FBI still doesn't have warrant to review new emails related to HRC investigation

christiefan915

christiefan915

Catalyst
The FBI still has not obtained a search warrant to review the new emails related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, Yahoo News reported Saturday, citing three government officials who were briefed on the investigation.

According to one of the officials, FBI Director James Comey "had no idea what was in the content of the emails" when he wrote his letter to Congress Friday announcing the existence of new emails that appeared to be "pertinent" to the completed investigation into Clinton's private email server.

The DOJ had warned the FBI against alerting Congress to the existence of the emails, according to media reports on Saturday. Announcing the investigation went against longstanding tradition, and could be perceived as influencing, or attempting to influence, the looming election, the reports said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...e-clinton-investigation/ar-AAjAUBY?li=BBnb7Kz
 
no warrant needed if they are discovered by a search warrant (investigation) of the Weiner affair ( sexting the 15 year old)
 
Thing1 said:
Worse than Watergate!!!
Click to expand...

she's is systemic corruption.Watergate was a product of Nixon paranoia -her's is a grifter type stuff.
I wonder if Abedin and Mills will serve? She's corrupted every thing/everybody she touches
 
anatta said:
no warrant needed if they are discovered by a search warrant (investigation) of the Weiner affair ( sexting the 15 year old)
Click to expand...
Normally, that's probably not true. In this case I would think the original case envelopes all newfound evidence, no matter where it's found?

You guys are going to look silly when it turns out that this is where all the wedding emails are.
 
Althea said:
Normally, that's probably not true. In this case I would think the original case envelopes all newfound evidence, no matter where it's found?

You guys are going to look silly when it turns out that this is where all the wedding emails are.
Click to expand...
well it has to be something "pertinent". I can't see the need for a search warrant if it's already in FBI hands.
There was some case about looking thru cell phones - which is not allowed with out a warrant.
But here the "device" is already seized,.
 
anatta said:
well it has to be something "pertinent". I can't see the need for a search warrant if it's already in FBI hands.
There was some case about looking thru cell phones - which is not allowed with out a warrant.
But here the "device" is already seized,.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying. I think it's all under the original umbrella, but in most cases, warrants must be specific. If cops are doing a legal search in your home for stolen property, they can't prosecute you for weed they find under your mattress.
 
Althea said:
That's what I'm saying. I think it's all under the original umbrella, but in most cases, warrants must be specific. If cops are doing a legal search in your home for stolen property, they can't prosecute you for weed they find under your mattress.
Click to expand...
sure they can. A search warrant for one thing for a warrant doesn't exclude other criminal stuff found.
Else they would do what with the weed? leave it there? seize it and smoke it themselves?:)
 
anatta said:
sure they can. A search warrant for one thing for a warrant doesn't exclude other criminal stuff found.
Else they would do what with the weed? leave it there? seize it and smoke it themselves?:)
Click to expand...
That is just ocean going bullshit by Althea, if the police discover something else whilst conducting a search then tough titty.

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
anatta said:
sure they can. A search warrant for one thing for a warrant doesn't exclude other criminal stuff found.
Else they would do what with the weed? leave it there? seize it and smoke it themselves?:)
Click to expand...
If memory serves, any other evidence of wrongdoing that isn't on the original warrant must be in plain sight. Which is why I specified 'under the mattress'.
 
Althea said:
If memory serves, any other evidence of wrongdoing that isn't on the original warrant must be in plain sight. Which is why I specified 'under the mattress'.
Click to expand...
could be john. I don't think "plain sight exemption" apples there, but now I'm not 100% sure myself
 
christiefan915 said:
The FBI still has not obtained a search warrant to review the new emails related to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, Yahoo News reported Saturday, citing three government officials who were briefed on the investigation.

According to one of the officials, FBI Director James Comey "had no idea what was in the content of the emails" when he wrote his letter to Congress Friday announcing the existence of new emails that appeared to be "pertinent" to the completed investigation into Clinton's private email server.

The DOJ had warned the FBI against alerting Congress to the existence of the emails, according to media reports on Saturday. Announcing the investigation went against longstanding tradition, and could be perceived as influencing, or attempting to influence, the looming election, the reports said.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...e-clinton-investigation/ar-AAjAUBY?li=BBnb7Kz
Click to expand...

Right....but the charge is still there with no hope of resolving anything just 9 days out from an election. Hummmmmm, I wonder who will be damaged most by this reality? :)

Now...its THE FBI going against tradition spin? Really the TRADITION has been....when any political appointee (Hildabeast) comes under federal investigation where the 5th has been invoked, immunity has been granted (indications of criminal activity)....by many witnesses.....the TRADITION has been to remove the party in charge from taking part in any investigative role...while an INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR is appointed and a congressional oversight committee is convened to be the sole source of INVESTIGATING the suspected CRIME. Hell if the powers that appointed this (wink, wink) suspected criminal were to stay in charge....THERE MIGHT NOT EVEN BE AN INDICTMENT. Laugh My Ass Off....its getting thinner and thinner.

But this time....THE FBI has broken tradition? Really? Its not the Obamy administration's refusal to allow any type of INDEPENDENT investigation that is breaking tradition when one of its political appointees is under FBI investigation in not 1 but 2 FBI probes? LMAO. Of course its the PEOPLE's police force (FBI) that is the culprit...not the criminal under 2 investigative probes.

The big question is....."IF" the Hildabeast does actually win the presidency....will she simply "pardon" herself and Bill of any criminal charges? Priceless. Let the left wing DOG and PHONY SHOW CONTINUE. Popcorn anyone?
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
That's what I'm saying. I think it's all under the original umbrella, but in most cases, warrants must be specific. If cops are doing a legal search in your home for stolen property, they can't prosecute you for weed they find under your mattress.
Click to expand...

How about if cops are doing a legal search in your home for stolen property, I guess you'd say they can't prosecute you


if they find a dead body under your mattress.......:palm:
:tardthoughts:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top