Posted by
Message
Wednesday
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2017
717 posts

“screw that” Nunberg has a point
CNN SORRY

I’m not a criminal attorney. I also Don’t have any idea who this Nunberg Guy is. But I think this he may have somewhat of a point.

Per these interviews attached by Jake Tapper’s Twitter Page, he and other CNN Morons are incredulous when he suggests that he may have a right to refuse to produce his e-mail correspondence to the government. He suggested that they are asking for his emails with Corey Lewandawski, Carter Page and Roger Stone.

Do any of you Poli Board Lawyer’s know WHY exactly he should be compelled to produce emails that are his private correspondence, with other private citizens who appear to witnesses only, and not the subject of any criminal investigation? What gives a “special prosecutor” who has initiated no criminal proceedings, and no lawsuit against this guy an unlimited right to conduct discovery against a private citizen?

I’m not sure what would be the difference btwn this subpoena issued to Numberg Guy and a subpoena issued to Ms. Wednesday. Do I have to give Bob Mueller my emails?? If so, why?

Can the response be a letter that says:

Dear Bob:
frick you. Get a warrant. Not a FISA One. A real one.

Just asking. In case the FBI decides to ever subpoena my emails because I’m reading a book about Cathrine the Great and I like Vodka Tonics.


Navytiger74
Navy Fan
NOVA/DC—Following Honest Bob Around
Member since Oct 2009
49968 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
quote:

Do any of you Poli Board Lawyer’s know WHY exactly he should be compelled to produce emails that are his private correspondence, with other private citizens who appear to witnesses only, and not the subject of any criminal investigation? What gives a “special prosecutor” who has initiated no criminal proceedings, and no lawsuit against this guy an unlimited right to conduct discovery against a private citizen?

There are legal ways to fight subpoenas. Irrespective of the substantive merits of your position, "nah frick that I ain't showing" is not one such way.


Wednesday
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2017
717 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
I went to law school. I know there are “legal ways.” Nobody is quite sure what Mueller is investigating.

How about a letter that says - I’m not answering. Your subpoena is over broad, bob.

Wouldn’t a judge have to hear some kind of Bob Motion in Public.

I’m serious. What are the limits of Bob’s subpoena power? There have to be some?


Navytiger74
Navy Fan
NOVA/DC—Following Honest Bob Around
Member since Oct 2009
49968 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
quote:


I’m serious. What are the limits of Bob’s subpoena power? There have to be some?
If you read his commission, his powers are pretty broad. That's the curse of the special/independent prosecutor/counsel. They never, ever end where they started. Never have.


MSTIGER22
New Orleans Saints Fan
Jackson
Member since May 2007
668 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
Nunberg is an attorney.


KrushGroove
Southeastern LA Fan
Member since Jun 2012
851 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
that explains the coke


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
40
Wednesday
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2017
717 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
I have on behalf of clients in civil proceedings written letters that refused to respond.

Mueller is not a judge. He’s a lawyer. Engaging in an adversarial process.

never seen a judge order production of email correspondence between witnesses. Parties. Sure. But rando third parties? No.

I know that a criminal proceeding need not be initiated for a prosecutor to issue a subpoena. But absent probable cause - why isn’t that a warrantlees search? In other words. His “scope”’of what he’s entitled to investigate may be insanely and stupidly broad - but the subpoena is ultimately issued by a JUDGE.

Is there some kind of criminal exception that gives a judge a power to order a search of someone’s private property (email) without a warrant and without a probable cause showing?


Navytiger74
Navy Fan
NOVA/DC—Following Honest Bob Around
Member since Oct 2009
49968 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
quote:

Is there some kind of criminal exception that gives a judge a power to order a search of someone’s private property (email) without a warrant and without a probable cause showing?
I can't imagine any, but I'm not an attorney.

And at this point I don't get your argument. I'm just saying that if the guy has a legitimate gripe against cataloguing and turning over thousands of e-mails and sitting for a multi-hour interview, he should have his counsel draw up a response and get it in front of a judge. The tack he's taking isn't going to work out for him.


Stingray
LSU Fan
Shreveport
Member since Sep 2007
9171 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
Can Nunberg just say "the fifth" to this email request?


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
11
Wednesday
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2017
717 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
My point is your point.

He doesn’t need to hire a lawyer. He can just write a letter that says - I’m not handing over my private emails because you have no right or power to ask for them. If Bob wants them, I think he Would have to sue Nunberg.

IOW. I think he should be able to get away with either (1) not showing up; or (2) writing the following letter.

Dear Bob. frick You. Get a warrant.

I guess I’m just marveling at the incredulity of Jake Tapper who thinks that any person would not have a right to refuse a warrantless search.
This post was edited on 3/5 at 8:02 pm


Boatshoes
Member since Dec 2017
1325 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
Dear Bob,

My emails were sfored on Hillary's email server.

Feel free to ask her for copies.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
120
GumboPot
USA Fan
Member since Mar 2009
58842 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
quote:

The tack he's taking isn't going to work out for him.


Sure makes him a shitty witnesses for Bob though. Nunberg’s credibility is pretty well shot at his point.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
21
TigerDoc
LSU Fan
Texas
Member since Apr 2004
2712 posts
 Online 

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
quote:

I guess I’m just marveling at the incredulity of Jake Tapper who thinks that any person would not have a right to refuse a warrantless search.


Why shouldn't Tapper have been incredulous? Nunberg said he was going to "tear up" the subpoena and refuse to cooperate. Nunberg is a lawyer. He should (and probably does at least now after throwing this tantrum) know what will happen if you flout a grand jury subpoena from an SC (or IC). Susan McDougal did 22 months.

Image: https://i.imgur.com/jnPuLMK.jpg
This post was edited on 3/6 at 4:54 am


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
Kickadawgitfeelsgood
Lafayette LA
Member since Nov 2005
12526 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
Deleted emails will produce obstruction charges.


Meauxjeaux
Memphis Fan
91867 posts including my alters
Member since Jun 2005
22902 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
quote:

Deleted emails will produce obstruction charges.


Yep, always does.
This post was edited on 3/6 at 5:26 am


Thomas Williams
LSU Fan
Member since Oct 2016
256 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
We're living among people who are fools who are working with the media, Hollywood, and government. That is now only hurting us instead of helping.

People who have a good education but have become so arrogant that they are no closer to fixing what is wrong in our society than you or I.

We really are, it not a question of just saying that as a mode of figurative expression, but we really are living among fools.

This is stunning to me because their foolishness is rooted in arrogance and conceit. The Ivy League wise guys keep walking around us like they know what the deal is, and they don't.

These self-appointed media, Hollywood, Government experts don't know any more about what the real deal is that a child does.

Making them crazy.

So now there is nothing more to say. It going to take the American people like you and me to say - "What!?"

We are going to need to tell them to shove it before they drag us along with them to the nearest cemetery.


Replies (0)
Replies (0)
00
ChineseBandit58
LSU Fan
west of the pines
Member since Aug 2005
24572 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
quote:

quote:
Deleted emails will produce obstruction charges.

==========

Yep, always does.


Well sorta always - except when they don't.



Replies (0)
Replies (0)
20
boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
62058 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
Subpoenas are designed to facilitate speedy and efficient discovery in the federal system. FRCP 45 allows lawyers to actually sign subpoenas without getting in front of a judge. There are broader rules governing attorneys that state the litigation process should not be used to harass someone and that would govern issuing subpoenas that obviously have no merit on the issue at hand.

However, the process to challenge or fight a subpoena is to file a motion to quash it and then the judge makes the call on whether it’s appropriate or not. Nunberg can write the letter you’ve described and maybe a judge will take it as a motion to quash, but there has to be an enforcement mechanism if you simply ignore the subpoena. If there isn’t, it renders them all teethless.

FRCP 45
This post was edited on 3/6 at 6:06 am


Wednesday
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2017
717 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
Right. But teeth on a civil subpoena would essentially require Mueller to move to have nunberg held in contempt or Nunberg could submit a motion to quash it. Mueller isn’t guaranteed to win either motion. Mueller himself has no unilateral authority to make Nunberg, who is not a party to any proceedings do anything. Susan McDougal (above) was a party to a criminal matter.

Speedy discovery or not - what in FRCP 45 allows the government unfettered access to any email you may have ever written? That’s essentially what Nunberg says the subpoena says. He has a point. I would respond with “no.”


boosiebadazz
Member since Feb 2008
62058 posts

re: “screw that” Nunberg has a point
He can fight it. There are motions to quash subpoenas filed every day.

I guess I’m confused why this is controversial. His theatrics and presentation aside, it’s not uncommon for a party or even a non-party to refuse to comply with a subpoena by filing a motion to quash it.

ETA: I’m admitted to my local federal court and have some cases open and active right now. I can issue a subpoena from any of them to any entity I want seeking any information I want, but those entities can refuse to comply by filing to quash it and I can be sanctioned and made to pay their fees if the Court finds it was frivolous or an abuse of process.
This post was edited on 3/6 at 6:28 am


first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2next pagelast page

Back to top

logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram