EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9548
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Because Mueller acquired the emails in the capacity of a prosecutor. That alone triggers all sorts of special rules that are inapplicable to the other situations. The charge that has been made by Trump’s legal team is a very serious one. It shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand until we learn how Mueller got the emails and under what authority. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 17 2017 11:29 semantics wrote: Nothing says nothing to hide like promoting the idea of getting off or omitting large parts of a case on a technicality Especially when a pivotal part of it is discussions you claim to have had and reassurances you claim to have received with someone who died in August. I mean another one of Trump's lawyers can't even be assed to spellcheck before making official statements, I don't put much stock in anything any of them say. Incidentally: the letter seems to less charge Mueller with misconduct and more lay the blame at the feet of the General Services Administration. Not that you would know that from Fox News. | ||
|
doomdonker
90 Posts
I don't disagree that emails in theory should be secret and protected under law but it is amusing to see the GOP jumpy about emails/Mueller when they didn't really give a shit where they obtained Democratic Party emails and really made no real effort to make sure hacking efforts and private email servers wouldn't happen again. If they did nothing wrong, Mueller will find nothing and Trump can rightfully scream he's been vindicated for the rest of his life...but if these high profile investigations have told me something its that people involved are nearly always guilty of something. I guess it shouldn't be surprising since these emails are linked to Trump's transition team and it consisted of people like Nunes and Gowdy who have done nothing but act in a partisan manner. I don't really care about the legality because I think there's enough proof that American Congress are all morally or politically corrupt so exposing it all to the world is worth whatever legal quagmire that may exist. Considering the whole Whitewater investigation exposed Bill Clinton as a certified sleezeball, I shouldn't be surprised if the Trumps get exposed for money laundering or something similar. Better the American people start electing individuals that actually make an effort to pretend to serve the people. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
the american people are quite clearly unable to elect people competently, and in all likelihood will never be able to. the question is how to setup the system so it happens somewhat anyways. which is extra hard because the public also has no idea how to setup such a system and is unable to tell which proposals for setting up such a system are good and which aren't. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
This news is significantly worse for Trump than it is positive. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On December 17 2017 12:03 On_Slaught wrote: My concern about this charge is basically zero. A collection of the top prosecutors in the country who are clearly taking their time and being cautious wouldn't blatantly violate law on such a major issue. They have an argument and no doubt it is a strong one. If anyone is culpable, it would probably be the gov agency, not Mueller. Further the people who get to decide if something went wrong is certainly not Trumps lawyers or public opinion. This news is significantly worse for Trump than it is positive. Exactly. Even if there is a technical victory in here somewhere for Fox and Friends, this still isn't a good development for them. It's like totally failing a test, but correctly spotting that there's a typo on one of the questions that you still fucked up. You still failed. | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
We discovered the unauthorized disclosures by the GSA on December 12 and 13, 2017. When we learned that the Special Counsel’s Office had received certain laptops and cell phones containing privileged materials, we initially raised our concerns with Brandon Van Grack in the Special Counsel’s Office on December 12, 2017. Mr. Van Grack confirmed that the Special Counsel’s Office had obtained certain laptops, cell phones, and at least one iPad from the GSA – but he assured us that the Special Counsel’s investigation did not recover any emails or other relevant data from that hardware. During this exchange, Mr. Van Grack failed to disclose the critical fact that undercut the importance of his representations, namely, that the Special Counsel’s Office had simultaneously received from the GSA tens of thousands of emails, including a very significant volume of privileged material, and that the Special Counsel’s Office was actively using those materials without any notice to TFA.1 Mr. Van Grack also declined to inform us of the identities of the 13 individuals whose materials were at issue. We followed up with Mr. Van Grack the next day after learning of the unauthorized disclosure of PTT emails to ask what procedures, if any, had been implemented to protect privileged PTT communications from unauthorized and improper review. Mr. Van Grack declined to respond at the time, but contacted us on December 15, 2017 to inform us that the Special Counsel’s Office had, in fact, failed to use an “ethical wall” or “taint team” and instead simply reviewed the privileged communications contained in the PTT materials. Mr. Van Grack also acknowledged on the December 12, 2017 telephone call that, even before we contacted him, the Special Counsel’s Office had been aware of the importance and sensitivity of the privilege issues that we raised. The evidence was clearly obtained illegally/unlawfully. I can't imagine that Mueller's team wouldn't have known better. And then to make matters worse, they failed to implement any procedural safeguards to protect stuff like attorney-client privileged communications. They may just fucked their entire prosecution. They have a huge Fourth Amendment/fruit of the poisonous tree problem. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
If part of the signup for GSA was "we allow the government complete custody of all these emails and will not use them for privileged communications" I would think reviewing them unblinded would be permissable. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2017 13:18 TheTenthDoc wrote: Isn't this contingent on the information actually being privileged and the request unauthorized? It can't be executive privilege since they weren't in office yet. No. This was an unauthorized seizure of information. Privilege is besides the point at this initial stage. The one thing that I wonder is whether it matters that this was done with an RFP as opposed to a subpoena. But the root problem is that this is confidential information that Mueller's team obtained through improper channels, violating the expectations of privacy of the owners of the information. And then his team lied about it to Trump's team. That's bad, bad behavior -- like the kind of shit that gets prosecutors sanctioned. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 17 2017 13:24 xDaunt wrote: No. This was an unauthorized seizure of information. Privilege is besides the point at this initial stage. The one thing that I wonder is whether it matters that this was done with an RFP as opposed to a subpoena. But the root problem is that this is confidential information that Mueller's team obtained through improper channels, violating the expectations of privacy of the owners of the information. And then his team lied about it to Trump's team. That's bad, bad behavior -- like the kind of shit that gets prosecutors sanctioned. Don't those expectations have to be real, though? If there really is a box they checked saying "we understand none of these will be held back in law enforcement actions" (as Langhofer at GSA claims) then there's no expectation of privacy. Edit: even gsa's homepage says that "no expectation of privacy is to be assumed." | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2017 13:27 TheTenthDoc wrote: Don't those expectations have to be real, though? If there really is a box they checked saying "we understand none of these will be held back in law enforcement actions" (as Langhofer at GSA claims) then there's no expectation of privacy. Edit: even gsa's homepage says that "no expectation of privacy is to be assumed." Yes, the expectation of privacy has to be real. I'm highly dubious of the idea that transition team communications and materials would not be so protected. I'm sure we'll see the relevant documents soon enough. EDIT: I highly doubt that that disclaimer applies to Trump's people. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On December 17 2017 13:35 xDaunt wrote: Yes, the expectation of privacy has to be real. I'm highly dubious of the idea that transition team communications and materials would not be so protected. I'm sure we'll see the relevant documents soon enough. EDIT: I highly doubt that that disclaimer applies to Trump's people. That site links to the sign-in system for the gsa email system as well as the intranet and the disclaimer applies to all internal systems accessed from that page. Do you think they were given special assurances they weren't going to be monitored that overrode it? | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On December 17 2017 13:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: That site links to the sign-in system for the gsa email system as well as the intranet and the disclaimer applies to all internal systems accessed from that page. Do you think they were given special assurances they weren't going to be monitored that overrode it? And even if they did get "assurances", it means diddly squat if they signed a piece of paper saying they had none, and nothing to prove the contrary. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
On December 17 2017 13:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: That site links to the sign-in system for the gsa email system as well as the intranet and the disclaimer applies to all internal systems accessed from that page. Do you think they were given special assurances they weren't going to be monitored that overrode it? That's what Langhofer is arguing, isn't it? Beckler? The letter also makes a specific claim about communication between the government and the campaign — that Richard Beckler, then the general counsel of the GSA, "acknowledged unequivocally to [the Trump campaign's] legal counsel" in a June 15 discussion that the Trump campaign "owned and controlled" emails, and that "any requests for the production of PTT records would therefore be routed to legal counsel for [the Trump campaign]." I mean, it's pretty sad if all you have is basically "well the dead guy said so though, take my word for i t" as an argument. | ||
|
mozoku
United States708 Posts
A high schooler probably could have told them that's a bad idea. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On December 17 2017 13:40 TheTenthDoc wrote: That site links to the sign-in system for the gsa email system as well as the intranet and the disclaimer applies to all internal systems accessed from that page. Do you think they were given special assurances they weren't going to be monitored that overrode it? Like I said, I’d have to see the contract documents and get a better understanding of what services the GSA was providing. But it just seems bizarre to me that transition team documents would not be considered private or confidential at all. | ||
| ||
