- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:34 am to udtiger
quote:All of the equipment that the GSA had was GSA owned equipment.
Don't be so sure. If all that was used was a web address (and server) but the equipment was theirs (they ran the transition from Trump Tower as I recall), they may have an argument.
quote:The letter only said "susceptible" to privilege. Trump has never invoked executive privilege, and I don't think that can be used to conceal criminal behavior.
Regardless, it does not address the privilege issues, and the ethical obligations, which are the main point here.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:38 am to mmcgrath
quote:
Trump has never invoked executive privilege, and I don't think that can be used to conceal criminal behavior.
You don't invoke attorney/client privilege. That is the privelege being discussed. If Mueller received actually privileged materials he has a duty to return them. And to not read them. Mueller is dirty. You don't care though because you like his politics.
This post was edited on 12/17/17 at 12:00 pm
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:41 am to mmcgrath
quote:
The letter only said "susceptible" to privilege. Trump has never invoked executive privilege, and I don't think that can be used to conceal criminal behavior.
They can't assert executive privilege over transition documents. If that were possible that would be Obama's call. He was the executive at the time of the transition.
If they did successfully assert executive privilege, it would turn 50+ years of statute and case law on its head overnight, and it would be an own goal since that would render all documents immediately open to the mega-FOIA action the ACLU launched on 1/21.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:49 am to Adam Banks
What he did wasn't illegal, the GSA actually owned the documents, not the Trump transition team.
However, that isn't the way an honest broker goes about running an investigation. The GSA should have required a subpoena or warrant before turning those documents over as well.
However, that isn't the way an honest broker goes about running an investigation. The GSA should have required a subpoena or warrant before turning those documents over as well.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:50 am to Mephistopheles
Also let's not forget, her emails, and also last week the DOJ turned over a bunch of text messages between two innocent Trump hating lovebirds to journalists and then said "oops, we're not allowed to do that, everybody forget you heard all that".
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:54 am to Mephistopheles
Not allowed?
"I'm not aware of any impropriety in what the department has done in making these text messages available," and "not aware" of "any evidence that we disclosed information to a reporter that wasn't appropriate for public release or wasn't disclosed to the Congress," Rosenstein assured the House Judiciary Committee.
According to a statement from Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Flores, "When the initial inquiries came from committees and members of Congress, the Deputy Attorney General consulted with the Inspector General, and the Inspector General determined that he had no objection to the Department's providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested it."
The "senior career ethics advisors" then conducted their own review and determined no concerns related to the Privacy Act were implicated in releasing the messages, Flores said.
While many have criticized the Justice Department for making private messages available to reporters in the midst of an ongoing inspector general probe, the Justice Department under President Barack Obama took similar steps.
In 2011 and 2012, when Congress was demanding the Justice Department turn over internal emails related to the botched gun-running probe known as “Fast and Furious,” the department repeatedly invited reporters to a department conference room to view private messages.
Inside the Justice Department in Washington, a department official would hand out copies of the documents after they were sent to Capitol Hill and then brief reporters on individual emails sent to and from department employees. The documents were not provided under any condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department began briefing reporters on "Fast and Furious"-related documents only after select portions of documents sent to Congress were repeatedly leaked.
At the time, the Justice Department's inspector general was still engaged in a wide-ranging, internal investigation related to the failed gun-running probe and the department's response to congressional inquiries about it.
In trying to explain his own department's recent decisions, Rosenstein told lawmakers Wednesday: "Our goal ... is to make sure that it's clear to you and the American people, we are not concealing anything that's embarrassing." LINK
"I'm not aware of any impropriety in what the department has done in making these text messages available," and "not aware" of "any evidence that we disclosed information to a reporter that wasn't appropriate for public release or wasn't disclosed to the Congress," Rosenstein assured the House Judiciary Committee.
According to a statement from Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Flores, "When the initial inquiries came from committees and members of Congress, the Deputy Attorney General consulted with the Inspector General, and the Inspector General determined that he had no objection to the Department's providing the material to the Congressional committees that had requested it."
The "senior career ethics advisors" then conducted their own review and determined no concerns related to the Privacy Act were implicated in releasing the messages, Flores said.
While many have criticized the Justice Department for making private messages available to reporters in the midst of an ongoing inspector general probe, the Justice Department under President Barack Obama took similar steps.
In 2011 and 2012, when Congress was demanding the Justice Department turn over internal emails related to the botched gun-running probe known as “Fast and Furious,” the department repeatedly invited reporters to a department conference room to view private messages.
Inside the Justice Department in Washington, a department official would hand out copies of the documents after they were sent to Capitol Hill and then brief reporters on individual emails sent to and from department employees. The documents were not provided under any condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department began briefing reporters on "Fast and Furious"-related documents only after select portions of documents sent to Congress were repeatedly leaked.
At the time, the Justice Department's inspector general was still engaged in a wide-ranging, internal investigation related to the failed gun-running probe and the department's response to congressional inquiries about it.
In trying to explain his own department's recent decisions, Rosenstein told lawmakers Wednesday: "Our goal ... is to make sure that it's clear to you and the American people, we are not concealing anything that's embarrassing." LINK
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:55 am to Decatur
quote:quote:
The initial request was for 9 individuals, and now the total is 13. That actually implies that there are 13 transition team members who are cooperating and/or are being criminally investigated.
Let's play a game called Name That Transition Team Member.
Definites:
Flynn
Junior
Kushner
Priebus
Scaramucci
Long shots:
Ivanka (can't see how investigating Kushner leaves her out)
Mike Pence
Chris Christie
Devin Nunes
Giuliani
Chris Collins
This post was edited on 12/17/17 at 12:06 pm
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:56 am to mmcgrath
quote:
The letter only said "susceptible" to privilege. Trump has never invoked executive privilege, and I don't think that can be used to conceal criminal behavior.
They weren't talking about executive privelege you idiot, they were talking about attorney client privelege and that automatically applies no matter who's server the material was stored on.
For example, say you email your lawyer and tell him you killed someone. Then say you are arrested and the police search your emails, and let's say you use GMail, and let's say they get a subpoena and GMail hands over your emails that are on their server. The police can NOT use that email against you because you you have attorney client privilege built in. Now, in order for that to apply the lawyer has to be "your" lawyer, meaning hired specifically for that matter, or on retainer .
If during the course of reviewing these emails Mueller and his team find any that are covered by such, they can NOT use them or the information in them for anything. Not only can it not be used as evidence to prosecute anyone, it can't even be used to further develop other evidence. It is completely off limits.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:57 am to Jbird
quote:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
4th Amendment is pretty clear, gotta have a warrant. Also some of these emails would have been discussions with transition team lawyers and fall under lawyer client privilege.
This post was edited on 12/17/17 at 11:58 am
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:58 am to Mephistopheles
quote:
two innocent Trump hating lovebirds
you are great. I enjoy reading your ignorance-filled diatribes.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 11:59 am to BBONDS25
Clearly Trump needs an insurance policy!
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:01 pm to Plx1776
quote:
"Mueller is using the emails to confirm things, and get new leads," a transition source told me.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:04 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
I agree up until your last paragraph. They can't cite privileged communications in court (except in limited circumstances some of which may be in play but let's ignore that). Once they've seen something, even if they're not entitled to, they don't have to pretend not to know. They can use their knowledge to form the basis of the next stage of investigation. It's like having a math question and being given the answer, but no working, so you use the answer to figure out the correct method and then use the method to confirm the answer.
To continue your murder analogy, if you disclose the location of the body in the email, and that place is 20th on the list of places to search, it can magically get bumped up to 1st on the list, but the police can't use the email itself to get a warrant, they need to get someone else to give the same info.
To continue your murder analogy, if you disclose the location of the body in the email, and that place is 20th on the list of places to search, it can magically get bumped up to 1st on the list, but the police can't use the email itself to get a warrant, they need to get someone else to give the same info.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:06 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
you are great. I enjoy reading your ignorance-filled diatribes.
I try, you know, I do try. And fwiw since people seem touchy about downvotes here, I didn't downvote you and I often downvote myself.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:06 pm to golfntiger32
quote:
4th Amendment is pretty clear, gotta have a warrant. Also some of these emails would have been discussions with transition team lawyers and fall under lawyer client privilege.
This simply isn't true. There is no requirement that there MUST be a warrant.
If you voluntarily give evidence to LEOs they can use it without a warrant. And that's what happened here, the GSA willingly gave that material to Mueller.
Now the attorney client privilege still exists here where applicable.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:06 pm to HeyHeyHogsAllTheWay
quote:They were talking about both.
They weren't talking about executive privelege you idiot, they were talking about attorney client privelege and that automatically applies no matter who's server the material was stored on.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:07 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:
I agree up until your last paragraph. They can't cite privileged communications in court (except in limited circumstances some of which may be in play but let's ignore that). Once they've seen something, even if they're not entitled to, they don't have to pretend not to know.
Fruit of the poisonous tree.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:08 pm to Jbird
I read all that, but you don't realize how hard you trolled me by not inserting line breaks manually.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:09 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:
agree up until your last paragraph. They can't cite privileged communications in court (except in limited circumstances some of which may be in play but let's ignore that). Once they've seen something, even if they're not entitled to, they don't have to pretend not to know. They can use their knowledge to form the basis of the next stage of investigation. It's like having a math question and being given the answer, but no working, so you use the answer to figure out the correct method and then use the method to confirm the answer.
To continue your murder analogy, if you disclose the location of the body in the email, and that place is 20th on the list of places to search, it can magically get bumped up to 1st on the list, but the police can't use the email itself to get a warrant, they need to get someone else to give the same info.
We're essentially saying the same thing.
I've ran MANY investgiations where we came up with evidence that maybe it would have been legally obtained maybe not (because sometimes when just going through material you see stuff and realize for whatever reason you can't use it) and had to come up with a way to get to the end without using the tainted evidence.
In our analogy here, you can't use the email to find the body, but now knowing where the body is you CAN use that information to focus your investigation elsewhere to come up with the same information that is in the email that you can't use.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News