President Trump’s former attorney, Sidney Powell is suing Verizon phone company over a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6th Capitol riot.
President Trump’s former attorney, Sidney Powell is suing Verizon phone company over a subpoena from the House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6th Capitol riot.
Background: The House Select Committee comprised of seven Democrats and two Republicans has issued 82 subpoenas to people and organizations related to the events of Jan. 6th.
What Happened: Powell’s attorney Bob Holmes filed the lawsuit and laid out multiple arguments to prevent Verizon from complying with the House panel’s records request.
Argument 1: The lawsuit argues the records are protected by attorney-client privilege and that the committee has not demonstrated a “valid legislative purpose” for the request.
Argument 2: The lawsuit further claims that the subpoena violates multiple laws, as well as Powell’s constitutional rights.
Argument 3: The lawsuit argues that the subpoena violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996 because it seeks “contents of a communication while in electronic storage” without authorization from Powell or the law, and that it violates Powell’s First Amendment right to freedom of association because it is overly broad and does not “advance a sufficiently important governmental interest to permit its enforcement.” (per The Hill)
Argument 4: The lawsuit also alleges that it violates Powell’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and her right to privacy.
Argument 5: It additionally asserts that the enforcement of the subpoena would violate federal and state laws concerning evidence by depriving Powell of the chance to “review the proposed disclosure and assert applicable privileges.” (per The Hill)
Argument 6: The lawsuit concludes with the argument that the enforcement of the subpoena would cause Powell “irreparable harm” and calls for the court to issue an injunction barring Verizon from releasing Powell’s records and to rule that the subpoena is unlawful and cannot be enforced.