BBO Discussion Forums: Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped? - BBO Discussion Forums

My understanding is that it depends on what information is being seized. For some information the hurdle for such a warrant is reasonable suspicion and not probable cause; for the rest probable cause is usually (but not always) required. Additionally, I do not believe that the person affected has to be informed by law enforcement for the information to be obtained. You might try googling the term "special inquiry judge" to find out about one way of initiating the procedure (a grand jury is more common and also possible). Perhaps your confidence in the 4th has less justification than you thought...

If either of us were building the American health care system from scratch, we’d probably end up in different places.

We have contrasting ideas — one of us is a Democrat, the other a Republican — about what ails the system and how to reshape it. But this is not the time for more partisan fighting. It’s time to build a better system, even if incrementally, because that’s what the American people deserve. It’s time to put aside blame and stabilize a health care marketplace where premiums are expected to rise by more than 15 percent in most states and millions of people are worried about obtaining or affording coverage.

This week the 43-member House Problem Solvers Caucus — which we lead and which is almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans — released a carefully drafted compromise to shore up the struggling insurance exchanges.

Ultimately, everyone had to give a little and endorse provisions that purists in both our parties may not like. This is how American democracy is supposed to work, even if it has not for quite some time.

Our proposal first focuses on the most urgent crisis: the skyrocketing cost of individual health insurance premiums. The Trump administration is considering suspending cost-sharing payments that defray out-of-pocket payments like deductibles and co-payments for people earning less than 250 percent of the poverty line. Because of uncertainty about this subsidy, insurers have said premiums could rise by 15 percent or more. On Aug. 16, insurers must submit their 2018 rates to state regulators for approval; many may be forced to leave the individual marketplace altogether.

Our plan would stabilize markets by making the cost-sharing payments mandatory and thereby prevent rates from rising sharply.

Second, we provide a relief valve to help states deal with the high cost of pre-existing and chronic conditions. The costliest 5 percent of patients account for nearly half of all health care spending in the country. We propose a dedicated stability fund — essentially a form of reinsurance — that states could use to reduce premiums and limit losses for providing coverage for these high-cost patients.

Third, our proposal provides relief to certain businesses from the mandate that they provide insurance to full-time employees. It also defines “full time” as a 40-hour workweek to discourage businesses from manipulating employees’ weekly hours to skirt the mandate. More than 90 percent of large businesses offered health care before the Affordable Care Act, and studies show that they would continue to do so under this change; others would move to find employee coverage in the individual marketplace.

Fourth, our plan eliminates the Medical Device Tax, an excise charge of 2.3 percent that is often passed onto consumers and reduces funds for research and development. And finally, we provide states with additional flexibility to enter into agreements — such as enabling the sale of insurance across state lines — that would provide more choice and lower costs.

This proposal would not increase the federal deficit, offering several options to offset the new spending.

Our plan isn’t intended to rectify everything that’s wrong with American health care. We aim to solve an immediate problem and move past a seven-year stalemate in Washington that has featured Republicans trying to repeal the current health care law, Democrats trying to preserve it and neither side willing to discuss anything in between.

That approach has led us to our current moment, in which no one is happy with the status quo, least of all the American people, whose trust and confidence in Washington weakens every day that we spend fighting instead of solving real problems.

Health care is one of those problems — and a textbook example of why we formed the Problem Solvers Caucus this year. We all knew the partisanship in Washington had gotten out of control and felt the need to create a bipartisan group committed to getting to “yes” on important issues. We have agreed to vote together for any policy proposal that garners the support of 75 percent of the entire Problem Solvers Caucus, as well as 51 percent of both the Democrats and Republicans in the caucus.

If Washington does not act to stabilize the insurance exchanges, many families we represent will lose coverage or be hit with premiums they can’t afford. This isn’t conjecture.

If that does happen, people will be justifiably livid that Republicans and Democrats in Congress did nothing to stop a train wreck we all saw coming.

There is a growing recognition on Capitol Hill that something must be done, as evidenced by this week’s announcement from Senator Lamar Alexander — the Tennessee Republican who is chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — that he will soon hold hearings focused on repairing the individual insurance market.

Our proposal isn’t perfect, but it represents the first and only serious bipartisan health care proposal released in this Congress. We hope our colleagues in the House and Senate, as well as the White House, will use our plan as the foundation for the health care solution that America desperately needs and deserves.

...such as obtaining emails and bank records...?

In general, yes getting a search warrant is one common way to get this information.
Another common way is known as "discovery" during a trial, each side in the trial, before the trial is compelled to give the other side information, documents, records, lots of stuff.
Another common way to compel information is through a subpoena.
Another common way to compel information is through a deposition.
There are many pathways, not just one but to answer your question yes, getting a search warrant is common.
btw sometimes you can obtain this information through a third party who just offers you the information.

Also please keep in mind you can always just ask, ask politely.

The norm is through a grand jury request - which has the weight of a subpoena.

We will not get anywhere as long as there is a president and a political party who view politics as a zero sum game.

Agreed, so when will we have a viable, fully electable 3rd party separate from the blue/red paradigm we are currently ensnared in?

The norm is through a grand jury request - which has the weight of a subpoena.

Oft-quoted language by the Supreme Court notes that the grand jury “can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even just because it wants assurance that it is not.” When exercising this authority, the grand jury has a right to “every man’s evidence.” This means, as a practical matter, that subpoenas issued during the grand jury’s investigative process are subject to few limitations.

A grand jury may investigate a matter with no defendant or criminal charge specifically in view. The powers of investigation of the grand jury and its powers to obtain information are "not to be limited narrowly by questions of propriety or forecasts of the probable result of the investigation, or by doubts whether any particular individual will be found properly subject to an accusation of crime." This, the Supreme Court points out, is normally "developed at the conclusion of the grand jury's labors, not at the beginning." However, it is an abuse of the grand jury process to conduct a grand jury investigation with the sole intent of eliciting evidence for a civil case. At such time as the Government decides to proceed only civilly, the grand jury investigation should be terminated. It is also improper to utilize a grand jury for the sole or dominating purpose of preparing an already pending indictment for trial. However, a prosecutor may use evidence at trial that was incidentally gained from a grand jury primarily investigating other crimes.

9-11.142 - Grand Jury Subpoenas for Financial Records

A bank depositor lacks the necessary Fourth Amendment interest to challenge a subpoena duces tecum issued to a bank for its records of the depositor's transactions. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Because of procedures imposed by the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, it is important, nevertheless, that United States Attorneys exercise close control over the process of obtaining for law enforcement purposes business records of banks and other financial institutions.

Sound grand jury practice requires that:

• The prosecutor personally authorize the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum to obtain financial institution account records to avoid any appearance that the matter was left to the discretion of an investigative agent serving the subpoena;
  
• The subpoena be returnable on a date when the grand jury is in session and the subpoenaed records be produced before the grand jury unless the grand jury itself has previously agreed upon some different course, see United States v. Hilton, 534 F.2d 556, 564, 565 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 828; and
  
• If, for the sake of convenience and economy, the subpoenaed party is permitted voluntarily to relinquish the records to the government agent serving the subpoena, a formal return of the records be made in due course to the grand jury.
  
• Every recipient of a grand jury subpoena for financial institution records should be made aware that civil and criminal penalties exist for making certain disclosures involving (FIF) offenses regarding the subpoena. The prohibited notifications and applicable penalties are set out in 12 U.S.C. § 3402(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b), respectively. The criminal penalties include fines and a maximum prison term of five years if an officer of a financial institution (as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b)) notifies, directly or indirectly, any person regarding the existence or contents of this subpoena with the intent to obstruct a judicial proceeding. In addition, fines and a maximum prison term of one year may be imposed if the notification is made, directly or indirectly, to a customer of the financial institution whose records are sought by the subpoena or to any other person named in the subpoena. Section 3420(b) of the Right to Financial Privacy Act contains a provision to be read in pari materia with 18 U.S.C. § 1510(b) under which civil penalties may also be imposed. See alsoUSAM 9-13.800 et seq.

j. Financial institutions: Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978

Subpoenas duces tecum may seek a customer's financial records directly from his bank. The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 ("Act"), 12 U.S.C. 1301, et seq. (1983) requires that all such subpoenas be "returned and actually presented to the grand jury". The return may be made by a representative of the financial institution or, with the financial institution's permission, by a Division attorney. When records of financial institutions are involved, Division attorneys must assure that the records are presented to the grand jury on the return date or as soon as possible thereafter. The Act does not entitle financial institutions to reimbursement for compliance with a subpoena duces tecum.

You may be correct, not sure your source is regarding what is the norm.

My guess would be that at least for cops on the street investigating a crime going after emails or bank records the norm is a search warrant not going to all the trouble to first get a grand jury put in.

btw:
:Who May Issue a Subpoena?
"In most instances, a subpoena can be issued and signed by an attorney on behalf of a court in which the attorney is authorized to practice law. If the subpoena is for a high-level government official (such as the Governor, or agency head), then it must be signed by an administrative law judge. In some cases, a non-lawyer may issue a subpoena if acting on his or her own behalf (known as pro se representation"

Cops on the street don't investigate white-collar crimes.

I like the name of their caucus.

The Huxtables were the exception. How many babies are born out of wedlock? How many families are single parent homes?

Again if we are going to have a race discussion as a first step lets define and use a standard of measurement to define race or is race self defined not something we are born to and unchangeable

I mean we all have ancient ancestors from Africa...

The Huxtables were the exception. How many babies are born out of wedlock? How many families are single parent homes?

Again if we are going to have a race discussion as a first step lets define and use a standard of measurement to define race or is race self defined not something we are born to and unchangeable

I mean we all have ancient ancestors from Africa...

President Trump promised he’d make so many great deals that we’d all get “tired of winning.” He’s certainly left Americans feeling worn out, but not because of any transactional whirlwind.

In reluctantly signing a bill last week imposing sanctions on Russia that he cannot lift without congressional review, Mr. Trump complained that it “makes it harder for the United States to strike good deals for the American people” and that “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking.”

The legislation is actually proof that Congress has learned not to trust Mr. Trump to strike good deals and has seen quite enough of his negotiating skills.

Six months in, Mr. Trump can’t get legislation passed on anything much bigger than naming a post office. Indifferent to negotiating with Democrats and ham-handed in dealing with Republicans, he’s getting rolled on the major promises of his campaign — health care, infrastructure, taxes and jobs.

The president’s preferred image of himself as a shrewd, hard-nosed negotiator took a hit last week when The Washington Post published transcripts of his phone conversations in January with President Enrique Peña Nieto of Mexico and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia. Mr. Trump admitted to Mr. Peña Nieto that he couldn’t make Mexico pay for a border wall, as he had promised many times to roaring crowds at his rallies, but he implored Mr. Peña Nieto to maintain the fiction in public, seemingly oblivious that the Mexican president had every reason not to do so. His bullying tone with Mr. Turnbull could not hide his lack of understanding of the refugee pact with which Mr. Turnbull wanted him to comply.

This is the man who opened his 1987 book, “The Art of the Deal,” by boasting: “Other people paint beautifully on canvas or write wonderful poetry. I like making deals, preferably big deals. That’s how I get my kicks.”

Providing reliable health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans could have been the biggest kick of Mr. Trump’s life.

A week before his inauguration, Mr. Trump said he had a plan “very much formulated down to the final strokes” to provide “insurance for everybody.” In the same interview, he promised to negotiate lower drug prices, “just like” he’d forced Lockheed Martin to produce cheaper F-35 fighter jets.

In fact, Lockheed let Mr. Trump take credit for negotiating F-35 cost savings that were already in the pipeline. He caved on his promise to empower the government to negotiate lower drug prices — an effort Democrats support — after a single meeting with big pharmaceutical makers.

And then he kicked the whole “complicated” health care deal to Republicans in Congress. After months of Trump promises of “a beautiful picture” on health care, the seven-year Republican crusade to end Obamacare seems to have come to its own end.

The $1 trillion infrastructure overhaul Mr. Trump promised is another big deal that Democrats like, but he has yet to take their calls. He’s promoting a sweeping package of tax cuts, but there aren’t many details to go on there, either.

“We hope to get taxes and then infrastructure,” he said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal not long ago. “And then I’m going to do a very big — we’re doing very big trade deals, and we’re looking forward to that. But we want to do, ideally, this first. You know, a lot of people said you should have started with taxes or you should have started with infrastructure. Well, infrastructure, I’ll actually have bipartisan support, and I can use infrastructure to carry other things along. So I don’t want to waste it at the beginning, if that makes sense.”

No, it didn’t.

Things make more sense if we remember that despite his gilded penthouse and branded country clubs, Mr. Trump has had a business career filled with questionable deals that almost ruined him and led to multiple bankruptcies.

He does deserve credit for one thing: His incompetence and futile bullying seem to have led his own party to begin making deals without him.

With nothing to show for themselves, and with Mr. Trump’s approval ratings in the 30-something range, Republicans have begun working with Democrats on fixing the flaws in Obamacare, on legislation that would protect the special counsel, Robert Mueller, from being fired by the president, and on the sanctions Mr. Trump was practically forced to sign.

They’ve also set up a system that would prevent any recess appointment of a new attorney general, should Mr. Trump sack Jeff Sessions. They might be able to find a way to work on a bipartisan infrastructure plan and immigration reform, too.

Congress is showing signs of understanding what Mr. Trump clearly does not: that politics is not “The Art of the Deal,” but the art of the possible.

"The USA has been run too long by people who know the issues. People that watch the news on TV, read books, generally pay attention... well, no more. 'Cause now it's time that WE had a say in the future of America. Family...the Bundys are gonna elect a President."

It took 25 years, but the Bundys now have their man in the Oval Office.

From Newsweek:

Al Bundy Speaks!