It wasn't anything in that regard, Cb.. this was a case, where I don't think the Transition team knew about the law.

He even compared it to you or me, and if we had a lawyer, banker, or someone else, who gave us equipment to use, and we used it. The legal process wouldn't have to go through us to have access to that information, only through whomever we had with us. Not sure why the rules changed, but the information on a machine was not what was being "searched", it was the machine itself. (again, I think it was 1987, but I don't remember).

(12-19-2017 12:26 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...spartanntp

"...It asked for Congress to act immediately "to protect future presidential transitions from having their private records misappropriated by government agencies, particularly in the context of sensitive investigations intersecting with political motives."
The letter said Mueller's office obtained the emails despite the fact that it was aware the GSA did not own or control the records. It said the special counsel's office has "extensively used the materials in question, including portions that are susceptible to claims of privilege" without notifying the Trump for America team...."

Heard Judge Nap say that the GSA getting the information wasn't actually illegal. The Trump transition team basically agreed to use GSA computers, which by some 1987 law (I think he said 1987), means that federal system could get that information from the GSA, and not have to get it directly from the transition team.

Does it prove anything? Nope, other than the information was not gained illegally, by a law already passed and on the books.

He said it may look fishy, but it was completely legal.

Nap is wrong on this. He seems to be saying, though, that Muehller got a subpoena for the GSA. I've seen no evidence this happened. Muehller's team went to a "friendly" at the GSA and got the records so that they didnt have to publicly reveal they had the records.

Nap also says that the Trump lawyers should have made the prosecutors sign a document stating everything they had before allowing the members to talk to Muehller. Thats irrelevant. Muehllers team scooped up priviliged material. That material will be deemed inadmissable. Flynn can go back to the judge and tell him he wants reverse his plea ,the judge will grant it, and the prosecution will start over with nothing.

Muehller's team simply wanted to try to indict someone as quickly as possible, via any means necessary, to score a public win in order to undermine and get rid of Trump. A couple of years later, when all of it gets tossed, they wont care.

Its the way Muehllers team operates. They simply arent used to going against a guy that has about as unlimited of resources as they have.

(12-19-2017 12:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So that 19 different people from Russia didn't have contact with members of the Trump team?
That was all made up?

So they had contact with them. What does that prove? Besides nothing?

It proves that the Russia investigation isn't made up and that it's a legitimate investigation into whether or not the Trump administration knowingly or unknowingly were aided in the election.

No, it doesn't.

You're right. This was just all made up by Hillary because she's mad.

(12-19-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  So that 19 different people from Russia didn't have contact with members of the Trump team?
That was all made up?

So they had contact with them. What does that prove? Besides nothing?

It proves that the Russia investigation isn't made up and that it's a legitimate investigation into whether or not the Trump administration knowingly or unknowingly were aided in the election.

No, it doesn't.

You're right. This was just all made up by Hillary because she's mad.

No, that's not what I said, is it?

I think of it as an "insurance policy."

(12-19-2017 12:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Nap is wrong on this. He seems to be saying, though, that Muehller got a subpoena for the GSA. I've seen no evidence this happened. Muehller's team went to a "friendly" at the GSA and got the records so that they didnt have to publicly reveal they had the records.

He was thinking that they went the first route.... I don't know if that's how that happened, or if it was just through a "friend" at GSA.

We'll have to wait and see.. if there's no subpoena at all then you may be right U..

(12-19-2017 12:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:26 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...spartanntp

"...It asked for Congress to act immediately "to protect future presidential transitions from having their private records misappropriated by government agencies, particularly in the context of sensitive investigations intersecting with political motives."
The letter said Mueller's office obtained the emails despite the fact that it was aware the GSA did not own or control the records. It said the special counsel's office has "extensively used the materials in question, including portions that are susceptible to claims of privilege" without notifying the Trump for America team...."

Heard Judge Nap say that the GSA getting the information wasn't actually illegal. The Trump transition team basically agreed to use GSA computers, which by some 1987 law (I think he said 1987), means that federal system could get that information from the GSA, and not have to get it directly from the transition team.

Does it prove anything? Nope, other than the information was not gained illegally, by a law already passed and on the books.

He said it may look fishy, but it was completely legal.

Nap is wrong on this. He seems to be saying, though, that Muehller got a subpoena for the GSA. I've seen no evidence this happened. Muehller's team went to a "friendly" at the GSA and got the records so that they didnt have to publicly reveal they had the records.

Nap also says that the Trump lawyers should have made the prosecutors sign a document stating everything they had before allowing the members to talk to Muehller. Thats irrelevant. Muehllers team scooped up priviliged material. That material will be deemed inadmissable. Flynn can go back to the judge and tell him he wants reverse his plea ,the judge will grant it, and the prosecution will start over with nothing.

Muehller's team simply wanted to try to indict someone as quickly as possible, via any means necessary, to score a public win in order to undermine and get rid of Trump. A couple of years later, when all of it gets tossed, they wont care.

Its the way Muehllers team operates. They simply arent used to going against a guy that has about as unlimited of resources as they have.

If Flynn had unlimited resources, he would fight the guilty plea and probably win. But he doesn't have unlimited resources. Manafort does. He can fight the feds on their level.

(12-19-2017 01:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:42 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:05 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:48 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So they had contact with them. What does that prove? Besides nothing?

It proves that the Russia investigation isn't made up and that it's a legitimate investigation into whether or not the Trump administration knowingly or unknowingly were aided in the election.

No, it doesn't.

You're right. This was just all made up by Hillary because she's mad.

No, that's not what I said, is it?

I think of it as an "insurance policy."

Touche

(12-19-2017 01:03 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Nap is wrong on this. He seems to be saying, though, that Muehller got a subpoena for the GSA. I've seen no evidence this happened. Muehller's team went to a "friendly" at the GSA and got the records so that they didnt have to publicly reveal they had the records.

He was thinking that they went the first route.... I don't know if that's how that happened, or if it was just through a "friend" at GSA.

We'll have to wait and see.. if there's no subpoena at all then you may be right U..

If there was a subpoena, I would also want to see who signed off on the subpoena. Was it a grand jury? Or was it a judge. If it was a judge, was it the guy that just recused himself, because he was also likely the fisa judge? And who allowed privileged info to get scooped up in that process?

There is a whole lot of nastiness that could come out of that by itself. The fact that Meuhllers team had privileged info but failed to report it is also a problem.

But so far, Nap is the only one saying there was a subpoena.

(12-19-2017 01:06 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:38 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 12:26 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(12-16-2017 06:20 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...spartanntp

"...It asked for Congress to act immediately "to protect future presidential transitions from having their private records misappropriated by government agencies, particularly in the context of sensitive investigations intersecting with political motives."
The letter said Mueller's office obtained the emails despite the fact that it was aware the GSA did not own or control the records. It said the special counsel's office has "extensively used the materials in question, including portions that are susceptible to claims of privilege" without notifying the Trump for America team...."

Heard Judge Nap say that the GSA getting the information wasn't actually illegal. The Trump transition team basically agreed to use GSA computers, which by some 1987 law (I think he said 1987), means that federal system could get that information from the GSA, and not have to get it directly from the transition team.

Does it prove anything? Nope, other than the information was not gained illegally, by a law already passed and on the books.

He said it may look fishy, but it was completely legal.

Nap is wrong on this. He seems to be saying, though, that Muehller got a subpoena for the GSA. I've seen no evidence this happened. Muehller's team went to a "friendly" at the GSA and got the records so that they didnt have to publicly reveal they had the records.

Nap also says that the Trump lawyers should have made the prosecutors sign a document stating everything they had before allowing the members to talk to Muehller. Thats irrelevant. Muehllers team scooped up priviliged material. That material will be deemed inadmissable. Flynn can go back to the judge and tell him he wants reverse his plea ,the judge will grant it, and the prosecution will start over with nothing.

Muehller's team simply wanted to try to indict someone as quickly as possible, via any means necessary, to score a public win in order to undermine and get rid of Trump. A couple of years later, when all of it gets tossed, they wont care.

Its the way Muehllers team operates. They simply arent used to going against a guy that has about as unlimited of resources as they have.

If Flynn had unlimited resources, he would fight the guilty plea and probably win. But he doesn't have unlimited resources. Manafort does. He can fight the feds on their level.

When you say unlimited resources, do you mean Russians.

First we were told that the real scandal wasn't the Russia investigation it was

Unmasking

Then it was

Uranium

Now it's

Emails.

It's becoming increasingly clear that these are all just attempts to discredit an investigation.

Why?

If they did nothing wrong, why are they obstructing at every turn?

(12-19-2017 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's becoming increasingly clear that these are all just attempts to discredit an investigation.
Why?
If they did nothing wrong, why are they obstructing at every turn?

How are they obstructing at every turn?

And what do you make of the "insurance policy" text message, if it does not suggest that the investigation may need to be discredited?

So far I see more actual evidence of collusion between the democrats and Russians than between Trump and the Russians.

(12-19-2017 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's becoming increasingly clear that these are all just attempts to discredit an investigation.
Why?
If they did nothing wrong, why are they obstructing at every turn?

How are they obstructing at every turn?

And what do you make of the "insurance policy" text message, if it does not suggest that the investigation may need to be discredited?

So far I see more actual evidence of collusion between the democrats and Russians than between Trump and the Russians.

First they didn't disclose that they were talking to the Russians.

Then they lied on their questionaires that they were talking to the Russians.

Then they lied directly to the FBI and Congress about their meeting to the Russians.

Then they fired the man who was investigating the Russia thing.

Now they are trying to discredit the new guy investigatiing the Russia thing.

But they still want you and I to believe there was no Russia thing and they did nothing wrong?

Come on man. You cannot be that naive.

(12-19-2017 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's becoming increasingly clear that these are all just attempts to discredit an investigation.
Why?
If they did nothing wrong, why are they obstructing at every turn?

How are they obstructing at every turn?

And what do you make of the "insurance policy" text message, if it does not suggest that the investigation may need to be discredited?

So far I see more actual evidence of collusion between the democrats and Russians than between Trump and the Russians.

when the mirror of bias is all one has, it only displays what is a mere shadow in the dark....I honestly don't understand why you continue to debate such.....

(12-19-2017 01:37 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 01:18 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's becoming increasingly clear that these are all just attempts to discredit an investigation.
Why?
If they did nothing wrong, why are they obstructing at every turn?

How are they obstructing at every turn?

And what do you make of the "insurance policy" text message, if it does not suggest that the investigation may need to be discredited?

So far I see more actual evidence of collusion between the democrats and Russians than between Trump and the Russians.

First they didn't disclose that they were talking to the Russians.

Then they lied on their questionaires that they were talking to the Russians.

Then they lied directly to the FBI and Congress about their meeting to the Russians.

Then they fired the man who was investigating the Russia thing.

Now they are trying to discredit the new guy investigatiing the Russia thing.

But they still want you and I to believe there was no Russia thing and they did nothing wrong?

Come on man. You cannot be that naive.

LOL

The Russia thing

thanks man that made me laugh