mueller: new email scandal???

[bamscram]

Bad thing about Mueller having those emails, was when they were lied to they knew it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bamscram

Bad thing about Mueller having those emails, was when they were lied to they knew it.

And the bad thing about the way he got them means the information that got gets shit canned ... as per the 4th Amendment and Due Process! Mueller knows that, and if he doesn't it proves he doesn't belong doing what he was appointed to do, which is not go fishing.

[bamscram]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And the bad thing about the way he got them means the information that got gets shit canned ... as per the 4th Amendment and Due Process! Mueller knows that, and if he doesn't it proves he doesn't belong doing what he was appointed to do, which is not go fishing.

If they got them by request or subpoena what will you whine about then?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bamscram

If they got them by request or subpoena what will you whine about then?

It's not whining, unless they are yours! Right ButtScramble?


Actually, when Flynn's conviction gets shit canned you can laugh!

Go "request" your neighbors emails from Yahoo!

How about subpoena them!

You'll get the same response ... and then you can "whine"!

[grean]

I'm not sure where the issue is. The GSA had the emails. Mueller's team requested them and the GSA gave them to them. Mueller's team didn't steal them.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm not sure where the issue is. The GSA had the emails. Mueller's team requested them and the GSA gave them to them. Mueller's team didn't steal them.

And you'd be content with your bank emptying out your safe deposit box to Mueller if he requested it, right? The GSA was a repository for those private documents -- not the owner of those private documents. The documents weren't the GSA's to give.

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And you'd be content with your bank emptying out your safe deposit box to Mueller if he requested it, right? The GSA was a repository for those private documents -- not the owner of those private documents. The documents weren't the GSA's to give.

I'm not certain of the GSA's ownership/custodialship of them.

I don't think that as long as Mueller's team didn't obtain them through illegal actions on their part, it matters.

The GSA may have errored. That doesn't mean any wrong doing occurred by Muellers team.

In other words YES, Id be upset if a bank gave any my stuff. However, my issue would be with the bank not who the bank gave it to.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm not certain of the GSA's ownership/custodialship of them.

I don't think that as long as Mueller's team didn't obtain them through illegal actions on their part, it matters.

The GSA may have errored. That doesn't mean any wrong doing occurred by Muellers team.

Mueller's action required a warrant he didn't garner, and by law, as Sen Johnson laid it out, Mueller was supposed to deal with Team Trump's lawyers for those documents -- not the GSA.

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Mueller's action required a warrant he didn't garner, and by law, as Rep Johnson laid it out, Mueller was supposed to deal with Team Trump's lawyers for those documents -- not the GSA.

If the police go to a business and ask them for records, the business has every right to refuse if they don't supply a warrant.

However, if the business just gives them the records, I believe that is considered to be legally obtained evidence. The customers may take issue and may even have legal recourse against the company. However, I don't think it affects whether or not police can use the evidence they obtained.

May be wrong. That's just my understanding though.

I think they can say that they have a warrant, and if the person told that doesn't verify, it's on them....

[grean]

Could you link where mueller was restricted to just talking to trumps lawyers?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

If the police go to a business and ask them for records, the business has every right to refuse if they don't supply a warrant.

However, if the business just gives them the records, I believe that is considered to be legally obtained evidence. The customers may take issue and may even have legal recourse against the company. However, I don't think it affects whether or not police can use the evidence they obtained.

May be wrong. That's just my understanding though.

I think they can say that they have a warrant, and if the person told that doesn't verify, it's on them....

As Gowdy said, “Ultimately, there’s only really one opinion that matters, and that’s the trial judge who hears the motion.”

Originally Posted by grean

Could you link where mueller was restricted to just talking to trumps lawyers?

"Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee ... told CNN that he thinks there needs to be a change to the law to say that those transition emails, administered by the General Services Administration, are not the property of the federal government."

(WTMA)

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

As Gowdy said, “Ultimately, there’s only really one opinion that matters, and that’s the trial judge who hears the motion.”

Very True.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Alan D speaks for the interests of Israel, not America! I keep telling you that you need to expand your news sources. You keep parroting Trump and you will in the end look like the Clinton supporters.....

Alan Dershowitz IS a Clinton supporter, you dimwitted idiot! He even describes himself as a "proud Hillary Clinton voter". He is also a libertarian - a real one, not a faux one like you. He doesn't abandon his libertarian principles, or the Constitution, to defend hildebeest or attack Trump gratuitously like you do.

Just because you don't like his support of Israel doesn't make him wrong on questions of Constitutional law. You are a moron when you try to discredit him for that reason. He's a brilliant Harvard law professor and he invariably calls it straight. I don't always agree with him but he never fails to present the arguments well. Unlike you. He is the opposite of a MORONIC BUFFOON.

[LexusLover]

However, if the business just gives them the records, I believe that is considered to be legally obtained evidence. The customers may take issue and may even have legal recourse against the company. However, I don't think it affects whether or not police can use the evidence they obtained.

Two things .... one your broad conclusion is wrong as to "legally obtained" and "don't think it affects whether or not police can use the evidence."

#1: The emails in question were not "records of the entity from which they were obtained." #2: The documents belong to the Transition Team and by statute they are generated by the Team. #3: If there is a statute that regulates information collected then a violation of that statute (or other laws protecting privacy or privilege) in gaining access to those records makes those records UNUSABLE.

There is a process in the DOJ for obtaining and using records in criminal investigations. That process apparently was not followed. That is a violation of the statute and the DOJ policy guidelines.

And the above doesn't even address national security issues, executive privilege, and/or attorney-client privilege.

Mueller can't just walk into your bank and get your bank records, so what makes you think he can walk into the GSA office and get the President-Elect's CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS? (and you are the one who brought up businesses.)

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by grean

I'm not sure where the issue is. The GSA had the emails. Mueller's team requested them and the GSA gave them to them. Mueller's team didn't steal them.

Did you bother to read the letter released by the transition team lawyer, Kory Langhofer, last Saturday? It reveals the full extent of Mueller’s misconduct.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000...b-756de2a90000

The GSA’s Legal Counsel, Richard Beckler, concurred that the emails were owned by the transition team last June. He promised to notify them of any document requests from the Special Counsel. In August, he became sick and incapacitated. He has since passed away. Mueller took advantage of his illness to circumvent the agreed process. How slimy is that? Does it sound like something a man of integrity would do?

You ask “where the issue is”. The main issue is the violation of attorney-client privilege. The emails were handed over to Mueller’s team without screening. They are full of conversations with transition team attorneys. Are you aware that if a prosecutor or attorney comes across such privileged communication, they are ethically required to stop reviewing it, tell the other side immediately, and return it? Mueller didn't do that. Trump's lawyers figured it out months later from the questions being asked.

Had Mueller followed long-established rules, as well as the understanding that was reached in June between his own lawyers, the GSA and the transition team lawyers, he would have gone through the proper channels and obtained a warrant for the emails. Then they would have been delivered to him, sans the privileged communications. By failing to do so, he has tainted the investigation and shot himself in the foot.

Do you think it's fair, legal, or constitutional for one side (in any litigation) to know everything the other side has been privately discussing with their attorneys?

Still don’t know where the issue is?