- 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
1
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:33 pm to TigerDoc
quote:Flynn's emails were in there. Flynn is now a guilty cooperating witness.
And it's not true that nothing's come from them.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:34 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Flynn's emails were in there. Flynn is now a guilty cooperating witness.
Flynn emails were in the privileged cache? Link? Flynn cooperating has really done a lot of good. Zero.
This post was edited on 12/16/17 at 9:35 pm
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:36 pm to BBONDS25
This is a huge and complex investigation. They didn't indict Flynn for months after they knew he lied to them. This is remedial stuff, Bonds.
And 4.4b seems to apply to inadvertantly received evidence. The GSA counsel says Mueller asked for it himself. What's inadvertant about that?
And 4.4b seems to apply to inadvertantly received evidence. The GSA counsel says Mueller asked for it himself. What's inadvertant about that?
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:38 pm to JuiceTerry
quote:
Flynn's emails were in there. Flynn is now a guilty cooperating witness.
Exactly. The average special counsel investigation goes on for years. They don't just drop an indictment the first moment they have cause. Who knows if anything will come of this, but something sure seems to have spooked Trump.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:39 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
And 4.4b seems to apply to inadvertantly received evidence. The GSA counsel says Mueller asked for it himself. What's inadvertant about that?
Even further ethical violations. Using power to obtain privileged info. I don't think thats the route you want to take.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:40 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
The Associated Press reported that the GSA turned over a flash drive containing tens of thousands of records on Sept. 1 after receiving requests from Mueller's office in late August.
Those records included emails sent and received by 13 senior Trump transition officials. Among the officials who used transition email accounts was former national security adviser Michael Flynn,
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:40 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Exactly. The average special counsel investigation goes on for years. They don't just drop an indictment the first moment they have cause. Who knows if anything will come of this, but something sure seems to have spooked Trump.
I'm sure you will have no problem with the pending special counsel investigating Mueller, his bias, and his abuse of power.
This post was edited on 12/16/17 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:42 pm to BBONDS25
The protocol for investigating malfeasance in a DOJ official is an OIG investigation, so I'm sure if there's cause Horowitz will investigate and ok by me.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:44 pm to BBONDS25
quote:Link?
I'm sure you will have no problem with the pending special counsel investigating Mueller, his bias, and his abuse of power.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:45 pm to JuiceTerry
Look up the OIG investigation doc alluded to. It's already underway.
This post was edited on 12/16/17 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:46 pm to JuiceTerry
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:55 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
but something sure seems to have spooked Trump.
You see what you want to see. This is standard practice for attorneys to cite violations.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:58 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
This is a huge and complex investigation. They didn't indict Flynn for months after they knew he lied to them. This is remedial stuff, Bonds.
And 4.4b seems to apply to inadvertantly received evidence. The GSA counsel says Mueller asked for it himself. What's inadvertant about that?
This is some piss poor critical thinking.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 9:58 pm to austintigerdad
Furthermore, and yeah I'm going out on a limb here and not bothering to look this up (that's my superpower), but isn't there a general public interest in these documents that would cause them to fall under FOIA obtainable/mandatory to keep laws.
Given that almost no one involved was actually in government at the time, how can anyone with a straight face claim that HRCs personal emails are public property but this shite isn't?
They also appear to be pulling that new trick of asserting a potential future executive privilege, which in this case is a strech even for them, they weren't in the executive at that point.
Given that almost no one involved was actually in government at the time, how can anyone with a straight face claim that HRCs personal emails are public property but this shite isn't?
They also appear to be pulling that new trick of asserting a potential future executive privilege, which in this case is a strech even for them, they weren't in the executive at that point.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 10:00 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
BBONDS25
Just an old man on the internet talking shite. You are not a lawyer, stop embarrassing yourself.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 10:01 pm to JuiceTerry
This is the internal investigation that was triggered by the odd circumstances of the Hillary Clinton investigation under Comey. It's the same investigation that caught up Strzok when he OIG examined his FBI issued phone. As far as I know it doesn't involve the Mueller/SC investigation per se, just Strzok since he was involved in the Clinton investigation too.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 10:02 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
You see what you want to see. This is standard practice for attorneys to cite violations.
Alleged violations yeah.
My wife is an attorney in Texas. Occasionally we deal with some folks from the East Coast, she says she has to remember to set her bullshite detector to "everything" when she's dealing with them because they talk like literally every single aspect of every feature of case is in their favor.
This happen in Texas too but the opposing counsel is generally more polite and deferrent about it.
This sounds like a typical bluster and hope move from Trump's attorneys. They're not jumping up and down the way I'd expect if they'd found something actually worth a shite.
This post was edited on 12/16/17 at 10:03 pm
Posted on 12/16/17 at 10:07 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
You see what you want to see. This is standard practice for attorneys to cite violations.
No, I mean Trump himself (as well as the Congressional R's). He gave a speech to police at the FBI academy highly critical of the FBI, mentioned publicly that he wasn't "yet" ready to consider a pardon of Flynn, and a congressional Republican came out for the firing of Mueller.
At first I thought it was just because of the stories Mueller had subpoenaed bank info related to Trump after Trump had declared his finances a "red line" back in July (NYT interview), but now I'm wondering if it was discovering Mueller had these transition emails.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 10:08 pm to Mephistopheles
quote:
Furthermore, and yeah I'm going out on a limb here and not bothering to look this up (that's my superpower), but isn't there a general public interest in these documents that would cause them to fall under FOIA obtainable/mandatory to keep laws.
Given that almost no one involved was actually in government at the time, how can anyone with a straight face claim that HRCs personal emails are public property but this shite isn't?
They also appear to be pulling that new trick of asserting a potential future executive privilege, which in this case is a strech even for them, they weren't in the executive at that point.
None of this is congruent with reality.
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News