Mueller sort transition team email records, computers, and phone devices from GSA without a subpoena or warrant. Just a letter. And GSA provided all documents without notifying Trump team.

Then Mueller team used said documents without first cleansing them of privileged documents. No wall between investigator and doc recipients.

Lol just lol.

edit: Buzzfeed got a quote from the GSA official.

"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."

GSA: dont you need a warrant bro?

Mueller: nah dawg, we cool

GSA: aite dawg. here are your docs

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4331911-Letter-to-Congressional-Committees.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831666&forum_id=2#34938922)

LMFAO

“ITS TRUMP, ALL THE FLAME CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WE MADE UP IN THE SIXTIES DOESNT APPLY TO HIM!”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831666&forum_id=2#34938943)

Two ethics opinions cover the use of disclosed privileged materials in D.C.:

Ethics Opinion 256

Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Material to Opposing Counsel

"Where a lawyer has inadvertently included documents containing client secrets or confidences in material delivered to an adversary lawyer, and the receiving lawyer in good faith reviews the documents before the inadvertence of the disclosure is brought to that lawyer’s attention, the receiving lawyer engages in no ethical violation by retaining and using those documents. Where, on the other hand, the receiving lawyer knows of the inadvertence of the disclosure before the documents are examined, Rule 1.15(a) requires the receiving lawyer to return the documents to the sending lawyer; the receiving lawyer also violates Rule 8.4(c) if the lawyer reads and/or uses the material."

Ethics Opinion 318

Disclosure of Privileged Material by Third Party

"When counsel in an adversary proceeding receives a privileged document from a client or other person that may have been stolen or taken without authorization from an opposing party, Rule 1.15(b) requires the receiving counsel to refrain from reviewing and using the document if: 1) its privileged status is readily apparent on its face; 2) receiving counsel knows that the document came from someone who was not authorized to disclose it; and 3) receiving counsel does not have a reasonable basis to conclude that the opposing party waived the attorney-client privilege with respect to such document. Receiving counsel may violate the provisions of Rule 8.4(c) by reviewing and using the document in an adversary proceeding under such circumstances and should either return the document to opposing counsel or make inquiry of opposing counsel about its status prior to determining what course of action to take.

Receiving counsel would not violate Rules 1.15(b) and 8.4(c) by reviewing and using the document whose source is unknown if: 1) its privileged status is not readily apparent on its face, or if privileged, receiving counsel has a reasonable basis to conclude that the privilege has been waived; and 2) receiving counsel did not know that the document came from someone who was not authorized to disclose it. Rule 1.3(a)’s emphasis on zealous representation may provide support for receiving counsel to review and use the document in such a situation. The Committee takes no position with reference to the question whether review and use of documents that are confidential but non-privileged would violate Rules 1.15(b) and 8.4(c) because it is outside the scope of the inquiry.

Counsel who created the opportunity for the disclosure or was otherwise responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of the document may violate Rules 1.1(a) and (b) and 1.6(a) and (e) by failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of the client’s confidences and secrets."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831666&forum_id=2#34940723)

Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 4.4--Respect for Rights of Third Persons

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or knowingly use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.

(b) A lawyer who receives a writing relating to the representation of a client and knows, before examining the writing, that it has been inadvertently sent, shall not examine the writing, but shall notify the sending party and abide by the instructions of the sending party regarding the return or destruction of the writing.

Comment

[1] Responsibility to a client requires a lawyer to subordinate the interests of others to those of the client, but that responsibility does not imply that a lawyer may disregard the rights of third persons. It is impractical to catalogue all such rights, but they include legal restrictions on methods of obtaining evidence from third persons and unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships, such as the client-lawyer relationship.

[2] Paragraph (b) addresses the obligations of a lawyer who receives writings containing client secrets or confidences in material delivered by an adversary lawyer and who knows that the sending lawyer inadvertently included these writings. As the D.C. Legal Ethics Committee noted in Opinion 256, this problem is “an unfortunate (but not uncommon) consequence of an increasingly electronic world, as when a facsimile or electronic mail transmission is mistakenly made to an unintended recipient.” Consistent with Opinion 256, paragraph (b) requires the receiving lawyer to comply with the sending party’s instruction about disposition of the writing in this circumstances, and also prohibits the receiving lawyer from reading or using the material. ABA Model Rule 4.4 requires the receiving lawyer only to notify the sender in order to permit the sender to take protective measures, but Paragraph (b) of the D.C. Rule 4.4 requires the receiving lawyer to do more.

[3] On the other hand, where writings containing client secrets or confidences are inadvertently delivered to an adversary lawyer, and the receiving lawyer in good faith reviews the materials before the lawyer knows that they were inadvertently sent, the receiving lawyer commits no ethical violation by retaining and using those materials. See D.C. Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 256. Whether the privileged status of a writing has been waived is a matter of law beyond the scope of these Rules. Similarly, this rule does not address the legal duties of a lawyer who receives a writing that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know may have been wrongfully obtained by the sending person. See D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 318.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831666&forum_id=2#34940760)

Date: April 4th, 2017 7:40 AM

Author: ,.,.,.,.,.,. , . . . , . . . . . . , . . . ;

Patently true. Pure distraction and desperation from Trump's besieged and chaotic WH.

Even the Fox News "reporter" who "broke" the Rice story (i.e. transcribed the WH's statements) said she had the authority to "unmask" Flynn and any other Trump associates caught on intercepts with foreign agents. All this is going to do is lead Comey to agree to testify again to clear up the attempted misdirection. Didn't go so well last time Trump's lies led Comey to testify publicly. Won't go well this time either. Meanwhile, the FBI continues to do its work, grand juries start convening, Flynn gets charged (with 18 U.S.C. § 1001 violations at the very least, who knows what else), and then either makes a deal or goes to Leavenworth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3573096&forum_id=2#32989027)

Reply Favorite

Date: April 4th, 2017 7:45 AM

Author: Benevolent Screed

Why are you going around copy/pasting the same thing? ljl at citing the federal code.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3573096&forum_id=2#32989039)

Date: April 4th, 2017 7:46 AM

Author: ,.,.,.,.,.,. , . . . , . . . . . . , . . . ;

Lol at citing the federal code? Lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3573096&forum_id=2#32989042)

Reply Favorite

Date: April 4th, 2017 8:09 AM

Author: Benevolent Screed

Yes, lmao at citing the federal code when you sound and write like a third tier 2L.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3831666&forum_id=2#34940777)