Octopus Overlords

So I put out the Popehat Signal Wednesday while guest-hosting Sirius XM Insight's Stand UP! with Pete Dominick, to gain some clarity from one of the best First Amendment commentators in the biz, lawyer Ken White. We discussed his great Charlottesville piece, "America At The End of All Hypotheticals," chewed on the ethics of outing alt-right demonstrators (he's fine with it as long as you've ID'd the right people), and then pivoted to private-company disassociation from deplorables:

Matt Welch: […] What should we think about free-speech implications, if any, of large, broad-based Internet service kind of providers kicking people off for their racisty conduct and life?

Ken White: […] [H]ere's where I part company with a lot of other free speech advocates. I think those companies have a right to free speech and free association. If I'm going to go all Romney on you, I'll say corporations are people, too. But instead, I can just say these are businesses run by groups of people, and their free speech desires and free association desires are just as valid as those as the Nazis.

If they don't want to host Nazis on their private platforms, then that's a free speech choice. Whether or not I agree with it, it's on a plane with the decisions of the Nazis to be Nazis in the first place. So, this is…a situation where some people are suggesting somehow that Group B should shut up and refrain from speech, refrain from free association, to make Group A more comfortable in its speech. I don't think that's a coherent philosophy.

tgb wrote:In the event he decides to run for public office one day, we do have all of his RPG-nerd posts archived, right?

Rip wrote:

Pyperkub wrote:

Rip wrote:

I think you need to find a pic of Tareeq for that

Rip wrote:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is demanding extensive information on five Twitter users for the sin of being tagged in a post containing a single smiley-face emoji.

Techdirt reported today on the legal saga, which ensnared five Twitter accounts, including First Amendment lawyer and Reason contributing editor Ken White, also known as "Popehat."

The other users included laywer and author Keith Lee (@associatesmind), privacy activist "Dissent Doe" (@PogoWasRight), "Mike Honcho" (@dawg8u) and "Virgil" (@abtnatural). All are "folks who are quite active in legal/privacy issues on Twitter," according to Techdirt's Mike Masnick.

Moliere wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:56 pm DOJ Demands Info on Popehat and Others Tagged in Smiley Emoji Tweet

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is demanding extensive information on five Twitter users for the sin of being tagged in a post containing a single smiley-face emoji.

Techdirt reported today on the legal saga, which ensnared five Twitter accounts, including First Amendment lawyer and Reason contributing editor Ken White, also known as "Popehat."

The other users included laywer and author Keith Lee (@associatesmind), privacy activist "Dissent Doe" (@PogoWasRight), "Mike Honcho" (@dawg8u) and "Virgil" (@abtnatural). All are "folks who are quite active in legal/privacy issues on Twitter," according to Techdirt's Mike Masnick.

Holman wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:04 pm No sweat. No Kriminal Sopina, no Krimes!

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:43 am Mr. Fed is on the latest podcast of More Perfect podcast (sort of the Radiolab about Supreme Court cases)!

Jag wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:16 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:43 am Mr. Fed is on the latest podcast of More Perfect podcast (sort of the Radiolab about Supreme Court cases)!

I downloaded it the other day, haven't gotten around to listening to it yet.

Moliere wrote:Six Thoughts After Appearing On Fox News @ Night

Make No Law podcasts.

Archinerd wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:49 am My worlds are colliding now. Just listened to the interview on the Make Me Smart podcast. Kai interviews Mr. Fed in the 2nd half of the episode.

Archinerd wrote: ↑Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:30 pm If you listen to the Make No Law podcast (I don't) it was probably repeat info.

AWS260 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:12 pm On the origin of "Mr. Fed."

Spoiler:

Popehat wrote:"MR. FED, HOW EXACTLY DID THIS WORK? THIS FAKE GENITALIA?"

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:53 pm Mr Fed posted on the Michael Cohen raid on Popehat today, and teh interwebs broke popehat...

Holman wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 5:13 pm

Pyperkub wrote: ↑Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:53 pm Mr Fed posted on the Michael Cohen raid on Popehat today, and teh interwebs broke popehat...

Twitter to the rescue:

link

the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country) secured the search warrants for the FBI, based on a referral from Robert Mueller's office. Assuming this report is correct, that means that a very mainstream U.S. Attorney's Office—not just Special Counsel Robert Mueller's office—thought that there was enough for a search warrant here.

2. Moreover, it's not just that the office thought that there was enough for a search warrant. They thought there was enough for a search warrant of an attorney's office for that attorney's client communications. That's a very fraught and extraordinary move that requires multiple levels of authorization within the Department of Justice. The U.S. Attorney's Manual (USAM)—at Section 9-13.320—contains the relevant policies and procedures. The highlights:

The feds are only supposed to raid a law firm if less intrusive measures won't work. As the USAM puts it:

In order to avoid impinging on valid attorney-client relationships, prosecutors are expected to take the least intrusive approach consistent with vigorous and effective law enforcement when evidence is sought from an attorney actively engaged in the practice of law. Consideration should be given to obtaining information from other sources or through the use of a subpoena, unless such efforts could compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.

Such a search requires high-level approval. The USAM requires such a search warrant to be approved by the U.S. Attorney—the head of the office, a presidential appointee—and requires "consultation" with the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is not a couple of rogue AUSAs sneaking in a warrant.

Such a search requires an elaborate review process. The basic rule is that the government may not deliberately seize, or review, attorney-client communications. The USAM—and relevant caselaw—therefore require the feds to set up a review process.

the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country)

ImLawBoy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:22 am

the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (widely regarded within itself as being the most important and prestigious U.S. Attorney's Office in the country)

I just love that line.