6 ms·

They did this to Rudy Guilliani too. FBI was going into his iCloud for over a year. What makes it more egregious was that Guilliani was Trump's lawyer during th

They did this to Rudy Guilliani too. FBI was going into his iCloud for over a year. What makes it more egregious was that Guilliani was Trump's lawyer during the impeachment. So the government was both prosecuting him, and spying on his defence's lawyers private emails with his client. If they can do it to a presidents lawyer with no consequences. They can do it to anyone.

RankingMember 5y ago
Are we sure this actually happened? The only source I'm finding on this is Giuliani himself.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  The government disclosed that they did this to Rudy's lawyer after the fact. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-feds-got-rudy-icloud-023335029.html https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-feds-got-rudy-iclou... Rudy made a video detailing the FBI breach of his iCloud account. [Starts at the 18:30 minute mark] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjaaBcmUVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjaaBcmUVg
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    The "government" didn't make any such statement. A lawyer who was a longtime friend of Rudy came out and made a claim that was never corroborated or even acknowledged by the government, by the looks of it. Remember, it'll be fine in the end. The RNC's push to eliminate domestic encryption ensures a future where everyone has access to Giuliani's iCloud!
    - dukeofdoom 5y ago
      I did not claim "government: made a statement". The government need not make statements when they disclose information to counsel, typically they don't. As per article, the government declined comment. If Rudy is friends with is own Lawyer is irrelevant.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        > If Rudy is friends with is own Lawyer is irrelevant. Cool! By that logic, we'll stack the jury with people who hate him, since obviously personal relationships don't matter in the legal system. How do you think that case will turn out, Atticus Finch?
caspper69 5y ago
> They can do it to anyone. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I fully expect that any American, involved in half the shit that drunk found his way into, would also be under double top secret surveillance. That's reality Jack.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  That's a very low standard you are setting for your democratic government. Political prosecutions and spying on counsel is something that the Communists and Nazis did. But even they tried to follow their own laws.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    If Rudy Guilliani is defending the democratically elected president of the United States, he should be beholden to the interests of the people. If our government has the legal ability to attain this data, this is a textbook example of how and why to use it.
    - dukeofdoom 5y ago
      This is mostly nonsense. The only legal duty of lawyer is to defend his client. No lawyer has the burden to be "beholden to the interests of the people" whatever double speak that means.
      - smoldesu 5y ago
        Well it's a good thing this has already been settled in a court of law then. No sense in arguing it online if our wonderful nation has already made an official ruling.
        dukeofdoom 5y ago
        Yes, it went to full trial in the senate. Where he was ultimately not found guilty. The legal process played out. But not before the prosecuting team was found to have been doctoring evidence against him. By adding a blue checkmark to tweets, they were then using to try and convict him. Its what happens when people try to use the ends justifies the means thinking.

RankingMember 5y ago

Are we sure this actually happened? The only source I'm finding on this is Giuliani himself.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
The government disclosed that they did this to Rudy's lawyer after the fact. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-feds-got-rudy-icloud-023335029.html https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-feds-got-rudy-iclou... Rudy made a video detailing the FBI breach of his iCloud account. [Starts at the 18:30 minute mark] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjaaBcmUVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcjaaBcmUVg
- smoldesu 5y ago
  The "government" didn't make any such statement. A lawyer who was a longtime friend of Rudy came out and made a claim that was never corroborated or even acknowledged by the government, by the looks of it. Remember, it'll be fine in the end. The RNC's push to eliminate domestic encryption ensures a future where everyone has access to Giuliani's iCloud!
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    I did not claim "government: made a statement". The government need not make statements when they disclose information to counsel, typically they don't. As per article, the government declined comment. If Rudy is friends with is own Lawyer is irrelevant.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      > If Rudy is friends with is own Lawyer is irrelevant. Cool! By that logic, we'll stack the jury with people who hate him, since obviously personal relationships don't matter in the legal system. How do you think that case will turn out, Atticus Finch?

caspper69 5y ago

> They can do it to anyone. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I fully expect that any American, involved in half the shit that drunk found his way into, would also be under double top secret surveillance. That's reality Jack.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
That's a very low standard you are setting for your democratic government. Political prosecutions and spying on counsel is something that the Communists and Nazis did. But even they tried to follow their own laws.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- smoldesu 5y ago
  If Rudy Guilliani is defending the democratically elected president of the United States, he should be beholden to the interests of the people. If our government has the legal ability to attain this data, this is a textbook example of how and why to use it.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    This is mostly nonsense. The only legal duty of lawyer is to defend his client. No lawyer has the burden to be "beholden to the interests of the people" whatever double speak that means.
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Well it's a good thing this has already been settled in a court of law then. No sense in arguing it online if our wonderful nation has already made an official ruling.
      - dukeofdoom 5y ago
        Yes, it went to full trial in the senate. Where he was ultimately not found guilty. The legal process played out. But not before the prosecuting team was found to have been doctoring evidence against him. By adding a blue checkmark to tweets, they were then using to try and convict him. Its what happens when people try to use the ends justifies the means thinking.