because he s a private citizen. on the other hand, he s a government official for getting, not getting a warrant. you can t have it both ways. clearly, anybody in the transition team is in a quasi public, quasi private position. there is no case law on this. the last thing you ever when you re a patient, you never want to hear the doctor say, that s an interesting symptom. and when you re a special prosecutor, you never want to hear a lawyer like me say, that presents an interesting novel issue. you have to avoid novel issues like that. they were not quasi told that their e-mails are government property. they were directly told by the gsa special counsel, the deputy counsel that these e-mails, you know, lived on government servers and were subject to monitoring and there would be no expectation of privacy. does that matter here? no, because, you know, you re told that routinely. i m told i guess i m on the harvard law school server and somewhere in fine print there must be a st
i think there s a better standard, which is the law. the law is, you don t need a subpoena. you don t need a search warrant to get .gov e-mails. i m unaware of any case where the government needs any special authorization to get government e-mails. i mean, maybe the law should be different. but i don t first of all think there is any law that is different. first of all, it should be different and civil libertarian shouldn t be moving to see an expansion of this dangerous development. second of all, i m not aware of any case where the e-mails, massive numbers of e-mails from a transition team, which is quasi public, quasi private, sure, it s .government but why take a chance? it s not the sean hannity standard. it s the justice kennedy and alito standard. make sure there s no possibility when you re going after the potential of the president of the united states, you take no
definite ideas about what the law should be. all i m saying is that as far as i m aware, the law is currently that mueller had the right to do what he did. i don t see why he has to pretend that the law might be something different down the line when he is simply applying the law as it exists today. professor, why would there be any executive privilege if by definiafinition the president-e is not yet the president, not yet the executive? isn t that the irony? the argument on the other side is no executive privilege because he s a private citizen. on the other hand, he s a government official for purposes of getting, not getting a warrant. you can t have it both ways. clearly, anybody in the transition team is in a quasi public, quasi private position. there is no case law on this. the last thing you ever when you re a patient, you never want to hear the doctor say, that s an interesting symptom. but, professor and when you re a special
government prop up a business that continuously operates at a loss. amtrak last $1 billion of revenuee of about $3 billion there s a problem. there s a problem, but we re spending a lot of money especially conservative republicans who want us to have the trains going in areas that make no money in states that aren t using them. and the money we used in the quarter we use and so we need to start shutting down those routes that nobody is using 37ob. karl, i m sure you dealt with some of these issues when you were in the white house, what do we do? the northeast corridor makes money. c we have a quasi public/private company that has no
that was the question here. this involved people who worked at home doing home care in illinois. they objected to a law that is in about half the states that says even if you re not a member of the union that represents public employee workers, so you to pay the portion of union dues that goes to collective bargaining costs. these employees challenged that saying, well, what public employees get paid is a public matter and requiring them to support the union violated their first amendment rights. what this opinion says here, i just gotten it, is that it s limited to the pea call already nature of the employees in the case. they re quasi public/private. they work at home. for all of those reasons the court gives what appears to be a victory to them but declines to extend it beyond to public employee unions in general. there s no strengthening of rights here for public employees. but there is no wholesale shot