Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Exclusive: FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe
Yahoo ^

Posted on 10/29/2016 6:28:46 PM PDT by hotsteppa

When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.

At the time Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,” one of the officials said, referring to recently discovered emails that were found on the laptop of disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Weiner is under investigation for allegedly sending illicit text messages to a 15-year-old girl.

As of Saturday night, the FBI had still not gotten approval from the Justice Department for a warrant that would allow agency officials to read any of the newly discovered Abedin emails, and therefore are still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that the bureau has not already seen.

“We do not have a warrant,” a senior law enforcement official said. “Discussions are under way [between the FBI and the Justice Department] as to the best way to move forward.”

(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: comey; fbi; hillary; huma; humaisaspy; weiner
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-174 next last
To: GregNH

However, buried in a New York Times article the following paragraph:

[…] A senior law enforcement official said that tens of thousands of emails belonging to Ms. Abedin were on Mr. Weiner’s laptop, which the F.B.I. had obtained as part of its investigation into Mr. Weiner. About a month ago, a person familiar with the investigation said, F.B.I. agents seized the laptop as well as Mr. Weiner’s iPad and cellphone.


101 posted on 10/29/2016 8:13:24 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: dp0622

If there's ONE thing the low information voters understand, it's a sex scandal.

And that will keep it front and center until the espionage stuff comes out.

Bill escaped with the Lewinsky scandal because most women in the country secretly wished that they could give him a blow job, too.

Hillary is not so fortunate.

102 posted on 10/29/2016 8:15:12 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

LOL!! i can’t believe you just wrote that :)

We all could use a good laugh!


103 posted on 10/29/2016 8:18:15 PM PDT by dp0622 (IThe only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: kabar; LucyT
After I posted my last comment I got this in my FB feed....


104 posted on 10/29/2016 8:19:26 PM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Arlis

Comey may have used the letter to let the world know that the DOJ was stonewalling. Interestingly, he got Hillary to demand what he could not get.


105 posted on 10/29/2016 8:19:34 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers

Plus I still love that picture on your profile cage.

My cat’s my little buddy :)


106 posted on 10/29/2016 8:20:13 PM PDT by dp0622 (IThe only thing an upper crust conservative hates more than a liberal is a middle class conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

I disagree. Under Rodriguez, there were two issues at hand. The first being the entry to the apartment and the second being the finding of the controlled substance. In its opinion, the Court held that the police acted “reasonably” when they entered Rodriguez’s apartment based on the statement of a third party.

However, the Court also said that although the entry was legal, the drugs that were found subsequent to the entry could still be open to a motion to suppress at trial. In other words, the defendant still had Fourth Ammendment “trial rights”.

And here is where I think the problem is. Huma, (if she gave consent) agreed to give the computer to the police for the express purpose of them collecting evidence in reference to the sexting case.

She did not authorize the police to look at her or other emails. Her consent was limited to the case against her husband. Since there were other emails on the computer that may be part of another crime, the NYPD/FBI probably decided it was best to get a search warrant to make sure there is no possibility that other emails are tossed under a motion to suppress.

It is an interesting legal conundrum the investigators face, but obtaining a search warrant should be pretty much a matter of procedure.


107 posted on 10/29/2016 8:21:54 PM PDT by offduty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: offduty
Anyone who opened ANY of the emails with a Hillary or Huma header on it and read the contents may very well have jeopardized the criminal case.

This statement is completely incorrect.

Knowledge of evidence illegally obtained when a subsequent warrant recovers the same evidence is not excluded under the exclusionary rule. It is valid evidence.

Even if Weiner voluntarily surrendered the computer to the NYPD, he CANNOT give consent to the police to search anything other than HIS email.

This statement is also false. He cannot give consent for Huma or Hillary. Therefore the search warrant is needed.

This statement is ALSO FALSE, and I have cited the pertinent case law, which you attempted to deflect with errant nonsense about "exigent circumstances." Exigent circumstance is not necessary when a party with control over the premises or item to be examined voluntarily surrenders the evidence. Since you're stating a bunch of nonsense on this forum, you need to stop talking:

STATE OF ILLINOIS, PETITIONER v. EDWARD RODRIGUEZ (SCOTUS, 1990) Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. "In United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974), this Court reaffirmed that a warrantless entry and search by law enforcement officers does not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription of "unreasonable searches and seizures" if the officers have obtained the consent of a third party who possesses common authority over the premises."

"The present case presents an issue we expressly reserved in Matlock, see id., at 177, n.14: whether a warrantless entry is valid when based upon the consent of a third party whom the police, at the time of the entry, reasonably believe to possess common authority over the premises, but who in fact does not do so.

The Court held that the evidence, even in this case was admissible AS WELL.

108 posted on 10/29/2016 8:22:56 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: offduty
Exigent circumstances are not required. See Matlock.
109 posted on 10/29/2016 8:23:46 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Wikileaks says they will be giving out all 33,000 deleted Emails on Monday.


110 posted on 10/29/2016 8:24:46 PM PDT by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric Cartman voice* 'I love you, guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Steve Van Doorn
Yup!


111 posted on 10/29/2016 8:26:56 PM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: offduty
I know people who worked in the White House when Clinton was there...

Six degrees of separation, or less.
Like you, mine is much less than six as well.

It truly is a small world.

112 posted on 10/29/2016 8:30:55 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty and supped with infamy. Benjamiin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: hotsteppa

Why do they need a warrant if they presumably had one for the Weiner investigation, exactly? If they open up Outlook for example to look for e-mails from Weiner to his underage accusers and happen to stumble upon Huma/Clinton e-mails, is there a tenable argument that they exceeded the boundaries of the warrant or would the plain sight rule come into play?

Any FReepers in law enforcement or criminal lawyers have an idea?


113 posted on 10/29/2016 8:31:54 PM PDT by NYRepublican72 (Radical Islamic terrorist Omar Mateen is "Ready for Hillary!" Are you too?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

you have a link to that?


114 posted on 10/29/2016 8:32:52 PM PDT by luv2ndamend (Same party, different letter. When the shtf, hug a politician.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: luv2ndamend

http://endingthefed.com/breaking-assange-lands-final-blow-on-hillary-after-fbi-case-reopened.html


115 posted on 10/29/2016 8:34:31 PM PDT by GregNH (If you can't fight, please find a good place to hide!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: offduty
I very seriously doubt that the detectives of an NYPD task force asked Huma "May we have this latptop for the express purpose of only looking for sexting material related to your husband's case of sexting a fifteen year old?" Cops don't do that, and if you were a cop, you know they don't.

As for your assertions about Rodriguez, I think you'd better reread the opinion, which states, inter alia:

But as we have discussed, what is at issue when a claim of apparent consent is raised is not whether the right to be free of searches has been waived, but whether the right to be free of unreasonable searches has been violated.

The freedom from unreasonable searches is all the Exclusionary Rule protects, and that protection was not violated in Rodriguez.

Yes, obtaining a warrant should merely be pro forma but there is no reason to believe that anything seen in pursuing the vice case is not covered under either voluntary surrender or plain view, and NOTHING has been endangered by the actions of the NYPD or Bharara's office in this investigation.

116 posted on 10/29/2016 8:38:43 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Saw that on Reddit.


117 posted on 10/29/2016 8:41:34 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: NYRepublican72; offduty
offduty and I have a running argument about that on this thread. I believe anything seen on this computer under a warrant is covered under the doctrine of Plain View. You're looking for X, and while searching for X, you happen to see Y. Y is not covered by the warrant, but is evidence of a crime and is not in my opinion, covered by the Exclusionary Rule.

I also happen to believe that if the reports are correct, this laptop was voluntarily surrendered. When police are given consent to search (either by the target of an investigation or by a third party with control over a premises) they do not need a warrant, and they do not have to be searching for specific items at all.

118 posted on 10/29/2016 8:43:05 PM PDT by FredZarguna (And what Rough Beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Fifth Avenue to be born?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: GregNH

Thank you!


119 posted on 10/29/2016 8:44:01 PM PDT by luv2ndamend (Same party, different letter. When the shtf, hug a politician.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; offduty

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ssmanual2009.pdf


120 posted on 10/29/2016 8:45:25 PM PDT by rolling_stone (easy if she had)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-174 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson