[STARLIT]

Roscoe B. Davis... I stand by my opinion they used an NSL to get these records.

Two contentious aspects of NSLs are the nondisclosure provision and judicial oversight when the FBI issues an NSL. When the Director of the FBI (or his designee) authorizes the inclusion of a nondisclosure provision in an NSL, the recipient may face criminal prosecution.

The purpose of a nondisclosure provision is to prevent the recipient of an NSL from compromising both the current FBI investigation involving a specific person as well as future investigations, either of which could fetter the Government's efforts to address threats to NAT SEC.

But see that's the crux of this, where is the National Security threat? They have to be able to justify that if it's properly challenged.

Like ALL other administrative subpoenas, NSLs do not require judicial approval. For NSLs, that is because the U.S. Supreme Court has held the types of information the FBI obtains with NSLs provide no constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy under the PPA

Congressional Subpoenas rules empower all its standing committees with the authority to compel witnesses to produce testimony & documents for subjects under its jurisdiction. In fact, legal rights associated with a judicial subpoena do not apply to a Congressional subpoena.

In other words, congress can't subpoena a private citizen or a private entity to turn over documents of a customer, they have to get a judge. It's pretty simple.

Lawfareblog and the Wittes crew are full of shit.

Chapter 85 of title 28, US Code, Sec. 1365a. "Congressional actions against subpoena recipients"

"The action shall be filed in a United States district court of competent jurisdiction. It shall be the duty of the US district courts"

[Freee-dame]

I could never be a lawyer and have to try to understand all of this legalese.