Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)

Er, so it looks like the GSA told transition participants that if they used their system and/or devices, everything would be subject to government rules re privacy and disclosure. These were .gov emails, for goodness' sake.

I doubt there's any dirt being done in those emails, but there may be evidence of false statements based on interviews and testimony.
 
Julio3000 said:
Er, so it looks like the GSA told transition participants that if they used their system and/or devices, everything would be subject to government rules re privacy and disclosure. These were .gov emails, for goodness' sake.

I doubt there's any dirt being done in those emails, but there may be evidence of false statements based on interviews and testimony.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the emails may prove useful in backing up any testimony that Flynn may provide.

There has been a strong tendency (and I'm being understated here) for people in the upper echelons of the Trump campaign to provide untrue or misleading answers when asked about certain matters. I'm guessing that this tendency might have continued even while under oath or while answering questions from law enforcement.

So Mueller has had these emails since August and his team has been using them as a guide when questioning various people from the campaign and White House. It wasn't until a week or so ago that someone noticed this. Aye.
 
mqt said:
Setting aside the fact that this is basically just another attempt by the Trump legal team to deflect and cast doubt on the investigation, I'm intrigued by the direction being taken by conservative media here. We've crossed over from "nothing to see here" to trying to find legal loopholes to snuff out the investigation.
Click to expand...

The situation is getting dire for Trump, Kushner, etc. The most curious part is the role his legal team has taken in painting a very rosy picture for him. It is almost as if they are part of the Deep State Conspiracy. Almost legal malpractice if you ask me. It is shocking to see them make all these reassuring public assessments about what is clearly a very dire situation.
 
mqt said:
Setting aside the fact that this is basically just another attempt by the Trump legal team to deflect and cast doubt on the investigation, I'm intrigued by the direction being taken by conservative media here. We've crossed over from "nothing to see here" to trying to find legal loopholes to snuff out the investigation.
Click to expand...

I think at this point it amounts to a high-stakes wager. Congressional Republicans and the right-wing media infrastructure are betting that there is not going to be a killshot. No direct evidence of a criminal conspiracy involving Russia. So they are anticipating the fight to come, over embarrassing circumstantial evidence and obstruction of justice, etc, by undermining the partiality and credibility of the investigators. There's plenty of precedent for this, from Clinton to Iran-Contra, with some success. So even if they lose the majority and are subject to hostile oversight, they've already laid the groundwork for a defense in the grounds of an eternal partisan witch-hunt.
 
attachment.php
 
Julio3000 said:
Er, so it looks like the GSA told transition participants that if they used their system and/or devices, everything would be subject to government rules re privacy and disclosure. These were .gov emails, for goodness' sake.

I doubt there's any dirt being done in those emails, but there may be evidence of false statements based on interviews and testimony.
Click to expand...

If this is the case then there is nothing left to discuss.

can you share the source for the GSA disclosures? Did they make the claim to Trump for America? Is there a signed agreement? What is the assumption when GSA's services are procured?
 
Could be an interesting week of events. Some building chatter of everything from Kushner being indicted, which would set off a chain of events that leads to Mueller being fired on Friday. Given that Friday is the last day before the long Christmas weekend, I think it's a good bet something big happens that day, one way or the other.
 
thethe said:
If this is the case then there is nothing left to discuss.

can you share the source for the GSA disclosures? Did they make the claim to Trump for America? Is there a signed agreement? What is the assumption when GSA's services are procured?
Click to expand...

It's based on an interview with the Deputy Senior Counsel at GSA. His position is that transition officials were individually and collectively aware of the policies wrt privacy, privilege, and law enforcement. The TFA position is that they received a verbal agreement from the Senior Counsel (who died in August) that the GSA would notify them of any law-enforcement requests for information.

It appears that the TFA position boils down to a verbal agreement (whatever that's worth) with a guy who's not in any position to confirm or deny it.
 
Julio3000 said:
It's based on an interview with the Deputy Senior Counsel at GSA. His position is that transition officials were individually and collectively aware of the policies wrt privacy, privilege, and law enforcement. The TFA position is that they received a verbal agreement from the Senior Counsel (who died in August) that the GSA would notify them of any law-enforcement requests for information.

It appears that the TFA position boils down to a verbal agreement (whatever that's worth) with a guy who's not in any position to confirm or deny it.
Click to expand...

I have doubts that something this official would be handled with a verbal agreement. That procedure should be docuented somewhere (SOP).
 
thethe said:
I have doubts that something this official would be handled with a verbal agreement. That procedure should be docuented somewhere (SOP).
Click to expand...

I agree. I think if TSA had a document that underpinned their case they'd be waving it around, rather than referring to a verbal agreement...which is why I'm skeptical of their argument.
 
thethe said:
I have doubts that something this official would be handled with a verbal agreement. That procedure should be docuented somewhere (SOP).
Click to expand...

People involved with prior transitions have also indicated that what the Deputy Senior Counsel described is in fact the arrangement that they worked under. It would not be surprising if this so-called "verbal agreement" never happened. The Deputy Senior Counsel says it never happened as far as he knows. But if it did, it appears not to have been communicated to the career civil servants. I don't think that kind of verbal agreement has any force (even if it had legality) if it is not incorporated into the policy manuals that guide the actions of the civil servants. All they did was follow SOP when Mueller's letter requesting the information landed on their desk.

But I'm sure there is nothing nefarious or troublesome in the emails. Trumpophiles can rest easy.

There is a lesson though for future transition teams to consider: Next time go with a private server. There is space for one in a Chappaqua basement.
 
Julio3000 said:
I agree. I think if TSA had a document that underpinned their case they'd be waving it around, rather than referring to a verbal agreement...which is why I'm skeptical of their argument.
Click to expand...

Seems that it would be a black and white case.
 
Ok, so they got their headline:

"Mueller Improperly Obtained Emails, Trump Lawyers Say"

Some version of that ran in pretty much every outlet yesterday. And, of course, it's true. That is what the TFA lawyers say.

The response is this:

[tw]942278111672127488[/tw]

They could have made that statement without the word "criminal" in it at all. Instead they used it twice. There's definitely a PR battle going on.
 
I believe the GSA is the account owner referenced by Peter Carr. All of these emails are government property. And I believe the doctrine of executive privilege only applies to the sitting president, not the president-elect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top