Rumor: Trump will fire Mueller in 5 days

[Amused]

My point was that both parties have their fair share of crazies and that Democrats in particular own the vast majority of crazies when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

From your link.....

Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]​

https://www.livescience.com/28428-conspiracy-beliefs-by-political-party.html

Those who identify as Republican have Democrats beat hands down in magical conspiracy thinking.

As far as your one cherry picked poll. It asks only if the act was an inside job. It does not ask about all the other 9/11 conspiracies more likely to be held by Republicans.

 

[woolfe9998]

What a president believes is indeed very important. IIRC Obama was so incredibly naive that he actually believed that Russia wasn't one of the largest geopolitical threats in the world...and that overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya was somehow a good idea. Yes indeed...what a president believes can be extremely important....and sometimes not so much.

Wow, that is lame even by your standards. Whether Russia was or wasn't "one of the largest geopolitical threats" is a common opinion for any elected official. In a given case, they could be right or wrong. What we have with Trump is a man who claims elections were rigged against him, damn well knowing it is a lie, and knowing that people will believe him anyway. Reasonable minds can disagree about the degree of threat posed by a particular country. Reasonable minds do not claim, or believe, that an election was rigged with zero evidence to back it up. Nor do reasonable minds deny a scientific conclusion urged by 97% of all scientists performing research in that area. Having an incorrect opinion on geopolitics is not the same thing as believing a fringe conspiracy theory.

 

[Jhhnn]

And don't forget the one about Michelle being a tranny!

BTW...Democrats are the ones who own "911 was an inside job".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ust-for-conservatives/?utm_term=.e42219e4892c

Every duh-flection you can muster, huh? Even a 10 year old poll...

I'll play, anyway. Conservatives believe in a whole complex of outright lies-

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...re_more_susceptible_to_believing_in_lies.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/poll-republicans-wmds-iraq-114016

Unsurprisingly, they somehow believe in Donald Trump, too, despite him being an obvious bullshit artist & charlatan. Decades of right wing propaganda have obviously taken a toll.

 

[bshole]

What a president believes is indeed very important. IIRC Obama was so incredibly naive that he actually believed that Russia wasn't one of the largest geopolitical threats in the world...and that overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya was somehow a good idea. Yes indeed...what a president believes is extremely important.

According to the rest of the world in 2013, America was the largest geopolitical threat in the world. That has certainly ratcheted up since Trump got into office. I can't think of any data point that would contravene world opinion of our threat to them. We have butchered our way through a slew of countries for no apparent reason other than they were unable to protect themselves. Add Yemen to the list by the way.

This is what empires do when they are dying.....

https://www.good.is/articles/the-world-is-afraid-of-americans

 

[imported_tajmahal]

It's gonna happen guys.

Ask yourself the question "Will Trump do this incredibly stupid and dangerous and destructive thing that he has threatened to do?"

Of course he will! Like the scorpion, it's in his nature to do the most stupid thing possible.

It's not going to happen, Why would President Trump increase his risk when Mueller and the probe members are so busy shooting themselves in the foot?

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...of-transition-emails-likely-violated-the-law/

"According to published reports, Special Counsel Robert Mueller engaged in a mass seizure of all emails of the Trump transition team without even a warrant or a subpoena. In my opinion, a mass seizure – as is alleged here against Mueller – cannot conform to either Fourth Amendment standards or attorney-client privilege protections. The questions boils down to this: was there a reason for the individuals communicating by email, including with their lawyers, to believe their communications were private or privileged? Or, did the individuals forever waive or “implicitly consent” to any future search or seizure of their emails?

The Supreme Court in 2010 “counsels caution” before too soon defining “the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices” until popular use of the technology used was better developed socially. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010). In other words, do most people expect privacy in that use of technology to communicate, or do they assume it is equivalent to talking in an open office where anyone from the public can walk by? The court made clear a government search was not reasonable if not “justified at its inception” or “excessively intrusive” or “not reasonably related to the objectives of the search.”

Put simply, the use of a government server, like the use of an employer’s server, does not control the privilege or privacy analysis. Instead, courts typically employ a four-factor test, that tends to be very fact-intensive, email-specific, and individual-specific. (In re Reserve Fund Securities and Derivative Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). First, whether the government or company maintains a policy banning personal use. Second, whether the government or employer monitors the use of the email. Third, whether third
parties have a right of access to the emails beyond technical audits and maintenance. Fourth, whether the government or employer notifies the individual of the limits on privacy in the emails, whether the individual was aware of those policies, the use of those policies, and the monitoring of those policies. It boils down to whether a person in the individual’s shoes would have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their email communications.

A fifth factor is relevant in the Fourth Amendment context: ......................................................................."

 

[zinfamous]

My point was that both parties have their fair share of crazies and that Democrats in particular own the vast majority of crazies when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

From your link.....

Rasmussen Reports published the results of their poll May 4, 2007. According to their press release, "Overall, 22% of all voters believe the President knew about the attacks in advance. A slightly larger number, 29%, believe the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. White Americans are less likely than others to believe that either the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance. Young Americans are more likely than their elders to believe the President or the CIA knew about the attacks in advance.", "Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure." and "Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view."[18]​

I hope this question is easy for you, but let's see:

How does "believe Bush had advanced warning" = "inside job"?

Do you understand the difference between those two implications? Do you?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Having an incorrect opinion on geopolitics is not the same thing as believing a fringe conspiracy theory.

Agree. One is much worse than the other in regard to potential significance.

 

[HomerJS]

It's not going to happen, Why would President Trump increase his risk when Mueller and the probe members are so busy shooting themselves in the foot?

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...of-transition-emails-likely-violated-the-law/

"According to published reports, Special Counsel Robert Mueller engaged in a mass seizure of all emails of the Trump transition team without even a warrant or a subpoena. In my opinion, a mass seizure – as is alleged here against Mueller – cannot conform to either Fourth Amendment standards or attorney-client privilege protections. The questions boils down to this: was there a reason for the individuals communicating by email, including with their lawyers, to believe their communications were private or privileged? Or, did the individuals forever waive or “implicitly consent” to any future search or seizure of their emails?

The Supreme Court in 2010 “counsels caution” before too soon defining “the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices” until popular use of the technology used was better developed socially. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010). In other words, do most people expect privacy in that use of technology to communicate, or do they assume it is equivalent to talking in an open office where anyone from the public can walk by? The court made clear a government search was not reasonable if not “justified at its inception” or “excessively intrusive” or “not reasonably related to the objectives of the search.”

Put simply, the use of a government server, like the use of an employer’s server, does not control the privilege or privacy analysis. Instead, courts typically employ a four-factor test, that tends to be very fact-intensive, email-specific, and individual-specific. (In re Reserve Fund Securities and Derivative Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). First, whether the government or company maintains a policy banning personal use. Second, whether the government or employer monitors the use of the email. Third, whether third
parties have a right of access to the emails beyond technical audits and maintenance. Fourth, whether the government or employer notifies the individual of the limits on privacy in the emails, whether the individual was aware of those policies, the use of those policies, and the monitoring of those policies. It boils down to whether a person in the individual’s shoes would have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their email communications.

A fifth factor is relevant in the Fourth Amendment context: ......................................................................."

That entire case is based on personal use of public telecom devices. In Trump's case transition team communications are not personal use.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I hope this question is easy for you, but let's see:

How does "believe Bush had advanced warning" = "inside job"?

Do you understand the difference between those two implications? Do you?

The meaning of "inside job" means that over 50% of Democrats believed it was likely that the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-...n-half-of-democrats-believed-bush-knew-035224

Facts can be really inconvenient sometimes.

 

[Amused]

It's not going to happen, Why would President Trump increase his risk when Mueller and the probe members are so busy shooting themselves in the foot?

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analy...of-transition-emails-likely-violated-the-law/

"According to published reports, Special Counsel Robert Mueller engaged in a mass seizure of all emails of the Trump transition team without even a warrant or a subpoena. In my opinion, a mass seizure – as is alleged here against Mueller – cannot conform to either Fourth Amendment standards or attorney-client privilege protections. The questions boils down to this: was there a reason for the individuals communicating by email, including with their lawyers, to believe their communications were private or privileged? Or, did the individuals forever waive or “implicitly consent” to any future search or seizure of their emails?

The Supreme Court in 2010 “counsels caution” before too soon defining “the existence, and extent, of privacy expectations enjoyed by employees when using employer-provided communication devices” until popular use of the technology used was better developed socially. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010). In other words, do most people expect privacy in that use of technology to communicate, or do they assume it is equivalent to talking in an open office where anyone from the public can walk by? The court made clear a government search was not reasonable if not “justified at its inception” or “excessively intrusive” or “not reasonably related to the objectives of the search.”

Put simply, the use of a government server, like the use of an employer’s server, does not control the privilege or privacy analysis. Instead, courts typically employ a four-factor test, that tends to be very fact-intensive, email-specific, and individual-specific. (In re Reserve Fund Securities and Derivative Litigation, 275 F.R.D. 154 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). First, whether the government or company maintains a policy banning personal use. Second, whether the government or employer monitors the use of the email. Third, whether third
parties have a right of access to the emails beyond technical audits and maintenance. Fourth, whether the government or employer notifies the individual of the limits on privacy in the emails, whether the individual was aware of those policies, the use of those policies, and the monitoring of those policies. It boils down to whether a person in the individual’s shoes would have had no reasonable expectation of privacy in their email communications.

A fifth factor is relevant in the Fourth Amendment context: ......................................................................."

So...

You cherry pick an obviously biased opinion from among the tiny minority and post it as fact?

Your echo chamber is seriously delusional.

Let's look at this guy's articles,. shall we?

https://lawandcrime.com/author/robertn/

Oh boy.

Yeah, this guy is not only consistently wrong (RE: Every article he wrote about the Palin v NYT lawsuit claiming she would win and had a slam dunk case... that was ultimately dismissed) he's consistently wrong favoring one side and one side only. Trump and the GOP.

Biased guy is biased.

This is what's wrong with confirmation bias. You choose to read and believe only that material which supports what you want to believe, rather than look at the subject objectively. After doing so, you find yourself posting links to the most painfully biased and ridiculously retarded articles on the web.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So...

You cherry pick an obviously biased opinion from among the tiny minority and post it as fact?

Your echo chamber is seriously delusional.

Let's look at this guy's articles,. shall we?

https://lawandcrime.com/author/robertn/

Oh boy.

Yeah, this guy is not only consistently wrong (RE: Every article he wrote about the Palin v NYT lawsuit claiming she would win and had a slam dunk case... that was ultimately dismissed) he's consistently wrong favoring one side and one side only. Trump and the GOP.

Biased guy is biased.

This is what's wrong with confirmation bias. You choose to read and believe only that material which supports what you want to believe, rather than look at the subject objectively. After doing so, you find yourself posting links to the most painfully biased and ridiculously retarded articles on the web.

He's cited various cases that have to do with 4th Amendment search and seizure precedents that have some connection to what Mueller did when he seized tens of thousands of emails without a warrant or a subpoena. Frankly I don't understand why Mueller didn't err on the side of caution and get a warrant for them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

He's cited various cases that have to do with 4th Amendment search and seizure precedents that have some connection to what Mueller did when he seized tens of thousands of emails without a warrant or a subpoena. Frankly I don't understand why Mueller didn't err on the side of caution and get a warrant for them.

I heard that Mueller did get a subpoena and it was the GSA's legal obligation to notify the Trump administration, not Mueller.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I heard that Mueller did get a subpoena and it was the GSA's legal obligation to notify the Trump administration, not Mueller.

I had heard that Mueller didn't have a subpoena. Thanks i'll check.

 

[Jhhnn]

He's cited various cases that have to do with 4th Amendment search and seizure precedents that have some connection to what Mueller did when he seized tens of thousands of emails without a warrant or a subpoena. Frankly I don't understand why Mueller didn't err on the side of caution and get a warrant for them.

Bullshit. The govt has every right to look at the data on their own servers. That's why Pruitt uses his own personal devices in a specially built soundproof booth, isn't it?

 

[Amused]

He's cited various cases that have to do with 4th Amendment search and seizure precedents that have some connection to what Mueller did when he seized tens of thousands of emails without a warrant or a subpoena. Frankly I don't understand why Mueller didn't err on the side of caution and get a warrant for them.

Unsurprisingly, irellevant to this case.


BuzzFeed interviewed Lenny Loewentritt, Deputy Counsel (who was named in the letter as hearing some fabled assurance of privacy) last night. To wit, from their piece:

“Beckler never made that commitment,” he said of the claim that any requests for transition records would be routed to the Trump campaign’s counsel.

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.

As to whether the Trump campaign should have been informed of the request, Loewentritt said, “That’s between the Special Counsel and the transition team.”

Ok, so again, it seems pretty clear that this is just another excuse for someone to posture politically in an effort to pile more pressure on Mueller. That is, if you’re looking for some kind of legally viable excuse to shut down the investigation, this ain’t it.

Case. Fucking. Closed.

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.

Any further attempt to paint this as an illegal action is attempting to create a fictional narrative as your post did.

And while the right-wing spin machine is attempting to feed you this narrative, the ENTIRE rest of the legal world says the exact opposite.

You're like an anti-vaxxer choosing to believe Wakefield's one retracted study over 46,000 contradicting studies.

Confirmation bias, son. You're soaking in it.

 

[bshole]

The meaning of "inside job" means that over 50% of Democrats believed it was likely that the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East".

https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-...n-half-of-democrats-believed-bush-knew-035224

Facts can be really inconvenient sometimes.

Ouch. That is pretty much game set and match. Thank you Doc for going the data and evidence route. I absolutely did learn something on this thread that I did not know before.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Bullshit. The govt has every right to look at the data on their own servers. That's why Pruitt uses his own personal devices in a specially built soundproof booth, isn't it?

it cracks me up. "data on the government's servers isn't government property".... yeah....right....

edit: see amused's post.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I heard that Mueller did get a subpoena and it was the GSA's legal obligation to notify the Trump administration, not Mueller.

Checked and it appears no subpoena.
"The transition team lawyer's letter to Congress appeared to confirm that Mueller's office obtained the emails via an administrative request.

"Specifically, on August 23, 2017, the FBI sent a letter (i.e., not a subpoena) to career GSA staff requesting copies of the emails, laptops, cell phones, and other materials associated with nine [transition team] members responsible for national security and policy matters," the letter said. "

http://www.businessinsider.com/muel...sands-of-trump-transition-team-emails-2017-12

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I had heard that Mueller didn't have a subpoena. Thanks i'll check.

This came from Napolitano. I'll check as well.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Checked and it appears no subpoena.
"The transition team lawyer's letter to Congress appeared to confirm that Mueller's office obtained the emails via an administrative request.

"Specifically, on August 23, 2017, the FBI sent a letter (i.e., not a subpoena) to career GSA staff requesting copies of the emails, laptops, cell phones, and other materials associated with nine [transition team] members responsible for national security and policy matters," the letter said. "

http://www.businessinsider.com/muel...sands-of-trump-transition-team-emails-2017-12

If true...Mueller is a f*cking idiot.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

If i'm soaking in it I'm afraid you've drowned.
Sorry I'm not going to be bullied by your "Case. Fucking. Closed" I'm perfectly happy to wait and see how it plays out.

Unsurprisingly, irellevant to this case.


BuzzFeed interviewed Lenny Loewentritt, Deputy Counsel (who was named in the letter as hearing some fabled assurance of privacy) last night. To wit, from their piece:

“Beckler never made that commitment,” he said of the claim that any requests for transition records would be routed to the Trump campaign’s counsel.

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.

As to whether the Trump campaign should have been informed of the request, Loewentritt said, “That’s between the Special Counsel and the transition team.”

Ok, so again, it seems pretty clear that this is just another excuse for someone to posture politically in an effort to pile more pressure on Mueller. That is, if you’re looking for some kind of legally viable excuse to shut down the investigation, this ain’t it.

Case. Fucking. Closed.

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.

Any further attempt to paint this as an illegal action is attempting to create a fictional narrative as your post did.

And while the right-wing spin machine is attempting to feed you this narrative, the ENTIRE rest of the legal world says the exact opposite.

You're like an anti-vaxxer choosing to believe Wakefield's one retracted study over 46,000 contradicting studies.

Confirmation bias, son. You're soaking in it.

 

[Amused]

Checked and it appears no subpoena.
"The transition team lawyer's letter to Congress appeared to confirm that Mueller's office obtained the emails via an administrative request.

"Specifically, on August 23, 2017, the FBI sent a letter (i.e., not a subpoena) to career GSA staff requesting copies of the emails, laptops, cell phones, and other materials associated with nine [transition team] members responsible for national security and policy matters," the letter said. "

http://www.businessinsider.com/muel...sands-of-trump-transition-team-emails-2017-12

Funny how you didn't quote the part that he didn't need a subpoena.

You'll even cherry pick to confirm your bias from the same article.

Sad.

 

[Amused]

If i'm soaking in it I'm afraid you've drowned.
Sorry I'm not going to be bullied by your "Case. Fucking. Closed" I'm perfectly happy to wait and see how it plays out.

Tell me, why hasn't the Trump legal team filed for a court order to quash?

Why?

I'll be waiting.

 

[zinfamous]

I'm trying to figure out how a request to turn over documents that is honored by the willing party, is suddenly illegal because it wasn't done so through a subpoena?

Usually, a subpoena is required if someone is unwilling to turn over information, no? Apparently the transition team was all-too willing to comply. Perhaps the real issue here is that they are all as dumb as we all knew they were?

 

[vi edit]

If true...Mueller is a f*cking idiot.

3700 pages of transition documents were already available through FOIA requests. These aren't as protected as you think they are.

https://www.americanoversight.org/trump-gsa-emails