- 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 12/16/17 at 10:29 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
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,
Everyone in the nation is highly critical of the FBI right now. Trump had firm ground for his remarks. The FBI and DOJ are jokes right now. There is no better audience than new FBI agents, for such a message.
quote:
mentioned publicly that he wasn't "yet" ready to consider a pardon of Flynn
meaningless
quote:
and a congressional Republican came out for the firing of Mueller
many others as well, for very good reasons.
quote:
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.
100% chance he's known about this since it happened. You make the same mistake everyone makes about Trump - you think he's dumb and reactionary. He's not.
Posted on 12/16/17 at 10:40 pm to BBONDS25
They need to stop wasting tax payer dollars on this Dossier investigation.
If they want to know if there was collusion BEFORE the election, then why do they need emails AFTEr the election?
If they want to know if there was collusion BEFORE the election, then why do they need emails AFTEr the election?
Posted on 12/16/17 at 10:52 pm to djmicrobe
quote:
If they want to know if there was collusion BEFORE the election, then why do they need emails AFTEr the election?
Quid pro quos. The Russians were looking for sanctions relief before the election. Mueller is looking to see if the transition team was planning on paying them back. Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian Ambassador in which sanctions were discussed.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:04 am to starsandstripes
quote:
None of this is congruent with reality.
Often when I disagree with a poster I'll explain which of their points I disagree with and why, sometimes with a link to a sauce that provides the evidence or logic for that underlies my conclusion.
To call my musings which I'm clearly outlining as just opinions coming off the cuff "incongruent with reality" is cute though.
I'm sure Mueller is ready to flip and bring the charges against HRC any day now.
Back in incongruousville, we're putting our big boy pants on and googling some shite.
So, despite your lazy as frick reply failing to single out any particular opinion I spouted, here's the DL.
I'm right about the transition team not being in government. - - Illinois Inst. for Continuing Legal Educ. v. Department of Labor, 545 F. Supp. 1229, 1232 (N.D. Ill. 1982). And thus they're not caught under FOIA directly in the way Fedgov is, except when receiving funding or work from an existing govt agency.
There are a shitload of other statues that appear to entitle all kinds of FOIA-able material to be made public from the transition team, notably as they apply to conflicts of interest. Certainly the mega-suit from the ACLU that explores FOIA on Trump's emolument problem will involve piercing attorney client privilege in the transition period, unless he was brazen enough not to take any legal advice. In fact their website blurb on the suit specifically outlines 11/9 to 1/20 LINK
And while Trump does publicly exude a devil may care attitude to this issue, as I believe you said yourself, he's an intelligent man routinely underestimated by opponents. No way he's not up on this stuff.
It's likely he did have counsel look over the transition teams emails to gauge any particular issues. It would be crazy not to. It's likely counsel kept those all in one place. It's likely attorney client privilege for the WH counsel has already been breached by Mueller's team, in fact there were several who predicted just this, weeks ago. Check out resistance sunshine pumper Seth Abramsons most recent million tweets to find a few that confirm this idea is in play.
It's most likely that the emails Mueller now appears to have came from WH counsel first.
So either Mueller played slightly dirty and got lucky to get some information that itself won't be admissible in the court that Trump won't be tried in since he's a sitting president. Or he and the team of super attorneys he hired actually know a thing or two about getting the information they need, have all been doing so for decades and just did so again, I.E. they make their own luck. But I digress. WH counsel can't cover up crimes, they can't lie to investigators.
Yes that would make transition emails FOIA-able.
And last week's odd noises about how a president can't obstruct justice by firing someone (exec privilege) make about as much sense as saying that perjury is impossible because the first amendment allows for free speech. It's my belief (and that of a couple of commentators I've read), that it was in fact executive privilege, not attorney client, that Jnr tried to invoke in refusing to be honest. Bear in mind that reports of secret hearings come through the grapevine, and Trump Jnr is also very smart (he's Trump's son after all), no way he's dumb enough to assert attorney client privilege regarding his conversations with his dad.
Also bear in mind, yes bear not bare, that Jnr was up against Adam Schiff, a man who knows his way around a witness, so when Jnr asserted executive privilege over matters relating to pre inauguration maybe even pre election discussions, Schiff probably wet himself laughing, thus the recent talks of Schiff leaking.
I look forward to a TL:DR reply.
This post was edited on 12/17/17 at 12:05 am
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:09 am to djmicrobe
quote:
They need to stop wasting tax payer dollars on this Dossier investigation.
If they want to know if there was collusion BEFORE the election, then why do they need emails AFTEr the election?
If I want to know who the assassin is, why would I subpoena his emails from after when he tried to get paid?
Posted on 12/17/17 at 12:26 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Loewentritt told BuzzFeed News that the GSA initially "suggested a warrant or subpoena" for the materials, but that the Special Counsel's Office determined the letter route was sufficient.
Hhhhhmmmmmmmm.........
Perhaps because he lacked basis to support a warrant or subpoena...... Hhhhmmmm.....
This fishing expedition on your and my dime must end, NOW!
Posted on 12/17/17 at 1:34 am to Mephistopheles
quote:
Mephistopheles
My prior comment stands. Not only was your post incongruent with reality, it's incongruent with the diatribe you followed up with.
quote:
So, despite your lazy as frick reply failing to single out any particular opinion I spouted, here's the DL.
Looks like my concise response the first time was the right choice.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 3:06 am to starsandstripes
Posted on 12/17/17 at 3:42 am to Errerrerrwere
Quick review from your resident layman village idiot who takes an interest in law and constitutional matters
Section 1 - seems legit, the facts are factual, fails to note that the transmissions/discussions to, from, with and/or funded by govt depts can be FOIA-ed, from the govt Dept. Worth noting at this point that the transition team seemed to be way behind schedule and missed key deadlines for handover, in some cases not introducing themselves to permanent staffers in depts long after they were expected to.
Section 2 - paragraph 3 fails to draw a distinction between FOIA and law enforcement requests, are they handled similarly? Must *all* requests go through TFA? Seems odd that those two vastly separate routes for accessing documents would both be handled the same way. P4, isn't it true of govt owned machines that requests from LEOs don't require subpoenas due to the nature of their disclaimers, which state that anything and everything can be turned over to law enforcement? P5 doesn't outline the nature of the privilege. It can't be executive privilege during the transition, attorney client adds up with what Jnr was saying but only for emails they sent to/from counsel and why the frick would they have reason to be worried about stuff they voluntarily wrote down? Who writes down stuff about crimes they committed? But again as I said, in P7, "susceptible to privilege claims" I.E. we haven't asserted privilege, but we might in future. P8 - note "unauthorized", not illegal, criminal, unlawful etc. Unauthorized means we didn't authorize it.
Section 3 - let's skip straight to part 2, here's the current Republican messaging. No one with any sort of bias can ever be trusted to do anything in government or justice especially involving the other political team. A couple of paragraphs of citations. This seems weak. It also seems like it's bulwark of a defense for Jared Kushner. Some of these points read like they couldn't think of anything else to say. "Some states don't like grand juries much".
Hmm. Not exactly blown away.
Section 1 - seems legit, the facts are factual, fails to note that the transmissions/discussions to, from, with and/or funded by govt depts can be FOIA-ed, from the govt Dept. Worth noting at this point that the transition team seemed to be way behind schedule and missed key deadlines for handover, in some cases not introducing themselves to permanent staffers in depts long after they were expected to.
Section 2 - paragraph 3 fails to draw a distinction between FOIA and law enforcement requests, are they handled similarly? Must *all* requests go through TFA? Seems odd that those two vastly separate routes for accessing documents would both be handled the same way. P4, isn't it true of govt owned machines that requests from LEOs don't require subpoenas due to the nature of their disclaimers, which state that anything and everything can be turned over to law enforcement? P5 doesn't outline the nature of the privilege. It can't be executive privilege during the transition, attorney client adds up with what Jnr was saying but only for emails they sent to/from counsel and why the frick would they have reason to be worried about stuff they voluntarily wrote down? Who writes down stuff about crimes they committed? But again as I said, in P7, "susceptible to privilege claims" I.E. we haven't asserted privilege, but we might in future. P8 - note "unauthorized", not illegal, criminal, unlawful etc. Unauthorized means we didn't authorize it.
Section 3 - let's skip straight to part 2, here's the current Republican messaging. No one with any sort of bias can ever be trusted to do anything in government or justice especially involving the other political team. A couple of paragraphs of citations. This seems weak. It also seems like it's bulwark of a defense for Jared Kushner. Some of these points read like they couldn't think of anything else to say. "Some states don't like grand juries much".
Hmm. Not exactly blown away.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 4:25 am to Adam Banks
The FBI Cadets/Graduates knew he wasn't being critical of them.
It's the "7th Floor".The Director and his minions.
Not the FBI Field Agents either.
It's the 3% at the top that always are fricking up.And usually it's always directed at Americans.
This post was edited on 12/17/17 at 4:41 am
Posted on 12/17/17 at 6:11 am to Clark14
quote:
If there are no wrongdoings,then why be concerned?
If you've done nothing wrong, post all your personal information and let the OT detectives get to work on you.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 6:23 am to BigAppleBucky
They hate Trump, cause they ain't Trump.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 7:07 am to Stingray
From George Webb's Twitter::
"The Mueller Email Snatch at GSA only adds proof to my Fourth Amendment lawsuit against Mueller and McCabe. This could not go any better. I only need to add my standing and illegal searches. Pattern and practice - thanks Bob and Andy.
Why fire Bob Mueller? He is proving my Fourth Amendment case against him and Andy. Please don't fire Bob and Andy. Let them keep going.
I would like to invite the 13 members of the Trump Transition team to join my lawsuit against Bob Mueller and Andy McCabe for 4th Amendment violations. Key parties have already been served, and we are moving toward discovery. Your email was obtained with only a letter to GSA."
"The Mueller Email Snatch at GSA only adds proof to my Fourth Amendment lawsuit against Mueller and McCabe. This could not go any better. I only need to add my standing and illegal searches. Pattern and practice - thanks Bob and Andy.
Why fire Bob Mueller? He is proving my Fourth Amendment case against him and Andy. Please don't fire Bob and Andy. Let them keep going.
I would like to invite the 13 members of the Trump Transition team to join my lawsuit against Bob Mueller and Andy McCabe for 4th Amendment violations. Key parties have already been served, and we are moving toward discovery. Your email was obtained with only a letter to GSA."
Posted on 12/17/17 at 7:50 am to starsandstripes
I'm wondering now if the emails / docs from GSA were raw documents or if they included the ability to go into accounts directly. I'm guessing there's going to be some sort of parallel construction / fake dossier type of item that emerges. Perhaps that is the 'insurance policy'?
Posted on 12/17/17 at 8:23 am to starsandstripes
The entire letter to the Senate Committee is posted in my link above.
Maybe one of our PT lawyers can decipher the legal meaning.
Maybe one of our PT lawyers can decipher the legal meaning.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 8:29 am to Errerrerrwere
It says exactly what I said on the first page.
Mueller and his team have committed egregious ethical violations. In addition to this letter, I would expect that a Bar complaint has been lodged with every jurisdiction in which his team holds a license.
Mueller and his team have committed egregious ethical violations. In addition to this letter, I would expect that a Bar complaint has been lodged with every jurisdiction in which his team holds a license.
Posted on 12/17/17 at 8:30 am to udtiger
quote:
egregious ethical violations.
Explain it like I’m twelve. I’m not a lawyer!
Posted on 12/17/17 at 8:37 am to Errerrerrwere
If during the course of litigation (or, really, any adversarial legal situation), you come into possession of documents that are privileged, and you came into that possession by happenstance (the other party did not knowingly give them to you or a judge did not order them priduced to you) you are OBLIGATED to NOT READ OR USE those documents. You are further OBLIGATED to advise the other side you have them and to make arrangements to return them.
NONE of that was done in this case.
NONE of that was done in this case.
This post was edited on 12/17/17 at 8:38 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News