quote:

Originally posted by rh:
Regarding Mueller's acquiring all of the Presidential transition team's emails:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

It is certainly an important political issue, but perhaps not a Constitutional one. Maybe there is one. I’m not seeing one and thought perhaps you had. Sorry.

Trump's legal team is alleging that Mueller's special counsel violated the Presidential transition team's 4th Amendment rights. The legal question is, who owns those emails? If the Federal government owns the emails, then Mueller's witch-hunt proceeds. If just some of those 10,000 emails were personal property, then Mueller engaged in "unlawful conduct" as alleged. The courts must decide this matter. Neither parties will stop arguing this embryonic case until it is decided by SCOTUS. My thinking is ahead of the "news", but the House has already concurred with me per a prior post by sdy.

The courts may well be involved in deciding, but that does not mean Supreme Court. Unless the case presents an issue of Constitutional interpretation, conlict in the circuits (impossible here), or similar, the Supreme Court will not hear it. Many disputes among government officials and entities are resolved in court, not the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit would be the final say, unless an issue appropriate for Supreme Court review develops.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
The courts may well be involved in deciding, but that does not mean Supreme Court. Unless the case presents an issue of Constitutional interpretation, conlict in the circuits (impossible here), or similar, the Supreme Court will not hear it. Many disputes among government officials and entities are resolved in court, not the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit would be the final say, unless an issue appropriate for Supreme Court review develops.

I have little understanding of the Federal court system whereas you are knowledgeable of the Circuits. What we know is that Trump's legal team wants the matter of Mueller to be decided by courts and so does the House. We also know that President Trump will not accept an unfavorable decision if he has other options. President Trump's legal team is arguing that this matter of the ownership of transition team emails affects all future Presidential administrations. Their argument seems valid to me, and the wording of their argument suggests that President Trump's legal team wants this matter to ultimately be decided by SCOTUS. That is their threat, at least.

Fox interview w Alan Dershowitz about the transition emails.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/568...4001/?#sp=show-clips

Dershowitz says it is a close call as to whether Muellar can take the emails w/o a warrant.

He also says Muellar is being sloppy and opening himself up to criticism in the investigation.

At the very end, Dershowitz says "I generally don't allow my clients to speak to the FBI unless it is under extraordinary circumstances"

President Trump released a National Security Strategy

It is 55 pages

link:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-...-12-18-2017-0905.pdf

Thanks for the link. Just so everyone knows, the NSS is released by every administration every few years. Kind of an "update as needed" document, so there may be one a few years in a row, then 3-4 yrs without a new one.

Skimming the intro letters and tables of contents of Obama's 2015 NSS and this one, biggest changes that pop out are "climate change" is gone and Trump puts border security first coming out of the gate. Obama's didn't mention the border in the security section (or likely at all).

Interestingly, just skimming, the 29 page 2015 document doesn't seem to say much specific (meanders, generalizes,) the over twice as long 2017 doc is actually more direct and to the point. Easy reading bolded section headlines with specific strategies to address every area. I will definitely read the whole doc when I get the chance.

Everyone using a Federal computer, and everyone logging into a Federal website, understands and accepts that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and that all transactions are subject to monitoring, copying, disclosure, etc., to "authorized" personnel.

quote:

Originally posted by mikeyspizza:
Everyone using a Federal computer, and everyone logging into a Federal website, understands and accepts that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, and that all transactions are subject to monitoring, copying, disclosure, etc., to "authorized" personnel.

Yes, but said monitoring is by the same agency for purposes of security and compliance with usage guidelines. A separate federal LE agency obtaining another agencies emails w/o a warrant as part of their investigation is very troubling to say the least.

Yeah, the GSA has access to all of those communications on their servers, sure.

https://www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/memos/ac09-2017

November 16, 2016

MEMORANDUM TO FEDERAL AGENCY RECORDS OFFICERS: Guidance Relating to President-Elect Transition Team Materials

The President-elect’s Transition Team (PETT) represents the President-elect during the 2016-2017 Presidential transition. The materials that PETT members create or receive are not Federal or Presidential records, but are considered private materials.

However, transition briefing materials created by a Federal agency and agency communications with the PETT are Federal records and must be managed in accordance with an approved agency records schedule.

If a PETT member is appointed to an agency position as part of the new Administration, the status of PETT materials that the individual brings to the agency may change at that time. If PETT materials are incorporated as agency working files, they become records under either the Federal Records Act (FRA), for individuals working at Federal agencies, or the Presidential Records Act (PRA), for individuals working in PRA creating entities of the Executive Office of the President.

If the PETT materials are kept separate from Federal agency files or from files of a PRA entity, then they remain private materials.

If you have any questions concerning this guidance, please contact the appraisal archivist assigned to work with your agency.

LAURENCE BREWER
Chief Records Officer
for the U.S. Government

An animatronic President Trump has arrived at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida.

The robotic Trump stands next to Abraham Lincoln, and remarks that "to be American is to be an optimist."

Earlier this year, Disney was rumored to be reconsidering having the animatronic Trump deliver remarks, which would have represented a break with a tradition that dates to 1993. However, Trump recorded his own lines earlier this year.

The animatronic President Trump has arrived at the Hall of Presidents at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida — and like every American president since Bill Clinton, the robotic Trump has a speaking role.

"Above all, to be American is to be an optimist — to believe that we can always do better — and that the best days of our great nation are still ahead of us," says Trump, in part, according to the Orlando Sentinel. "It’s a privilege to serve as the President of the United States, to stand here among so many great leaders of our past, and to work on behalf of the American people."

The Hall of Presidents is one of Disney World's oldest attractions, first opening in 1971. Visitors are treated to a short film on the history of the American presidency, followed by the grand reveal of exactingly-crafted audio-animatronic versions of every president to date. Lincoln, Washington, and the sitting president all deliver short speeches.

According to The New York Times, Trump "stands next to a seated Abraham Lincoln in the center of the stage with his signature hair, his suit jacket unbuttoned and his tie dangling extra low." While Disney hasn't yet released robo-Trump's full comments, you can watch a video preview of his appearance below.

http://www.businessinsider.com...f-presidents-2017-12

LEGAL ANALYSIS: Why Mueller’s Seizure 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: whether the government gave an individual notice and the individual had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent to the future search of their emails. Courts held individuals who agreed, as a condition of employment to “any future searches” did not waive their right against such searches because the waiver failed to give them the “right to refuse to give consent to the future search.” For the government to claim implied consent or waiver, “requires clear notice that one’s conduct may result in a search being conducted of areas which the person has been warned are subject to search,” and such notice must ensure an individual “had knowledge of the right to refuse to give consent.” (Pure Power Boot Camp v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, 587 F.Supp.2d 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Hence, a broad waiver was found inadequate to permit a search. (Anobile v. Pellegrino, 303 F.3d 107, 124-25 (2d. Cir. 2002). The Supreme Court made it clear the question usually “must be addressed on a case-by-case basis” and rarely subject to blanket waivers of Fourth Amendment liberties. (City of Ontario, Cal. V. Quon, 560 U.S. 746 (2010).) As the court reiterated, “individuals do not lose Fourth Amendment rights” merely because they use government-provided servers, offices, or equipment. (O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987).

Courts held that an employee has a reasonably expectation of privacy in the contents of his computer even when given specific notice the computers could not be used for personal purposes and the individual had authorized disclosure for technical and maintenance audits. Leventhal v. Knapek, 266 F.3d 64, 74 (2d. Cir. 2001). Attorney-client privilege is broader. As courts have held, emails between government employees remained privileged even though sent over government email servers. (In re County of Erie, 473 F.3d 413 (2d Cir. 2007). Courts held an ex-employee could assert attorney-client privilege against use of such emails by his company even though emails were located on employer’s computer and employer gave employee notice any documents stored on computer not protected. (Curto v. Medical World Communications (E.D. N.Y. 2006).

The Mueller search runs afoul of many of these established court precedents and Fourth Amendment privacy and privilege principles. First, it appears Mueller searched and seized every email, without any kind of categorical or keyword search. This is exactly the kind of search the Supreme Court made clear was not allowed under the Fourth Amendment. This means Mueller can only prevail if he didn’t seize a single email of a single individual that the individual could have any expectation of either personal privacy or attorney client privilege in.

The primary excuses proffered so far for the broad seizure is the faulty assumption the use of a government server waived all privacy and all privilege of every email ever made over that server. As identified above, that has never been the law. The security and efficacy of government-owned servers for transition employees are not intended as a trap for the unwary to forever forfeit their privacy and privilege rights in their communications. Indeed, doing so would undermine use of such communications, and invite Hillary Clinton type bathroom closet email servers for everybody.

Mueller’s problem here is these were not even government employee emails; they were the emails of private individuals stored temporarily on a government server, and publicly declared to be “private materials” as a matter of custom, practice and the public policy of the National Archives. As Professor Jonathan Turley identifies, the National Archives recognize transition email records “are not federal or presidential records, but considered private materials.”

The only “notice” evidence otherwise given publicly is that an agreement between the GSA and the transition team identified the possibility of technical and maintenance audits, with some claiming this as a “waiver” of all privacy and privilege rights in the emails forever. Here again, the law does not support such a claim; even cases with much more specific notices and much less invasive searches, found privacy and privilege objections persisted. So far, a striking lack of arguments and evidence has been mounted for claiming every single email lacked any privacy or privilege.

It appears to me, Mueller deliberately skipped the court, the grand jury, and the government-imposed limits on investigative inquiries into worker conduct under Supreme Court precedent; he might have done so because he wanted a tactical edge, and was walling to ignore the Fourth Amendment restrictions on him to do so. Mueller may come to regret his choice.

Robert Barnes is a California-based trial attorney whose practice focuses on Constitutional, criminal and civil rights law. You can follow him at @Barnes_Law.

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-...ly-violated-the-law/

Mueller’s deputy Weissman has a reputation that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Grab the stuff now and see how it sorts out later.

Weissman has a unique accomplishment of having convictions of defendants he prosecuted reversed 9-0 at the Supreme Court. Not many can say that.

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
LEGAL ANALYSIS: Why Mueller’s Seizure of Transition Emails Likely Violated the Law

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-...ly-violated-the-law/

Great article. Mueller isn't biased though and neither is his investigation...just that one guy who he fired. Mueller is a "straight shooter" and just want to get to the "truth."

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
Mueller’s deputy Weissman has a reputation that it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Grab the stuff now and see how it sorts out later.

Weissman has a unique accomplishment of having convictions of defendants he prosecuted reversed 9-0 at the Supreme Court. Not many can say that.

Dang! I am a huge fan of the old saw that it is easier to get forgiveness than permission, but I’d like to think I’d come up with a different strategy long before I ran anything like that record of reversals. Talk about a slow learner...

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
LEGAL ANALYSIS: Why Mueller’s Seizure of Transition Emails Likely Violated the Law

https://lawandcrime.com/legal-...ly-violated-the-law/

Great article. Mueller isn't biased though and neither is his investigation...just that one guy who he fired. Mueller is a "straight shooter" and just want to get to the "truth."

I trust you are kidding??

Mueller's "team" consists of at least 9 hard core democraP hildabeast worshipers! Not even mentioning they contributed to her campaign.

Anyone who thinks Mueller and company are searching for the truth is woefully unaware of the reality.

This is Sigforum, methought a sarcasm would be over selling it.

quote:

Originally posted by 2012BOSS302:


An animatronic President Trump has arrived at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida.

The robotic Trump stands next to Abraham Lincoln, and remarks that "to be American is to be an optimist."

Earlier this year, Disney was rumored to be reconsidering having the animatronic Trump deliver remarks, which would have represented a break with a tradition that dates to 1993. However, Trump recorded his own lines earlier this year.

The animatronic President Trump has arrived at the Hall of Presidents at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida — and like every American president since Bill Clinton, the robotic Trump has a speaking role.

"Above all, to be American is to be an optimist — to believe that we can always do better — and that the best days of our great nation are still ahead of us," says Trump, in part, according to the Orlando Sentinel. "It’s a privilege to serve as the President of the United States, to stand here among so many great leaders of our past, and to work on behalf of the American people."

The Hall of Presidents is one of Disney World's oldest attractions, first opening in 1971. Visitors are treated to a short film on the history of the American presidency, followed by the grand reveal of exactingly-crafted audio-animatronic versions of every president to date. Lincoln, Washington, and the sitting president all deliver short speeches.

According to The New York Times, Trump "stands next to a seated Abraham Lincoln in the center of the stage with his signature hair, his suit jacket unbuttoned and his tie dangling extra low." While Disney hasn't yet released robo-Trump's full comments, you can watch a video preview of his appearance below.

http://www.businessinsider.com...f-presidents-2017-12

Here's the new full show in HD. The full President Trump speech starts at 19:36:

Much of the text of this video of a discourse with Alan Dershowitz and Fox News was posted in the The FBI’s Trump ‘Insurance’ topic, but here is the video from youtube:



Summary, as I surmised, Mueller is now playing defense.

Trump shuts down ginned-up liberal 'uprising' in three words.

You would’ve thought they were preparing for the apocalypse.

Former Obama White House Ethics Chief, Walter Shaub, tweeted that he was “stocking up” on gear to “take the streets.” In his words, it was supposed to be a “defining moment for the Republic.”

Actor-turned-activist George Takei tweeted that Americans should “shut the country down.”

Cenk Uygur, the founder and CEO of far-left online news show “The Young Turks” prophesied that this should be an “uprising like we’ve never seen in America.”

Former Attorney General Eric Holder drew what he called an “absolute red line.”

Their message was clear: if President Trump fires special counsel Robert Mueller, the American people should act as if their 241-year-old experiment in democracy has come to an end.

But unfortunately, when asked about the firing on Sunday night, the president shut down all of the rumors (and all of their plans) by simply declaring, “no, I’m not.” In an instant, he vanquished all the left’s dreams of sparking a “Tahrir square like uprising” and made their hysterics over the potential firing appear foolish.

Make no mistake. The left will soon decide on another issue (or rumor of an issue) to incense their base and stir outrage in our country. Eventually, they’ll decide on a new red line and then pray that the president crosses it. Their dream of widespread panic isn’t going away—it’s just deferred for a little while.

Here’s the problem.

First, regardless of their empty assurances that their uprising will be peaceful—their rhetoric says otherwise. They pay lip service to holding a peaceful protest while using inflammatory language like “stock up on gear” and “shut down the country.” But if there is anything that “Antifa” has taught the United States, it’s that there are plenty members of the far-left with no intentions of keeping the peace.


You can’t spew alarmist, end-of-the-world rhetoric and then expect your base to respond with careful, dignified street protests. It doesn’t work that way. Leaders have a unique duty to dial down their followers’ radical impulses. Instead, it seems that some culture leaders prefer to do quite the contrary.

Second, liberals’ selective outrage is appalling. Moveon.org, the organization behind the protests, made their motto “nobody is above the law.” Ostensibly, that’s an idea that both sides of the aisle could get behind. Patriotic Americans would agree that all citizens are equal under the law. But to many who hold progressive political views, that idea only applies to one side of the political spectrum.

Notably, these same activists made no such calls for mass protests after former FBI Director James Comey cleared Hillary Clinton of criminal charges a year ago. And there was no indignation from these folks after it came to light that the FBI softened the language in Comey’s statement in her favor. That’s why it’s difficult to believe that these activists are genuinely motivated to uphold the rule of law, and not just their own political ideologies.

One thing is true: the President’s words may have temporarily halted what the left saw as a “defining moment for the republic.” But they will find new opportunities. New pots to stir. And new calls for chaos.

Link

President Trump on Tuesday slammed a Washington Post report that said he came close to “rescinding” the nomination for Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch prior to his confirmation hearing.

“A story in the @washingtonpost that I was close to ‘rescinding’ the nomination of Justice Gorsuch prior to confirmation is FAKE NEWS. I never even wavered and am very proud of him and the job he is doing as Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The unnamed sources don’t exist!” Trump tweeted.


The report was published in the Washington Post Monday night, and said Trump discussed rescinding Gorsuch’s nomination after he was critical of Trump and his verbal attacks on the federal judiciary.

The Post report focused on Trump's response to comments Gorsuch made to Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal in February, when he called Trump's criticism of judges “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

The report was attributed to “several people with knowledge of the discussions.”

The Post stood by its reporting, updating the story Tuesday morning with the president’s tweet, and writing that “this account is based on interviews with 11 people familiar with the episode, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.”

The president has repeatedly slammed “Fake News,” and the journalistic practice of using anonymous sources, often suggesting that they do not exist.

Link