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 ...
“I am convinced they stumbled on s string of emails from Hillary and had an oh s#it moment. “
There’s a NY Post article dated 10/18 about a Fed Grand Jury set to begin hearing evidence in the Weiner sexting case end of Oct. Basically right now. The timing fits that while preparing for the GJ the agents discovered these emails and there’s multiple agencies involved. The FBI, the New York Police Department, and US attorneys in New York and North Carolina according to the Daily Mail.
In other words plenty of eyes have previewed these ‘oh s#it’ emails. Chances of some leakage is 100% IMHO.
I tend to agree with you on the law, but agree with offduty on the need for a warrant to cross all the “Is” and dot all the “Ts.”
I think the law is clear that tangential searches are allowed under the plain view doctrine, but I could also see the contra argument where a motion to suppress may be granted if you go well beyond the scope of the warrant.
Rather than get unlucky with an Obama District Judge, an Obama Appellate Court and a crap shoot with SCOTUS (depending on who wins the election), getting a warrant would likely be the proper way to go.
Interesting!!!!
Only problem with that graphic is that the posts are dated Oct 12th, before the re opening of the case.
And it was dated Oct 12th, before the case was reopened.
See this post
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3486616/posts?page=80#80
Even this guy on cnn explains it well.Click on the video.
There was an FBI guy on CNN that said 3 sep cases CGI, Clinton Email & Wieeenie that have crashed into each other
https://twitter.com/graywolf/status/792565404635889664
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3486602/posts?page=121#121
Thanks for this!
Ping to grand jury in NY looking into Weiner case.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ssmanual2009.pdf
b. Third-Party Consent i. General Principles It is common for several people to use or own the same computer equipment. If any one of those people gives permission to search for data, agents may generally rely on that consent, so long as the person has authority over the computer. In such cases, all users have assumed the risk that a co-user might discover everything in the computer and might also permit law enforcement to search this “common area” as well. The watershed case in this area is United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974). In Matlock, the Supreme Court stated that one who has “common 20 Searching and Seizing Computers authority” over premises or effects may consent to a search even if an absent co-user objects. Id. at 171. According to the Court, the common authority that establishes the right of third-party consent requires mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched.
I don't believe the express permission by Huma and Hillary is required unless one of them took specific steps to restrict access to these documents. Manifestly, one of them could not, and there is a different case law covering it: for Clinton, the expectation of privacy disappeared the moment she transmitted an email to Huma. So the only question is: did Huma take affirmative measures to protect her privacy? If not, Matlock would almost certainly be governing.
You and I will have to agree to disagree. My thoughts on this are yes, the emails from Hillary to Huma or whatever may be covered under “plain view” but does that only go to the header and not the contents? Could the case be jeopardized by someone going further and opening the email.
I am not sure Huma voluntarily gave the computer to the NYPD. It was stated on another thread that the US Attorney had issued a search warrant for the computer and if that is the case, you know there are limits to the warrant.
Yes, I was a cop and I’ve had evidence thrown out because the Judge thought we went too far. In other words...you found the box...you control the box...you have time to get a search warrant to “open” the box.
And I did re-read Rodriquez and you are correct, I mis-read the appellate courts language as the Court’s language, I stand corrected.
“Hopefully FOX...”
LOL
Well, those investigating Weiner are probably not limiting their search to only emails with obvious subject headers. Huma had testified she did not do inbox maintenance, she left everything in the inbox or on the desktop. Investigators would be seeing an abundance in plain sight.
But. They were probably recovering deleted messages too. If this is where the emails in question were discovered. Well, that changes everything.
OK, now I’m anxiously awaiting November 1st.
“The NSA certainly has all 33,000 emails, and probably a lot more. That doesn’t mean it can be used in court.”
Then what good to the American people is the NSA, if they can’t help protect our country’s NATIONAL SECURITY?
Hope Trump slides through, and all Trump votes are counted, too many to be challenged, then let the dying New Leftists Bilky and Clydette take their diseased bodies to boring Westchester county. Insanity would be too light a sentence—dementia would fit their crimes.
I would guess these emails are what Hillary had thought they had gotten rid of by scrubbing and bleaching the servers.
SURPRISE!... Nothing ever really dies in the DIGITAL world.
The incriminating evidence was disallowed on a technicality.
If you read the document posted by FredZarguna around page34-35 it talks about “plain view”. Some courts have held that each individual file is a separate entity.
Where I disagree with FredZarguna is this was a sexting case which would normally involve texts or emails from Anthony to the 15-year old female and there would be a sender and receiver clearly marked in the header. While the agent could, under plain sight open the first Huma/Hillary email, he couldn’t open all of them without a search warrant.
It is highly unlikely that Anthony Weiner would use his wife’s email address to either send or receive messages from the 15-year old. This would limit the scope of the search and although they could use the first Huma email as probable cause for obtaining a search warrant, they don’t have license to open all.
This is according to the US Attorneys manual for Computer Crime FredZaguna posted.
I don’t think that was what happened.
The movie is famous for the hospital’s lawyer pressing the witness in front of the jury with one too many questions to which he did not know the answer, but found out to his chagrin.
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.