holy shit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936780)

And Mueller and team had no ethical walls to cleanse the emails of privileged items before passing it onto investigators.

Lol just lol.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34938894)

tick tok tick tok

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34936851)

2) if the GSA had the emails, the privilege was probably destroyed, hence trump's lawyer asking congress to fix this problem for future transition teams

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34947559)

Lol, keep fishing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940766)

Every govt computer has the "no expectation of privacy" thing on the sign in screen. The fact Trumptards are too dumb or arrogant to see this is on them.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941457)

actually it does - wanna look up the jurisprudence on talking with your lawyer in a room with a sign saying there are microphones recording all conversations?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34958170)

Maybe there are other arguments why the transition materials are privileged, but "private" argument is not strong

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34942841)

what is the fourth amendment issue? the investigators apparently asked for docs and they were willingly handed over. if the cops knock on my door, i'm not home and a houseguest lets them in and they find a pound of cocaine, can i raise the 4th amendment?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34940837)

Almost certainly no privilege issue. I can conceive of situations in which privileged documents held by neither the client nor counsel is privileged (for example, counsel hires an agent to review/store/organize documents), but this doesn't sound like it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941023)

Mueller's team, instead of working through the normal channels (the transition team itself or their attorneys), side-stepped them and went directly to the third-party hosting the docs. There is nothing inherently unethical about that, although it is a shady/shitty tactic. However, it is potentially unethical in D.C. for Mueller's team to continue to review/use the documents once they know they are privileged. Also, the GSA attorneys face ethical issues if they handed everything over willy-nilly without regards to privilege.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941160)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941225)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941252)

There is not any legal precedent on this because it has never happened before. I simply disagree with all the people squawking in this thread saying it is a black and white issue, and that GSA should be able to just hand over all the documents.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941251)

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.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941367)

Anyways, said I said above, I don't think this is illegal. I think it raises ethical issues if GSA attorneys dumped communications without respect to privilege, and if the Mueller team saw there were privileged materials and purposefully used them and didn't notify the Trump transition team.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941430)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941665)

you're 100% wrong that third party custodians of electronic documents never produce them to law enforcement without a subpoena. that's laughably dumb that you think that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941708)

And you're laughably stupid if you think what happened is at all normal with respect to third party custodians.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941735)

i'm not going to chase down every shitty thread you make. you're dumb, and you have no idea how anything works. third parties voluntarily give shit to law enforcement constantly, you stupid fuck. they're entitled to, and they do whatever is best for them. sometimes what's best is appearing to fight, sometimes not

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941867)

Google could give police/FBI/etc your gmail if they wanted but don't like the optics. So they demand SWs/GJ subs.

If they wanted to post your emails on google.com, that is their prerogative.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941474)

Their user agreements don't have the express language that the GSA's agreement used that was quoted above. Thus, there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when using those platforms (on meta-data maybe).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34947900)

Of course, kitzhaber can be easily distinguished because he was a democrat in the ninth circuit. For everyone else, especially Adolf trump schickelgruber, if you use government equipment, the suggestion that you have an expectation of privacy is laughable **liberal "experts" yuk it up in unison**.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941561)

Edit: At issue were personal emails that were not government business, you fucking hack.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941615)

You are way out of your league here.

Google 18 USC 2705(b).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34942887)

Look, I'm not saying it is an open and shut case of fourth am. violation or acp violation. But it is equally obvious that it is a colorable argument.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34941817)

these things take time, silly

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831389&forum_id=2#34958194)