Trump lawyers want to quash evidence

[haymarket]

I fondly remember the Dirty Harry the movies of the Seventies where some out and out bad deviate committed some atrocity against society - murder , rape , that sort of stuff usually against children or innocent women, and the judge had to let them go because the big bad policeman did not extend to them all their rights before he took the in. In fact we had a 1983 movie with Michael Douglas called STAR CHAMBER where a bunch of judges went rogue to punish criminals after they had to let them go because the evidence could not be used against them.

Getting the incriminating evidence thrown out of court is a popular defense tactic and sometimes does let the guilty bad apples go free. Now it looks like attorneys for Trump are less concerned if he really did it or not but are more concerned with depriving Mueller and the investigations of the incriminating evidence that may lead to demonstrating Trump is guilty of collusion with Russians or at least trying to cover it up.

Trump transition accuses Mueller of improperly obtaining emails - CNNPolitics

Washington (CNN)Lawyers representing the Trump presidential transition wrote to members of Congress accusing special counsel Robert Mueller of obtaining unauthorized access to tens of thousands of transition emails, including what they claim to be documents protected by attorney-client privilege.

The transition maintains the documents were its property and should not have been handed over without its approval.
The emails in question involve 13 transition officials, including four senior ones, according to the letter.

​

The lawyer, Kory Langhofer, wrote to leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and House Oversight and Government Reform committees because he said the General Services Administration, which supports presidential transitions, "unlawfully produced" private materials of the transition although the GSA "did not own or control the records in question."
Langhofer wrote in the letter the Special Counsel's Office "was actively using those materials without any notice" to transition officials.

So is this what it is going to come down to? The very narrow question of process as opposed to if the President is a slime bag who colluded with our enemy or covered it up?

We sadly saw part of this nonsense on display earlier this week when members of the House Freedom Caucus screamed and railed bout the fruit of the poison tree wanting the nation to dismiss anything the Mueller investigation might come up with because the investigation was tainted by a member of the Mueller staff who actually had the temerity and utter gall to express a negative political opinion about Trump. Imagine that !!!!!

If this is the defense against the charges that a President may have colluded with our enemy and then covered it up, God help this nation and its people.

 

[cuban smokes]

this is how dictators & authoritarian figures coalesce, because they are 'above the law'

we have witnessed through history the consequence of such activities, and now, here we go again ............

 

[Jetboogieman]

Well... There may very well be something in those transition emails for them to try a stunt like this.

Does anyone honestly believe a former FBI director specially picked for this would risk the entire thing by illegally obtaining these emails?

Who the hell do you think the guy is... Trump?

Anyway, this is a transparent attempt to undermine the credibility of the investigation to give Trump carte blanche to fire Mueller without recourse.

As to his supporters, it's all hands on deck, defend the Dear Leader!

 

[DaveFagan]

I fondly remember the Dirty Harry the movies of the Seventies where some out and out bad deviate committed some atrocity against society - murder , rape , that sort of stuff usually against children or innocent women, and the judge had to let them go because the big bad policeman did not extend to them all their rights before he took the in. In fact we had a 1983 movie with Michael Douglas called STAR CHAMBER where a bunch of judges went rogue to punish criminals after they had to let them go because the evidence could not be used against them.

Getting the incriminating evidence thrown out of court is a popular defense tactic and sometimes does let the guilty bad apples go free. Now it looks like attorneys for Trump are less concerned if he really did it or not but are more concerned with depriving Mueller and the investigations of the incriminating evidence that may lead to demonstrating Trump is guilty of collusion with Russians or at least trying to cover it up.

Trump transition accuses Mueller of improperly obtaining emails - CNNPolitics



So is this what it is going to come down to? The very narrow question of process as opposed to if the President is a slime bag who colluded with our enemy or covered it up?

We sadly saw part of this nonsense on display earlier this week when members of the House Freedom Caucus screamed and railed bout the fruit of the poison tree wanting the nation to dismiss anything the Mueller investigation might come up with because the investigation was tainted by a member of the Mueller staff who actually had the temerity and utter gall to express a negative political opinion about Trump. Imagine that !!!!!

If this is the defense against the charges that a President may have colluded with our enemy and then covered it up, God help this nation and its people.

Evidence obtained illegally should be tossed. No question about that. The highest lawyers in the land should have known better. Russia is not our enemy. It is the MIC Agenda created "demon" to promote fear to guarantee the authorization of gargantuan Military Offense budgets. Our great Leader, who was going to "drain the swamp" is now up to his armpits in the swamp. If you honestly believe that $100,000 to $500,00 of advertising purchased by Russia could affect the outcome of the USA Presidential election you are suffering pipe dreams. Adelson, Koch, AIPAC, and others spent hundreds of millions, ergo they must practically own the Presidency if "money talks." Keerisst, if that little money worked, there'd be a line of USA politicians of both parties knocking on Putin's door for help in coming elections. The issue is bogus. Think!
P.S.
I am neither a Trump supporter nor a Hillary supporter.

 

[haymarket]

Evidence obtained illegally should be tossed. No question about that.

Yes - evidence to be used against a charged defendant on trial in a court of law must be tossed.

But that is NOT what we have here. So there is no fruit of the poison tree to be tossed.

And if we are talking about a President of the USA who is being investigated for colluding with our enemy to impact his own election over the will of the American people, do you really want to start drawing those type of lines if the goal is to find out the TRUTH as to who his loyalties lie and if he has been compromised?

IS that what you want for the American people?

 

[Mason66]

I fondly remember the Dirty Harry the movies of the Seventies where some out and out bad deviate committed some atrocity against society - murder , rape , that sort of stuff usually against children or innocent women, and the judge had to let them go because the big bad policeman did not extend to them all their rights before he took the in. In fact we had a 1983 movie with Michael Douglas called STAR CHAMBER where a bunch of judges went rogue to punish criminals after they had to let them go because the evidence could not be used against them.

Getting the incriminating evidence thrown out of court is a popular defense tactic and sometimes does let the guilty bad apples go free. Now it looks like attorneys for Trump are less concerned if he really did it or not but are more concerned with depriving Mueller and the investigations of the incriminating evidence that may lead to demonstrating Trump is guilty of collusion with Russians or at least trying to cover it up.

Trump transition accuses Mueller of improperly obtaining emails - CNNPolitics



So is this what it is going to come down to? The very narrow question of process as opposed to if the President is a slime bag who colluded with our enemy or covered it up?

We sadly saw part of this nonsense on display earlier this week when members of the House Freedom Caucus screamed and railed bout the fruit of the poison tree wanting the nation to dismiss anything the Mueller investigation might come up with because the investigation was tainted by a member of the Mueller staff who actually had the temerity and utter gall to express a negative political opinion about Trump. Imagine that !!!!!

If this is the defense against the charges that a President may have colluded with our enemy and then covered it up, God help this nation and its people.

What incriminating evidence are you referring to in this case?

Please be specific.

 

[Mycroft]

I fondly remember the Dirty Harry the movies of the Seventies where some out and out bad deviate committed some atrocity against society - murder , rape , that sort of stuff usually against children or innocent women, and the judge had to let them go because the big bad policeman did not extend to them all their rights before he took the in. In fact we had a 1983 movie with Michael Douglas called STAR CHAMBER where a bunch of judges went rogue to punish criminals after they had to let them go because the evidence could not be used against them.

Getting the incriminating evidence thrown out of court is a popular defense tactic and sometimes does let the guilty bad apples go free. Now it looks like attorneys for Trump are less concerned if he really did it or not but are more concerned with depriving Mueller and the investigations of the incriminating evidence that may lead to demonstrating Trump is guilty of collusion with Russians or at least trying to cover it up.

Trump transition accuses Mueller of improperly obtaining emails - CNNPolitics



So is this what it is going to come down to? The very narrow question of process as opposed to if the President is a slime bag who colluded with our enemy or covered it up?

We sadly saw part of this nonsense on display earlier this week when members of the House Freedom Caucus screamed and railed bout the fruit of the poison tree wanting the nation to dismiss anything the Mueller investigation might come up with because the investigation was tainted by a member of the Mueller staff who actually had the temerity and utter gall to express a negative political opinion about Trump. Imagine that !!!!!

If this is the defense against the charges that a President may have colluded with our enemy and then covered it up, God help this nation and its people.

So...rights that are enshrined in our Constitution just don't matter when we are talking about Trump, right? He deserves whatever illegal means we can bring to bear against him...as long as it works, right?

In other words, your ends justify ANY means (whether they are legal means or not).

 

[bubbabgone]

I fondly remember the Dirty Harry the movies of the Seventies where some out and out bad deviate committed some atrocity against society - murder , rape , that sort of stuff usually against children or innocent women, and the judge had to let them go because the big bad policeman did not extend to them all their rights before he took the in. In fact we had a 1983 movie with Michael Douglas called STAR CHAMBER where a bunch of judges went rogue to punish criminals after they had to let them go because the evidence could not be used against them.

Getting the incriminating evidence thrown out of court is a popular defense tactic and sometimes does let the guilty bad apples go free. Now it looks like attorneys for Trump are less concerned if he really did it or not but are more concerned with depriving Mueller and the investigations of the incriminating evidence that may lead to demonstrating Trump is guilty of collusion with Russians or at least trying to cover it up.

Trump transition accuses Mueller of improperly obtaining emails - CNNPolitics



So is this what it is going to come down to? The very narrow question of process as opposed to if the President is a slime bag who colluded with our enemy or covered it up?

We sadly saw part of this nonsense on display earlier this week when members of the House Freedom Caucus screamed and railed bout the fruit of the poison tree wanting the nation to dismiss anything the Mueller investigation might come up with because the investigation was tainted by a member of the Mueller staff who actually had the temerity and utter gall to express a negative political opinion about Trump. Imagine that !!!!!

If this is the defense against the charges that a President may have colluded with our enemy and then covered it up, God help this nation and its people.

Any chance you cold drop the CNN font when you quote something from CNN?
As for me, I can barely read it.
On to the content of the article.
It's certainly reasonable that the investigation by the office of the Special Counsel would need to be bound by Law.
If they aren't they should be called on it.
I read the article as more of a warning shot-across-the-bow of the Mueller team by a Trump lawyer.
If incriminating material was acquired illegally, it would be a shame if the prosecution or the conviction in a related case had problems because of improper tactics by, say, Andrew Weissmann.

 

[bubbabgone]

Yes - evidence to be used against a charged defendant on trial in a court of law must be tossed.

But that is NOT what we have here. So there is no fruit of the poison tree to be tossed.

And if we are talking about a President of the USA who is being investigated for colluding with our enemy to impact his own election over the will of the American people, do you really want to start drawing those type of lines if the goal is to find out the TRUTH as to who his loyalties lie and if he has been compromised?

IS that what you want for the American people?

Or if any person colluded with our enemy to influence their election ... even if there were several levels of collusion between the enemy and the person. It'd still be collusion, right?

 

[Fraggle Rock]

Conservatives over the years have waved the Constitution into our face for years. Here is the POTUS that if it was a thin Black guy doing the exact same things the Right would be going ballistic. See if you agree with these tactics then you are worse then a political hack. You have just gone through the looking glass and you have subverted the very same document you waved in our face. If this President was a Democrat and you would only oppose him because of party affiliation then my friends you might as well be a political hack because you surely are not a patriot of this country

 

[notquiteright]

So...rights that are enshrined in our Constitution just don't matter when we are talking about Trump, right? He deserves whatever illegal means we can bring to bear against him...as long as it works, right? In other words, your ends justify ANY means (whether they are legal means or not).

Least we forget ALL that the Constitution enshrines- I do believe a judge or judges are to determine what was legal or illegal, not Trump's lawyers...

Next the evidence can be obtained by any means if it's for 'National Security'...

Kind of a petard ain't it... eace

 

[notquiteright]

What incriminating evidence are you referring to in this case? Please be specific.

Better question for Trump and his team duntcha think? For a President who routinely claims no collusion, in the beginning wanted this investigation to be quick he sure is stalling a lot. It would seem odd for a lawyer team to be hired to help squash evidence if that evidence helped Trump's claims of innocence...

But time will tell...

 

[HowardBThiname]

Getting the incriminating evidence thrown out of court is a popular defense tactic and sometimes does let the guilty bad apples go free. Now it looks like attorneys for Trump are less concerned if he really did it or not but are more concerned with depriving Mueller and the investigations of the incriminating evidence that may lead to demonstrating Trump is guilty of collusion with Russians or at least trying to cover it up.
.

There's a reason tainted evidence is disallowed in court cases -- because it infringes on the legal rights of the defendants.

I don't know if the same rules are in play here or not, but I'm guessing they might be. I have family in law enforcement and they completely understand why they must dot their "i's" and cross their "t's" when obtaining any type of evidence.

There are rules that keep law enforcement from barging into your home without a warrant or from searching your car just because they want to. Those laws are to protect all of us from illegal search and seizures.

If Mueller screwed up -- that will be his mistake. If the emails turn out to be "fruit of the poisonous tree," no judge will allow them to be used in court.

 

[haymarket]

What incriminating evidence are you referring to in this case?

Please be specific.

read the article i linked to

 

[haymarket]

So...rights that are enshrined in our Constitution just don't matter when we are talking about Trump, right? He deserves whatever illegal means we can bring to bear against him...as long as it works, right?

In other words, your ends justify ANY means (whether they are legal means or not).

No one has demonstrated any illegal means will be used against him in bring any charges against him in court.

 

[haymarket]

Any chance you cold drop the CNN font when you quote something from CNN?
As for me, I can barely read it.
On to the content of the article.
It's certainly reasonable that the investigation by the office of the Special Counsel would need to be bound by Law.
If they aren't they should be called on it.
I read the article as more of a warning shot-across-the-bow of the Mueller team by a Trump lawyer.
If incriminating material was acquired illegally, it would be a shame if the prosecution or the conviction in a related case had problems because of improper tactics by, say, Andrew Weissmann.

I read it as a legal excuse to ignore the Trump activities and future investigation findings should they go against Trump.

 

[haymarket]

Or if any person colluded with our enemy to influence their election ... even if there were several levels of collusion between the enemy and the person. It'd still be collusion, right?

I guess that would depend on what the law said about that and what constitutes intent to collude with a foreign enemy or even foreign power.

 

[haymarket]

There's a reason tainted evidence is disallowed in court cases -- because it infringes on the legal rights of the defendants.

I don't know if the same rules are in play here or not, but I'm guessing they might be. I have family in law enforcement and they completely understand why they must dot their "i's" and cross their "t's" when obtaining any type of evidence.

There are rules that keep law enforcement from barging into your home without a warrant or from searching your car just because they want to. Those laws are to protect all of us from illegal search and seizures.

If Mueller screwed up -- that will be his mistake. If the emails turn out to be "fruit of the poisonous tree," no judge will allow them to be used in court.

No evidence has shown that Mueller "screwed up" denying anyone their rights. This is just a Trump lawyer doing what the extremists in the freedom caucus did this week - trying to look for reasons to taint the investigation to find a way our for Trump should the investigation uncover evidence he colluded with Russia or covered it up.

 

[Mason66]

Better question for Trump and his team duntcha think? For a President who routinely claims no collusion, in the beginning wanted this investigation to be quick he sure is stalling a lot. It would seem odd for a lawyer team to be hired to help squash evidence if that evidence helped Trump's claims of innocence...

But time will tell...

No I don't.

Haymarket posted this

"Now it looks like attorneys for Trump are less concerned if he really did it or not but are more concerned with depriving Mueller and the investigations of the incriminating evidence that may lead to demonstrating Trump is guilty of collusion with Russians or at least trying to cover it up."

He alleged there was incriminating evidence so he will have to provide proof of such.

 

[Mycroft]

Next the evidence can be obtained by any means if it's for 'National Security'...

??? Are you serious?

You condone a police state with no constitutional protections, don't you?

 

[Jetboogieman]

So...rights that are enshrined in our Constitution just don't matter when we are talking about Trump, right? He deserves whatever illegal means we can bring to bear against him...as long as it works, right?

In other words, your ends justify ANY means (whether they are legal means or not).

Except nothing has been proven to be obtained illegally... It's just what his lawyer alleges.

But that's what he's counting on, the mere allegation in this case is enough for a Trump supporter to simply believe it was illegal without caring whether that's true or not.

 

[Kobie]

To be fair, Trump's lawyers are doing their jobs. Any attorney worth his salt is going to try and get any evidence -- even potential evidence -- that might harm their client thrown out or called into question.

That said, the gullibility of the Trump supporters here is breathtaking. Apparently, Trump's lawyers say it was obtained illegally; ergo, it absolutely was obtained illegally and the whole investigation is tainted!

 

[apdst]

Well... There may very well be something in those transition emails for them to try a stunt like this.

Does anyone honestly believe a former FBI director specially picked for this would risk the entire thing by illegally obtaining these emails?

Who the hell do you think the guy is... Trump?

Anyway, this is a transparent attempt to undermine the credibility of the investigation to give Trump carte blanche to fire Mueller without recourse.

As to his supporters, it's all hands on deck, defend the Dear Leader!

Mueller knows things are rigged in his favor, so he's willing to bend the rules a little.

The whole investigation was launched on false evidence and a Federal judge signed a FISA warrant based on that false information.

Mueller's confident that there are more Federal judges out there that will rule in his favor, no matter what. Um...call it...an "insurance policy".

 

[apdst]

Except nothing has been proven to be obtained illegally... It's just what his lawyer alleges.

But that's what he's counting on, the mere allegation in this case is enough for a Trump supporter to simply believe it was illegal without caring whether that's true or not.

We don't know that yet. There needs to be a special prosecutor appointed to look into the Muellerjahadeen, up to this point. If no corruption is discovered, then the Muellerjahadeen can carry on with it's investigation.

 

[apdst]

To be fair, Trump's lawyers are doing their jobs. Any attorney worth his salt is going to try and get any evidence -- even potential evidence -- that might harm their client thrown out or called into question.

That said, the gullibility of the Trump supporters here is breathtaking. Apparently, Trump's lawyers say it was obtained illegally; ergo, it absolutely was obtained illegally and the whole investigation is tainted!

Well, you've been told that President Trump broke the law and you believe it. So...

And, the Muellerjahadeen was tainted long before this. This is just another turd to throw on Mueller's pile of ****.