. Even its flaws such as namedropping or occasional halfhearted assertions that she bears ultimate responsibility for her loss — are matters of perspective; most effectively viewed this book not as score settling but civic duty: an occasional reminder of what could have been.
Why Was the Seizure on trump Made?
To be considered legal, any seizure must pass a two-part test known as the reasonableness standard. First, did police have reasonable grounds for conducting the seizure? And secondly, was its scope and duration appropriate in light of circumstances? These answers depend upon facts pertaining to each particular situation where reasonable people would expect action taken in them.
As an example, warrantless digital searches of cell phone information may not be unreasonable when police are looking for evidence of criminal activity and it’s unavoidable due to exigent circumstances (R. v. Reeves 2018 SCC 56 at paragraphs 29-31). Furthermore, restraint of suspects by shooting them in self-defense does not constitute unreasonable seizures if done to prevent escape and serious physical harm to police or others (Quebec (Attorney General) v. Laroche 2002 3 SCCCR 708 at para 54).
How Was the Seizure Made?
Due to an explosive report by The New York Times, Justice Department’s internal watchdog announced on Friday that they will launch an inquiry into whether Trump-era Justice Department officials illegally collected House Democrat data as well as those belonging to their family members during Trump’s term in office. Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco requested an internal inquiry on this issue and requested one be conducted immediately.
Apple was recently served with a subpoena from the Justice Department to obtain data of several House Intelligence Committee members, such as Chairman Adam Schiff and California Representative Eric Swalwell. Apple reported receiving such a subpoena in February 2018 for the iCloud metadata of 73 phone numbers and 36 email addresses belonging to those accounts – some of this information being shared among multiple accounts associated with them.
Phone data could include tweets, photos, locations and who was using the phone at certain points during its use by Mr. Smith in connection with the January 6 riot. Prosecutors could use such evidence against Mr. Smith at trial as proof of his involvement in it.
What Should I Do?
Government entities may seize phones of suspects when authorities believe that they have committed an act that warrants seizure; using such devices, the government can keep an eye on a suspect’s communications and movements more efficiently. As is reported with regard to Trump, authorities have already confiscated devices of some of his associates.
Prosecutors allege that Donald Trump engaged in an illicit, monthslong plot with half a dozen co-conspirators to reverse his 2020 election loss and overturn multiple federal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C SS 371, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States. Trump’s lawyers assert his First Amendment right allows him to engage in free speech; however, according to prosecutors it does not include participating in fraudulent conspiracies.
Jack Smith has disclosed in court filings that he obtained data from President Donald Trump’s phone – crossing what some see as a red line for presidential immunity. With this data gathered from Trump’s device he plans to prosecute him for election interference and related crimes.
