CSNbbs

The transition records that Taint-BoyMuehller got directly from the GSA were illegally and/or improperly obtained.

Democrats are crapping their pants, because the remedy for this act calls for Muehllers removal. A democratic dipshit tried to deflect from this by sending a tweet out saying that business conducted on government systems are public. That is incorrect. The law that deals with transitions says they are private.

Taint Boy and his team screwed the pooch, and are about to get relieved of their duties.

The Records Are Private

The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential.

On November 16, 2016, roughly ten days after Trump was elected president, the Chief Records Officer of the U.S. Government sent a letter to all federal agencies reminding them that "the materials that PTT members create or receive are not Federal or Presidential records, but are considered private materials."

Yet Mueller seems to have ignored the law. Without a warrant or subpoena, his team of lawyers brazenly demanded these private records from the General Services Administration (GSA) which held custody of the materials. The GSA does this as a service to all incoming presidents out of courtesy, but it neither owns the documents nor is authorized to release them to anyone under any circumstances because they are deemed entirely private.


Muehller is about to get shitcanned. And Manafort and Flynn are about to get off scott free because the dipshits on Muehllers team continued the stupid practices of their past, such as during the Enron prosecution.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/1...moval.html

"HERE, HERE!"

"The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential."

Actually, at no point in either the original 1963 law or the 2000 update do the words "private" and/or "confidential" appear. Thus, the Act does not state that 'all records of transition operations' are private and confidential. Please see below for the text of the laws. There is no legal basis for that claim based upon the letter of the law, as it stands. As an aside, I would encourage reading Opinion pieces from any news organization through a very critical lens especially when they quote federal legal code. Federal law is widely available through official sources and searches can be easily conducted.

To read the full text of the 1963 law, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-1963
To read the 2000 update, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-2000

In addition, in this case the records relating to the transition of presidential authority held on a public (government) system have no reasonable expectation of privacy, which is the foundation for making the argument that a search could be considered unconstitutional. Based on the Constitution, it is inherently impossible for any search to be unconstitutional if no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. For information, see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy.

For background regarding reasonable expectation of privacy as it pertains to presidential transition GSA records, see: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/th...mf3dyMlwP; and the following quote.

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."

Another point - the Trump legal team makes the following argument: The letter also makes a specific claim about communication between the government and the campaign — that Richard Beckler, then the general counsel of the GSA, "acknowledged unequivocally to [the Trump campaign's] legal counsel" in a June 15 discussion that the Trump campaign "owned and controlled" emails, and that "any requests for the production of PTT [Presidential Transition Team] records would therefore be routed to legal counsel for [the Trump campaign]." A discussion and "acknowledgement" is not legally binding, especially when it pertains to federal law and public authority wherein a large amount of legal code already exists, governing the aforementioned.

(12-17-2017 12:31 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]The transition records that Taint-BoyMuehller got directly from the GSA were illegally and/or improperly obtained.

Democrats are crapping their pants, because the remedy for this act calls for Muehllers removal. A democratic dipshit tried to deflect from this by sending a tweet out saying that business conducted on government systems are public. That is incorrect. The law that deals with transitions says they are private.

Taint Boy and his team screwed the pooch, and are about to get relieved of their duties.

The Records Are Private

The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential.

On November 16, 2016, roughly ten days after Trump was elected president, the Chief Records Officer of the U.S. Government sent a letter to all federal agencies reminding them that "the materials that PTT members create or receive are not Federal or Presidential records, but are considered private materials."

Yet Mueller seems to have ignored the law. Without a warrant or subpoena, his team of lawyers brazenly demanded these private records from the General Services Administration (GSA) which held custody of the materials. The GSA does this as a service to all incoming presidents out of courtesy, but it neither owns the documents nor is authorized to release them to anyone under any circumstances because they are deemed entirely private.


Muehller is about to get shitcanned. And Manafort and Flynn are about to get off scott free because the dipshits on Muehllers team continued the stupid practices of their past, such as during the Enron prosecution.


http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/12/1...moval.html

He and his henchmen have put themselves above the law from the start.

(12-17-2017 12:38 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]"The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential."

Actually, at no point in either the original 1963 law or the 2000 update do the words "private" and/or "confidential" appear. Thus, the Act does not state that 'all records of transition operations' are private and confidential. Please see below for the text of the laws. There is no legal basis for that claim based upon the letter of the law, as it stands.

To read the full text of the 1963 law, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-1963
To read the 2000 update, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-2000

you're not wrong on that point in verbatim....

however, .... this one pretty much sums it up.....

Quote:The national interest requires that such transitions in the office of President be accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign.

it has to suck watching your gravy train run out of unethical 'logic'.....

(12-17-2017 12:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2017 12:38 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]"The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential."

Actually, at no point in either the original 1963 law or the 2000 update do the words "private" and/or "confidential" appear. Thus, the Act does not state that 'all records of transition operations' are private and confidential. Please see below for the text of the laws. There is no legal basis for that claim based upon the letter of the law, as it stands.

To read the full text of the 1963 law, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-1963
To read the 2000 update, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-2000

you're not wrong on that point in verbatim....

however, .... this one pretty much sums it up.....

Quote:The national interest requires that such transitions in the office of President be accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign.

it has to suck watching your gravy train run out of unethical 'logic'.....

That portion does not contain any legal basis for the argument that transition records are "private and confidential". In fact, that portion illustrates the point that presidential transition records are to be considered public, as the "conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government" is public record - see, for example, federal law outlining said conduct and disclosure requests and returns on government actions, including the FOIA (a streamlined process for public examination of said conduct) and others.

Illegally-obtained documents and an illegally-obtained FISA warrant via a dnc-funded fake news dossier, and after a year, still nothing. Pathetic.

Shut it down.

(12-17-2017 12:38 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]"The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential."

Actually, at no point in either the original 1963 law or the 2000 update do the words "private" and/or "confidential" appear. Thus, the Act does not state that 'all records of transition operations' are private and confidential. Please see below for the text of the laws. There is no legal basis for that claim based upon the letter of the law, as it stands. As an aside, I would encourage reading Opinion pieces from any news organization through a very critical lens especially when they quote federal legal code. Federal law is widely available through official sources and searches can be easily conducted.

To read the full text of the 1963 law, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-1963
To read the 2000 update, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-2000

In addition, in this case the records relating to the transition of presidential authority held on a public (government) system have no reasonable expectation of privacy, which is the foundation for making the argument that a search could be considered unconstitutional. Based on the Constitution, it is inherently impossible for any search to be unconstitutional if no reasonable expectation of privacy exists. For information, see: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/expectation_of_privacy.

For background regarding reasonable expectation of privacy as it pertains to presidential transition GSA records, see: https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/th...mf3dyMlwP; and the following quote.

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."

Another point - the Trump legal team makes the following argument: The letter also makes a specific claim about communication between the government and the campaign — that Richard Beckler, then the general counsel of the GSA, "acknowledged unequivocally to [the Trump campaign's] legal counsel" in a June 15 discussion that the Trump campaign "owned and controlled" emails, and that "any requests for the production of PTT [Presidential Transition Team] records would therefore be routed to legal counsel for [the Trump campaign]." A discussion and "acknowledgement" is not legally binding, especially when it pertains to federal law and public authority wherein a large amount of legal code already exists, governing the aforementioned.

(12-17-2017 12:56 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2017 12:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2017 12:38 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]"The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential."

Actually, at no point in either the original 1963 law or the 2000 update do the words "private" and/or "confidential" appear. Thus, the Act does not state that 'all records of transition operations' are private and confidential. Please see below for the text of the laws. There is no legal basis for that claim based upon the letter of the law, as it stands.

To read the full text of the 1963 law, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-1963
To read the 2000 update, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-2000

you're not wrong on that point in verbatim....

however, .... this one pretty much sums it up.....

Quote:The national interest requires that such transitions in the office of President be accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign.

it has to suck watching your gravy train run out of unethical 'logic'.....

That portion does not contain any legal basis for the argument that transition records are "private and confidential". In fact, that portion illustrates the point that presidential transition records are to be considered public, as the "conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government" is public record - see, for example, federal law outlining said conduct and disclosure requests and returns on government actions, including the FOIA (a streamlined process for public examination of said conduct) and others.

The GSA transition site states they are PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS, and do not fall under government records. They cant even be foiaed until 5 years after the president leaves office.

If you are going to make an argument about the legality of documents seized in a criminal investigation, you must then make that argument before a court, as the court decides the admissibility of said documents. The fact that the aforementioned legal team has declined to even present said argument speaks volumes. If you are to argue that documents were seized unconstitutionally, then make the argument before a judge that they should be inadmissible. If you cannot make that argument, then they are obviously going to be considered admissible.

(12-17-2017 12:56 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2017 12:53 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2017 12:38 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]"The Presidential Transition Act states that all records of transition operations are private and confidential."

Actually, at no point in either the original 1963 law or the 2000 update do the words "private" and/or "confidential" appear. Thus, the Act does not state that 'all records of transition operations' are private and confidential. Please see below for the text of the laws. There is no legal basis for that claim based upon the letter of the law, as it stands.

To read the full text of the 1963 law, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-1963
To read the 2000 update, see: https://www.gsa.gov/governmentwide-initi...ct-of-2000

you're not wrong on that point in verbatim....

however, .... this one pretty much sums it up.....

Quote:The national interest requires that such transitions in the office of President be accomplished so as to assure continuity in the faithful execution of the laws and in the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government, both domestic and foreign.

it has to suck watching your gravy train run out of unethical 'logic'.....

That portion does not contain any legal basis for the argument that transition records are "private and confidential". In fact, that portion illustrates the point that presidential transition records and public, as the conduct of the affairs of the Federal Government is public record - see, for example, federal law outlining said conduct and disclosure requests and returns on government actions, including the FOIA and others.

I'm fairly certain we both know how legalese can be spun.....

you're cherry picking based on bias.....

I would argue this subset "assure continuity in the faithful execution" and "both domestic and foreign"

that's the overall issue at hand here.....

I not going to argue technical details when the context can be interpreted how one sees fit.....hence, legalese

(12-17-2017 01:07 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]If you are going to make an argument about the legality of documents seized in a criminal investigation, you must then make that argument before a court, as the court decides the admissibility of said documents. The fact that the aforementioned legal team has declined to even present said argument speaks volumes. If you are to argue that documents were seized unconstitutionally, then make the argument before a judge that they should be inadmissible. If you cannot make that argument, then they are obviously going to be considered admissible.

They have begun to file that motion. They only discovered Mueller illegally/improperly obtained the material after they noticed some of the lines of questioning being used on some witnesses. Then they had to go through the process of determining who handed them over.

Here's a novel idea, if you are a prosecutor, how about following the damned law and not do anything unethical. How about not doing something that will get you a "win" in the short term, only to have it evaporate later.

If you are a lawyer wannabe, maybe you should follow up on some of the tactics Team TaintBoy has used in the past, and see how ultimately unsuccessful they ended up being.

'Ole Blue Wrote:Presidential records are government records, by definition. These records are governed by the Presidential Records Act. See the following, from the Presidential Records Act, with particularly relevant sections in bold.

Quote:
§ 2202. Ownership of Presidential records

The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.

...

§ 2205. Exceptions to restricted access

Notwithstanding any restrictions on access imposed pursuant to sections 2204 and 2208--

(1) the Archivist and persons employed by the National Archives and Records Administration who are engaged in the performance of normal archival work shall be permitted access to Presidential records in the custody of the Archivist;

(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available--

(A) pursuant to subpoena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding;

(B) to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of the incumbent President’s office and that is not otherwise available; and

© to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available; and

(3) the Presidential records of a former President shall be available to such former President or the former President’s designated representative.

This part precedes your highlighted part:

(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available--

(12-17-2017 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]They have begun to file the motion.

Will this happen before or after you lock up Obama and Susan Rice?

fwiw, former DOJ attorney, Driscoll just backed ol' blue's position in a non specific manner on Fox....

that's what lawyers do when in the soap box of the boob tube....or those on a bbs

I'm just fascinated by it. I have no side to take in it all, but it's interesting to me to see the different legal arguments. Unless you're a psychic, it's impossible to know exactly what will happen, as none of us know every piece of evidence and every action taken.

(12-17-2017 01:28 PM)cb4029 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2017 01:11 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]They have begun to file the motion.

Will this happen before or after you lock up Obama and Susan Rice?

One would hope after.

(12-17-2017 01:38 PM)Ole Blue Wrote: [ -> ]I'm just fascinated by it. I have no side to take in it all, but it's interesting to me to see the different legal arguments. Unless you're a psychic, it's impossible to know exactly what will happen, as none of us know every piece of evidence and every action taken.

that's fair....why didn't you state that out of the gate?

I personally would enjoy hearing Owl's take on this particular matter.....

(12-17-2017 01:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]fwiw, former DOJ attorney, Driscoll just backed ol' blue's position in a non specific manner on Fox....

that's what lawyers do when in the soap box of the boob tube....or those on a bbs

Some of them are incorrectly believing that because the transition occurs on government email and devices, they are the same as government records. They are not. They are presidential records. There's an entirely different standard applied to them. And they have separate rights associated with them.

We know Muehller didnt subpoena the records. Therefore he would have had to go through the process of a court of appropriate jurisdiction OR simply relied upon Clinton Cronies at the GSA to hand them over. If he didnt go through the court, he was wrong. If he did go through the court, we simply need to know what basis there was given to get the records (dossier related) or what judge they used. (Was it the guy that just recused himself because he was also the FISA judge that signed off on the fake dossier based wiretaps)

Its one of the two prior two methods. And Muehller doesnt seem to want to be very transparent in which method it was. Sad. But taint boy knows it wont be good if it gets out.

Sloppy mistakes made by over zealous partisans.

(12-17-2017 01:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-17-2017 01:34 PM)stinkfist Wrote: [ -> ]fwiw, former DOJ attorney, Driscoll just backed ol' blue's position in a non specific manner on Fox....

that's what lawyers do when in the soap box of the boob tube....or those on a bbs

Some of them are incorrectly believing that because the transition occurs on government email and devices, they are the same as government records. They are not. They are presidential records. There's an entirely different standard applied to them. And they have separate rights associated with them.

We know Muehller didnt subpoena the records. Therefore he would have had to go through the process of a court of appropriate jurisdiction, and not simply relied upon Clinton Cronies at the GSA to hand them over. If he didnt go through the court, he was wrong. If he did go through the court, we simply need to know what basis there was given to get the records (dossier related) or what judge they used. (Was it the guy that just recused himself because he was also the FISA judge that signed off on the fake dossier based wiretaps)

Its one of the two prior two methods. And Muehller doesnt seem to want to be very transparent in which method it was. Sad. But taint boy knows it wont be good if it gets out.

and that's my posit from a common sense perspective based on what was initially presented.....

in no way do I pretend to understand the intricacies of debating the specifics of law....

no question, it's turning into a matter of "who, what, when, how" this gets argued to finality.....

hell, a grand jury hasn't been formed yet....

our job as mere pawns, is to define expectations as current situations continually evolve......this gives the electorate somewhat of a say how those voted into office legislate based on that opinion or not....

this one is XACLY! another in a long line of #henceTrump

#drainthatsumbiatch