(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

The GSA was warned back when the transition occurred that the records were presidential records and different from government records. The transition act specifies this. Its not that Muehller couldnt have gotten the records. The problem is that he didnt get them the correct way, and in the process scooped up attorney client privileged documents.

If what Muehller did was proper, his team wouldnt have any problem laying out exactly what they did to obtain them and pointing to the section in the law where they were legitimately obtained. Instead, they framed a sentence that said they did it one of two ways.

These records were obtained in september. (Although Trumps team only learned that Muehller had them this psat week.) Sounds like Taint Boy has found nothing on Trump, and decided to do a hard grab on documents in the final hopes of finding something. He knows that anything those documents were used for would probably get overturned and thrown out, he was just trying to get any kind of public relations win against Trump. And it appears he has whiffed again. And now members of his team are getting skull drug up to the hill to testify. Its not a good time in the special counsels office when you have nothing, and members of your team are being actively investigated.

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

Trump wasn't president yet. Executive privilege doesn't exist yet.

(12-18-2017 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

The GSA was warned back when the transition occurred that the records were presidential records and different from government records. The transition act specifies this. Its not that Muehller couldnt have gotten the records. The problem is that he didnt get them the correct way, and in the process scooped up attorney client privileged documents.

If what Muehller did was proper, his team wouldnt have any problem laying out exactly what they did to obtain them and pointing to the section in the law where they were legitimately obtained. Instead, they framed a sentence that said they did it one of two ways.

These records were obtained in september. (Although Trumps team only learned that Muehller had them this psat week.) Sounds like Taint Boy has found nothing on Trump, and decided to do a hard grab on documents in the final hopes of finding something. He knows that anything those documents were used for would probably get overturned and thrown out, he was just trying to get any kind of public relations win against Trump. And it appears he has whiffed again. And now members of his team are getting skull drug up to the hill to testify. Its not a good time in the special counsels office when you have nothing, and members of your team are being actively investigated.

Warned by who? Based on what?

(12-18-2017 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

The GSA was warned back when the transition occurred that the records were presidential records and different from government records. The transition act specifies this. Its not that Muehller couldnt have gotten the records. The problem is that he didnt get them the correct way, and in the process scooped up attorney client privileged documents.

If what Muehller did was proper, his team wouldnt have any problem laying out exactly what they did to obtain them and pointing to the section in the law where they were legitimately obtained. Instead, they framed a sentence that said they did it one of two ways.

These records were obtained in september. (Although Trumps team only learned that Muehller had them this psat week.) Sounds like Taint Boy has found nothing on Trump, and decided to do a hard grab on documents in the final hopes of finding something. He knows that anything those documents were used for would probably get overturned and thrown out, he was just trying to get any kind of public relations win against Trump. And it appears he has whiffed again. And now members of his team are getting skull drug up to the hill to testify. Its not a good time in the special counsels office when you have nothing, and members of your team are being actively investigated.

So the GSA was illegally warned by Trump's amateur transition team. What were they trying to hide?

What no Grand Jury?

(12-18-2017 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

If you want any charges to stick, this is what you dont want to have argued in court. It was a kangaroo court move.

(12-18-2017 11:26 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.

Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

If you want any charges to stick, this is what you dont want to have argued in court. It was a kangaroo court move.

How do you know?

UofM and Pootin sittin in a tree....... K I S S....... you know the rhyme.

(12-18-2017 12:04 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  UofM and Pootin sittin in a tree....... K I S S....... you know the rhyme.

Thats what you're going with? Really?

(12-18-2017 10:31 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:16 AM)fsquid Wrote:  Would love to see the arguments about how those emails were illegally obtained.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

The OP has a link to the letter.
Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

The GSA was warned back when the transition occurred that the records were presidential records and different from government records. The transition act specifies this. Its not that Muehller couldnt have gotten the records. The problem is that he didnt get them the correct way, and in the process scooped up attorney client privileged documents.
If what Muehller did was proper, his team wouldnt have any problem laying out exactly what they did to obtain them and pointing to the section in the law where they were legitimately obtained. Instead, they framed a sentence that said they did it one of two ways.
These records were obtained in september. (Although Trumps team only learned that Muehller had them this psat week.) Sounds like Taint Boy has found nothing on Trump, and decided to do a hard grab on documents in the final hopes of finding something. He knows that anything those documents were used for would probably get overturned and thrown out, he was just trying to get any kind of public relations win against Trump. And it appears he has whiffed again. And now members of his team are getting skull drug up to the hill to testify. Its not a good time in the special counsels office when you have nothing, and members of your team are being actively investigated.

So the GSA was illegally warned by Trump's amateur transition team. What were they trying to hide?

What was illegal about any such warning?

(12-18-2017 12:28 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:31 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 10:05 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 07:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  The OP has a link to the letter.
Basically the transition team has executive privilege, but it was hosted on the GSA website. The transition team owned them, not the GSA. FBI got them from the GSA, so avoided using a warrant as they should have.

I read it, I'd like to see it argued in court. I do know that anytime you are given a .gov email address, you are warned that you have no expectation of privacy.

The GSA was warned back when the transition occurred that the records were presidential records and different from government records. The transition act specifies this. Its not that Muehller couldnt have gotten the records. The problem is that he didnt get them the correct way, and in the process scooped up attorney client privileged documents.
If what Muehller did was proper, his team wouldnt have any problem laying out exactly what they did to obtain them and pointing to the section in the law where they were legitimately obtained. Instead, they framed a sentence that said they did it one of two ways.
These records were obtained in september. (Although Trumps team only learned that Muehller had them this psat week.) Sounds like Taint Boy has found nothing on Trump, and decided to do a hard grab on documents in the final hopes of finding something. He knows that anything those documents were used for would probably get overturned and thrown out, he was just trying to get any kind of public relations win against Trump. And it appears he has whiffed again. And now members of his team are getting skull drug up to the hill to testify. Its not a good time in the special counsels office when you have nothing, and members of your team are being actively investigated.

So the GSA was illegally warned by Trump's amateur transition team. What were they trying to hide?

What was illegal about any such warning?

Nothing was illegal in reality. But according to the alternate reality definition of illegal, that warning was illegal.