The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Trump lawyer: Mueller improperly obtained transition documents in Russia probe
Poast new message in this thread
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:07 PM Author: Motley Alcoholic Electric Furnace http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/16/trump-lawyer-mueller-improperly-obtained-transition-documents-in-russia-probe.html holy shit |
 |
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:12 PM Author: ruby philosopher-king den I predicted some time ago that Mueller would lose his law license over this investigation. I stand by that prediction. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936806) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:15 PM Author: Aphrodisiac mood point what are your credentials, other than being a retard? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936825) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:27 PM Author: big market reading party (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936917) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:45 PM Author: topaz main people he's a harvard law grad (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937518) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:45 PM Author: aromatic crimson meetinghouse caltech UG if i remember correctly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937523) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 11:56 PM Author: Aphrodisiac mood point Odd that he’s saying retarded shit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939685) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:46 PM Author: curious sable address (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937528) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:46 PM Author: aromatic crimson meetinghouse you are talking to a Caltech UG (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937529) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:54 PM Author: Multi-colored dopamine (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937595) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 11:18 PM Author: Brass dilemma (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939461) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 10:22 AM Author: Aphrodisiac mood point and therefore an expert on lolyer ethics? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940981) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:28 PM Author: trip church new version one of the finest law schools in the country (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941583) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 1:43 PM Author: Dashing orchestra pit dysfunction Joe? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34949424) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:00 PM Author: Up-to-no-good kitty cat crackhouse cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937103) |
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:10 PM Author: Multi-colored dopamine Shut it down (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936792) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:11 PM Author: Thriller Lettuce need WLMAS to explain how this guy is upholding the rule of law by trashing the 4th amendment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936801) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:17 PM Author: black garrison he sent a subpoena. GSA responded to it. you want to tell me what ethical rule was violated? also, if Trump's team felt the subpoena sought privileged documents then they should have objected to it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936844) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 9:51 PM Author: cerise ratface shitlib According to letter just released, there was no subpoena. Just a letter to GSA. And the Trump transition team was never made aware of the request prior to GSA forking over the emails to Mueller.
And Mueller and team had no ethical walls to cleanse the emails of privileged items before passing it onto investigators.
Lol just lol. |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 11:19 PM Author: Brass dilemma weird how that pumo just vanished all the sudden (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939464) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 11:24 PM Author: Up-to-no-good kitty cat crackhouse (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939497) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 7:53 AM Author: bistre wonderful cruise ship (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940507) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:33 AM Author: black garrison If there was no sunpoena and just a letter then thats even more innocuous. also, if the GSA was holing them then any privilege was destroyed. And your comment about Mueller's team reviewing them for privilege before passing them to investigators makes no sense since MUELLER's team ARE the investigators. What else you got? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940763) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:36 AM Author: green pozpig locale Succinct rejoinder of this retard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940771) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 9:23 AM Author: confused abode (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34947532) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:35 AM Author: green pozpig locale This used to be a law bort. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940767) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:43 AM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich The 4th Amendment. Jesus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940792) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:44 AM Author: green pozpig locale (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940796) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:48 AM Author: topaz main people (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940822) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:12 PM Author: Hairraiser puce affirmative action (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936802) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:14 PM Author: black garrison lol good luck with that argument (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936821) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:18 PM Author: Brass dilemma Jesus (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936850) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:18 PM Author: black garrison 4 indictments and counting trumpfags
tick tok tick tok |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:21 PM Author: impressive weed whacker Lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936869) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:48 PM Author: 180 brunch scourge upon the earth I’m with you, brother! I can’t wait for the uranium 1 indictments and particularly Huma going down for selling access as a special government employee! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937014) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:22 PM Author: Bright blathering degenerate stag film Even if there's a legal argument to be made here, do Trump people really think it's good politics to insist that no one should be allowed to see the transition team's emails? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936879) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 5:25 PM Author: Brass dilemma lol are these the same people who argued that Hillary destroying emails in violation of a DOJ subpoena was NBD? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936904) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:00 PM Author: abusive persian No. The same people who claimed it was bad for Hillary to destroy emails are saying no one should be able to see these emails. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937102) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 11:40 PM Author: Brass dilemma so the same people who thought it was NBD for Hillary to acid bleach a bunch of civil servant's emails are now clamoring to see a political opponent's private emails? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939578) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 7:48 AM Author: 180 brunch scourge upon the earth Bleach bit and sledge hammer to old Blackberries, which apparently shows they were smart enough to know their shit would leak if they didn’t destroy it. Guess maybe Trump’s team is to blame for not using bleach bit and hammers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940505) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 8:03 AM Author: concupiscible menage What's good for the goose... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940535) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 9:53 PM Author: cerise ratface shitlib without a subpoena or warrant? Hell yes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34938908) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 11:39 PM Author: Carmine irate dingle berry (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939567) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:43 PM Author: Emerald Piazza Libs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937505) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2017 1:02 PM Author: Vengeful headpube roast beef sounds like the problem lies with trump's ARE gsa (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34958165) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:54 PM Author: topaz main people tick tock trumpcucks (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937594) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 6:55 PM Author: Multi-colored dopamine (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34937597) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 1:08 PM Author: Hairraiser puce affirmative action (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941834) |
|
Date: December 16th, 2017 11:24 PM Author: Up-to-no-good kitty cat crackhouse Jesus, the fourth amendment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939500) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:44 AM Author: green pozpig locale (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940797) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:48 AM Author: topaz main people (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940825) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:12 AM Author: racy toilet seat Need JJC, Obeezy, or Rockapotamus to explain how this advances the rule of law and protects our civil liberties. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939751) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:15 AM Author: racy toilet seat Libs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939774) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:20 AM Author: Cocky Theater Stage oddly silent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34939795) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 7:52 AM Author: 180 brunch scourge upon the earth Remember, only libs have civil liberties. It’s their men’s right to change genders and use the bathroom with an 8 year old girl. It’s their women’s right to dress and act like a slut but accuse men of harassing them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940506) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:33 AM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich I'm not even sure what the Trumpcuck crowing is about. Is the administration going to go to a court to get back its computers? File a motion to suppress any documents in any future proceeding? Ask D.C. Bar counsel to reprimand Mueller for whatever they are claiming he did wrong? This letter and thread = complete gibberish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940762) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 9:28 AM Author: confused abode 1) if anybody did anything wrong, it sounds like it was the GSA. Mueller just asked nicely for shit 2) if the GSA had the emails, the privilege was probably destroyed, hence trump's lawyer asking congress to fix this problem for future transition teams |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 7:59 AM Author: Galvanic Fuchsia Tank Range They sound worried (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940526) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:29 AM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich The Trumpcucks in this thread or the authors of this hilarious letter?7 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940750) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 10:52 AM Author: Galvanic Fuchsia Tank Range Both brother (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941127) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:35 AM Author: green pozpig locale So he asked for some documents, someone gave them to him, and the folks he is investigating are pissed because they claim those were their documents?
Lol, keep fishing. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:40 AM Author: 180 brunch scourge upon the earth You've clearly never hired your own counsel with whom you've had privileged communications. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940780) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:42 AM Author: green pozpig locale I have, but let's assume the GSA had ACP with the TTT, how did Mueller fuck up? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940784) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:33 AM Author: 180 brunch scourge upon the earth Meuller fucked up twice: 1) no Chinese wall, and 2) failed to disclose receipt of potentially privileged communications. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941300) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:45 AM Author: Cyan tripping sweet tailpipe hall If they are using a GSA server, not a fucking letter is privileged. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941359) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:02 PM Author: 180 brunch scourge upon the earth Love dat reading comprehension. They aren't government records. They are private materials. The GSA signed an MOU promising to destroy them not pass them to whomever. It's not GSA who can waive TTt privilege. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941434) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:07 PM Author: Cyan tripping sweet tailpipe hall It's no different than speaking to your lawyer with a third party in the room.
Every govt computer has the "no expectation of privacy" thing on the sign in screen. The fact Trumptards are too dumb or arrogant to see this is on them. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 2:33 PM Author: 180 brunch scourge upon the earth lol sure buddy, dat privacy notice trumps everything. Which would mean there’s no reason to have the Obama opinion on these materials being private, no reason for an MOU, and no reason to have the transition act itself. Go back to playing call of duty in your mom’s basement already. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34942423) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2017 1:03 PM Author: Vengeful headpube roast beef "dat privacy notice trumps everything"
actually it does - wanna look up the jurisprudence on talking with your lawyer in a room with a sign saying there are microphones recording all conversations? |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 3:45 PM Author: Silver box office You cannot just eliminate waiver by claiming the materials are "private." Let's say your're doing business with another party, and you sign a contract which says that all communications between you and he other party are "private" and "confidential." And then you send supposedly A/C communications to that party. Do you really the "private" nature of those communications prevents waiver?
Maybe there are other arguments why the transition materials are privileged, but "private" argument is not strong |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:45 AM Author: Misanthropic area corn cake Risten (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940801) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 9:51 AM Author: Aphrodisiac mood point not a crim bro - can someone lay out what the issues are here? were the documents even still privileged if someone not on the transition team (ie, GSA) had them in their possession?
what is the fourth amendment issue? the investigators apparently asked for docs and they were willingly handed over. if the cops knock on my door, i'm not home and a houseguest lets them in and they find a pound of cocaine, can i raise the 4th amendment? |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 10:30 AM Author: lake ticket booth No fourth amendment issue. Mueller asked for something and got them. No expectation of privacy when you willingly relinquish control over your papers to a third party.
Almost certainly no privilege issue. I can conceive of situations in which privileged documents held by neither the client nor counsel is privileged (for example, counsel hires an agent to review/store/organize documents), but this doesn't sound like it. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 10:35 AM Author: Aphrodisiac mood point who the fuck wrote this letter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941050) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 10:42 AM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich Matthew Peterson (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941076) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 10:50 AM Author: green pozpig locale (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941109) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 10:51 AM Author: green pozpig locale It sounds like (((FoxNews))) is juicing the contents of the letter, when it was actually legally sound because it was focused on the GSA. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941123) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:00 AM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner I agree no forth amendment issue, but the privilege issue is far from clear. Take a common situation in litigation or any large government investigation. Client receives subpoena, and then potentially relevant documents are hosted by a third party e-discovery vendor while the law firm reviews/produces. This happens tens of thousands of times every year in the United States, and no one makes a serious claim of waiver.
Mueller's team, instead of working through the normal channels (the transition team itself or their attorneys), side-stepped them and went directly to the third-party hosting the docs. There is nothing inherently unethical about that, although it is a shady/shitty tactic. However, it is potentially unethical in D.C. for Mueller's team to continue to review/use the documents once they know they are privileged. Also, the GSA attorneys face ethical issues if they handed everything over willy-nilly without regards to privilege. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:14 AM Author: lake ticket booth In that case, third-party vendor is an agent of counsel, client, or both. Is GSA an agent of the TTT and just functioning as a "host" for documents? THat seems crazy, but I don't know much about why they had the documents in the first place, so I suppose that could be the case.
|
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:21 AM Author: Aphrodisiac mood point that was my reaction. it would seem that the documents were no longer privileged because they were handed over to a third party. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941250) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:22 AM Author: lake ticket booth Yeah, I think there's law to the effect that even if you hand over your documents to a FOIA office, that destroys attorney-client privilege as it relates to you (the agency can still claim privilege).
|
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:31 AM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner They didn't "hand over" documents to the GSA. They used GSA offices and equipment during the transition, as both parties have done for 50+ years. The issue is after the election, in response to a simple letter, the GSA just dumped everything over to the Special Counsel's office. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941292) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:22 AM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner This is basically the point of the letter. The GSA is supposed to just provide facilities for the transition teams to use. If what the letter says is true, the head GSA dude handling this agreed, and then he literally died and they just handed everything over. I think it would be a fairly bi-partisan issue to say that the GSA does not "own" or otherwise have control over all of the transition documents. That would be insane, imo.
There is not any legal precedent on this because it has never happened before. I simply disagree with all the people squawking in this thread saying it is a black and white issue, and that GSA should be able to just hand over all the documents. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:26 AM Author: Brass dilemma the pumos squawking itt are the same ones who still bleat about a Russian conspiracy. odd case (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941277) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:47 AM Author: lake ticket booth Specifically, Loewentritt said, "in using our devices," transition team members were informed that materials "would not be held back in any law enforcement" actions.
Loewentritt read to BuzzFeed News a series of agreements that anyone had to agree to when using GSA materials during the transition, including that there could be monitoring and auditing of devices and that, "Therefore, no expectation of privacy can be assumed."
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. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:55 AM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner Interesting twist then if that is in agreements with the GSA. I have to lol at Loewentritt reading this shit to Buzzfeed over the phone on a Saturday night. He is the guy that double-crossed the transition team after the GSA general counsel died, lol. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941401) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 11:55 AM Author: Duck-like dead trailer park lol what are you talking about. it is extremely common for documents and communications of interest in a criminal investigation to be in the custody of a third party. this happens constantly. every criminal investigation involving emails sent or received through gmail raises this fact pattern (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941400) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:02 PM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner I'm not sure what your point is. Documents are routinely hosted by third parties, yes. But they typically aren't just handed over carte blanche like GSA did. Look up the case law involving Gmail, Apple, or any other third party ISP or whatever. 99 out of 100 times it is them challenging an actual warrant or subpoena. GSA just shrugged their shoulders in response to a letter and handed over entire computers/cell phones, after they agreed not to.
Anyways, said I said above, I don't think this is illegal. I think it raises ethical issues if GSA attorneys dumped communications without respect to privilege, and if the Mueller team saw there were privileged materials and purposefully used them and didn't notify the Trump transition team. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:06 PM Author: Duck-like dead trailer park lol let's resume this when you graduate from law school (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941450) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:07 PM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner Sure, as soon as you finish your 12-step program. ;) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941453) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:33 PM Author: Duck-like dead trailer park what's that supposed to mean. bro, you gotta stop crediting every bullshit letter sent by counsel to try to get the cat back in the bag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941611) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:41 PM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner I'm not crediting it entirely. I already said that: 1) I didn't see what happened as illegal; and 2) there isn't direct precedent on this issue. I see it as a potential ethics issue, and a very shady move by the Mueller team. The fact is what happened does not go down in any other analogous context.
|
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:49 PM Author: Duck-like dead trailer park stop babbling about potential ethical issues and either cite a damn rule or shut up.
you're 100% wrong that third party custodians of electronic documents never produce them to law enforcement without a subpoena. that's laughably dumb that you think that. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:53 PM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner I cited the ethics rules in another thread this morning. Look them up yourself. Are you already so drunk that you forgot?
And you're laughably stupid if you think what happened is at all normal with respect to third party custodians. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 1:12 PM Author: Duck-like dead trailer park what is with the alcohol references.
i'm not going to chase down every shitty thread you make. you're dumb, and you have no idea how anything works. third parties voluntarily give shit to law enforcement constantly, you stupid fuck. they're entitled to, and they do whatever is best for them. sometimes what's best is appearing to fight, sometimes not |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 1:42 PM Author: Clear School Cafeteria Gunner LOL, I feel bad for anyone that seeks legal advice from you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34942100) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:12 PM Author: Cyan tripping sweet tailpipe hall Laughably dumb.
Google could give police/FBI/etc your gmail if they wanted but don't like the optics. So they demand SWs/GJ subs.
If they wanted to post your emails on google.com, that is their prerogative. |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 10:16 AM Author: stimulating bipolar temple ape "Look up the case law involving Gmail, Apple, or any other third party ISP or whatever. 99 out of 100 times it is them challenging an actual warrant or subpoena."
Their user agreements don't have the express language that the GSA's agreement used that was quoted above. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when using those platforms (on meta-data maybe). |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 9:34 AM Author: confused abode titc analysis (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34947588) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:26 PM Author: deranged fortuitous meteor pit See the ninth circuit decision in in re grand jury subpoena (in re kitzhaber). Kitzhaber used government equipment to send/receive emails, and the government archived them. DOJ then issued grand jury subpoena without tailoring it at all to the issues under investigation. Kitzhaber intervened and argued he had an expectation of privacy. Ninth circuit agreed and tossed the subpoena.
Of course, kitzhaber can be easily distinguished because he was a democrat in the ninth circuit. For everyone else, especially Adolf trump schickelgruber, if you use government equipment, the suggestion that you have an expectation of privacy is laughable **liberal "experts" yuk it up in unison**. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:33 PM Author: Cyan tripping sweet tailpipe hall GJ sub being overbroad =/= GJ sub/SW being required process to get access to the emails.
Edit: At issue were personal emails that were not government business, you fucking hack. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:40 PM Author: deranged fortuitous meteor pit Not saying its identical but 1 - key issue was expectation of privacy on emails sent on govt equipment. 2 - there's nothing magical about a subpoena. Are you arguing that DOJ could have asked Oregon for the emails, but because they issued a subpoena, it was subject to analysis re overbreadth? That GSA simply turned over the emails without informing the people who sent/received them is ridiculously amateur. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941653) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 3:52 PM Author: Cyan tripping sweet tailpipe hall " That GSA simply turned over the emails without informing the people who sent/received them is ridiculously amateur."
You are way out of your league here.
Google 18 USC 2705(b). |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 6:24 PM Author: deranged fortuitous meteor pit I am not claiming to be an MFE and I would not have been surprised if your statute was relevant but it isn't. That statute specifically applies where there is a subpoena or other authorized process under which the demand is made. From what has been posted ITT, Mueller simply asked for it nicely and the GSA turned it over. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34943836) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:38 PM Author: Duck-like dead trailer park Kitzhaber involved the government secretly archiving emails sent to a private gmail account, idiot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941645) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:41 PM Author: deranged fortuitous meteor pit On government equipment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941655) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 12:51 PM Author: Duck-like dead trailer park the decision takes a very boomer view of email, but it has nothing to do with law enforcement asking for emails from someone a party intentionally gave them to (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941722) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 1:05 PM Author: deranged fortuitous meteor pit Yup, when the transition team could easily have used the other, confidential facilities provided for purposes of transition planning.
Look, I'm not saying it is an open and shut case of fourth am. violation or acp violation. But it is equally obvious that it is a colorable argument. |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 1:06 PM Author: Multi-colored dopamine Lol at actual Nazis crying about the 4th amendment (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941823) |
|
Date: December 17th, 2017 3:53 PM Author: black garrison lol at this non-story generating a 100-post thread (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34942892) |
|
Date: December 18th, 2017 9:14 AM Author: black garrison wait, these are emails sent from a .gov email address? lol how are they privileged? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34947478) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2017 12:50 PM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich Any updates on this scandal? Will Mueller be disbarred? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34958055) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2017 1:04 PM Author: translucent pervert (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34958179) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2017 1:06 PM Author: impressive weed whacker https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-special-counsel-needs-to-investigate-the-fbi-and-justice-department-now/2017/12/04/5ca1234c-d916-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.e7a5bd2a9e63
these things take time, silly |
|
Date: December 19th, 2017 1:08 PM Author: translucent pervert Oh shit HH on the case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34958211) |
|
Date: December 19th, 2017 1:13 PM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich Lmao (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34958263) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2018 4:57 PM Author: Galvanic Fuchsia Tank Range How much time we talking about ya big goof? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#35378328) |
|
Date: March 11th, 2018 10:38 AM Author: Galvanic Fuchsia Tank Range Any day now I guess (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#35580551) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2018 4:56 PM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich UPDATE :D???? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#35378322) |
|
Date: March 9th, 2018 10:35 PM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#35573558) |
|
Date: February 11th, 2018 6:50 PM Author: Godawful honey-headed site sandwich (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#35379270) |
|
Date: March 11th, 2018 10:47 AM Author: black garrison its crazy how they never get tired of being wrong all the time. trumpmos have literally not been right about ONE THING to do with the Russian investigation. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#35580588) |