Charging "unlawful conduct," Kory Langhofer, counsel for the transition team, wrote in a letter to congressional committees Saturday that "career staff at the General Services Administration ... have unlawfully produced [transition team] private materials, including privileged communications, to the Special Counsel's Office."...
The transition sources said they were surprised about the emails because they have been in touch with Mueller's team and have cooperated.... The sources say that transition officials assumed that Mueller would come calling, and had sifted through the emails and separated the ones they considered privileged. But the sources said that was for naught, since Mueller has the complete cache from the dozen accounts.
December 17, 2017
"Mueller obtains 'tens of thousands' of Trump transition emails."
Axios explains. Excerpt:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
225 comments:
1 – 200 of 225 Newer› Newest»The desperate search for something, anything, to make Chuck happy.
It's Ok to spy on Trump.
Not Ok to reveal democrat corruption.
If Mueller can't find something, he's going to deliver a sparkling clean bill of health.
But there's got to be something...
Mueller is starting to look pretty lawless. He's gone outside of his mandate and has more than once operated in bad faith. Which is why liberals are sounding desperate to prop him up--the legitimate reasons to remove him must be ignored at all costs.
There's still potential to argue privilege (after charges are brought).
That's what the Watergate Tapes case was about. Did not go well for Nixon.
The e-mails will prove once and for all that Trump and Putin colluded to trick Americans into distrusting and disliking poor poor Hillary.
It is illegal for Hillary to lose, so - yeah - they will find something.
Hillary's lawyers didn't want to turn over all her emails. People here didnt trust then, is there a reason why we should trust now?
Compare this to DWS threatening the police not to to touch the laptop of her IT aide. Or the DNC refusing to allow its server to be examined after the alleged hacking. Or Hillary just wiping her server.
No one is investigated like Trump. The special prosecutor was supposed to be investigation issues that might have occured before the election.
There is no Trump "Russian collusion". So the rampaging "independent" prosecutor is casting a wider and wider net.
Come on corrupt leftwing D-bags - roll out your "insurance policy."
It's time.
If there was anything good in those emails, they would have been leaked by now.
But why didn’t Mr. Integrity tell the Press that he had fired Point Shaver Strzok?
If there was one point shaver on Mueller’s team there are probably more. Like cockroaches.
If Mueller can't find something, he's going to deliver a sparkling clean bill of health.
Ask Flynn about this. I suspect that Mueller is going to come up with zero and will call Flynn his only scalp, sort of like FitzGerald and Libby. The difference is that the plea by Flynn will be quietly vacated for misbehavior by the prosecution.
The real scandals will probably be covered up.
Trump was probably wise to let this run while he quietly eviscerated the Obama legacy,
There is good reason, in general, to not trust the subject of an investigation to willingly turn over evidence.
Of course, Hillary was allowed to determine what she wanted to turn over, vs. what she wanted to wipe, like with a cloth. And of course, FOIA requests always depend on the government turning over what they decide is relevant.
Hillary losing = Obstruction of justice! ... obstruction of justice!
I had my laptop imaged several times by our legal firm when I was working in Big Tech and some shareholders of an acquired company decided that the 57% premium they'd been paid in the stock market was insufficient. And I was one of several hundred people who had that privilege. On average they got 8K-10K of emails from me as I was very careful to keep only the required minimum number of records (1 calendar year).
I was given to understand that sifting took place using keywords and not myrmidons reading every email/thread. But i bet with only 10K emails that's entirely possible.
If fact, if there are only 10K emails, then I bet a lot of communication was happening out side the system - texts, personal email, etc.
-XC
If the emails show actually, before the election, collusion with Russia, involving illegal activity, then Trump would be toast, even if he later successfully claimed privilege.
If all they find are some minor process crimes, then a privilege defense could get people out of trouble.
Do not name other commenters for the purpose of taunting them.
This sets a bad dynamic in motion and I do not want it.
If you feel tempted to write like that, stop and rethink yourself to some substance or to something creative/humorous that is not using another commenter's persona.
But if Team Trump has nothing to hide ....... oh, wait.
Hillary got one wipe. Shouldn't that be the standard?
Half way through Trump's second term, Mueller will have all of Trump's grade school report cards, because, you know, you can never tell where it all started from.
Mueller used the GSA bureaucracy to "Hack" the Trump transition emails.
It's pretty much the same tactic of rogue FBI agents using the Fusion GPS dossier to get a warrant from the FISA court to tap transition team members.
Original Mike: "...one wipe. Shouldn't that be the standard?"
Probable threadwinner there.
The real scandals will probably be covered up.
I submit that is the underlying purpose of this so called investigation.
Mueller has to break the law to make sure Trump has followed the law, I guess.
Chuck Todd believes that Trump is guilty, Trump must prove himself innocent and that not being able to prove himself innocent of unnamed and unlimited crimes is proof of quilt.
About the investigation of Mueller Chuck Todd on Meet the Press just said.....they (sic)(Trump) don't have "exculpatory facts to push back against Mueller". Todd has things exactly backwards, the prosecutor has the burden on proof not the defendant. Prove you didn't.....
I finally got Hillary's!!!! tome What Happened from the library. I don't know if I'll be able to read it without my eyes rolling back and becoming stuck. I've glanced at two pages, and both mention The RU55IAN5555.
I'm am so ready for her to run against the RU55IAN5555 is 2020!!
Chuck Todd is a democrat hack.
Hillary was wiped clean by the D-hacks inside a corrupted FBI.
Trump will be impeached over... something!
Blogger Diogenes of Sinope said...
"Chuck Todd believes that Trump is guilty, Trump must prove himself innocent and that not being able to prove himself innocent of unnamed and unlimited crimes is proof of guilt."
A simple ordeal by water in the mall reflecting pool to see if Trump floats would suffice.
Mark said...Hillary's lawyers didn't want to turn over all her emails. People here didnt trust then, is there a reason why we should trust now?
We're not quite to that question yet, are we? With Hillary, it wasn't a question of trust. We knew she refused to cooperate and withheld emails (and is withholding them to this day). These folks say they were cooperating and were prepared to turn over relevant documents but Mueller skipped that step.
My thoughts from an email chain last night:
This could be big. According to one of Trump’s lawyers, the Mueller team obtained the entirety of the emails from the Trump transition team, without a warrant. The GSA had hosted the email, and had helpfully separated the email into what they believed to be privileged and unprivileged (my view is that it wasn’t GSA’s call, but rather that of Trump and his transition team). The Mueller team apparently scooped up the whole thing, privileged and unprivileged, and then apparently sifted through them. The lack of warrant would seemingly make this a fairly egregious 4th Amdt violation. And, therefore illegal. Far more illegal than the process crimes that they have used to snare Flynn, et al, with (ignoring, of course, that they had failed to notify Flynn of the reassignment of SA Strozk, who had been one of his interviewers, and the reasons for it, prior to his plea deal).
Rumors floating around that Mueller may be fired before Christmas, once Congress has gone home. I think wishful thinking, but things do seem to be continuing to heat up.
Sent by Bruce E. Hayden
———————————
Just to clarify things a bit from that email, here is a link to the letter from the President Trump transition team (PTT) to Congress:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4331911-Letter-to-Congressional-Committees.html
The letter clears up a lot of my questions. Transitions are controlled by a KennedyJohnson era law that specifies that they are private entities, partially funded by the Feds and partially by private donations. GSA is to provide office space, furniture, etc, and more recently, computer, etc support. Legal deal between the PTT and GSA was that after the inauguration, devices would be wiped and recycled (instead of being provided to the Mueller team) and emails deleted. Precedent is that they are not govt records. Apparently, head GSA person involved went into hospital last summer, and ultimately died. Meanwhile, in August, the Mueller team (through the FBI) requested and received the emails and devices from the GSA. Some of the privileged material has apparently been used by them in interviews. Some has apparently been leaked. The GSA was supposed to have notified the PTT about any requests or provision of these records. They didn't. This was only discovered late last week by the PTT.
Sent by Bruce E. Hayden
Looks like the spying on Trump's people continues by any means possible. It would be one thing if this was just a single incriminating e-mail chain that Trump's attorney was getting hot about. This is the entire set of e-mails, and it's not clear why Mueller would even request them since they are all clearly after the election.
Apparently the government has no trouble locating and sending e-mails sent by Republicans. Only Democrat e-mails seem to take years to find and involve lawyers and court battles to see the light of day.
Ann Althouse: "If Mueller can't find something, he's going to deliver a sparkling clean bill of health."
That will never happen.
And every bit of info gathered by Mueller will end up in democrat opposition research files.
Every bit of it. Without exception.
Is violating the Constitution “illegal”? If it were, then the private server, all of the efforts by Lerner to avoid oversight, etc, would be obvious crimes on the face of it. Complete flouting of the Congressional Constitutional duty of oversight.
and it’s not clear why Mueller would even request them since they are all clearly after the election.
Flynn’s plea deal has him agreeing to testify that DURING THE TRANSITION Trump authorized making contacts with foreign governments. It appears that Mueller is going to charge them with Logan Act violations, which would apply the Logan Act to the PRESIDENT-ELECT. Imagine the implications of that. It would make the whole transition pointless, and at that point, you may as well swear in the new president in early November.
There needs to be a law passed giving the President-Elect some official status, if he/she has none in the eyes of the law now.
From what I seen, if there was justice, Mueller might not deliver a clean bill of health. Rather, he would be delivering a long story about how the Hillary Campaign and Obama Administration colluded to retain power regardless of who was in office, and preferably to assure they controlled who won the office. They had enough control of the DNC, with assist from CNN, to keep Sanders off the ticket. Fortunately for the rest of us, they weren't able to manipulated the electoral college, but they tried as hard as anyone in the history of the US to change it. And they will try harder next time.
But, I expect Mueller to come up with same lame process crime using evidence that wouldn't be permitted in court, but as Impeachment is a political process, the evidence will be allowed.
I don't think Impeachment will work unless there is something nobody else would expect. At this point, suggesting Trump obstructed justice won't fly with half the country. Everyone was calling for Comey to resign, if not be fired, up until the moment he was fired.
The moral of the story is that everyone should have a Clinton-certified Water Closet, and a bullhorn (e.g. NYT, WaPo, CNN) to suppress, distract, project, and cower your competition.
I was just reading about the Suez Crisis and Churchill didn’t even bother dealing with Truman during Eisenhower’s transition.
It appears that Mueller is going to charge them with Logan Act violations, which would apply the Logan Act to the PRESIDENT-ELECT.
I think this is just to keep the DNC donations rolling in from the hysterics.
The left is going to go into full meltdown when this is finally over and they realize Trump is president.
What that meltdown looks like might resemble Charlottesville.
Is violating the Constitution “illegal”?
At the twilight fringe, everything is perfectly legal and moral, selectively.
As I understand it, if executive privilege is claimed it would be useless, as during the transition, Trump was not yet the Executive. It seems that Trump’s attornies should’ve foreseen this move by Mueller. Why would they think he’d come calling, looking for highly selected emails from them, when he could get all of them from the GSA?
If Trump fires Mueller, he won’t come away from a move like that unscathed. I’m thinking of Nixon.
“‘Private documents’ on a US government, public email system? What are they afraid was found?”
In a series of tweets, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, said the Republicans were “playing politics – but this is a bad sign for them”.
“Of course Mueller obtained emails from a third party,” he said. “Prosecutors in most white collar criminal investigations do that. It’s not ‘inappropriate’ or even unusual. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/17/republicans-accused-of-concocting-email-scandal-against-robert-mueller
Inga: "As I understand it..."
Oh. I see your problem right there.
"Transitions are controlled by a KennedyJohnson era law that specifies that they are private entities..."
Correct.
As such, you cannot just hoover them up without a warrant and in any event the transition team is required to be notified if any materials are requested.
Neither of those things happened because laws are for republicans who, apparently, were never issued the required "wipes" that are provided to democrats by the democrat partisans in the FBI.
Fox News and other conservative news outlets are trying their damndest to do Trump’s bidding in trying to derail the Mueller investigation. Then Trump watches Fox and gets riled up by their rhetoric, it’s a vicious circle.
Conservative media personalities know Trump hates the investigation and wants it shut down," she said in an email. "They bash the investigation and Mueller, and when Trump sees that happening (say, on 'Fox & Friends') it reinforces his belief that the investigation is illegitimate and that he should do something to end it. The likely consequence is that this increases the odds of Trump attempting to fire Mueller."
Hemmer added: "We'll have to wait and see whether internal restraints within the White House — lawyers and advisers — are enough to stop him from doing that."
It would be some serious poetic justice if Mueller and others in the corrupt FBI along with Hillary end up going to prison. It might happen, at least for some of them.
It's not an investigation - Inga. It's a bogus leftwing witch hunt. Much like the leftwing fascists in Wisconsin.
Again - It was illegal for Hillary to lose. All leftwing corruption, like sewage, there's a ton of it, is A-Ok in the eyes of the law.
Bummer. Long post deleted by the Conflicting Edits gnome.
As I understand it, if executive privilege is claimed it would be useless, as during the transition, Trump was not yet the Executive. It seems that Trump’s attornies should’ve foreseen this move by Mueller. Why would they think he’d come calling, looking for highly selected emails from them, when he could get all of them from the GSA?
Because the way that the Mueller team acquired the emails was illegal, unconstitutional, violated legal ethics, and breached the contract between the PTT and the US Govt.
If Trump fires Mueller, he won’t come away from a move like that unscathed. I’m thinking of Nixon.
“‘Private documents’ on a US government, public email system? What are they afraid was found?”
The important point there is that they were private emails, both by legal precedent and by legal contract with the US Govt (through the GSA). The federal govt doesn’t get to say “sure, we lied, we have them so tough”.
In a series of tweets, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, said the Republicans were “playing politics – but this is a bad sign for them”.
“Of course Mueller obtained emails from a third party,” he said. “Prosecutors in most white collar criminal investigations do that. It’s not ‘inappropriate’ or even unusual. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about.”
Totally BS. Surprised that in his time as a federal prosecutor that he wasn’t disbarred, if that is how he viewed his job.
The emails were obtained in an entirely legal manner. Why didn’t Trumps lawyer’s anticipate this?
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.
Anything on GSA equipment .... Not subject to 4A claim.
My position is government employees don't have 5A protection for anything they do on job time.
Clintons look like sneakiest lawyers ... I say that with respect.
This is simply extending what Inga's and LLR Chucks pals did in Wisconsin in the John Doe witchhunts to the federal level as well as what the Illinois dems have been doing for years out of Chicago.
This is where we are now.
Hillary gets to "wipe" her servers clean (to get rid of all those "yoga" emails) and the dems on the heels of their IRS abuses get to violate republican 4A rights.
Because #Resistance.
trying to derail the Mueller investigation
"We are confronted with the derailment of an overworked locomotive" - Lautreamont
According to Langhofer, Richard Beckler, the late general counsel of the GSA, “assured” the Trump transition’s legal counsel that “any requests” for materials from the transition would “be routed” to them. Beckler died in September.
In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Loewentritt said Beckler “never made that commitment” to Trump’s transition and said members of the transition were informed that if they used GSA devices or materials, those “would not be held back” in the event of law enforcement action.
“Therefore, no expectation of privacy can be assumed,” Loewentritt said.
Average person not going to care about legalities. No doubt some bs crimes will be found. Maybe even, God forbid, jokes of a sexual nature emailed around. Or, personal emails or Amazon shopping on government time. Porn viewing, reading Althouse. Serious stuff.
Oh, and Mueller didn’t obtain the emails from a third party. The GSA, FBI, and Mueller’s team are all the same party, the US Govt, which had a fiduciary duty to protect the privacy of those emails, from, among other things, viewing by anyone not authorized by the PTT. Also, missing from that former prosecutor’s flippant answer is that third parties most typically require a subpoena, which they obviously did not use here. But, because they are all part of the federal govt, I don’t think that a subpoena would have been sufficient - rather I think that a warrant should have been required by the 4th Amdt.
“Anything on GSA equipment .... Not subject to 4A claim.”
Normally, but the contract between the PTT and GSA said differently. And, past precedent backs this up. The federal govt, through the GSA, entered into a fiduciary relationship with the PTT, through the contract that they signed.
I think I'll go fishing, said Team Mueller. Why, looky here, we trawled up a bunch of stuff. We'll just put a few choice, tasty things over here in this bucket.
You say that bucket LEAKED?? My, my. Who would have done such a thing?
Did they put a label on the bucket "Opposition Research"?
Interestingly, Executive Privilege has apparently been found in transition documents, in response to FOIA requests, etc, in the past. We are talking about the inner decision making process of a new President. Initially, you might think that it only attaches at inauguration. But that would greatly hinder Presidential transitions, with the incoming President unable to securely communicate with his incoming Aministration. Thus, the application of such to some transition documents. .
If I had to make a guess here, given the Flynn plea- the collusion story is still dead in the crib and has been for the entire run of the Mueller investigation. I think the Obama people, in the aftermath of the election, decided to go for Logan Act violations, and I think that if Mueller really is interested in trying to take Trump out, Logan Act is all he has. That would explain the interest in the transition's documents. Without that, there is no underlying crime to investigate and process violations do look purely political to the non-partisan middle.
Hard to believe Kushner would us transition email system for incriminating stuff when he was still using his private email for official business after hired to administration.
Also, it is important to note that had these documents supported the collusion story, you would have already have seen it in the NYTimes. I think if they are used for anything, it will be Mueller trying to pin Logan Act violations on the Trump the president-elect and his team. This may be a gambit to induce Trump to fire him.
In the same way Bill normalized blowjobs Hillary has made it a cinch that every future politician will have a private server. You simply cannot trust the government.
Is that the country we have become? Where it is ok to break the law under the guise of enforcing it? And where the favored elites get a complete pass for lawbreaking including free Bleach Bit server wipes, where the wrong-thinkers have the power of the state unleashed against them, as we see here and as Obama did with the IRS?
Since all of Obama's sealed records are hidden away within Illinois university vaults I look forward to Gov Rauner just releasing them all... is that what we want?
The election was a year ago. Grow up people!
What a clown show. Wrap it up, Bob. You got nothing.
Lownentritt can't possibly prove that Beckler never made that promise, Inga. It is possible that Trump's lawyer can prove otherwise, though.
“Without that, there is no underlying crime to investigate and process violations do look purely political to the non-partisan middle.”
There is another underlying crime that they may be looking at. What occurred during the transition may have been a follow through of what was promised during the campaign.
One potential charge might be conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, says Barak Cohen, a partner and litigation lead at Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. Mueller's team could reach for that if there is evidence that Trump associates worked with Russia on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.
"I think the special counsel would like to be able to charge them as co-conspirators to the hack or accessories after the fact," Cohen said. "It's the most credible and well-established legal theory."
Lefties claim that Trump's transition emails are on government computers and accounts, therefore no expectation of privacy whatsoever.
Lefties simultaneously claim that Strzok and Page's texts, which are on government phones and accounts, are absolutely utterly private and it is a gross violation of every legal norm that ever existed that we have read even a single one of them.
That doesn't sound self-interested or partisan at all. Nope. Not a bit.
"The election was a year ago. Grow up people!"
Think about the pussy hat crowd you're talking about here. They're spoiled brats.
A police state in action is not a pretty thing to watch. And the Bill of Rights was targeted at the. British Empire police state when it attacked at Lexington and Concord seeking the secreted guns and gun powder of the targeted Boston merchant smuggler ring that pulled off the Tea Party.
That British police state was forbidden to search and seize and send captives for trial in England without Jury of locals.
And that old Empire now working as the New World Order Government has coopted our Government through the Clintons and Bushes to act like that police state did. Mueller is the Royal Army out to arrest the locals. Trump is doing a Samuel Adams impersonation and calling up the minute men/ Marines.
Mueller is a Republican, appointed as FBI Director by GW Bush. He’s hardly a pussyhatter.
Again, Inga- were there evidence of such collusion, there is literally no chance at all it wasn't already leaked to the press. I realize such evidence is your wet dream, but you are seriously deranged if you think it is going to materialize after this long.
"I think the special counsel would like to be able to charge them as co-conspirators to the hack or accessories after the fact," Cohen said. "It's the most credible and well-established legal theory."
A Perkins Coie partner thinks they'll get Trump on colluding with the Russians. Priceless.
Reading the letter that Bruce Hayden refers to it seems, once again, that Mueller -if not overstepping a legal boundary - has once again overstepped an ethical boundary. Last week 54% of Americans polled that Mueller was not to be believed. Next week it will be over 60%.
The good news - and we should concentrate on it - is that tax reform will be passed this week. Not only will we finally be on a competitive tax footing internationally, but the individual mandate will be history. ( Roberts called it a tax and Congress finally dealt with it as a tax.) With the removal of the mandate the entire edifice of Obamacare will finally collapse.
Honest question: is there any other civilized country in which a Mueller-style special prosecutor could run rampant against the sitting president and majority party?
Sebastian: "Honest question: is there any other civilized country in which a Mueller-style special prosecutor could run rampant against the sitting president and majority party?"
This is standard operating procedure in every leftist nation that has ever existed.
The point of my long post of mine that got eaten by Blogger was to as whether the means justify the ends. This is a question that is implicitly asked by a lot of LEOs every day, and the answer, in our country, seems to be to implicitly condone small transgressions in order to convict on major crimes. Essentially weighing the magnitude of the harm of the LEO (etc) offending against the harm being prosecuted. Roughing up a murder suspect to get incriminating evidence might be more acceptable than doing so to someone accused of speeding.
The problem here is the Mueller team has seemingly cut themselves off from that. Any level of prosecutorial misconduct, or even some illegality, is seemingly justified in their minds, as long as it might harm Trump. Which might be acceptable if they had found a smoking gun, but they haven’t. Rather, they have a couple scalps for process crimes - that wouldn’t have been committed if they hadn’t been investigating the non-crime of Trump/Russian collusion. Nothing substantial, or even really questionable (ignoring potential BS Logan Act violations). And even with the Flynn process crime conviction, they cheated by failing to notify him, before accepting his plea, that the lead FBI investigator, who had interviewed him (where he supposedly lied to the FBI) had been removed, months earlier, for cause, from the investigation, and would have been an easily impeached witness against him. Something that they were legally and ethically required to tell him before accepting his plea, and didn’t. The transition email abuse by the Mueller team is arguably far more egregious and illegal. Where is the smoking gun to justify that? Apparently, there isn’t one. Instead, the Mueller team of Dem supporting prosecutors and Deep State FBI agents seems willing to do whatever it takes, legal or not, to try to harm Trump. As with so much prosecutorial discretion, the harm is in the process, where prosecutors and LEOs can harm the innocent merely by going after them with taxpayer resources.
“Reading the letter that Bruce Hayden refers to it seems, once again, that Mueller -if not overstepping a legal boundary - has once again overstepped an ethical boundary. Last week 54% of Americans polled that Mueller was not to be believed. Next week it will be over 60%.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-ap-poll-trump-russia-20171215-story.html
AP poll: Most Americans believe Trump did something illegal or unethical with Russia
Overall, 62 percent of Democrats say they think Trump has done something illegal, while just 5 percent of Republicans think the same. Among Republicans, 33 percent think he's done something unethical, while 60 percent think he's done nothing wrong at all.
Both Nanez and Stephenson, like 63 percent of Americans, say Trump has tried to impede or obstruct the investigations into whether his campaign had Russian ties. According to the survey, 86 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of independents and 24 percent of Republicans agree. Still, just short of half of Americans — 47 percent — say they're extremely or very concerned about whether Trump or others involved with his campaign had inappropriate contacts with the Russian government. Those results fall along party lines, too, and are largely unchanged since March.
Well, gosh, since it seems that Presidential transition team communications are fair game, I wonder if the feds wouldn't mind producing the documents that they have from from the Clinton, Bush II & Obama transitions.
If Trump's are fair game, then so are everyone else's documents. If the other transition teams documents got wiped, then why didn't Trump's?
There's a real strong stench about this. This isn't a special investigation, it's a fishing expedition using every fishing trawler in New England. It's got to end.
My theory: Mueller wants to be fired. He hasn’t found anything with which he can charge Trump, and he knows he won’t find it. If he can get Trump to fire him, it will be Watergate redux. At least that’s what he hopes. And God help us he might be right. I find the unwillingness of the left to accept the validity of Trump’s election despair inducing.
"The good news - and we should concentrate on it - is that tax reform will be passed this week"
I guarantee that within 1 week one of LLR Chucks "respected" lefty judges will contrive a rationale to preclude the tax cuts or key elements of the tax bill to take effect.
I also predict that LLR Chuck will blame Trump for the lefties acting lefty-ish all the while intimating that leftist complaints have merit. Unexpectedly, of course.
@Inga,
Both Nanez and Stephenson, like 63 percent of Americans, say Trump has tried to impede or obstruct the investigations into whether his campaign had Russian ties.
So, so constitutional protections, not to mention the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive office get to be voided because of what the public thinks in polls?
Justice to Inga is a vote of how many people think the bullshit Democrats made up out of whole cloth is true. The poll is just showing the benefit of having a propaganda media if you are lawless cocksuckers like Democrats.
“A Perkins Coie partner thinks they'll get Trump on colluding with the Russians. Priceless.”
How about an investigation into Perkins Coie working with the Russians and the Crooked Hillary campaign to defeat Trump? Weren’t they the law firm that was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to hire Fusion GPS to create their Steele Dossier, which used highly placed Russian officials for (bogus) information?
Inga wants to use polls to determine individual rights.
The same polls that told us Hillary had a 99% chance of winning.
Who needs that pesky constitution? It kerps getting in the way of LLR approved leftist "progress"!
“So, so constitutional protections, not to mention the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive office get to be voided because of what the public thinks in polls?”
No one has said so, the answer is no.
"Weren’t they the law firm that was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC to hire Fusion GPS to create their Steele Dossier, which used highly placed Russian officials for (bogus) information?"
Yes. They were also the ones the hollywood dems hired to retain former Mossad intelligence agents to intimidate victims of lefty sexual harassment.
Hiring goons to go after female victims of democrats. Dont hold your breath waiting for an Inga-approved p****-hat march in front of their offices though.
Nope. Fen's Law.
“If Trump's are fair game, then so are everyone else's documents. If the other transition teams documents got wiped, then why didn't Trump's?”
I should add that the TPP contract with the GSA apparently required that the emails be deleted after the inauguration, and all electronic devices wiped and repurposed. Neither was apparently done. The FBI apparently ended up with both the emails and the electronic devices.
In the old days liberals were skeptical of the government and were wary of its potential to do harm. If those same liberal sentiments held today we would not be in the early days of collapse. Today's liberals were yesterday's fascists.
"No one has said so, the answer is no."
Lol
Just as in Wisconsin (John Doe I, II, & III), the IRS targeting of conservatives, as long as the lefties dont actually say thats what they are doing, they are free to simply continue doing it.
Blogger Inga said...
"Mueller is a Republican, appointed as FBI Director by GW Bush. He’s hardly a pussyhatter."
What's your point? We all know GWB can't stand Trump. We all know our life long Republican friend, Chuck, hates Trump. The entire GOP establishment wants Trump gone. Who cares if Mueller is a nominal Republican? It is actions that matter.
And what does pussy-hat feminist politics have to do with this?
Blogger Khesanh 0802 said...
“Last week 54% of Americans polled that Mueller was not to be believed. Next week it will be over 60%.”
“So, so constitutional protections, not to mention the constitutional prerogatives of the Executive office get to be voided because of what the public thinks in polls?”
“And what does pussy-hat feminist politics have to do with this?”
Blogger Original Mike said...
"The election was a year ago. Grow up people!"
“Think about the pussy hat crowd you're talking about here. They're spoiled brats.”
12/17/17, 10:57 AM
From Powerline;
Mike Allen follows up on the story at Axios this morning. Allen notes that “Trump officials discovered Mueller had the emails when his prosecutors used them as the basis for questions to witnesses[.]”
Allen provides this statement from Special Counsel spokesman Peter Carr early this morning: “When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner’s consent or appropriate criminal process.”
It seems the Mueller team started out with a lie.
“...appropriate criminal process.””
Not a lie.
“...appropriate criminal process.”
LeftSpeak for lawfare. The dragged out legal process is the punishment in time and money. Having lost, the Left seeks to make America ungovernable until they win again.
The Trump/Russia bullshit was a lie to get wiretaps in place and go fishing for real crimes. We haven't gotten beneath the surface of the iceberg. D Think chain immigration is bad? Those FISA warrants can lead to chain warrants on everybody that called into Trump Tower. All Trump employees around the globe. And since they can, they probably did.
“When we have obtained emails in the course of our ongoing criminal investigation, we have secured either the account owner’s consent or appropriate criminal process.”
Let’s break that down. Consent? Obviously not. The federal govt (through the GSA) agreed by contract that the owner of the information/documents was PTT, and not the govt. they also agreed to give the PTT notice before providing them to anyone. They failed there too. Moreover the transition statute apparently also provides that ownership remains with a transition team. And, there is no evidence that the Trump transition team ever consented to handing the emails over to the FBI/Mueller. As for “appropriate criminal process”, since this is the federal govt, a warrant, issued by a competent court, is required under the 4th Amdt. Again, no evidence, esp sine Due Process requires notice to the affected party.
In short, lying through their teeth.
“Not a lie.”
Thank goodness that woman is not licensed to practice law, and esp that she doesn’t have a govt prosecutor job.
If Mueller can't find something, he's going to deliver a sparkling clean bill of health.
But there's got to be something...
"Show me the man and I'll show you the crime", eh?
The behavior of the bureaucracy in this whole affair is far more scary than anything we've seen from elected officials.
Here's what I think is going on with the Mueller investigation team. I speak as someone who has seen this done on federal projects.
On paper, Mueller is in charge. In reality, there is another de facto person in charge who reports to someone outside the operation at the FBI or DoJ. My guess is that the Deep State/Obama holdover bureaucrats didn't trust moderate Republican Mueller to dig up the dirt on Trump like they wanted, so they side-lined him.
The reason Mueller has let shit like Strzok's affair & this business with the dubious method of obtaining transition emails is because I think he didn't even know about them until it was too late. Mueller is a figurehead.
I, of course, have no direct evidence for this state of affairs. So far, it's speculation on my part. But, it explains what we're seeing, & I'll bet dollars to donuts that future historians will bear me out on this.
Bruce,
"we have secured either the account owner’s consent"
I agree this is a lie since Mueller and his team are all lawyers, but we can already see the reasoning these lawyers are going to apply to this statement, can't we? That the account owner is the GSA.
“Thank goodness that woman is not licensed to practice law, and esp that she doesn’t have a govt prosecutor job.”
Thank goodness there are attornies and legal scholars that are much more knowledgeable on the subject than you. I linked to a couple of them, they disagree with you.
“‘Private documents’ on a US government, public email system? What are they afraid was found?”
In a series of tweets, Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor, said the Republicans were “playing politics – but this is a bad sign for them”.
“Of course Mueller obtained emails from a third party,” he said. “Prosecutors in most white collar criminal investigations do that. It’s not ‘inappropriate’ or even unusual. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about.”
@Yancey,
That the account owner is the GSA.
Maybe, but what the Mueller team can't get around is why weren't the transition team's records destroyed or merged into administration data after the Inauguration?
There is simply no way of getting around the fact that transition team data is not yet Federal information. It is a constitutional gray area, & for some bunch of legal bozos to charge in like bulls in a china shop seems ill-advised at best & provocative of a constitutional crisis at worst.
I know I'm being repetitious here, but this is just appalling.
I am going to make this easy for you to understand, Inga. If you were under investigation by the FBI, and they went to Google and asked for access to your G-mail account, what would the appropriate way for Google to legally handle this request?
What you do and think if Google just handed the e-mails over just because the FBI agent asked them to?
@Inga,
Of course Mueller obtained emails from a third party,” he said. “Prosecutors in most white collar criminal investigations do that. It’s not ‘inappropriate’ or even unusual. Anyone who claims otherwise has no idea what they’re talking about.”
Yeah, they get documents -- with a subpoena! Were there any supoenas issued here?
This is no "third party"! This is the federal government hosting emails for a non-governmental agency (a transition team) that has federal protections by contract & tradition & common law.
Inga, try & find someone who has a clue to quote. I'm not a lawyer, but I was on the IT support team for the Bush I transition team. I have seen this stuff up close & personal.
It is scary. Also predictable. Your government is not what is set out in high school civics texts. It hasn't been that for a long time; this is another bit of systemic cruelty, these lies to children.
Mueller is of course a figurehead. This does not mean he is out of the loop, or not complicit. He is a handy "Republican" front end for a bureaucratic conspiracy, but he has made his career in "the swamp" and is implicated in decades of this stuff.
“What you do and think if Google just handed the e-mails over just because the FBI agent asked them to?”
Let me try make this easy for you Yancy.
The emails were obtained in an entirely legal manner. Why didn’t Trumps lawyer’s anticipate this?
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."
Inga,
There always terms and conditions for the use of government electronics in communications- it is often the case that as an employee anywhere, the agreement makes it explicit that you don't own the communications. The relevant issue here is what were the terms and conditions applied to the Trump Transition Team for use of GSA equipment- really, this is documentary in nature, but we haven't yet seen all the documents relating to the agreement. I strongly suspect the agreement makes it explicit that the accounts and information belong to the Trump Transition Team, not the GSA, and not the federal government.
As of right now, it does appear that the GSA violated those terms and conditions in not notifying the Trump lawyers the information had been requested, then not notifying them that it had been turned over months ago, and also in keeping the information in the first place without notification that it had been done. The question I have is who made the decision to not notify, at the very least, White House counsel about this? Was this the GSA head who turned over the information, or was he/she instructed to keep it secret by the Mueller team?
It would not have crossed my mind to use government servers during the transition, not because of legal issues but because of the cavalier attitude displayed by the Obama administration towards laws regarding data privacy and general information security. That said, if I were in Trump’s shoes right now I would be planning on replacing or reassigning a lot of GSA employees. Alaska is nice this time of year.
@Inga,
Specifically, Loewentritt said, "in using our devices," transition team members were informed that materials “would not be held back in any law enforcement" actions.
Legal investigations during the transition! How can legal agencies obtain data after it has been destroyed?
The Trump team was assured that their data would be wiped, just like it has been for every other transition team. Why wasn't it wiped? Did Trump's legal team agree that the data could be held over for this investigation? If so, produce the agreement.
If the transition team data has been merged into administration data, it is now covered under Executive Privilege. If it was just transition data, it should have been destroyed first quarter. Why wasn't it?
Inga,
Lownentritt saying this does not make it true. This is a matter for a judge, not Lowentritt. How is it you don't understand this? In my hypothetical, what if Google just turned over the documents, you complained, and the head of legal for Google then publicly stated your complaint had no standing because he is now saying you were told they could be turned over without due process? Would you just believe that without documentation backing it up? Are you really asking us to believe you would?
Lowentritt could very well be telling the truth, but it is going to have to be backed up with actual documentation of the agreements signed by the Trump Transition Team. If he can't actually do that, then Trump is going to prevail here.
yes I am sure the former head of the FBI got so excited he suddenly forgot everything he knew about 4A and just stepped all over his dick .
-Kilgore Trout
Executive privilege doesn't apply until you are the executive. "there can be only 1"
Mueller is of course a figurehead. This does not mean he is out of the loop, or not complicit. He is a handy "Republican" front end for a bureaucratic conspiracy, but he has made his career in "the swamp" and is implicated in decades of this stuff.
Yes. If he has any idea of a further career, he might be tempted to do what Ann earlier suggested.
It is probably of more value to him to try to get a scalp or two, like FitzGerald did.
Wait until Pruit transfers another thousand EPA drones to Detroit or some other useful place,
The screams will be heard in Brussels.
Like Hillary's emails, these are all the property of We the People.
"Executive privilege doesn't apply until you are the executive. "there can be only 1"
This is true. This is also why the agreement the lawyers of the incoming Trump Administration probably wrote into the agreement with the GSA that the executive branch at that time didn't own the information itself. It is possible Trump's lawyers overlooked this kind of detail, but I think it is unlikely- it isn't like Trump couldn't afford to hire the best people for exactly these sorts of things, and even less likely given the animus against Trump by the Democrats after November 8th. Basically, I want the GSA to prove everything Lowentritt claimed. It is all but certain that the Trump lawyers have the agreement documents. When this goes to court, both side will have to produce them. That the GSA hasn't yet is kind of telling.
Your government is not what is set out in high school civics texts. It hasn't been that for a long time; this is another bit of systemic cruelty, these lies to children.
Do you mean that Sam, the gentlemanly white-bearded fellow, and Mrs. Sam, with outstretched hands, riding unicorns, trailed by storks, and handing out candy, are not real?
Well, abort me NOW, and call me Sam-antha.
Just a side bar:
Transition team communications were thought to be strictly confidential and to be wiped.
I'll bet there was a LOT of back and forth about potential appointees.
I'll bet this includes so pretty candid assessments including rumors and innuendo.
I'll bet some of this will find it's way (sans finger prints) to Democrat operatives.
Jackpot!
@Earnest,
Like Hillary's emails, these are all the property of We the People.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or ironic here, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your intent, but, no, the Trump transition's team's data is property of the Trump transition team, & not we the people by any sight.
It's not the government's property any more than internal corporate mail at Google or your next door neighbor's email is government property.
Transition teams are not government entities, just like campaigns are not government entities. They are not covered by federal regulations concerning document retention & preservation.
The irony here is how much Putin and Hillary are alike.
Blogger Earnest Prole said..."Like Hillary's emails, these are all the property of We the People."
Funny, I haven't noticed you calling for Hillary to be indicted for destruction of the People's property.
Funny, I haven't noticed you calling for Hillary to be indicted for destruction of the People's property.
Then you haven't been around long. My contempt for Hillary's lawlessness is ancient and immodest.
It's not the government's property any more than internal corporate mail at Google or your next door neighbor's email is government property.
“The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 Pub.L. 88–277, as amended (by the Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act of 1998 Pub.L. 100–398, Presidential Transition Act of 2000 Pub.L. 106–293, and Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 Pub.L. 114–136), established formal mechanisms to facilitate presidential transitions. Specifically, the act directs the Administrator of General Services to provide facilities, funding of approximately five million dollars, access to government services, and support for a transition team, and to provide training and orientation of new government personnel and other procedures to ensure an orderly transition.”
We the People paid for it, so it’s ours.
My bad, Earnest. Sorry.
I just heard a noise from the fridge.
When I opened the door, a ham sandwich was wrapping itself in a tortilla.
The word is clearly out..
@Drago: "Sebastian: "Honest question: is there any other civilized country in which a Mueller-style special prosecutor could run rampant against the sitting president and majority party?"
This is standard operating procedure in every leftist nation that has ever existed."
Don't mean to derail the interesting thread, but I referred to civilized, not "leftist" nations. Let's say the EU, Norway, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, NZ, and Japan. Would a Mueller "investigation," unconstrained and aimed against the sitting president and majority party, be possible? If so, has anything like it actually happened? I am not referring to ordinary dirty tricks or corruption, of course. I am interested in a close parallel. I have read a fair amount of political history, but am not aware of one. Hence my question.
@Earnest,
Still "Nope". You're assuming facts not in evidence.
There is nothing in that quotation that specifies who owns transition data. The government trains the new staff, they provide facilities, they host the data for security reasons, if nothing else. But, a transition team is not a government entity.
I will repeat again: I did IT support for the Bush 1 transition team. We were not required to port the data into Bush administration data nor was it required to be preserved for National Archives. If staffers preserve it privately, well, that's on them. But, from the viewpoint of the Executive Office of the President or White House Communications, it's all taken out with the trash.
Hillary losing = Obstruction of justice! ... obstruction of justice!
Yep.
That's pretty much what it boils down to with these idiots.
Earnest Prole believes we are all subjects and that therefore the royals in D.C. own us. That would explain why all the Trump Transition materials are government documents.
That Mueller's team would say this is "criminal process" tells one all one need know. They have been shown the man. They will find a crime.
This is banana republic behavior.
“I agree this is a lie since Mueller and his team are all lawyers, but we can already see the reasoning these lawyers are going to apply to this statement, can't we? That the account owner is the GSA.”
Except that the GSA had entered not a contract with the PTT that the emails were the exclusive property of the transition team, and not the federal govt.
“Like Hillary's emails, these are all the property of We the People.”
Not when the federal govt, beforehand, agrees that the emails were not federal govt. the transition team were all private citizens, at the time, so the argument breaks down to that possession is 90% of the law here, and since the govt (via the GSA) already had the emails, the govt (via the FBI) could read the emails, despite the govt (via the GSA) contractually agreeing to the contrary. And, of course,mCroked Hillary, and her motley crew of sycophants, at the State Dept, were all federal govt employees at the time they were using her illegal private server to conduct official business.
The key here is Expectation of Privacy. Did the PTT have a rational expectation of privacy? Yes - based on their contract with the GSA. DId Crooked Hillary when Se of State? No - based on existing federal laws and regulations. The expectation of privacy is why the FBI needed a warrant, issued by a competent court, to access the transition team emails, absent consent, which was missing. They blithely skipped that legal formality.
If Mueller really was beyond reproach he would shut this whole thing down due to the lack of control he has over the team and their obviously unlawful activities. He can’t possibly present any case — it’s all tainted and easily proven so.
It’s disgusting how little these govt lawyers care about due process, and so brazenly show it.
But his not, his doing the bidding of one particular client, affected by certain domestic and foreign policies,, which are in turn affected by their sponsor.
Madison witch hunts. Fascist exploitation of government resources. Preponderance of sexual innuendo. Allegations of Russian collusion. Now, a real Watergate conspiracy carried out under the color of law. The sheer desperation.
Renato Mariotti
Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
If Mueller didn’t follow the law, a court would suppress the evidence so it couldn’t be used. The reason Trump’s lawyers are writing letters to Congress instead of Mueller or a court is because their legal arguments have no merit.
Norm Eisen
Norm Eisen
@NormEisen
Executive privilege does not apply until you are the executive; these documents are from the transition, before Trump became the executive; QED no executive privilege. Grasping at straws here.
Norm Eisen
Norm Eisen
@NormEisen
I was the Deputy GC of a Transition (Obama-Biden 08). I warned everyone: there is NO expectation of privacy in your transition emails. The clue: emails are "name@ptt.gov." The whining letter from the Trump Transition tacitly admits this: it ends by asking for a legislative fix.
YoungHegelian: I suspect the Trump people failed to read the GSA fine print.
Birkel: You may remember I cautioned against underestimating the reach of a federal prosecutor.
Again you can tell that team trump does in fact have a robust, war time consigliere in place. They keep winning the news cycle week after week as Mueller is caught flat footed and off balanced. Here we have another case where the govt/investigators are caught pilfering files without authorization. When the democrats are reduced to complaining about the rights of partisan, adulterers you know they are having a shitty week in the news.
But the contents therein are private:
This is the client:
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/sites/newyorklawjournal/2017/11/15/ceo-testifies-that-media-giants-paid-fifa-bribes/
The country nit the corporations
Renato Mariotti
Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
19/ The biggest conclusion I’d draw from their letter is that they’re concerned about Mueller’s investigation and are doing whatever they can to discredit it. Their claims themselves are weak and are meant to persuade people who know nothing about criminal investigations. /end
Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
18/ Note also that the lawyers *don’t* say that the emails are privileged. They merely claim that some of the emails are “susceptible to privilege claims.” That’s weak language that suggests they’re not confident they have a strong claim that some of the emails are privileged.
5:57 PM · Dec 16, 2017
5:59 PM · Dec 16, 2017
Renato Mariotti
✔
@renato_mariotti
Replying to @renato_mariotti
8/ When a prosecutor obtains emails from a third party, usually irrelevant emails aren’t sorted out. So why would Mueller get the emails from GSA instead?
Renato Mariotti
✔
@renato_mariotti
9/ One reason comes to mind. Mueller was concerned that he wouldn’t receive all of the emails if he obtained them from the Trump team. That’s surprising and suggests that he has reason to distrust Trump’s team.
5:41 PM - Dec 16, 2017
Mueller and comey, put the wrong man, Dr. Stephen hatfill in jail. In part on innuendo circulated by nick kristof, based on spurious conjecture by Meryl nass and Susan hatch rosemberg. It did cost 5 million dollars afterward
@Inga,
Are you capable of arguing a point? Or, do you just splatter stuff all around & expect us to decode it? I'm sorry, but this is really aggravating behavior on your part.
Norm Eisen
Executive privilege does not apply until you are the executive; these documents are from the transition, before Trump became the executive; QED no executive privilege. Grasping at straws here.
Is the transition team a part of the Federal government, yes or no? An easy factual question. If, yes, then are we to presume that the most sensitive tasks of personnel choice for a new administration are open to public inspection? Absolutely insane. No president-elect would agree to that. If the transition team's documents are public, where are the Obama team's documents?
Eisen here is simply sucking cock for the Democratic witch hunt on Trump.
@NormEisen
I was the Deputy GC of a Transition (Obama-Biden 08). I warned everyone: there is NO expectation of privacy in your transition emails. The clue: emails are "name@ptt.gov." The whining letter from the Trump Transition tacitly admits this: it ends by asking for a legislative fix.
No expectation of privacy legally or prudentially? Big difference. Remember, it was the Obama admin that came up with that bullshit Office of the President-Elect moniker, when everyone knew there was no such thing. The Trump admin is asking for a legislative fix because clearly the old common law rules are not being respected anymore.
You quote a Obama admin guy. Really? You mean you quote a guy who has a very good chance of being a friend to a bunch of Obama admin people who by all rights should be in prison right now? That's your idea of an unbiased witness?
Risen and the other magpie, painter, work for brocks outfit,
The notion that this shows impropriety by Mueller seems on its face to be wrong, for reasons one might think that Althouse would understand.
1. For starters, a private person (Trump transition) who places non privileged documents in the hands of a third party normally cannot prevent their production by that party to law enforcement, even if that production is voluntary! Certainly it cannot prevent their production pursuant to subpoena.
Whose "property" the documents are does not matter!
Further, supposing that Trump transition had a contractual expectation that the servers would be wiped, it would raise grave questions of obstruction if they were to insist on that right after the documents had become potentially relevant to a criminal investigation.
2. Even with respect to privileged documents, the normal answer is that disclosure without an expectation of confidentiality waives the privilege. Where's the expectation of confidentiality? The GSA says it expressly told the transition not to expect confidentiality, but even if it hadn't, Transition lawyers should have been alert to this.
3. Not clear what the claims of privilege are. Can't think of any off-hand. Perhaps if transition lawyers engaged in otherwise privileged communications with transition clients on the GSA server (which would mean finding an expectation of confidentiality) and the GSA turned those documents over without giving the transition lawyers any notice that it was doing so? But the claims in the latter on that front are very weak.
4. If there were privileged documents and there has been no waiver, the standard remedy is to demand the return of the specific documents claimed to be privileged. If they are clearly privileged and produced inadvertently, the prosecutor must return them promptly. Otherwise the issue can then be litigated. If this hasn't been done--and it appears that it hasn't--it makes the waiver arguments stronger.
Althouse is wrong to suggest that the privilege question can be reserved till after indictment. If transition team has reason to believe privileged documents are being used now, they've got to use the privilege or lose it.
5. Add to all that the fact that the Trump White House has promised transparency. Why wouldn't the same claims of transparency apply to the transition team?
Bottom line: probably PR BS and not an ethical violation.
As a thought experiment, substitute the words "Hillary Clinton transition team" and see if the purely legal questions raised here don't begin to resolve themselves in your mind.
Are we to presume that the most sensitive tasks of personnel choice for a new administration are open to public inspection?
If a crime is alleged, yes.
"Warrants? We don't need no stinkin' warrants!"
--- Signore Mueller
1. For starters, a private person (Trump transition) who places non privileged documents in the hands of a third party normally cannot prevent their production by that party to law enforcement, even if that production is voluntary! Certainly it cannot prevent their production pursuant to subpoena.
Whose "property" the documents are does not matter!
Further, supposing that Trump transition had a contractual expectation that the servers would be wiped, it would raise grave questions of obstruction if they were to insist on that right after the documents had become potentially relevant to a criminal investigation.
No - reason that the server was not wiped, etc was that PTT was notified, and then requested preservation of email and devices.
2. Even with respect to privileged documents, the normal answer is that disclosure without an expectation of confidentiality waives the privilege. Where's the expectation of confidentiality? The GSA says it expressly told the transition not to expect confidentiality, but even if it hadn't, Transition lawyers should have been alert to this.
They claim just the opposite. They were alert. Read the letter.
3. Not clear what the claims of privilege are. Can't think of any off-hand. Perhaps if transition lawyers engaged in otherwise privileged communications with transition clients on the GSA server (which would mean finding an expectation of confidentiality) and the GSA turned those documents over without giving the transition lawyers any notice that it was doing so? But the claims in the latter on that front are very weak.
At a minimum, atty/client and executive. Read the letter.
4. If there were privileged documents and there has been no waiver, the standard remedy is to demand the return of the specific documents claimed to be privileged. If they are clearly privileged and produced inadvertently, the prosecutor must return them promptly. Otherwise the issue can then be litigated. If this hasn't been done--and it appears that it hasn't--it makes the waiver arguments stronger.
Althouse is wrong to suggest that the privilege question can be reserved till after indictment. If transition team has reason to believe privileged documents are being used now, they've got to use the privilege or lose it.
You are asking them to unring the bell. In real life, prosecutors would face suppression of the evidence, and everything flowing from it AND possible criminal sanctions for violation of laws, infringement of Constitutional rights, and ethical violation. Focusing on just the evidentiary remedies completely ignores the latter issues.
5. Add to all that the fact that the Trump White House has promised transparency. Why wouldn't the same claims of transparency apply to the transition team?
Ha! Ha! Argument seems to be that promising transparency operates to waive legal and Constitutional violations. Obama also promised transparency, but invoked Executive Privilege more than any of his predecessors.
Bottom line: probably PR BS and not an ethical violation.
Without effectively arguing any of the issues.
“If a crime is alleged, yes.”
What crime? Logan Act? What else? Lying to the FBI about violating the Logan Act?
You might be marginally able to make that argument if serious crimes had ever been credibly alleged. See my above discussion about the ends justifying the means. Hypothetical violations of a very likely unconstitutional law that hasn’t been enforced in over 200 years does not qualify. Neither do potential process crimes, such as lying to the FBI. And, in any case, the Constitution doesn’t work that way, and mostly, neither do the statutes. Still can’t torture people, or even tap their phones without a warrant, even if sure that the suspect is going to kill someone, or just did.
“As a thought experiment, substitute the words "Hillary Clinton transition team" and see if the purely legal questions raised here don't begin to resolve themselves in your mind.”
Let me suggest that you do just the same. Of course, this wouldn’t have happened to her, because the Deep State that is doing this sort of thing overwhelmingly supported her, and not Trump, whom we hear them say, in text messages, needs to be stopped, and if that doesn’t work, they need an insurance policy, JIC he wins.
This is why the smart people keep their communications outside of gov. hardware, and then wipe the email servers they do use.
You know: like with a cloth.
Stupid Trumpers are such amateurs when it comes to corruption and breaking the law! Smart nice centrists don't object to mega-Clinton levels of lawbreaking but they can't abide amateurish incompetence. Be a professional criminal or don't bother.
The lefties have shifted from collusion to something else but they haven't quite figured it out yet,
Levrenti Beria had the answer. "Show me the man and I will find the crime."
Mueller is steadily disgracing his team and the left which sicced it on Trump.
The lefties who are dreaming that Alabama signaled a big lefty wave next year are telling stories to themselves.
Earnest Prole:
You may remember me criticizing you for cheering the overreach of a federal prosecutor. Leftist Collectivists cheer the raw use of power in pursuit of still greater power.
Everybody understands.
Richard W. Painter
@RWPUSA
Congress wasted millions of dollars going through HRC emails. But Mueller isn't supposed to get Trump transition emails that were sent on a government server?
Nope -it doesn't work that way.
Enough BS!
3:22 PM · Dec 17, 2017
Dan Barr
Dan Barr
@DanCBarr
This letter is beyond stupid. Mueller got emails from the GSA because they were on the GSA’s server. The government obtained the emails from itself. The 4th Amendment does not come into play at all.
BrahmResnik
@brahmresnik
#Arizona attorney Kory Langhofer, reportedly in line for a judgeship, tries to block Robert Mueller. (link: http://reut.rs/2j7FqxN) reut.rs/2j7FqxN
@Michael K "The lefties have shifted from collusion to something else but they haven't quite figured it out yet,"
That is not at all what is happening. It is much more that a clearer picture is emerging that actual crimes might have been committed when Trump and his team conspired with a hostile foreign power to win the election using criminal tactics of various sorts.
We - the public - have a small idea of what is happening and are drawing conclusions. Mueller knows much more.
The evidence the public has is so far inculpatory. I have seen no exculpatory evidence.
The fact that Trump and his supporters are attacking Mueller and his team is further evidence of guilt because that is how guilty people behave.
“Still can’t torture people, or even tap their phones without a warrant, even if sure that the suspect is going to kill someone, or just did.”
Let me clarify there. Yes, we see violation of Constitutional rights, laws, regulations, and ethical rules all the time on TV in order to capture and convict bad guys. And we all know that it exists in real life. But prosecutors and LEOs doing that sort of thing are essentially engaging in civil disobedience, and in a similar sort of way must be willing to pay the price. Risking your career and jail time may be worth it to prevent, or maybe even solve a murder, and, in particular, to prevent mass casualties in a terrorist attack. But the important thing is the personal self sacrifice of job and/or freedom in exchange for violating these legal norms for a good cause. If you torture someone to prevent a terrorist attack, you must be willing to pay the legal price, which may be understood for the harm prevented, but not excused. You would still be legally liable for the torture.
“The lefties have shifted from collusion to something else but they haven't quite figured it out yet,”
Not Kitty, apparently.
Leftist Collectivists cheer the raw use of power in pursuit of still greater power.
As I mentioned, I've been called a lot of things in my life but leftist is not one of them. You may remember me arguing strongly against the removal of Confederate statues, for example -- let me know when you meet a collectivist with that point of view.
The fix was in, but Hillary lost anyway, so there must have been foul play. QED.
Collusion as criminal conspiracy is still in play.
“The lefties have shifted from collusion to something else but they haven't quite figured it out yet,”
One potential charge might be conspiracy to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, says Barak Cohen, a partner and litigation lead at Perkins Coie in Washington, D.C. Mueller's team could reach for that if there is evidence that Trump associates worked with Russia on the hacking of the Democratic National Committee or the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.
"I think the special counsel would like to be able to charge them as co-conspirators to the hack or accessories after the fact," Cohen said. "It's the most credible and well-established legal theory."
"Not Kitty, apparently."
Poor Kitty, clueless and proud of it.
This Powerline post might help but she won't read it.
@Bruce Hayden "Not Kitty, apparently."
That's right. I am very convinced by what I have read so far that Trump lied when he said he has nothing to do with Russia. I believe he and his team were involved with Russia on many levels and it included crimes.
But obviously I absolutely admit to not having any more information than anyone else here. I might read more left-wing sites and papers, but I assume in general we all have access to the same few facts. I will admit, therefore, that my openness to the possibility that Trump is guilty of crimes that took place before the election or afterwards (Obstruction) is connected to my negative views on Trump as I assess his presidency in general.
I can and must admit at the same time that since I don't know this, there is a possibility that he is innocent of any crimes in this matter.
If I can admit that he might be innocent, can you not admit that he *might* - just *might* - be guilty?
"actual crimes might have been committed"
Such as?
"The fact that Trump and his supporters are attacking Mueller and his team is further evidence of guilt because that is how guilty people behave."
I just thought that bore repeating. I'm beginning to regret ever considering you a reasonable person.
@Michael K "Poor Kitty, clueless and proud of it."
That's a bit mean, Michael, and unnecessary. I was trying to share my views with you because you wrote something that interested me, though I disagreed with it. I don't consider myself "clueless" on this subject, because I have actually followed the story closely. At the same time, I hope I don't come across as "proud" in an arrogant sense. I always try and keep my opinions respectful and modest. Can't you?
@Paco Wové "I'm beginning to regret ever considering you a reasonable person."
Wow, you guys are extra snarky this afternoon! What's up?
I think the evidence points to a criminal conspiracy between Trump and members of his campaign and a hostile foreign government. I do not consider this to be an unreasonable view.
"I think the evidence points to a criminal conspiracy"
What evidence? What crimes?
What crimes?
A violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Obstruction of Justice. Who knows what else? Mueller.
@Paco Wové "What evidence? What crimes?"
Here is a very partial list of facts that we already have that suggest collusion. Remember: Trump always utterly denied ANY dealings with Russia.
#1: In March of 2016, Papadopoulos reveals to Trump—face-to-face—he's a Kremlin intermediary sent to establish a Trump-Putin backchannel (he says Putin is favorably disposed to Trump's candidacy). Trump then and there orders Gordon to coordinate a pro-Kremlin GOP platform change.
#2: In June 2016, Don Jr. knowingly attends a meeting with—and set up by—Kremlin agents. He asks the Kremlin for what he has reason to believe is illegally acquired Clinton material. Afterwards, he (allegedly) tells no one. When caught, he lies about every aspect of the meeting.
#3: In April, July and September of 2016 Sessions meets Russian Ambassador Kislyak in settings in which Russian sanctions are discussed. He holds the latter two meetings *after* it's known Russia is cyber-attacking America. He lies about these contacts under oath before Congress.
#3: In April, July and September of 2016 Sessions meets Russian Ambassador Kislyak in settings in which Russian sanctions are discussed. He holds the latter two meetings *after* it's known Russia is cyber-attacking America. He lies about these contacts under oath before Congress.
#4: Kislyak egregiously violates longstanding diplomatic protocol to attend—as a guest of the Trump campaign—a major Trump foreign policy speech. Having been invited to the speech as a VIP, Kislyak sits in the front row as Trump promises Putin's Russia "a good deal" on sanctions.
#5: Flynn—aided and abetted by Kushner and the full Presidential Transition Team—illegally conducts sanctions and resolution negotiations with Russia during the 2016 transition. When asked about it by the FBI, he lies. When the lies are published, no one on the PTT corrects them.
So the Plame investigation that netted a low level administration drone Scooter Libby cost about 2.5 million
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/03/31/valerie-plame-leak-investigation-cost-government-258-million.html
So far we have spent about 5 million on this "russian collusion" "investigation". So at this point we have netted Flynn and a low level campaign worker for "lying to the FBI". Is this inflation at work? If we spend another 5 million does it mean we get a few more smaller fish? Seems like a waste of money, really.
@Paco Wové "What evidence? What crimes?"
#6: Carter Page travels to Moscow under the guise of an academic conference—in fact, he meets with top Kremlin officials and top Rosneft executives, speaking with both about Russian sanctions just as the Steele Dossier alleges. When questioned about his activities, he lies on TV.
#7: Trump campaign manager Manafort and Sessions aide Gordon aggressively push to change the GOP platform to benefit Putin under direct orders from Trump. When asked about Trump's involvement, they lie to the media; when asked about their own involvement, they lie to the media.
#8: Shortly after the inauguration, it's revealed that Trump has been holding onto a secret plan to unilaterally drop all sanctions against Russia for months—a plan he's never before revealed, which would *reward* Russia for cyber-attacking America during a presidential election.
#9: When Trump learns the FBI Director plans to indict his ex-National Security Advisor, he fires him—first lying about his reason for doing so, then eventually admitting he did it due to "the Russia thing." Later—in an Oval Office conversation with Russians—he repeats the claim.
#10: In an Oval Office meeting into which no U.S. media are allowed (foreshadowing a meeting with Putin in which no U.S. translators would be allowed), Trump deliberately leaks classified Israeli intelligence to the Russians, who are allies of Israel's (and America's) enemy—Iran.
@Paco Wové "What evidence? What crimes?"
#11: In late 2016, Kushner and Flynn smuggle Kislyak into Trump Tower to secretly discuss the creation of a clandestine—Kremlin-controlled—Trump-Putin backchannel only a few principals would know about. The men don't disclose the meeting or plan, which would constitute espionage.
#12: In May 2016, Trump NatSec advisor Papadopoulos makes secret trips to Athens to make contact with Kremlin allies. During the second trip, Putin's also there—to discuss sanctions. It's his only trip to an EU nation during the campaign. Papadopoulos meets the same men as Putin.
#13: In 2013, Trump and Putin's developer sign a letter-of-intent to build Trump Tower Moscow—a deal requiring Putin's blessing that only goes forward when Putin dispatches to Trump his permits man and banker. Trump and principals lie about the deal—and events at the Ritz Moscow.
#14: Just before Trump's inauguration, Trump's lawyer Cohen and ex-Russian mobster Sater secretly meet with a pro-Russia Ukrainian politician to help ferry a secret Kremlin-backed "peace deal" to Flynn, Trump's National Security Advisor. All involved then lie about their actions.
#15: After it's publicly revealed Russia is waging cyberwar on America, Trump publicly and in all seriousness invites the Kremlin to continue cyber-attacking America if doing so will result in the theft and release of his opponent's private emails. He never retracts the request.
@Paco Wové "What evidence? What crimes?"
#16: Trump advisors Bannon, Prince, Flynn, Don Jr., Giuliani and Pirro are involved—to varying degrees—in leaking, sourcing, disseminating, and legitimizing a false "True Pundit" story that seeks to use fraud to blackmail the FBI into indicting Clinton. Russian bots pump it also.
#17: Trump's top advisors—including Manafort, Sessions, Flynn, Clovis, Page, Papadopoulos, Cohen, Sater, Don Jr, Kushner, Prince, Dearborn, Gordon, Gates, Stone and others—lie about or fail to disclose Russia contacts or key conversations on Russian efforts to collude with Trump.
#18: For many months after Trump begins his run, he is secretly working under a letter-of-intent with Russian developers to build Trump Tower Moscow. The deal—brokered by Cohen and Sater—allegedly falls apart only when Putin's top aide won't return an email from Trump's attorney.
#19: In 2008, Don Jr. privately tells investors that "a disproportionate percentage" of the Trump Organization's money comes from Russia—a fact later confirmed by Eric Trump. Trump Sr. then becomes the first presidential candidate in decades to refuse to release his tax returns
#20: Though he's fully briefed on Russia's cyberwar against America in August 2016, Trump publicly denies it—calling the U.S. intel community Nazis—while accepting Putin's denials he's done anything wrong and proposing the U.S. create a cybersecurity task force with the Kremlin.
@Paco Wové "What evidence? What crimes?"
#21: Though he knows by August 2016 that Russia is committing crimes against America, Trump still lets his top NatSec advisor, Sessions, negotiate sanctions with Kislyak—presumably Trump's plan for a unilateral dropping of sanctions. This is Aiding and Abetting Computer Crimes.
#22: During the transition, Trump's son-in-law Kushner secretly meets with Putin's banker—after which discussion the two men disagree wildly as to what they discussed, suggesting that whatever the topic was, it was clandestine. Kushner won't reveal the meeting for many months.
#23: Advisors to the Trump campaign, including Trump Jr. and Stone, have contacts with WikiLeaks and/or Russian hackers—the timeline of which conversations dovetails perfectly with consequential changes in behavior by one or both of the parties (including Trump's stump speech).
#24: When Acting AG Yates warns Trump that Flynn—his National Security Advisor—has been compromised by Russia, Trump fires her and keeps Flynn on board for 18 days. Either he lies to Pence about what he knows on this or both Trump and Pence lie to America about their knowledge.
#25: After it was revealed Don Jr. met Kremlin agents at Trump's house—Trump Tower—at a time Trump was in the building and meeting with Don, Jared, and Manafort on the same topics they met the Kremlin agents to discuss, Trump witness-tampered by writing his son's false statement.
Bill Clinton was investigated by the feds for a 1979 Arkansas land deal, but impeached for lying about some sperm he deposited on a woman's dress eighteen years later -- a woman who was six years old in 1979.
So if history repeats, Trump will be impeached for something that has nothing to do with Russian collusion -- perhaps an anomaly in his taxes from many years ago. As I mentioned, if a corrupt prosecutor can't find something there, he belongs in another line of work.
@Paco Wové @Michael K
The information above can all be taken apart, disputed in detail, debated and argued about. But the fact remains that there *is* a lot of information now in the public domain that is inculpatory i.e. that is suggestive of guilt.
So while I support and respect your right to your own opinions on this matter, and while I again respect entirely that you and many others on this website believe Trump to be innocent of any wrongdoing, I would appreciate it if you would concede just this one point: that there is indeed a lot we know that is suspicious. Or put it another way: it is not unreasonable to have a view of Trump that tends towards thinking he has made himself culpable of some crimes in the last years in connection with Russia's "hacking" of the election, which was illegal. I readily grant you that I may be wrong and that it is possible that Mueller has nothing on Trump. Can't you at least grant me that Mueller *might* have something on Trump? Not definitely, not even probably - but that it is A possibility, in a world of possibilities, that Trump has committed a crime / crimes.
It would frankly be *unreasonable* not to admit that this is a possibility.
I really don't think president trump should fire Mueller. He should fight this as strongly as possible. Sue, press charges or whatever he can do.
Also make the corruption as public as possible.
He needs to create such a shitstorm thay the public and congress demands Mueller resign. If Mueller is himself charged with some crime, wouldn't he have to step down
If president trump fires Mueller, no matter how strong the reason, we are once again in nixon land. As someone eles, Bruce h? Pointed out.
Ride it out until it gets so bad that even progressives are demanding Mueller step down.
John Henry
@Paco Wové @Michael K
Putting it another way:
We know that the Russians really did hack into John Podesta’s and the DNC’s email accounts and found and released emails that damaged Clinton. They really did conduct social media operations designed help Trump.
We know that the Trump campaign was filled with operatives connected in shady ways to the Russian government, including individuals who knew that the Russians had obtained Clinton-related emails and who lied about that knowledge to federal investigators. Top campaign officials (and Trump family members) dropped everything to meet with Russian operatives when they believed there was useful opposition research on offer. Trump publicly asked Russia to hack into Clinton’s computers to find and release her missing emails.
As one journalist put it: "At this point, it would be a truly remarkable coincidence if two entities that had so many ties to each other, that had so much information about what the other was doing, and that were working so hard toward the same goal never found a way to coordinate."
It still could be a coincidence. And it still could be that, despite appearances, Trump and his closest team never broke the law, even while the Russians were running a covert operation. (We know already that two top officials *did* break the law because they have pleaded guilty, but we'll leave that aside.)
Again - it could be a coincidence. But my God: it is not unreasonable to suspect that it wasn't!
@John "I really don't think president trump should fire Mueller. He should fight this as strongly as possible. Sue, press charges or whatever he can do."
Although you and I probably disagree on Trump as a president, I agree so much with what you say here. I think Trump should absolutely fight this as strongly as possible, with whatever legal means are available.
And if you are right and I am wrong - if Mueller was on a fishing expedition that results in nothing, or if Mueller is corrupt - then it needs to come out.
I believe in the integrity of the judicial system. I therefore believe that Trump - if innocent - will prevail. I believe the truth will prevail - and if the truth is that Trump is innocent, then he will be exonerated.
At least 12 Trump associates had contacts with Russians during the campaign or transition
There were at least 19 face-to-face interactions with Russians or Kremlin-linked figures
There were at least 51 communications -- meetings, phone calls, email exchanges and more.
This flies in the face of at least nine blanket denials from Trump world of any contacts with Russia
We know that CrowdStrike (??) was hired to say the DNC was hacked but the information was more likely downloaded onto a thumb drive. There is no evidence of hacking because the servers were never delivered to authorities for an investigation.
Your assumptions are foolish.
Inga believes Trump should have had no contacts with Russia until after the inauguration. After that he could have had more flexibility.
We actually don't know, the software is not uniquely Russian, as various analysts have noted. The Obama administration allowed ambasador kislyak to Cleveland just as they veselnitskaya into the country, she was working for fusion, which was contracted by akmetchin who was originally known for working with Mccain and the kazakh opposition movement.
The new York times the guardian and other publications actually published Wikileaks when it compromised us operations and personnel. In the cases of manning and Snowdon.
"It would frankly be *unreasonable* not to admit that this is a possibility."
I am not the devoted student of Trumpology that you are, so I can't knowledgeably discuss your many items (thank you for the list, BTW). I will say that on a brief perusal, many sound like hyperventilating partisan bullshit. But I concede that they may not be, and it may be possible that Mueller comes up with *something*. But I consider it far more likely that that something will be more like Earnest Prole's tax anomaly, etc.
What I do consider unreasonable is your contention that only the guilty complain about unjust prosecution. That is by far the creepiest thing I have heard all week.
Picking one at random:
#15: After it's publicly revealed Russia is waging cyberwar on America, Trump publicly and in all seriousness invites the Kremlin to continue cyber-attacking America if doing so will result in the theft and release of his opponent's private emails. He never retracts the request.
This is what I would call "bullshit on stilts". It's not worthy of a serious response.
Manafort's partner, klimnik, was actually hired from mccains international republican institute, apparently they were not concerned he had studied Swedish at a intelligence connected language school.
What's amusing is Mueller was at best, an easy mark for the sirs operatives like the Chapman ring, precluded the investigation into the tenez translogistics
seeing as comeys initial report showed red queens server had likely been hacked by various intellugence service possibly chinese iranians as aell as russians
"The fact that Trump and his supporters are attacking Mueller and his team is further evidence of guilt because that is how guilty people behave."
Really..supporters too? What about "Resist!"?
Hey..despite the rumors, Trump has said he has no intention of firing Mueller.
By your logic, does that suggest innocence?
Why on earth should trump fire Mueller? He's a gift that keeps on giving. Without this "investigation" we wouldn't have gotten the press to cover how compromised the obama DOJ was in its incestuous relationship with Fusion GPS, the DNC funded Russian dossier and all the other jackassery of last year when the obama DOJ and FBI was trying to take down a duly elected president. Thats the worst thing trump could do is stop this circus being exposed.
I think that is a mistake, as this has been a travesty if a mockery of a sham, like his deputy, zebley who was council for the fellow who received immunity for red queens server as did mills and abedin.
"We know that the Russians really did hack into John Podesta’s and the DNC’s email accounts and found and released emails that damaged Clinton. They really did conduct social media operations designed help Trump."
This one always makes me laugh. We know no such thing Kitty. We know John Podesta's secret password was "p@ssw0rd" and that an 8 year old could have figured that one out. The entities that left any clues on the spearfishing attempt used a toolkit developed in the Ukraine. And all of this is hearsay from a 3rd party vendor hired by the DN, CrowdStrikeC. I guess if the democrats had allowed a U.S intelligence agency to verify all of this, you could confidently proclaim this but you really can't and should stop.
We know that the Russians really did hack into John Podesta’s and the DNC’s email accounts and found and released emails that damaged Clinton. They really did conduct social media operations designed help Trump.
We know nothing of the kind. John Podesta foolishly fell for a crude phishing attack. The Russians and Chinese would have slipped in without leaving a trace. I don’t for a moment believe that a member of Podesta’s IT staff sent a misleading response to his question about the validity of of the phishing message he received. He made the mistake and then convinced someone to take the fall for him, either via financial inducements or threats of violence. The social media operations you point to were small, poorly funded, and negligible in their effect.
We know that the Trump campaign was filled with operatives connected in shady ways to the Russian government, including individuals who knew that the Russians had obtained Clinton-related emails and who lied about that knowledge to federal investigators.
We know nothing of the kind. Trump is a businessman with contacts in many countries, none of them apparently “shady,” unless you consider business itself to be somehow shady. Only the most naive of the foolish did not believe that the Russians — and Chinese, and Israelis, and most major European governments — had hacked Clinton’s mail server, given that there was no effort to keep its security current. If any government did hack Clinton’s server, it could only have been because they couldn’t believe that anyone could possibly be that stupid.
Top campaign officials (and Trump family members) dropped everything to meet with Russian operatives when they believed there was useful opposition research on offer.
As Democrats would do, and probably did, when the opportunity presented itself. Politics ain’t beanbag.
Trump publicly asked Russia to hack into Clinton’s computers to find and release her missing emails.
This is simply wrong. Trump couldn’t have asked Russians to hack into Clinton’s server because by then she had not been Secretary of State for over three years. Can you not read a calendar? He was reminding voters that Clinton’s cavalier treatment of information security put America’s diplomatic message traffic at extreme risk.
You need to develop a lot more skepticism towards Democrat bullshit propaganda.
Paco: What I do consider unreasonable is your contention that only the guilty complain about unjust prosecution. That is by far the creepiest thing I have heard all week.
I was casting about for the right adjective to describe that appalling comment, and can't do better than "creepy".
When KittyM first started posting, I was willing to grant that she was an earnest and sincere, if deeply gullible, lefty. I can no longer maintain that charitable (or perhaps gullible on my part) view, particularly with today's robotic copypasta of product from the crazier end of "Russian collusion" partisan bullshit.
This is what I would call "bullshit on stilts". It's not worthy of a serious response.
Previously, I would have just laughed at another po-faced posting of the "Trump publicly invited Russia to cyber-attack his opponents" line. (Eye roll - "oh come on, nobody can be that stupid or humorless".) But in overall context, no, it's not funny, it's just droning zombie-apparatchik creepy.
The "civility bullshit" she engages is also no longer merely cloying, either. She's entered the uncanny valley of posting personae.
The rhodes road show, which required the cooperation of ambassador kislyak, that was why 30 democratic senators including mccaskill had met with him
https://mobile.twitter.com/omriceren/status/942542375146213376/photo/1
This also required a hands of approach to Iran's proxies in Syria.
Blogger Gk1 said...
We know John Podesta's secret password was "p@ssw0rd" and that an 8 year old could have figured that one out.
--
IIRC, there were also signs of (unsuccessful) attempts to hack the RNC data.
Damn, and here I thought KittyM had carefully put together all those bits of 'evidence' for our perusal, when in fact it was just an unattributed copy-paste from somebody named Seth Abramson, whose name sounded vaguely familiar... why was that? Oh yeah, because I read that I should Stop Listening to Seth Abramson's Hack Trump-Russia Theories.
See how easy hyperlinking is? I'll give free tutorials on request.
This follow has noticed how bad crowdstrikes attribution actually has been, going back to tv hack. That was actually done by an Algerian hacker another by an Iraqi one
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit?p=s
Update: pointed out Seth Abramson's twitter feed to spouse. She is now chortling heartily as she reads it – apparently quite humorous.
“See how easy hyperlinking is? I'll give free tutorials on request.”
Don’t flatter yourself. Most of us know how to hyperlink. I bet Kitty knows how to too. There’s good reason to post excerpts instead of hyperlink. I rarely click on people’s hyperlinks, they could be going to Breitbart.
See?
Let me see if this works https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateAudit?p=s -
Post a Comment