it most likely came from the NYPD which means they don't NEED a warrant
Posted on 10/29/2016 5:59:40 PM PDT by TigerClaws
essage No warrant for material on Huma's laptop - DOJ possibly blocking FBI Posted by Wimp Lo online on 10/29/16 at 7:50 pm Just broke on Fox News.
"senior official" source
Honestly that sounds like the DOJ is blocking the FBI.
He said that the DOJ has not approved a warrant.
Technically it's the DOJ that goes to court and ask for a warrant.
Obviously this is why special prosecutors should be appointed. We are in a Constitutional crisis.
Cankles-squared
That is a double order with fries.
She would take immunity and then stonewall, and DOJ would do nothing. Isn't that the current Democrat method?
it most likely came from the NYPD which means they don't NEED a warrant
I was thinking more like an IN N OUT animal style burger...lol!
Then convene a grand jury
It’s Federal - US Attorney issued warrant to seize Weiner’s devices.
And reread what a Con-Cri consists of....
And I agree...
What will be done about it remains...murky. To say the least................
It is common practice if you are searching a computer for one thing and you find another to stop and obtain a second search warrant for the same device. That is pretty standard from my understanding.
Because this case involves potential classified information there may be a special Judge who handles these matters with the security clearance.
Not sure what is going on here, but at this point the candidate herself has called for them to put the cards on the table so it’s not like she can be mad if they get a warrant and can review it. There is NO WAY she wants it out there, but it sounds good for the time being and with the inevitable panic that must have consumed her campaign with this bombshell they will take what they can get.
This will simply keep the fire roaring..........
No no, that was sarcasm directed at the FBI giving every actor is this corrupt affair immunity in exchange for absolutely nothing it would seem.
why, on what grounds, how did they know they were there? i still think the NYPD came across the emails during their own investigation into wiener and gave them to the fbi
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/attorney-general-lynch-pleads-fifth-secret-iran-ransom-payments/
You were close, though.
The US Atty General taking the 5th..?
Wowzers, I think that is a first.
Of course 0bola and Lynch have committed crimes.
“We’ll have to go through hell to get out of hell.”
why??? that's like having your house searched for drugs then they find guns along with he drugs in the process... they are gonna take them all and charge you with both no law scholar here but why is another warrant needed?
if they had a warrant for the emails and found child porn would they need a separate warrant for that also?
if they had a warrant for the emails and found child porn would they need a separate warrant for that also?
Yes. You have to spell out what crimes you are investigating. If you find evidence of another crime outside the scope of the warrant you have to obtain another.
see above, searching your house for drugs then finding guns also never needed a second warrant for them to take both and charge you with both
It generally does now - you can seize contraband, but to pursue a different criminal charge based on something that was not listed in the attachment of the warrant for items to be seized is outside the scope of the warrant - PERIOD.
If you searched a computer for evidence of drugs and you found child pornography for instance you need to get another warrant. Why? Child pornography is a crime and we all know it to be so it would constitute “plain view” but it IS NOT on the list of items to be seized that is part of your warrant and it is outside the scope of the investigation. You have to list the charges for which you are seeking a warrant. It’s a rifle - not a shotgun.
What you are doing MUST BE in the four corners of the affidavit. Period. It’s not carte blanche to seize any contraband you find and then pursue charges for the same. You could still seize the contraband, but you would probably lose any charges related to that on appeal.
What you are describing was true 20 years ago........ then it was under the plain view doctrine. Does not necessarily apply like that any more.
Now that’s more like it :)
the Toons have people “taken care of”....go ask Jerry Parks...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.