Replies

To the best of my knowledge, no. I assume the warrant is secret so that American citizens can’t see the corrupt machinations of our government. My comments interpolate from multiple news stories and Comey’s letters. I don’t “know” what it says, but can apply reason to available evidence.

The following is from a nbcnews.com piece dated Sunday, 10-30-16, linked to a FreeRepublic post, same date, titled “FBI Obtains Warrant...”:

“The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton’s private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner’s laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.

The warrant came two days after FBI Director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner’s estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton.

The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner’s laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.

Agents will now compare the latest batch of messages with those that have already been investigated to determine whether any classified information was sent from Clinton’s server.”

Numerous news outlets published equivalent stories on October 30, and all are based on an unidentified law enforcement source. This has the cachet of an official sent to promulgate a story “on background” (DoJ, HRC, ?). The first sentence quoted above spells out what the warrant was for. I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that warrants have to be focused on particular things — not open-ended fishing expeditions, so I take it at face value. The reporters took what they were spoon fed like good little slaves. None explored what OTHER things might also be investigated under in the new warrant. The implication is clearly, NONE.