Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OhNo-Really

(3,996 posts)
Fri Feb 2, 2018, 05:36 PM Feb 2018

This message was self-deleted by its author

This message was self-deleted by its author (OhNo-Really) on Sat Dec 10, 2022, 11:17 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
This message was self-deleted by its author (Original Post) OhNo-Really Feb 2018 OP
What is the importance of this phrase 'diverse legal interpretation'? Might have to dumb it down mr_lebowski Feb 2018 #1
chuckling....not a legalese phrase OhNo-Really Feb 2018 #2
Could this be part of an effort to make it possible for Trump to exclude Sophia4 Feb 2018 #3
It has crossed my mind OhNo-Really Feb 2018 #4
 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
1. What is the importance of this phrase 'diverse legal interpretation'? Might have to dumb it down
Fri Feb 2, 2018, 05:42 PM
Feb 2018

some for those of us not versed in arcane legalese

OhNo-Really

(3,996 posts)
2. chuckling....not a legalese phrase
Fri Feb 2, 2018, 06:09 PM
Feb 2018

Not a legal professional, just a concerned citizen that did some paralegal work last century.

Let's see......the intent of the question and the phrase is to open up a dialogue regarding McGahn's possible intentions for his carefully crafted letter.

I read the Memorandum a few times as well.

I was heartened and influenced by McGahn's refusal to fire Mueller as reported recently.

I am open to the possibility that McGahn also found this latest ploy cringeworthy, especially the release of names of people involved and the incompleteness of the FISA justifications.

Not having enough knowledge of the law, I intuited the possibility that McGahn could have left some legal recourse to those opposing, and even potentially harmed by the release of this information.

Perhaps it would take a seasoned constitutional lawyer to answer the question.

I know if I was an employee and my name had been released to the whole world, I would be actively seeking legal recourse. Would I have any?

 

Sophia4

(3,515 posts)
3. Could this be part of an effort to make it possible for Trump to exclude
Fri Feb 2, 2018, 08:10 PM
Feb 2018

evidence gained from the surveillance of Carter Page from court?

Am I way off on that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

OhNo-Really

(3,996 posts)
4. It has crossed my mind
Fri Feb 2, 2018, 08:16 PM
Feb 2018

Looking at the long game if/when the Grand Jury is convened which is more lenient then the courts, it is still possible to taint.

This Grand Jury outline from NYU is an interesting perusal.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/gleeson_orenstein_f04.doc

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This message was self-del...