Rumor: Trump will fire Mueller in 5 days

[blackangst1]

Trump finds ways to do things that shouldn't be legal or at least kosher. Someone will have to challenge him to stop if he chooses to fire Mueller (one way or another).

You mean like the courts blocking his travel bans?

 

[blackangst1]

While I agree after reading a bit more it's less clear than I thought, I think that Lawfare gives a more evenhanded (and more explicitly law based) appraisal of the situation:

https://www.lawfareblog.com/could-trump-remove-special-counsel-robert-mueller-lessons-watergate

With this in mind it still seems fairly likely Trump can fire Mueller himself if he so chooses.

Interesting article. The whole thing is murky at best, IMHO.

 

[dyna]

Protections were obviously waived whether the transition team realized it or not. Being oblivious to the rules doesn't mean you don't have to live by them. Lack of due diligence has consequences.

Buried somewhere in federal regulations are the rules for using .gov servers. If the transition team did not receive an exception in writing then they're subject to the same rules as everybody else. It's a no-brainer.

I believe Mueller has the emails but hasn't read them yet until this is sorted out. I think its viewed as an area of gray with the rule of thumb being that these emails should not have been obtained. Legally, Mueller may have found a loophole to get them but my assumption is that the courts, either leaning left or right will rule in favor of them not being so easily obtained. The lack of controls to ensure some procedure to get access will lead to future committees and investigations needless accessing emails. Hillary was the smart one for creating her own email servers, she might have known about this and knew the GSA can't prevent anybody from reading them.

 

[Amused]

I believe Mueller has the emails but hasn't read them yet until this is sorted out. I think its viewed as an area of gray with the rule of thumb being that these emails should not have been obtained. Legally, Mueller may have found a loophole to get them but my assumption is that the courts, either leaning left or right will rule in favor of them not being so easily obtained. The lack of controls to ensure some procedure to get access will lead to future committees and investigations needless accessing emails. Hillary was the smart one for creating her own email servers, she might have known about this and knew the GSA can't prevent anybody from reading them.

What court? Were there actually an illegal action here Trump's legal team would have filed to quash them in a federal court. Instead, they have sent a letter to congress and started a propaganda campaign to confuse people about the issue. There was nothing illegal, unethical or even shady about the action.

And no amount of narrative change attempt will make it so.

 

[interchange]

You mean like the courts blocking his travel bans?

Yes

 

[blackangst1]

Yes

OK good. I was hoping you werent saying noone is holding him accountable for illegal legislation.

 

[dyna]

What court? Were there actually an illegal action here Trump's legal team would have filed to quash them in a federal court. Instead, they have sent a letter to congress and started a propaganda campaign to confuse people about the issue. There was nothing illegal, unethical or even shady about the action.

And no amount of narrative change attempt will make it so.

Virtually every article that I have read on this topic says they can request the courts to put this on hold. Mueller isn't above the law, areas of gray are interpreted by the courts. Mueller is taking the approach of asking for forgiveness before permission. It was a non-transparent approach to getting the emails. Why did Mueller handle it that way? What was he afraid of? Getting rejected?

This is exactly what the courts are meant to resolve.

 

[fskimospy]

Virtually every article that I have read on this topic says they can request the courts to put this on hold. Mueller isn't above the law, areas of gray are interpreted by the courts. Mueller is taking the approach of asking for forgiveness before permission. It was a non-transparent approach to getting the emails. Why did Mueller handle it that way? What was he afraid of? Getting rejected?

This is exactly what the courts are meant to resolve.

So why are Trump's lawyers writing letters to random congressmen instead of to Mueller or the courts?

Hint: you know why.

 

[Amused]

Virtually every article that I have read on this topic says they can request the courts to put this on hold. Mueller isn't above the law, areas of gray are interpreted by the courts. Mueller is taking the approach of asking for forgiveness before permission. It was a non-transparent approach to getting the emails. Why did Mueller handle it that way? What was he afraid of? Getting rejected?

This is exactly what the courts are meant to resolve.

Which is why Trump's lawyers have filed no motions to quash, nothing. They have filed nothing legal about this.

Why do you think they haven't?

Because they know if they do, and it inevitably gets shot down, they can't play this propaganda game and dupe people into thinking there was something wrong with this.

People like you.

 

[interchange]

OK good. I was hoping you werent saying noone is holding him accountable for illegal legislation.

Nope I'm saying that something being illegal or questionable won't stop him. You have to actually take action to stop him.

 

[dyna]

So why are Trump's lawyers writing letters to random congressmen instead of to Mueller or the courts?

Hint: you know why.

I never said it was illegal what Mueller did. His tactic to probing into politicians private communication is a precedent that no politician wants to be set. I still says its a loophole that will be squashed and unilaterally approved by all congressman. They probably never expected someone would dare to take it to this level.

 

[fskimospy]

I never said it was illegal what Mueller did. His tactic to probing into politicians private communication is a precedent that no politician wants to be set. I still says its a loophole that will be squashed and unilaterally approved by all congressman. They probably never expected someone would dare to take it to this level.

Of course it won't be approved by all congressmen, don't be silly. I imagine most of them think it is entirely appropriate for the special counsel to look at transition materials for criminal activity.

 

[Amused]

I never said it was illegal what Mueller did. His tactic to probing into politicians private communication is a precedent that no politician wants to be set. I still says its a loophole that will be squashed and unilaterally approved by all congressman. They probably never expected someone would dare to take it to this level.

Um, no. This is part of the FOIA and is going no where. This was not a loophole, but an intentional transparency law.

 

[Pens1566]

I never said it was illegal what Mueller did. His tactic to probing into politicians private communication is a precedent that no politician wants to be set. I still says its a loophole that will be squashed and unilaterally approved by all congressman. They probably never expected someone would dare to take it to this level.

What private communication are you referring to?

 

[Jhhnn]

Virtually every article that I have read on this topic says they can request the courts to put this on hold. Mueller isn't above the law, areas of gray are interpreted by the courts. Mueller is taking the approach of asking for forgiveness before permission. It was a non-transparent approach to getting the emails. Why did Mueller handle it that way? What was he afraid of? Getting rejected?

This is exactly what the courts are meant to resolve.

So why haven't the transition team lawyers done that? Because it's settled law. The transition team had no special privileges, certainly not in writing. It would probably be illegal to grant any.

They can't claim executive privilege because Trump was not yet the Chief executive & they can't claim attorney client privilege because of lack of due diligence on their part. After the buttery males incident, everybody & their dog knows or should know that there's no privacy on .gov servers.

Why did Mueller do it that way? Because the law grants him that ability, plain & simple. When investigators have information suspects don't realize they have then investigators can lead the suspects into demonstrable lies. It's a common technique.

 

[dyna]

Um, no. This is part of the FOIA and is going no where. This was not a loophole, but an intentional transparency law.

What private communication are you referring to?

It could be brainstorming... They are working on aligning on a strategic direction for some issue such as healthcare/middle east/global warming etc.... 95% of the time if you put 10 people in a room to solve a problem they have 10 different ways they want to handle. As a team they should eventually align on end direction. The banter and ideas are kept private until they have consensus. This happens in every industry in the world, they internal discussions that are never made public, it is final consensus that is made public.

 

[dyna]

So why haven't the transition team lawyers done that? Because it's settled law. The transition team had no special privileges, certainly not in writing. It would probably be illegal to grant any.

They can't claim executive privilege because Trump was not yet the Chief executive & they can't claim attorney client privilege because of lack of due diligence on their part. After the buttery males incident, everybody & their dog knows or should know that there's no privacy on .gov servers.

Why did Mueller do it that way? Because the law grants him that ability, plain & simple. When investigators have information suspects don't realize they have then investigators can lead the suspects into demonstrable lies. It's a common technique.

Your probably right that Trump and Co can't do anything but in my mind its a loophole(not illegal but too easy to get access to sensitive info). I am just trying use common sense and be rational on the topic for future use cases. Faux investigations could be started up to simply to get access to private communication. I'm not saying this is a faux investigation but it is setting a dangerous precedent that could be abused. The simple solution, is that access to these materials have some oversight to determine if the reasoning for the obtaining the materials is legitimate.

 

[Pens1566]

It could be brainstorming... They are working on aligning on a strategic direction for some issue such as healthcare/middle east/global warming etc.... 95% of the time if you put 10 people in a room to solve a problem they have 10 different ways they want to handle. As a team they should eventually align on end direction. The banter and ideas are kept private until they have consensus. This happens in every industry in the world, they internal discussions that are never made public, it is final consensus that is made public.

That's a perfectly reasonable scenario ... if it weren't for that pesky bit about being done on a govt IT system where there is an announced warning about no such thing as privacy.

 

[fskimospy]

That's a perfectly reasonable scenario ... if it weren't for that pesky bit about being done on a govt IT system where there is an announced warning about no such thing as privacy.

Yeah, anyone who has ever used a government IT system knows that upfront when you sign the paperwork (and in my experience, when you put in your login credentials) you get a GIANT WARNING that nothing you do on that network is private and is all subject to recording and monitoring. The government is not like private industry and the same expectations of privacy do not apply.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Yeah, anyone who has ever used a government IT system knows that upfront when you sign the paperwork (and in my experience, when you put in your login credentials) you get a GIANT WARNING that nothing you do on that network is private and is all subject to recording and monitoring. The government is not like private industry and the same expectations of privacy do not apply.

Shit ATT was pretty clear about your expectation to privacy at work using company phones or computers, there was none, do not expect any privacy ever.

 

[hal2kilo]

Yeah, anyone who has ever used a government IT system knows that upfront when you sign the paperwork (and in my experience, when you put in your login credentials) you get a GIANT WARNING that nothing you do on that network is private and is all subject to recording and monitoring. The government is not like private industry and the same expectations of privacy do not apply.

Are there private companies that let you keep your email private on their server?

 

[shortylickens]

Well, its been five days.


Any news?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Today, Friday December 22, 2017, is the 5th day from this prediction so will we see it today? I think not.

But in other news Trump is about to run off to Mar-a-largo yet again for yet another vacation since taking office.

Trump Golf Count: 79*




Cost to Taxpayer: At least $91,655,424
*Visits to golf clubs since inauguration, with evidence of playing golf on at least 37 visits. See our FAQ for answers to frequently asked questions and our complete data table for a list of Trump's outings. A breakdown of the costs included is given here.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your probably right that Trump and Co can't do anything but in my mind its a loophole(not illegal but too easy to get access to sensitive info). I am just trying use common sense and be rational on the topic for future use cases. Faux investigations could be started up to simply to get access to private communication. I'm not saying this is a faux investigation but it is setting a dangerous precedent that could be abused. The simple solution, is that access to these materials have some oversight to determine if the reasoning for the obtaining the materials is legitimate.

Like this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/15/us/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-foia.html

 

[fskimospy]

Are there private companies that let you keep your email private on their server?

No, but law enforcement would still need a subpoena or warrant to access the private company's email. Not so in this case.