(07-15-2018 07:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Page was an integral party to two of the most famous and/or important investigations of the decade. Performed by the FBI.

FBI damn sure has an interest in the case and will make sure that their interests (both legal and political) are served.

Having an FBI attorney present at the deposition does not mean that Page was given FBI counsel.

In any deposition setting, lets say Company X sues an employee of Company Y over the his actions that may or may not be part of his job. Or, lets just say some of the issues of the suit is trade secrets but Company Y hasnt been sued.

At that deposition, the lawyers for Company X interview Employee, with his counsel present, and the attorneys for any other involved party (like Company Y) present.

You are off base if you think that the FBI attorney is automatically representing Page. They are there solely in the capacity of representing the interests of the FBI.

This is not a setting as you laid out and the FBI does not get to set in on it if they are not advising as the atty on record.

A court of law has different rules than a congress investigations. This is more like police work and a interview and you are really reaching. As a atty I would think you would know better.

If you disagree find me a legal finding that says a 3rd party atty has the right to sit in on a close door congressional hearing?

(07-15-2018 01:02 PM)banker Wrote:  I've read a little information in this thread I don't agree with.

Let's say I worked for a bank and quit, or was fired. At some period after that I am approach by law enforcement who is looking into possible wrongdoing at the bank at which I had been employed. Under no circumstances does the bank have the right, nor would they have the opportunity, to have their counsel present for that questioning.

Now, if it gets to the point in the process where charges are filed they have every right to interview and depose me, but not a presence at an interview. They would have a right to the transcript of that interview through discovery. Having them there is an intimidation tactic.

Fair enough. I would agree with that difference between informal questioning and true discovery. But this is all done under subpoena, this really cant be judged to be akin to 'informal questioning' or pre-charge questioning.

Something else that crossed my mind is that perhaps Congress is playing this issue uber-safe by 'inviting' the FBI to send a legal representative. Nothing preventing this at all. That is a way they short circuit any potential legal and/or 'stepping on the toes' issues. I think that everyone recognizes that there are FBI legal interests here, even if you discount the chorus of 'the only interest is coverup' that seem so popular here.

But not knowing the inner machinations of the particular interview, that would be pure speculation. But it does make a little bit of sense to do it that way, by extending such a 'courtesy' invite.

(07-15-2018 01:05 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Page was an integral party to two of the most famous and/or important investigations of the decade. Performed by the FBI.

FBI damn sure has an interest in the case and will make sure that their interests (both legal and political) are served.

Having an FBI attorney present at the deposition does not mean that Page was given FBI counsel.

In any deposition setting, lets say Company X sues an employee of Company Y over the his actions that may or may not be part of his job. Or, lets just say some of the issues of the suit is trade secrets but Company Y hasnt been sued.

At that deposition, the lawyers for Company X interview Employee, with his counsel present, and the attorneys for any other involved party (like Company Y) present.

You are off base if you think that the FBI attorney is automatically representing Page. They are there solely in the capacity of representing the interests of the FBI.

This is not a setting as you laid out and the FBI does not get to set in on it if they are not advising as the atty on record.

A court of law has different rules than a congress investigations. This is more like police work and a interview and you are really reaching. As a atty I would think you would know better.

If you disagree find me a legal finding that says a 3rd party atty has the right to sit in on a close door congressional hearing?

Could be. Ive never done or been involved in a Congressional subpoena thingy. And you are absolutely correct that this is Congress not a court of law.

But no, its not like an interview. Its a subpoena. Huge difference between voluntary and compulsion under threat of law.

(07-15-2018 02:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 01:02 PM)banker Wrote:  I've read a little information in this thread I don't agree with.

Let's say I worked for a bank and quit, or was fired. At some period after that I am approach by law enforcement who is looking into possible wrongdoing at the bank at which I had been employed. Under no circumstances does the bank have the right, nor would they have the opportunity, to have their counsel present for that questioning.

Now, if it gets to the point in the process where charges are filed they have every right to interview and depose me, but not a presence at an interview. They would have a right to the transcript of that interview through discovery. Having them there is an intimidation tactic.

Fair enough. I would agree with that difference between informal questioning and true discovery. But this is all done under subpoena, this really cant be judged to be akin to 'informal questioning' or pre-charge questioning.

Something else that crossed my mind is that the Congress is playing this issue uber-safe by 'inviting' the FBI to send a legal representative. Nothing preventing this in the forum. That is a way they short circuit any potential legal and/or stepping on the toes issues.

But not knowing the inner machinations of the particular interview, that would be pure speculation. But it does make a little bit of sense to do it that way, by extending a 'courtesy' invite.

Again you are reaching, badly reaching. It makes zero sense to give a 'courtesy' invite to someone that has avoided or delayed every request you made. There is zero reason for a FBI atty to be in that meeting if not representing Lisa Page.

(07-15-2018 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 01:05 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 07:29 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Page was an integral party to two of the most famous and/or important investigations of the decade. Performed by the FBI.

FBI damn sure has an interest in the case and will make sure that their interests (both legal and political) are served.

Having an FBI attorney present at the deposition does not mean that Page was given FBI counsel.

In any deposition setting, lets say Company X sues an employee of Company Y over the his actions that may or may not be part of his job. Or, lets just say some of the issues of the suit is trade secrets but Company Y hasnt been sued.

At that deposition, the lawyers for Company X interview Employee, with his counsel present, and the attorneys for any other involved party (like Company Y) present.

You are off base if you think that the FBI attorney is automatically representing Page. They are there solely in the capacity of representing the interests of the FBI.

This is not a setting as you laid out and the FBI does not get to set in on it if they are not advising as the atty on record.

A court of law has different rules than a congress investigations. This is more like police work and a interview and you are really reaching. As a atty I would think you would know better.

If you disagree find me a legal finding that says a 3rd party atty has the right to sit in on a close door congressional hearing?

Could be. Ive never done or been involved in a Congressional subpoena thingy. And you are absolutely correct that this is Congress not a court of law.

But no, its not like an interview. Its a subpoena. Huge difference between voluntary and compulsion under threat of law.

I never stated it was not under subpoena and with that there should only be the person under that subpoena and their atty(s). This is closer to a grand jury (without the indictment at this point) than anything else.

I personally dont find anything wrong with her being represented by an atty from the FBI...since thats why she is there in the first place

(07-15-2018 02:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 01:02 PM)banker Wrote:  I've read a little information in this thread I don't agree with.

Let's say I worked for a bank and quit, or was fired. At some period after that I am approach by law enforcement who is looking into possible wrongdoing at the bank at which I had been employed. Under no circumstances does the bank have the right, nor would they have the opportunity, to have their counsel present for that questioning.

Now, if it gets to the point in the process where charges are filed they have every right to interview and depose me, but not a presence at an interview. They would have a right to the transcript of that interview through discovery. Having them there is an intimidation tactic.

Fair enough. I would agree with that difference between informal questioning and true discovery. But this is all done under subpoena, this really cant be judged to be akin to 'informal questioning' or pre-charge questioning.

Something else that crossed my mind is that the Congress is playing this issue uber-safe by 'inviting' the FBI to send a legal representative. Nothing preventing this in the forum. That is a way they short circuit any potential legal and/or stepping on the toes issues.

But not knowing the inner machinations of the particular interview, that would be pure speculation. But it does make a little bit of sense to do it that way, by extending a 'courtesy' invite.

Again you are reaching, badly reaching. It makes zero sense to give a 'courtesy' invite to someone that has avoided or delayed every request you made. There is zero reason for a FBI atty to be in that meeting if not representing Lisa Page.

I guess you think there is/was zero reason for the FBI attorney to 'be present' in person or with advice with Strzok at any hearing (public or private) as well?

If you do, then you and I will have to disagree. And on this as as well.

Did a quick Lexus search.

two things popped out -- the Congressional subpoena power is extraordinarily broad, and extraordinarily unchecked. My comparing it to any *judicial* subpoena is wholly inaccurate.

Congress is as close to be able to write the rules however they wish for their power, with the only exception is that only a 'blatant constitutional violation' is the standard that a court sets for them to be illegal in how they are performed.

That tells me that Congress can essentially write the book on the limit, scope, and operation of its subpoena practice. That also tells me the singular fact that the FBI attorney was there and was involved is because he was invited to the party by the committee that issued the subpoena.

(07-15-2018 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Did a quick Lexus search.

two things popped out -- the Congressional subpoena power is extraordinarily broad, and extraordinarily unchecked. My comparing it to any *judicial* subpoena is wholly inaccurate.

What does this have to do with Lisa Page? She is the target of an investigation by a committee that has constitutional oversight on the department she was a part of. The only difference in this case between a congressional and judiciary subpoena would be that, when she failed to show up on Wednesday, deputies would have been sent to handcuff and skulldrag her into court, and then she would likely spend the weekend in jail for contempt.

(07-15-2018 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Did a quick Lexus search.

two things popped out -- the Congressional subpoena power is extraordinarily broad, and extraordinarily unchecked. My comparing it to any *judicial* subpoena is wholly inaccurate.

Congress is as close to be able to write the rules however they wish for their power, with the only exception is that only a 'blatant constitutional violation' is the standard that a court sets for them to be illegal in how they are performed.

That tells me that Congress can essentially write the book on the limit, scope, and operation of its subpoena practice. That also tells me the singular fact that the FBI attorney was there and was involved is because he was invited to the party by the committee that issued the subpoena.

Except that congressmen themselves who attended the meeting were questioning what dafuq those FBI attorneys were doing there. I figure they'd know if the committee had invited them.

(07-14-2018 05:47 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 04:39 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  Didn't dawn on me that their fling may have soured and that she wants payback.

Then that might mean she’s biased and apt to give fake testimony to frame her ex-lover.

Sex, like Poker, has some immutable rules one of which is, "What's laid is played." She doesn't have to lie, just enlighten. In other words everyone at the table is about to see her cards.

(07-15-2018 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 01:02 PM)banker Wrote:  I've read a little information in this thread I don't agree with.

Let's say I worked for a bank and quit, or was fired. At some period after that I am approach by law enforcement who is looking into possible wrongdoing at the bank at which I had been employed. Under no circumstances does the bank have the right, nor would they have the opportunity, to have their counsel present for that questioning.

Now, if it gets to the point in the process where charges are filed they have every right to interview and depose me, but not a presence at an interview. They would have a right to the transcript of that interview through discovery. Having them there is an intimidation tactic.

Fair enough. I would agree with that difference between informal questioning and true discovery. But this is all done under subpoena, this really cant be judged to be akin to 'informal questioning' or pre-charge questioning.

Something else that crossed my mind is that the Congress is playing this issue uber-safe by 'inviting' the FBI to send a legal representative. Nothing preventing this in the forum. That is a way they short circuit any potential legal and/or stepping on the toes issues.

But not knowing the inner machinations of the particular interview, that would be pure speculation. But it does make a little bit of sense to do it that way, by extending a 'courtesy' invite.

Again you are reaching, badly reaching. It makes zero sense to give a 'courtesy' invite to someone that has avoided or delayed every request you made. There is zero reason for a FBI atty to be in that meeting if not representing Lisa Page.

I guess you think there is/was zero reason for the FBI attorney to 'be present' in person or with advice with Strzok at any hearing (public or private) as well?

If you do, then you and I will have to disagree. And on this as as well.

The obvious reason for a FBI atty to be there, one you refuse to look at....

they are the atty for record for Lisa Page

The committee apparently has unmitigated power to exclude non-interviewees and counsel for non-affiliated parties

If they are 'atty for record' then there will be a 'record' of them being such. And they need to announce themselves as such. Show me that record and I'll believe that assertion. Without a record of any sort we have:

a) they just showed up for ***** and giggles;
b) Page told them, they showed up, no one challenged them being there anywhere on the record;
c) they announced themselves as attorney of record *for* Page, and oddly no record of is produced;
d) they were invited.

For ©, not only is there no record of them being attorney-of-record for Page, everyone (including the Congressmen) all seem to state that 'they were representing the FBI'. Seems to cut completely against your scenario.

Considering Congress *is* the master of its domain for all intents and purposes, they are in the habit of 'setting their own rules' there. Looking at the massive unchecked power that the caselaw indicates that it has, it would be utterly fing stupid for Congress to allow (a), (b), or © to happen, as one would assume that at the very least the counsel for committee would be somewhat obliquely aware of the power Congress has (i.e. *he* has in this case). If (a), (b), or © occurred, then that should be one mfing unemployable counsel (or team), in all honesty.

Or, they were invited.

I dont know for sure.

You are certainly free to think that the committee counsel are completely clueless about their own proceedings, which is required for any of (a)-© to occur.

And: I think the issue over whom is Page's counsel of record was addressed quite heatedly previously around here.

Or maybe they used their super secret stealth FBI training to ninja into the room without the committee counsel knowing exactly who they were.....

(07-15-2018 05:12 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 02:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Did a quick Lexus search.

two things popped out -- the Congressional subpoena power is extraordinarily broad, and extraordinarily unchecked. My comparing it to any *judicial* subpoena is wholly inaccurate.

Congress is as close to be able to write the rules however they wish for their power, with the only exception is that only a 'blatant constitutional violation' is the standard that a court sets for them to be illegal in how they are performed.

That tells me that Congress can essentially write the book on the limit, scope, and operation of its subpoena practice. That also tells me the singular fact that the FBI attorney was there and was involved is because he was invited to the party by the committee that issued the subpoena.

Except that congressmen themselves who attended the meeting were questioning what dafuq those FBI attorneys were doing there. I figure they'd know if the committee had invited them.

Then they need to question their own committee counsel team in that case. I dont think the committee counsel is oblivious to the massive power he/she has in the proceedings. If so, they need to replace that committee counsel and team ASAP if they had that type of uninvited guests to the party.

But this probably defaults to what one believes the competency is for that committee counsel. Since I have one opinion of what Arnold and Porter may or may not have done, and you have another, we may diverge again on this point as well.

Quote:U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a frequent and vocal critic of the FBI, questioned the bureau’s presence at the private testimony.

“Lisa Page is not an FBI employee, but the FBI was here providing counsel and giving her direction as to which questions to answer or not answer and there is a question as to the propriety of that before the House,” Gaetz said, according to the Hill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/...ssion.html

Dunno.

(07-15-2018 06:34 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

Quote:U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., a frequent and vocal critic of the FBI, questioned the bureau’s presence at the private testimony.

“Lisa Page is not an FBI employee, but the FBI was here providing counsel and giving her direction as to which questions to answer or not answer and there is a question as to the propriety of that before the House,” Gaetz said, according to the Hill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/...ssion.html

Dunno.

As I said, they need to be asking their *own* committee counsel unless the FBI attorneys have developed some magic teleportation device and mastered Jedi mind power to keep from being ejected.

Their committee counsel kind of has plenary power here; if the Feeb counsel wasnt supposed to the there and they were, indicates a really bad committee counsel who not only doesnt understand their own subpoena power but also cant seem to be able to police or control their own hearings and meetings *in* the confines of the Capitol building.

Or, the committee counsel was aware of and accepted the presence of the Feeb attorneys.

It really is kind of an either-or choice here.