patrick.net

Gary Anderson says

You should read up on Murray Rothbard, anarcho capitalist Libertarian. He was a total racist.

Bullshit, show me the quote.

Conjecture is unacceptable.

She looks like trump with an orange face and white around her eyes?

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Could Weiner been having obscene video chats with IHLlary

maybe Bill Clinton was sending dick pics to Huma?

Gary Anderson says

At least they aren't the deplorables who couldn't see a racist when he smacks them in the face with it. You should read up on Murray Rothbard, anarcho capitalist Libertarian. He was a total racist. And Trump says many things Rothbard says.

Liberals are the racist. They hate white people, specifically white men, they blame white people for everything (never themselves). Wake up Gary. Everything left espouses radiates hatred toward whites. The typical left wing divide and conquer communist shit.

turtledove says

Seems like s strange interpretation of the law that doesn't pass the common sense test. People get arrested for incidental findings all the time. If you had to have a warrant listing exactly everything you're looking for, how would anything ever be admissible? Police aren't psychic.

Maybe you need to look at something called the fourth amendment. All that probable cause and unreasonable search and seizure thing. It passed the common sense test for the people that wrote the constitution. With good reason. Police and the FBI can't use a warrant as a fishing expedition. The incidental findings of another crime not related to the original warrant have to be both in plain sight and clear evidence of a crime. A cache of unknown content abedin emails found while investigating wiener for sexting doesn't qualify. They are going to have to make a probable cause case for a warrant then they can find out what is contained in the emails and IF it is relevant to clinton at all.

Seems awful strange that the head of the FBI didn't wait a couple days for a preliminary review of the emails to see if there is any relevance at all. Saying they appear to be relevant without knowing the content at all is very odd.

bob2356 says

Seems awful strange that the head of the FBI didn't wait a couple days for a preliminary review of the emails to see if there is any relevance at all. Saying they appear to be relevant without knowing the content at all is very odd.

Yes, he may have pretty much cheated the system. Now a warrant has been issued, becasue of the election, and becasue of the unfairness of such vague statements right before an election. Now they need to look at the emails as quickly as possible, and I think huge pressure will be on Comey to explain exactly what the hell he was talking about.

That puts him in a very awkward situation, becasue they shouldn't have been reading Abedin's emails without a warrant.

The justice department can start to look at the 100K emails of Abedin that were on the laptop, but they need Comey to either say exactly what he was talking about, or to give another statement saying they've got nothing. Shit or get off the pot Comey. And then resign in disgrace.

bob2356 says

Maybe you need to look at something called the fourth amendment.

Well there were people smarter than you debating it. A warrant for the computer and its contents is a warrant for the computer and its contents. Is there really an expectation of privacy for certain folders? What about a search warrant for your home? Can a member not under suspicion put a "do not enter" sign on her bedroom door and expect that to be honored? And if they find a meth lab in her bedroom, is that finding not admissible?

I think it's an OCD overreach, but I have no doubt that they wanted to be extra careful to make sure that there was no possible legal ground to have the evidence thrown out..... No doubt, Clinton would use every legal trick in the book.

Where's the email evidence?

Smoke & mirrors,misdirection,distractions!
Much bigger issues that are hidden from sight?
Comey was told to send a letter to Congress?
Who's really in control?

Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

"There's something happening here
what it is ain't exactly clear"

turtledove says

Is there really an expectation of privacy for certain folders?

Email belonging to another person ? Yes, as a matter of fact. Of course.

turtledove says

Can a member not under suspicion put a "do not enter" sign on her bedroom door and expect that to be honored? And if they find a meth lab in her bedroom, is that finding not admissible?

Terrible analogy, and Bob mentioned:

bob2356 says

have to be both in plain sight and clear evidence of a crime

A better analogy would be say someone's home was being investigated (with a warrant) becasue the teenage son had a meth lab in the basement, and the investigator said, "you know, I brought Steve here along with us, becasue he really wants to look through the father's files in his desk upstairs becasue of an unrelated tax fraud investigation last year that was unable to get any incriminating evidence."

Are you kidding ?

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Or to Weiner, if Bill is anything like IHLlary.

Bill would only send pictures of sperm blobs.

turtledove says

Well there were people smarter than you debating it.

No the people smarter than me are pointing out exactly how the fourth amendment works along with the relevant case law to back it up above and beyond my general knowledge of the subject. The ignorant ones are debating it.

Have they stopped teaching this stuff in high school? You had to know what the constitution and bill of rights contained along with having to be able to explain what it meant to get out of 11th grade back in the day. It seems amazing the number of people that have no clue what the core foundation of the constitutional principles of our society is, what it means, or why it is important. Starting with trump who either is totally ignorant of what the powers and responsibility of the presidency are or simply intends to ignore them or is just throwing out bullshit knowing that the trumptards won't know the difference. All pretty scary thoughts for someone running to be leader of the free world.

bob2356 says

No the people smarter than me are pointing out exactly how the fourth amendment works along with the relevant case law to back it up above and beyond my general knowledge of the subject. The ignorant ones are debating it.

Correct. There is no debate, a warrant was issued.

This could really wind up putting egg on his face...

ThreeBays says

Plus Comey will almost certainly be investigated for violating the Hatch Act.

The Deplorable DFJ says

There is no debate, a warrant was issued.

After Comey's letter to congress. Comey is in trouble. But who knows, maybe Clinton or Abedin are as well.

Why a movie?
Why not a documentary???

Scott Adams says

My movie says

The Deplorable DFJ says

bob2356 says

No the people smarter than me are pointing out exactly how the fourth amendment works along with the relevant case law to back it up above and beyond my general knowledge of the subject. The ignorant ones are debating it.

Correct. There is no debate, a warrant was issued.

Pay attention. The debate, started by turtledove, was if emails other than warrens can be looked at without a warrant just because they were there. Issuing a warrant for abedin's emails has nothing to do with that discussion.

Ranina ranina says

This could really wind up putting egg on his face...

ThreeBays says

Plus Comey will almost certainly be investigated for violating the Hatch Act.

This had been discussed here and it had quickly been decided that the Hatch Act does not particularly apply here. To the best of my knowledge the only one of importance(i.e. Not the politics commentators) to suggest that comet might have violated the Hatch Act is Harry Reid...who is about to retire.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

The Deplorable DFJ says

There is no debate, a warrant was issued.

After Comey's letter to congress. Comey is in trouble. But who knows, maybe Clinton or Abedin are as well.

Why would Comey be in trouble?

The Deplorable DFJ says

Why would Comey be in trouble?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/30/joe-walsh-clinton-comey-tweets/93036902/

Because he (they) must have read some of Abedins emails to think that there's something there, that wouldn't already have been seen before (on HIllary's end). They did that without a warrant. If his letter to congress was just a ruse to get a warrant, a week before the election ?

Ironman says

In the second act of this movie, Comey learns that the Weiner laptop had emails that were so damning it would be a crime against the public to allow them to vote without first seeing a big red flag. And a flag was the best he could do because it was too early in the investigation to leak out bits and pieces of the evidence.

So comey lied to congress when he said that the contents of the emails are unknown? The FBI actually poked around and read emails not covered in the warrant knowing that it would make all of the emails inadmissible evidence later if something criminal was actually found? They managed to find something so damning in a couple days out of 650,000 emails? How likely is all of that? Not very.

Sit there and count your fingers
What can you do?
Old girl you're through
Sit there, count your little fingers
Unhappy little girl blue

Sit there and count the raindrops
Falling on you
It's time you knew
All you can ever count on
Are the raindrops
That fall on little girl blue

Won't you just sit there
Count the little raindrops
Falling on you
'Cause it's time you knew
All you can ever count on
Are the raindrops
That fall on little girl blue

No use old girl
You might as well surrender
'Cause your hopes are getting slender and slender
Why won't somebody send a tender blue boy
To cheer up little girl blue

To analyze emails without reading content, one would only look at the headers to determine who sent it and who received it.
Once analyzation of the headers showed back and forth correspondence with the clinton illegal server, it became apparent that perjury was committed as weiner's laptop was not included by hillary and/or huma on the list of devices they gave to the fbi that contained such.
Further analyzation of the headers would show whether the emails were duplicates, or fresh evidence.
That's enough to reopen the case.

bob2356 says

The FBI actually poked around and read emails not covered in the warrant knowing that it would make all of the emails inadmissible evidence later if something criminal was actually found?

Noticing ABC changing their sampling from one day to the next:

bob2356 says

So comey lied to congress when he said that the contents of the emails are unknown? The FBI actually poked around and read emails not covered in the warrant knowing that it would make all of the emails inadmissible evidence later if something criminal was actually found? They managed to find something so damning in a couple days out of 650,000 emails? How likely is all of that? Not very.

They checked the metadata to see if there was anything worth looking at, and they found quite a few they want to look at.

OH! Hillary would never do anything untoward with/in hidden email?
FMTT

marcus is NOT deplorable says

The Deplorable DFJ says

Why would Comey be in trouble?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/30/joe-walsh-clinton-comey-tweets/93036902/

Because he (they) must have read some of Abedins emails to think that there's something there, that wouldn't already have been seen before (on HIllary's end). They did that without a warrant. If his letter to congress was just a ruse to get a warrant, a week before the election ?

Already asked and answered. Law Diesnt just conform to what you wish it to be. Look how well that line of thought worked for Hillary.

Much like the George Zimmerman trial could not set precedence and become case law, neither did the FBI break any laws here. Stop getting your views on legal issues from propaganda pieces by political hacks.

Originally I had thought it was the NYPD who had an "all-access pass" warrant on Weiner, and informed the FBI upon coming across HRC-related Emails.

Turns out the FBI itself had a narrow warrant just for the interstate (the suspected underage was in NC) sex chat. But they could look at all the metadata, and based on that decided there was something there worth getting a warrant for. 650,000 emails.

650,000

DFJ--

Who exactly "answered" it already on here? And how was/is his or her opinion more valid?

Okay, but if you are looking for emails of wrong-doing of a particular kind, how would you know which ones they are if you don't look at all of them? I could easily send an email through my husband's account if I wanted to. Is that all a person has to do to get away with crimes... Send emails under a different account? That's ridiculous.

You all are being such defensive assholes about all this. I'm simply asking the question. I know that you have a need to be absolutely right about everything and any question brought up is an attack of the greatest kind against everything you stand for... But sometimes when a person just asks a question, she is just asking a question and thinking out loud. You really don't need to be dicks about it.

Turtle--

It would help if you didn't imply he was stupid in your post. People tend to get a little offended when you do that.

It would help if you didn't imply he was stupid in your post. People tend to get a little offended when you do that.

==========================================

I didn't. I said that "people smarter than you" are debating it. People who study these things. That was true, at the time. It's a moot point, right now, as the warrant has been issued. That is not implying that he's stupid. I don't go around presenting myself as a constitutional scholar. I highly doubt he is one, either. I have no trouble admitting there are people who know more about the details of the laws. That's why we ask questions. It's supposed to be a discussion. Not even experts get it right every time. That's how things end up at the Supreme Court.

turtledove says

You really don't need to be dicks about it.

I wasn't being a dick about it with this (below). Curious what DJF doesn't get about this. It's kind of simple.

marcus is NOT deplorable says

A better analogy would be say someone's home was being investigated (with a warrant) becasue the teenage son had a meth lab in the basement, and the investigator said, "you know, I brought Steve here along with us, becasue he really wants to look through the father's files in his desk upstairs becasue of an unrelated tax fraud investigation last year that was unable to get any incriminating evidence."

Are you kidding ?

turtledove says

It's a moot point, right now, as the warrant has been issued.

I don't see how that's true. How did Comey have probable cause regarding Abedins emails, to write a letter to congress about reopening an investigation, unless he read them without a warrant ?

This may be something that hasn't been addressed before. That is, privacy of digital files in this type of situation. One also has to wonder whether they really had probable cause with Weiner - no doubt he's a pervert and an idiot - but do we know that that investigation would have happened if they didn't want to get to Abedin's emails?

Look I'm just asking questions too. Anyone that denies the possibility of their being privacy issues here is being dishonest.

@marcus... I wasn't talking about you. I was kind of using the "royal" y'all to be polite.

Maybe I'm just in a mood today. Besides, today... I'm Anne Boleyn. So everyone just needs to STFU and give me my due respect ;)

turtledove says

Maybe I'm just in a mood today. Besides, today... I'm Anne Boleyn. So everyone just needs to STFU and give me my due respect ;)

OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! KISSASS OR DIE PEASANTS!

It's good to be the queen.

Look I'm just asking questions too. Anyone that denies the possibility of their being privacy issues here is being dishonest.
===============================

The only thing that I have to compare these things to are civil cases. When my husband's ex took him to court for the umpteenth time, nothing seemed to be sacred. It didn't really matter, because it didn't really change the outcomes of her losing repeatedly... We were told not to delete anything during the discovery period, as it would could put us in contempt of court. So we didn't... Back in the day when we had a family email account that we both used (about as stupid as Hillary having her private/public email on the same server), I wasn't allowed the luxury of separating out my emails... it was a little embarrassing... Not harmful, but embarrassing. You know, in that kind of way where it makes perfect sense at the time with the person you are talking to, but sounds bad when someone else is reading it aloud, completely out of context.

turtledove says

That's why we ask questions. It's supposed to be a discussion.

It doesn't look much like a discussion to me these days. Regarding the HRC emails, the MSM has been correct about the warrant issue. On PatNet, the 'discussion' has been taken over by people salivating over the idea of HRC going to jail, and the speculation has been wide and incorrect.

There's been a lot written about the Hatch act and this incident.
Here's a snippet from this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/opinion/on-clinton-emails-did-the-fbi-director-abuse-his-power.html?_r=0, which was written by a Law Professor who filed a complaint. Reid is the only politician I see making a stink about it.

That is why, on Saturday, I filed a complaint against the F.B.I. with the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates Hatch Act violations, and with the Office of Government Ethics. I spent much of my career working on government and lawyers’ ethics, including as the chief White House ethics lawyer for George W. Bush. I never thought that the F.B.I. could be dragged into a political circus surrounding one of its investigations. Until this week.
(For the sake of full disclosure, in this election I have supported Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton for president, in that order.)

You guys do realize the law of the land isn't "Well what about that time so 'N so did something?!" don't you?

Comey has been consistently called to explain the status of the various investigations on Hillary Clinton by a Congressional Committee. In light of new evidence, he informed that committee. Hatch requires Intent; Comey has been constantly called in front of this Committee all year long. There is no intent here; everything else is a distraction.

It is more telling that Bush-era appointees, such as Richard Painter, who was the Chief Ethics Lawyer for the Bush Administration (hahahahahahha) is complaining about Hatch and Comey.

The desperation of the Establishment on Both Sides of the Aisle is something to consider.

Wow look at the Blue States that have laws where people can be bullied into changing their early votes.
It's a good thing these people can change their votes without being bullied into it this time.