paperview
Life is Good
- Jul 27, 2009
- 14,558
- 2,968
Bringing this over from another thread:From what I hear, the Trump folks sent those documents to Mueller. If they were dumb enough to not exclude them, Mueller can't be faulted for reading them.Where is the warrant to Confiscate Documents covered under "ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE" and what was the Violation of Law cited to confiscate them?
.
"The FBI sent a letter to the GSA requesting the emails, and the GSA -- per standard policy -- released them. Trump had appointed a friend of his as GC for the GSA, whom (we can assume) had assured Trump he'd do everything he could to keep records away from law enforcement, but (as the letter states) the GC was hospitalized at the time, and thus the task of complying with the request fell to career GSA employees, and not a Trump appointee who had Trump's back.
The article uses the word "subterfuge" but that's not really the appropriate word here. Both the FBI and the GSA followed standard policy, and nobody violated policy intentionally or unintentionally. As has been pointed out, "no expectation of privacy" is made very clear in the GSA's policy.
If you read the Trump lawyer's letter, he's asking for a congressional fix so that this does not happen again. Not even Trump's lawyer is claiming "subterfuge."
Team Trump has valid reason to be upset. They're upset not because rules weren't followed correctly (they were), but because contents of the emails may be damaging. Yes, it certainly sucks for Team Trump that his appointee to the GSA was incapacitated at the time. But this does not mean that the GSA did anything wrong -- it just means that Trump's guy wasn't there to run interference.
A couple more points:
First, I believe this is why Clinton and other Secretaries of State used private email accounts, to avoid these very federal regulations.
Next, this is probably obvious to 99% of people reading this, but maybe not. The letter that Trump's lawyer sent asking for a congressional fix makes an impassioned case, and it's the lawyer's duty to protect and defend their client. That often means writing letters like these. But, impassioned does not mean truthful. The lawyer is grasping at straws here... but it's his duty to do so. We can commend the work he's doing for his client at the same time that we acknowledge that his claims don't have much merit." -shark