Mueller Team In Possession of Thousands of Transition Emails

a reply to: Agit8dChop

however, the special counsel needs to keep within the guidelines of its investigations. 
''Did Russia collude with Trump to rig the election'

You forgot there's an obstruction of justice investigation going on simultaneously.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Neither the IRS nor the State Department are under criminal investigations.

a reply to: UKTruth

What do you mean nothing to show for it? How are you managing to trivialize this whole situation?
Mueller is saying he's got at least another year before he's done with this investigation.
ANOTHER FULL YEAR...
Yeah ...they got nothing.

a reply to: Sillyolme

and the 4th and privelage dont stop because you win an election

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Neither the IRS nor the State Department are under criminal investigations.

oh and for someone who was SO concerned about illegally obtained (hacked) emails in the past, why not the SAME concern now?

i guess only one side is worthy of protections

the irony being you are cheering muellers team for doing what you claim fancy bear to have done

what a hypocrite

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

What do you mean nothing to show for it? How are you managing to trivialize this whole situation?
Mueller is saying he's got at least another year before he's done with this investigation.
ANOTHER FULL YEAR...
Yeah ...they got nothing.

You can always show me the evidence that Trump or his campaign worked with the Russian Govt. to help them rig the US election ... until then, yeah, they got nothing.

We do, however, have evidence - clear evidence - that the Obama Administration worked with foreign agents to rig the election against Trump. Are you concerned about that?

a reply to: UKTruth

I could.. If I was privy to that. But like you, I have to wait.
It's pretty weak and useless asking me to provide info you know no one outside the investigation would have. But I see this ploy being used a lot to try to prove something. We both know it's just smoke. We both know you only ask that because you know no one outside of Muellers circle would know the answers. It's low and it's dishonest.
Wow what a surprise.
What I do know is two people have plead guilty and two others are under arrest.


No Obama didn't interfere with the election. Don't be a fool. That's the most ridiculous thing ever posted. And a lie. As Usual.

so there is this.......
www.gsa.gov...

Presidential Transition Act of 1963

Which states this...

Notwithstanding any other law, persons receiving compensation as members of office staffs under this subsection, other than those detailed from agencies, shall not be held or considered to be employees of the Federal Government except for purposes of the Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal Employee’s Compensation Act, the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959;

so if they are not considered to be employees of the federal government why did the GSA give up their emails?

I'm not a Trump fan at all, but I am a fan of the rule of law.

And it seems to me that the legality of obtaining these transition emails is a bit dicey -- at least there is an appearance of that.

The ways and means under which this investigation is conducted need to stand up under legal scrutiny, otherwise the Trump side could have a reasonable claim of a witch hunt, and nobody wants that.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Probably not dicey or the transition lawyer ouldnt have written a letter to Congress to give to the news outlets. He would have argued in court.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Of course not. But Mueller obtained the emails legally because trump IS under criminal investigation. There's no expectation of privacy in that either BTW.
Mueller is no idiot but trumps lawyers sure appear to be. Did they get their degrees from a school advertised on a match book? They are the legal professions version of the keystone cops.

a reply to: Sillyolme

but trumps lawyers sure appear to be. Did they get their degrees from a school advertised on a match book? They are the legal professions version of the keystone cops.

Maybe they got their degrees from Trump University...now defunct.

www.npr.org...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: shooterbrody

Of course not. But Mueller obtained the emails legally because trump IS under criminal investigation. There's no expectation of privacy in that either BTW.
Mueller is no idiot but trumps lawyers sure appear to be. Did they get their degrees from a school advertised on a match book? They are the legal professions version of the keystone cops.

There are in fact rules for how evidence can be obtained, even when a person is under investigation.

I'm not saying the Mueller necessarily obtained this information illegally; I'm just pointing out that it is false to say that when you are under investigation that there is no expectation of privacy. Legal rights are legal rights, whether or not you are under investigation (maybe even more so if you are under investigation).

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well what made you believe they were illegally obtained? A letter a trump lawyer basically wrote for the media?

What kind of moron puts confidential info on a government email server and uses equipment they were told could be used in an invesrigation? They even signed off on that fact...

originally posted by: UKTruth
We do, however, have evidence - clear evidence - that the Obama Administration worked with foreign agents to rig the election against Trump. Are you concerned about that?

Thankfully your lies don't count as evidence, friendo.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Well what made you believe they were illegally obtained? A letter a trump lawyer basically wrote for the media?

What kind of moron puts confidential info on a government email server and uses equipment they were told could be used in an invesrigation? They even signed off on that fact...

The Trump lawyers have a bit of an argument with the whole attorney-client privilege question, but it will probably not hold up.

However, it's not as easy as "What kind of moron puts confidential info on a government email server and uses equipment they were told could be used in an invesrigation?"

Even Mueller realized this when he took the time to dot his "i"s and cross his "t"s (in his legal opinion). If it were as simple as "if it's on a GSA server, then it's always fair game", then Meuller would not have felt the need for his due diligence.

I mean, everone's emails probably cross many servers. That does not necessarily mean the contents of those emails can be freely given away be the owner of the server for reasons of investigation. Having said that, I think Mueller probably did obtain the emails legally and can legally use them in an investigation, but it is still a more complex issue than just "It's on a government server; therefore, it is fair game".

For example, the argument that the emails (no matter whose server they are on) fall under attorney-clent priveledge is probably one sticking point that needs to be looked at further, but that argument seems unlikely to legally hold up. However, there is still a hint of validity to that argument, and it cannot just be dismissed with a hand wave. It is more tricky than that.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

If they were not morons they wouldn't have used .gov emails for attn client details to begin with.

Why is it such a complex issue?

Why did the lawyer choose the propaganda rather than legal route?

Unless it's to sway public opinion about mueller?

What are they worried about is what I want to know. Why not just let it run its coarse.

Maybe why Kush hired a crisis pr team.

a reply to: luthier

Trump's argument is about attorney-client privilege. However, that argument probably will not hold up.

However, let's look at the legal ramifications in general, taking personalities out of the equation. Let's take Trump out of the equation for the sake of this argument....

If a person in the government uses a .gov server to converse with government counsel on a legal matter (say, for example a person in the Dept. of Interior converesing on a legal matter with an attorney from the Interior Dept's legal Counsel's office), then that email could arguably fall under the protection of attorney-client privilege, even if it's on a .gov server. Of course that depends on what was being discussed, but there is an argument that in some cases the email could be private.

That being said, Trump's lawayers would need to show justification to claim attorne-client privilege in this case, which (it seems) might not hold up.

I posted the transition act above...you know the actual statute.
If you choose not to read it that is not my problem.
It clearly states the transition team are NOT to be treated as govt employees. While the equipment used belonged to the govt the info the transition team put on it was NOT.
Mueller could have avoided all of this by simply getting a warrant; why they chose not to is something I do not understand.
This whole episode will probably be a Strzok or Weissmann production.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
I posted the transition act above...you know the actual statute.
If you choose not to read it that is not my problem.
It clearly states the transition team are NOT to be treated as govt employees. While the equipment used belonged to the govt the info the transition team put on it was NOT.
Mueller could have avoided all of this by simply getting a warrant; why they chose not to is something I do not understand.
This whole episode will probably be a Strzok or Weissmann production.

You posted an irrelevant statute. And remember when you said it wasn't a third party?

When you click OK and it'd says your correspondence can be used in a legal investigation you waive those rights.

Only a moron would have discussed sensitive info on this system.

And avoided what? A propaganda letter to congress and the press.

The courts are the place to handle this not the media. Unless of coarse you have no case.

And what does the end of the letter say again?