Slashdot Mirror
Penn. AG Corbett Subpoenas Twitter For Bloggers' Names
Dthief writes with this from Pennsylvania's ABC27 News: "The state attorney general's office has issued a subpoena threatening officials of the social networking service Twitter with arrest unless they reveal the names of two bloggers who have been critical of Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation. Vic Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union told Pittsburgh's WTAE-TV that the court action 'raises grave concerns about abuse of the grand jury process to retaliate against political critics and opponents.' He said Americans 'have a right to criticize government officials and to do so anonymously.'"
In the words of George Carlin "You have no rights"
Twitter doesn't store personal details. Even putting a name in your profile name is optional. How can they provide information they don't even collect?
my other sig is also a porsche
Wow. Way to go authoritarian police state. Let's not even try to hide it anymore.
There is a war going on for your mind.
I doubt this is going to work. There's no way a lawyer could write a subpoena in under 140 characters.
My webcomic
Let me be the first say that Tom Corbett is an asshat. He is also the Republican nominee for Governor of Pennsylvania. One has to wonder how much of this is motivated by his candidacy.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Here's the two people he's requesting subpoenas for:
http://twitter.com/bfbarbie
http://twitter.com/CasablancaPA
Let's see if we can make them go from 300-500 followers to 3,000-5,000.
I can't believe he's making such a huge stink over someone with a few hundred followers.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Seems like they need a great big kick in the democratic ass.
Isn't free speech allowed unless you're directly threating someone? From the stories I've read this person might be corrupted. Why is he threating with arrests instead of responding to those claims? Unless of course, he is corrupted person.
...two twitter users frantically edit their profiles and strip out their personal information.
According to Wikipedia, Twitter is based in California. Why is the attorney general of Pennsylvania threatening Twitter's higher-ups with arrest? There must be something here I don't know.
That Anonymous Coward guy is pretty annoying. Can we have the government censor him or something?
Hey, Mr. Corbett? Let me teach you about a little something called the Streisand Effect.
Something tells me you're going to be very well acquainted with it in a day or so.
That's kind of old, according do ACLU helping keep Twitter users' IDs secret in Pa. a judge will decide whether the subpoena is thrown out.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
He is looking for the names of people who have criticized him? Really? Because I am pretty sure that by doing this, half the Internet will be speaking poorly of him. And I for one, am drinking the cool-aid.
Fuck Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption investigation. Fuck him in his stupid ass. He is fucking clown shoes.
Come get me Tom. I dare you.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
And, given the other story on Slashdot today, he'll soon be able to have his office look up the DNA records of the people once he identifies them.
"Hello, Somebusiness Inc? Hi, this is the Attorney General's office. We're very interested in one of your employees, Mr. X. No sorry can't tell you - it's an active investigation. But you know what's interesting... he's pretty likely to get heart disease, his insurance payments and absences are going to go way up. Oh, and his son has ALS, did you know that? He's probably going to take lots of time off soon to take care of him. Yeah, it's tough to have an employee like him, even without a criminal investigation. Oh, did we say criminal investigation? We weren't supposed to mention it. Oh well, bye"
If there is reasonable suspicion to believe that grand jury proceedings are being UNLAWFULLY disclosed to the public via the twitterers, then the Attorney General is merely doing his duty. Secrecy of grand jury proceedings is absolutely vital to provide fairness to the targets and to the witnesses. Reputations can be destroyed by a leak of grand jury information. The movie 'Absence of Malice' is a good illustration of how the grand jury process can be abused by illegal leakages and result in damage to innocent people.
On the other hand, the secrecy of the grand jury process gives the prosecuting attorney ENORMOUS power that can be abused by bad men or women.
Before I jump on the "enemy of freedom" bandwagon, I'd need to see the tweets. If it looks like they have an 'inside man' in the grand jury room, then I am totally on the side of the Attorney General. On the other hand, if they're just complaining about his behavior based upon what witnesses have reported about their own testimony (that's legal), then you can count me in among the haters.
There's just not enough information available yet.
I do hope Twitter moves to quash the subpoena. That way the Judge overseeing the grand jury proceedings will have to examine the prosecuting attorney's actions. If twitter caves in, then nothing is private on that website.
Only in the sense that he's a big, big troll.
IANAL, so how does the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania subpoena someone who's not a resident? Can't he just give them a raspberry and tell the to fsck off?
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
just don't say anything critical of a public offical, make a joke about someones race or gender (unless they are a white male, then it's fine), fly with your laptop or shoes, be part of a muslim group, photograph a public building or dare to say the word fuck on tv.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Isn't free speech allowed unless you're directly threating someone?
Apparently you haven't RTFA or done any other checking.
The particular Twitter ID's in question are linked to an ongoing corruption case against a number of Democrat politicians/operatives, and it's suspected that a defendant in that ongoing case has been tweeting & blogging anonymously about the prosecutor & AG and the investigation itself.
In many courts/proceedings, revealing proceeding-related information or attempting to poison the proceedings outside the courtroom is cause for prosecution and/or contempt-of-court charges.
If this is true and the AG has probable cause to legitimately suspect criminal actions have taken/are taking place, would he not be remiss if he did nothing?
This submission appears to be quite partisan and one-sided, as well as sparse on the facts and context.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
AGs have different powers and restrictions in different states.
In Wisconsin for example, the very conservative AG has been blocked from joinging the anti-mandate lawsuit by the very liberal Governer and Legislature.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
At least one is quite a blogger.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I live in PA. Corbett is a corrupt asshole who should spend the rest of his life in jail, and he wants to be Governor. I agree with all of your facts, but guy is still a chicken-fucker.
But what if the twitterer ISN'T at all connected to the investigation?
What if they are just a person who reads the papers and is pissed off, or who hears rumors from others or whatever?
Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?
This space available.
There is no better way to dissuade people from being critical of a public corruption investigation than to be publicly corrupt. ...Or does it mean that no investigation is really needed now?
He's a Republican. Draw your own conclusions. I'm kidding of course, as a Republican he wouldn't dream of being in an association that has anything to do with the letter "N".
The other bit of information that doesn't appear in this summary is that he just won his parties nomination as candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania. About this, I am not kidding.
It's a very interesting story, and worth examining. His office just released a statement that he has reason to believe one of the twitter accounts that he's trying to subpoena belongs to the defendant in a case he is prosecuting. He doesn't mention anything about the other account. But since there aren't any threats alleged in these tweets, just a lot of the usual political criticisms and slams, it would seem that his cause of action, if any, would be regarding libel, which would be civil court. Instead, he uses the criminal law enforcement powers of his office to subpoena two twitter accounts, which seems to pretty much violate the First Amendment. His case would seem to question the right of anyone to make an anonymous comment on the Internet, which might be of interest to readers of Slashdot.
He's been accused of using the powers of his office to advance his political career before, and also of corruption and overreaching his constitutional powers in prosecuting a lot of Democrats and a very few Republicans. This incident is some pretty dangerous stuff, though, if you care about free speech.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Have you tried watching COPS while reciting to yourself "innocent until proven guilty" every time they arrest someone?
America is NOT the land of the free....
Dear trum4n,
Please contact us with an address at which you can be reached during business hours.
Thank you.
Isn't free speech allowed unless you're directly threating [sic.] someone?
Nobody is proposing to disallow anyone's free speech here. They just want to know who it was that said it. This is about the constitutionally unprotected right to anonymity.
But what if the twitterer ISN'T at all connected to the investigation?
What if they are just a person who reads the papers and is pissed off, or who hears rumors from others or whatever?
Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?
If he can get a subpoena, that means he will have had to have had a judge look at the evidence and decide the facts do, indeed, merit his request.
Does a person have to be tried & convicted before evidence of his crime can be subpoenaed?
That seems a bit backwards, but some people will justify an amazing amount of hypocrisy to defend their ideology & leaders. And, yes, I'd say the same things if the (R) & (D) tags were reversed, as it isn't about the party, just the crime(s). Just as I say that GWB screwed up a lot of stuff and I disagreed with many of his administration's actions and policies.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
So basically, what you're saying is the corrupt have rights and the honest, whether they reveal corruption within the corruption about the corrupt have no rights whatsoever?
There ain't no foxes in this here chicken coop and we'll sue anyone who says otherwise.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
I posted anonymously on blogs, twitter and youtube regarding a Canadian incident where the former Attorney General of Ontario was the driver of a vehicle that was involved in the death of a cyclist. Security cameras showed something unpleasant about the ex AG's actions. Anonymity is essential for whistle-blowing at that level.
-honestedits
Anonymity is extremely important. On more occasions than I can count, I've espoused the virtues of (pseudo)anonymous communications techniques, coupled with strong encryption. Note that this shouldn't be construed to say I believe people should be absolved of being held accountable for their actions if they do something wrong. I do, however, acknowledge that under certain circumstances (repressive regimes for example) local law may not be in line with what the rest of the planet finds remotely reasonable. Like everything else that involves people, these things require careful consideration and deliberation amongst the citizens affected by them.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Usually this sort of legal nonsense is reserved for nations that have lost their minds. I am not convinced that the government of Pennsylvania is at all sane these days. The right of an attorney general to investigate is clear. The right of that attorney general to involve third parties under threat of arrest is not clear at all. This is perverted law at best.
Anybody have a current count of their followers now?
Blocked at work :(
You are thinking of a warrant which requires a signature from a judge. It is quite common for lawyers as "officers of the court" to have the power to issue subpeonas on their own. It is also common for prosecutors and Attorneys General especially, to have such power. I'm not familiar with the situation in Pennsylvania but if a court is involved it is probably just a clerical matter that a clerk rubber-stamps.
Americans 'have a right to criticize government officials and to do so anonymously.'
Do they? We have a right to free speech. Where are we given a right to anonymity?
Free speech does not require a judge's determination. The right to free speech trumps an investigation into leakage. The investigators will just have to find another way. This always pisses off the cops on Law and Order, but it is one of the safeguards built into the American Constitution intended to limit government power.
Gary Dunn
Open Slate Project
I'm not sure that this is about free speech. If the blagger, once identified, has nothing to do with the proceedings, nothing will happen to him. If he has then there will be legal consequences. Nothing here that impinges on free speech.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
So basically, what you're saying is the corrupt have rights and the honest, whether they reveal corruption within the corruption about the corrupt have no rights whatsoever?
There ain't no foxes in this here chicken coop and we'll sue anyone who says otherwise.
The submission and your assumptions are incorrect. The subpoena has to do with another ongoing investigation into corruption in which it is suspected that the defendant(s) has engaged in possibly illegal actions regarding the proceedings through the use of Twitter and a blog.
Or is it OK now for politicians you like to break the law, and not OK for a politician you don't like to follow the law, particularly when following the law hurts your favored politician/ideology?
Some animals are more equal than others.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Good for you. Now call him and tell him your name and address so he can take you up on your offer.
It won't impinge free speech, but eventually it all gets unsealed, and their identities go public for anyone who can fill out a FOIA request to find--and being that the Library of Congress is now archiving tweets, there's no way to guarantee that something that was said previously (even if the accounts never get used again) won't someday come back to bite them in the ass. Thus, this whole thing creates a bit of a sticky situation.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
There's a larger problem with the whole thing, though; he is being investigated, and yet he is issuing a subpoena related, possibly, to that investigation. There's only a few possible motives for him doing such a thing, and not many of them are to help along the investigation of himself. Thus why independent prosecutors exist, and should be used for this sort of thing; the investigation of Clinton is about the closest situation I can think of at the moment--his AG couldn't be in on it because he's a Cabinet member, appointed by and serving at the leisure of the President--thus, easily influenced by him, making him possibly ineffective at the job.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
This submission appears to be quite partisan and one-sided, as well as sparse on the facts and context.
You must be new here...
but guy is still a chicken-fucker.
I have no idea whatsoever.
I'll have to leave it to your apparent expertise.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This submission appears to be quite partisan and one-sided, as well as sparse on the facts and context.
You must be new here...
Heh! As soon as I posted that and looked at it, I thought to myself; "...in three...two...one..." :D
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
If you then make it a condition that no AG or politician that may be under some kind of investigation can perform essential functions of their office (and for AG, investigations & prosecutions are a major part),...
This isn't a case of may be under investigation--this guy is under investigation, and this is a critical difference. If it were limited to, say, wrongdoing by someone in the AG's office, not the AG himself, it would be a wholly different matter.
then you've effectively shut down nearly all oversight and curbs on corruption.
Thus why Special (or Independent) Prosecutors exist; and in this instance, this manner of party could be selected by the PA Legislature to remove all doubt that s/he is tainted by the AGs office. There are safeguards for this sort of thing, it's fairly difficult to think that a large number of persons, even if the Legislature is heavily in favour of his party, would blithely ignore ethics to ensure it all goes smoothly for the party.
Why does it seem like every time a conservative, with no clear and/or credible evidence of any wrongdoing on his part regarding the investigation in question,
Party affiliation aside, the fact is if the evidence were either clear OR credible, the need for an extensive investigation is obviated; that's the point of an investigation is to obtain clear and/or credible evidence to move to the courts. And in any case, once the spotlight turns significantly, for an official in any position of trust or authority on a matter--whether an Attorney General, a judge, or a Chief Executive--recusal is proper even if only to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. When it looks like you might be hiding something, the fact is, that's what the court of public opinion is going to arrive at. Take the case of Rod Blagojevich, for example; to be technical, he was impeached by the Illinois House twice (a technicality of the Senate not being able to try after the first, due to the end of the term; this required the articles be re-presented by the new House)--the votes to impeach, and the vote to remove, were overwhelming in their majority, with few people even in his own party, whether elected officials or common folk being on his side. It's not always about party lines, as you indicate, particularly when you're using your position to cover things up.
I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
Congrats, you are an idiot.
Huh? If it "come[s] back to bite them in the ass" and makes people think twice before speaking up, then free speech will have been impinged.
That's... Kind of how the system works. You suspect a crime has been committed, contact the police, and they investigate. In this instance, subpoenas for the identify of a blogger are totally justified in investigating possible contempt of court charges.
Do the police magically know who is committing a crime as soon as you report it where you live? It must be awfully safe around there.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous". If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
... or what? You gonna threaten CmdrTaco with arrest?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
After a brief 175 microsecond investigation, we have now discovered that Tom Corbett has been posting online on Slashdot heavily as some dude named Anonymous Coward.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Maybe he should have thought about what he said before he said it. The concept of free speech has nothing to do with identification. This issue could never have been seen. It used to be that most authors were readily identifiable. Free speech only ensures that you can't be prosecuted by the government for what you say.(Not the norm in a lot of countries) I kind of feel terrible that gutter sniping has become the norm and that people feel that anonymity is required for free speech. Maybe the states really doesn't have free speech if people fear retribution for what they say.
Not any more than one could expect otherwise. Free Speech protections don't include any measures to protect you from backlash from some stupid or defamatory things you say; it simply protects your right to speak freely. The process the GP describes is little more than a publicly accessible archive. Not dissimilar to video/audio recordings (except in terms of public accessibility). People are still bitten in the ass by spoken speech.
The situation in Pennsylvania is that I wish Molly Ivins were still alive to write about a worse state government than Texas.
The accounts have criticized Corbett's use of grand juries, suggesting he used the investigations for political gain and to go after political opponents
In other words, he is using a grand jury to go after people who have accused him of abusing his power.
Does a person lose their right to anonymous speech merely because someone SUSPECTS that they might someone else?
I wasn't aware that any person had the right to anonymous speech. This is from Wikipedia:
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, such as on "hate speech".
Can you show me anywhere in relevant legislation where it says that a person has the right to be anonymous? Freedom of expression is a legal guarantee that you can't be prosecuted under criminal law for expression you views - but you still need to have the courage to express your views in the open, as opposed to behind people's back.
You may be thinking of "whistleblowing" - but there is no universal, legal protection for whisteblowers. Perhaps there ought to be, but that is beside the point - the fact remains that there isn't.
Corbett isn't just the Attorney General who filed suit against the President trying to get a federal law (that hasn't even gone into effect yet) declared unconstitutional. Corbett is also the Republican candidate for Governor. If his skin is this thin, he's going to have a rough patch coming on. Corbett is also a Goober.
I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous".
It is, in certain cases. Here are several examples.
If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?
That's essentially the rule. Free speech can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However libel, slander, violating gag orders, revealing sensitive information, and other actions are not free speech, and thus don't have any of these protections.
In cases like this, where the illegality of the speech is determined by the identity of the author (if they are a juror speaking of a case, it is illegal, but not if they are a random dude) it should be up to a judge to weight the burden of prosecution if they are acting illegaly, with the reasonable protection of someone who wasn't involved's privacy. That's why the users have the chance to file a counter-motion.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
It's an established principle because limiting anonymous speech would, indeed, have the effect of limiting speech. To not protect anonymous speech but to claim to be still supportive of "Freedom of speech" would be a little like banning printing presses but arguing that you still support Freedom of Speech because, well, people can always talk to one another.
It's always been the case, in any regime, no matter how liberal, that intimidation and discrimination that follows the expression of certain viewpoints will result in those viewpoints not being expressed unless the protection of anonymity is provided. Long after the US became free, anonymous and pseudonymous journalism remained a bastion of debate, and nothing has changed to suggest that the same principles do not apply today.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It won't impinge free speech,
Actually it will. It's known as "chilling effect." If you know that it's possible for your anonymous political speech to be identified, you're less likely to criticize powerful people who can take retaliation against you.
Free Speech protections don't include any measures to protect you from backlash from some stupid or defamatory things you say; it simply protects your right to speak freely.
Actually it does. That's the reason why the Supreme Court upheld anonymous speech. (I'm too lazy to look up the case.)
The Constitution protects anonymous writing because the people who wrote the Constitution published anonymous writing.
I don't want to have to go to court to prove that my writing isn't defamatory. I'd rather that they couldn't find me in the first place.
The subpoena as well as some comments by one of the twitter-ers can be seen here: - http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/19/tom-corbett-twitter/
-- QED
I wasn't aware that any person had the right to anonymous speech. This is from Wikipedia:
Can you show me anywhere in relevant legislation where it says that a person has the right to be anonymous?
Bakkster just did above.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1659634&cid=32292314
If I remember correctly its been several cases, most notably was a ruling that prevented a local government from forcing door-to-door religious salespeople from registering their real names before trying to convert residents. Generally the opinions have been that anonymous criticism of government is a good thing.
I'd rather that they couldn't find me in the first place.
Though I agree with the sentiment, these bloggers lost that ability when they gave their personal information to Twitter to set up their accounts. If they truly desired to speak anonymously, they shouldn't have coughed up personal information to a third party so easily. The individuals are not being forced to identify themselves, Twitter is being forced to identify their users. AFAIK, Twitter has no obligation to protect their anonymity.
For what its worth, my understanding of this situation is that their postings fall squarely into the realm of political criticism. The AG is (IMO) acting like a whiny child.
A man once said (I believe, Lazarus Long), Priests and politicians should be considered guilty until proven innocent.
I do not care for any politicians since they all have something to hide in their past that would make them unsuitable to hold political office.
The people most capable of running this country are smart enough to not get involved in politics.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Does Twitter even collect the information they want? Can't you just lie on the sign-up form?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nothing will happen to him in the courts.
His tires might get slashed. Power turned off in middle of winter for unexplained reasons. The concern here is a corrupt politician is using the courts to identify his vocal opponents so he can illegally harass and intimidate them into being quiet.
nothing will happen to him.
Nothing that a few weeks in the hospital can't fix, anyway.
Sorry, you must be confusing conservatives with SEIU/AFLCIO thugs.
Those on the Progressive Left are the ones that employ bused-in union thugs to gang-beat peaceful non-violent middle-aged black vendors at opposition rallies while spewing racist epithets, then go on to cry on TV about how dangerous/violent their opposition is, and that they are somehow the ones to blame for violence. How "Progressive" of them, eh?
"Loudly accuse your opponent of all the dirty tricks you yourself use even if they do not" has been a mainstay of Progressive tactics since it's birth, along with silencing opposition by any means necessary.
It's a fact demonstrated again and again throughout history; the larger a government is, and the more a government provides, the less freedom there will be and the more dissent of any kind will be silenced/punished.
What the Tea Party/Town Hall protesters should do is keep a stash of various union T-shirts, buttons, and caps. Then, when the thugs start rolling the buses in, pass out identical shirts, buttons, and caps to Tea Party members with bullhorns with orders to sow mass confusion among the thugs with conflicting commands, etc before they can hurt anyone.
That would make a totally hilarious YouTube video! :D
Strat
I disagree!=Troll.
Looks like the Progressive astroturf mods aren't in any danger of being unemployed, though the Progressive politicians will find themselves suddenly "in the private sector" after this coming November.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
There's a larger problem with the whole thing, though; he is being investigated, and yet he is issuing a subpoena related, possibly, to that investigation. There's only a few possible motives for him doing such a thing, and not many of them are to help along the investigation of himself. Thus why independent prosecutors exist, and should be used for this sort of thing; the investigation of Clinton is about the closest situation I can think of at the moment--his AG couldn't be in on it because he's a Cabinet member, appointed by and serving at the leisure of the President--thus, easily influenced by him, making him possibly ineffective at the job.
If you then make it a condition that no AG or politician that may be under some kind of investigation can perform essential functions of their office (and for AG, investigations & prosecutions are a major part), then you've effectively shut down nearly all oversight and curbs on corruption. If you're a political player that thinks you may be on the investigative radar, just get the officials behind it embroiled in some meaningless charges. If the investigation gets too close, just scream about "possible conflicts".
Technically, *any* investigation *may* touch upon some other matter or investigation. How does one know unless one investigates? If it could be proven he had some foreknowledge that the investigation he launched had ties to his own investigation...well, there are already-existing policies and laws to handle such things for this exact reason, right?
Normally, if an AG/prosecutor/etc starts an investigation and it comes to light *after* the investigation starts that there may be a conflict he was previously unaware of, he would recuse himself and the case/investigation/prosecution continues. If a state AG cannot investigate anyone from the other party, that would give free rein for that party to be as corrupt and criminal as they want without fear.
Why does it seem like every time a conservative, with no clear and/or credible evidence of any wrongdoing on his part regarding the investigation in question, is in charge of an investigation regarding a Progressive, the cry is "there is nothing to prove he is NOT violating ethical/legal standards and should be attacked/investigated/prosecuted!" and when the shoe is on the other political foot, any suggestion that there may be conflicts of interest/corruption is viciously attacked, even when there is video/audio/blatant evidence that the suspicions are true?
Personally, I feel that those on the Progressive Left that scream the loudest and are most outraged when they are investigated for blatant corruption, etc are that upset & vocal not so much because of what an investigation may reveal, but they are outraged because of their arrogant attitude that THEY are on the ones who investigate OTHERS, and how dare they? THEY are only dumb hicks "clinging to their God and their guns" that should be electing us as rulers for life, like our good Progressive friend Hugo!
The USA was a great nation long before Progressiveism, and if we survive, will be a great nation again without it.
Strat
Wow, the Progressive astroturf/modding operations must be in full panic mode these days trying to silence all the voices asking inconvenient questions and pointing out inconvenient facts.
Again, I disagree!=Troll.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Bakkster just did above.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1659634&cid=32292314
So what you are saying is that because certain legal cases support this principle, that makes it the law? I can't claim to have studied American law in any detail, but have always assumed that the separation of power was fundamental to any modern, democratic society. If what you are implying is correct, then that is not true for the US - since in that case judges also become legislators.
In my own coutry, the role of a judge is to interpret existing law, taking into account precedent, and to rule accordingly; the purpose, of course, being that a judge shouldn't be allowed to make it up as he goes along. A very valid point, in my view.
So what you are saying is that because certain legal cases support this principle, that makes it the law?
Yes, that's the way the law works. U.S. law is derived from English law, and English law is based on the development of legal cases over time. In the U.S., judges additionally have to interpret the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, which applies here.
You just have to understand the law. Go to the library and look up a book on introduction to the law.
On this point, you can read the book, Bramble Bush: On Our Law and Its Study, by Karl Nickerson Llewellyn.
Separation of power means that the judiciary can strike down laws if they violate the Constitution, which is the highest law.
The legislature is one power. They pass laws. The judiciary is a separate power. They strike down laws if they violate the Constitution.