a) The laptop was voluntarily surrendered. Under consent doctrine no further warrant is required. The Exclusionary Rule only protects against unreasonable searches. No serious person would accept that reading emails on a voluntarily surrendered laptop would constitute anything "unreasonable."
b) Under plain view doctrine, in most US circuits, all of the emails on the laptop fall under the original sexting warrant anyway.
c) there is no evidence that the new emails have been examined in depth. When an initial warrant leads to the discovery of additional material, the evidence obtained by a second warrant that covers the new material is NOT considered tainted. All the FBI needs to do is obtain a second warrant. It's usual for DOJ to do that, but under US code the agents can submit an affidavit directly to the court, and plenty of them (including Comey) are lawyers.
d) The mere presence, without further in-depth examination of any of these emails is prima facia evidence that Huma lied in her assertion that none of her other devices contained work-related emails. This violates her immunity deal, and she must now testify under oath against Hillary and all of her other criminal accessories.
e) wikileaks already has all the Clinton emails.
f) The court of public opinion is not going to let a Presidential candidate escape on a technicality.
Bookmark
“f) The court of public opinion is not going to let a Presidential candidate escape on a technicality. “
And that’s really the money shot. No one at .gov wants any of this out. As long as Clinton’s campaign is dead, I’m happy. Anything after that is a bonus.
Great breakdown, thanks!