they don't need a warrant if the NYPD gave them the emails in connection with wiener's childporn case
Posted on 10/29/2016 6:28:46 PM PDT by hotsteppa
“U.S. Attorney Preet Bhara already had a subpoena to review Weiner’s devices. Pretty sure the cat’s already out of the bag and the emails have already been reviewed by NYPD as well as FBI agents.”
Exactly. ^^^^^
Ok thanks. Then the optics are bad for Hillary - it looks like collusion and stonewalling. (A judge blocking it would appear rational.)
“Since the first investigation was not closed, wouldn’t that warrant be good still?”
That is what I am thinking.
#62: “optics” = LIV or Undecided Voter perspective
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure TITLE VIII. SUPPLEMENTARY AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS, Rule 41(d)-2:
(A) Warrant on an Affidavit. When a federal law enforcement officer or an attorney for the government presents an affidavit in support of a warrant, the judge may require the affiant to appear personally and may examine under oath the affiant and any witness the affiant produces.
Usually. However, see my previous post.
All 3 would be guilty of violating the Espionage Act.
I posted once that a cop got his warrant and orders from higher ups and so was not personally responsible for busting into the wrong house, etc., on dope raids.
Someone came right back with the statement that any cop can go directly to a judge and get a warrant....does not have to go to his commanding officer and ask for the warrant to be issued.
So I ask if an FBI agent can go directly to a judge and ask for a warrant.
If not judge "A", then they go to federal judge "B", then "C", then "D", ....
no it has expiration date
This sounds like wishful thinking on the part of Hillary supporters. If the FBI needs a warrant, I doubt it will have much trouble finding a judge to grant one.
Yes, and there is another thing. If the reports are true, the computer was surrendered voluntarily to detectives investigating Weiner. That makes poking around on it a bit more open ended than Her Thighness might have wanted...
To the best of my knowledge, the “good faith” exception only covers areas that are related to the original probable cause. If the cop stops a guy for speeding there is no probable cause that allows him to ask someone to open their trunk. However, if he stops the guy for speeding and finds a gun under the seat, that will usually pass the smell test.
Usually what happens in those types of cases is the driver is arrested and the cop opens the trunk under the premise that he is doing an “inventory” of the vehicle prior to turning the vehicle over to the tow company.
It’s no different than obtaining a search warrant for a rifle, opening a dresser drawer and finding a bag of heroin. There is no expectation the item mentioned in the search warrant will be found in a dresser drawer. Therefore the heroin is usually inadmissible. That’s why search warrants are written fairly loosely. For example if the search warrant mentions a rifle, it will also contain ammunition, receipts for weapons, and other items that give the police a larger area to search.
I am convinced they stumbled on s string of emails from Hillary and had an oh s#it moment. Hillary isn’t stupid. She knows if someone from the FBI starts talking about CONTENT of the emails without them securing a search warrant, she will have them suppressed.
That’s why she is shouting about “releasing the contents” of the emails. She knows she may lose the election over this, but losing her freedom and her money is worth more to her.
She can’t stop it from happening. It isn’t routine procedure, but any Federal officer — especially one who’s been a lawyer — would know how, and is permitted under US code, to present an affidavit for a warrant to a Federal Judge.
They won’t get one either. The Dems are furious and snarling like a dog whose bone was taken away.
Some of you have already recognized the red flag that this message raises.
For those that don't, it's very simple: everyone with a security clearance is tasked with protecting classified information, regardless of whether it is marked or not marked properly.
You don't "rely on the sender". You share responsibility with the sender. This is explained during your security indoctrination, and reinforced on at least an annual basis. If you see something that isn't marked properly, you are required to correct it, and report it if the information has been disclosed to authorized parties.
Clinton tried this dodge, and the clueless people in the lamestream media repeated it without challenge. But, if they had bother to ask someone with actual experience handling classified information, they would have quickly learned that it is not a valid excuse -- especially when you admit that you did it repeatedly.
You might get a pass on a single instance where you missed something, and only be subjected to refresher training. But, repeated occurrences put your clearance, your job, your money, and even your freedom in jeopardy.
Don't they already have her permission to search her computers as part of the immunity deal?
they don't need a warrant if the NYPD gave them the emails in connection with wiener's childporn case
“We do not have a warrant,” a senior law enforcement official said.
Yeah...WHO? Who would that be, some journalist’s “source”?
In that event, Hillary has very little protection: Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990).
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.