I have a browser Bookmark folder called "Internet". It will confuse the FBI and the Russians.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Mine is named "Quarantine".


No one would ever dare open up a quarantine folder, right?

Mine is just straight on the desktop. No shame in my game.

---

Exactly how was this computer obtained illegally to make those emails "fruit of the poisonous tree"?

The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is “immediately apparent” upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Comey's own statement ensures a Judge never allows them in a testimony.

---

The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is “immediately apparent” upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Comey's own statement ensures a Judge never allows them in a testimony.

 

That still doesn't explain how they didn't have a right to view the files. They had a search warrant for each computer searched.

---

That still doesn't explain how they didn't have a right to view the files. They had a search warrant for each computer searched.

Its more likely the warrant was specific to Weiner's emails.

---

Its more likely the warrant was specific to Weiner's emails.

 

So? And that initial warrant would have allowed them to search the entire computer, on any programs/files, for information leading to evidence to a crime they believed Weiner had committed.

 

 Finding evidence to someone else's wrongdoings doesn't have anything to do with what you said.

 

This should show you just how far you're willing to twist facts and circumstances to fit your agenda. Sad, really. 

---

That's some top notch blogging from Joe for 'Murica. A few paragraphs on a file name and nothing about the actual emails which I am led to believe I should be upset about.

---

Only a chump boos the home team!

The plain view exception does not allow evidence to be seized outside a warrant unless it is “immediately apparent” upon viewing it that it is evidence of another crime. Comey's own statement ensures a Judge never allows them in a testimony.

 

They didn't seize the evidence.  The evidence was already lawfully in their possession because of a warrant in the previous investigation.  Correct, the previous warrant was specific to the weiner investigation.  That's why when the investigative team identified electronic communications belonging to Miss Abedin they STOPPED and notified the investigative team associated with the Clinton E-mail investigation and then did a soft review of the metadata.  After it was determined that there were communications that had the state.gov and HRC as part of the address lines of communications it was then time to go get a warrant to actually physically examine the communications themselves.  At such time is when the Director of the FBI was compelled to comply with his testimony before congress that should new information potentially pertinent to the investigation be made available that he would notify congressional leadership of his further action.  In this case that included obtaining a warrant specific to Miss Abedins communications and the subsequent investigative steps to determine their significance to the investigation. 

 

Had it been determined that their presence had been detected outside the scope of probable cause and legal review of the device in FBI custody then the judge wouldn't have issued the warrant specific to her electronic communications. 

 

Also, I think that is frankly shameful the intellectual gymnastics that some are willing to go through in order to try and avoid the fact that these acts are on their face CRIMINAL.  Hillary Clinton claims that she turned over 55 some odd thousand e-mails and admits that 33 some odd thousand were deleted.  We are now reviewing more than HALF A MILLION documents.  Both Miss Clinton and Miss Abedin signed official separation agreements stating that they turned over all work related materials and no longer had possession of or access to classified or sensitive materials.  If there are 0 new emails found on her computer then she is guilty of perjury on her separation form, to the fbi, and in subsequent judicial watch deposition testimony. 

---

So? And that initial warrant would have allowed them to search the entire computer, on any programs/files, for information leading to evidence to a crime they believed Weiner had committed.


Finding evidence to someone else's wrongdoings doesn't have anything to do with what you said.


This should show you just how far you're willing to twist facts and circumstances to fit your agenda. Sad, really.

It's the law. If this was centered around anybody else by HRC the constitutionalist would be in an uproar.


There is previous case law on Huma's side as well. You should read United States v Ganias.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/'>https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/</a>

---

Time will tell. I am confident that while a professional career will be ended, a criminal case never makes it into the courtroom. I would bet on it I am so sure.


Wikileaks data will never get a conviction either without corroborating evidence from elsewhere.

---

Time will tell. I am confident that while a professional career will be ended, a criminal case never makes it into the courtroom. I would bet on it I am so sure.


Wikileaks data will never get a conviction either without corroborating evidence from elsewhere.

 

we'll know in 6 days.  The justice department wasn't going to EAT their defacto nominee for president.  That's just not the way the world works.  If Trump hits 270 and Rudy Giuliani is going to be the new AG then Obama is going to have to determine who is important enough to his legacy to pardon.  Based on Foia Record Keeping requirements, Signed separation agreements and the laws governing classified documents, there's already enough to prosecute should someone so choose. 

---

we'll know in 6 days. The justice department wasn't going to EAT their defacto nominee for president. That's just not the way the world works. If Trump hits 270 and Rudy Giuliani is going to be the new AG then Obama is going to have to determine who is important enough to his legacy to pardon. Based on Foia Record Keeping requirements, Signed separation agreements and the laws governing classified documents, there's already enough to prosecute should someone so choose.

Rudy will never get confirmed in a million years.

---

Americas Mayor?

---

Americas Mayor?

Nobody calls him that anymore. Not since his own failed bid at President. Dodged a bullet on that one!

---

We can agree to disagree. I think he would sail through a republican senate.

---

It's the law. If this was centered around anybody else by HRC the constitutionalist would be in an uproar.


There is previous case law on Huma's side as well. You should read United States v Ganias.

<a class="bbc_url" href='https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/'>https://epic.org/amicus/ganias/</a>

 

No, jj was correct.

 

They're allowed to search for anything covered under the warrant. I think what you're getting confused about is when they find something not covered under the warrant. Just because they find something not covered, it doesn't mean they can't seize it or use it against the person it incriminates. It only means they can't continue looking and expect to use whatever evidence they found without getting another warrant that includes the newly discovered information.

 

As jj stated, they stopped and got new warrants. These people aren't stupid, and I would bet they have their best Detectives working these high-profile cases. 

 

The case law you showed was pretty clear about how they held on to evidence outside of the scope of the warrant and waited for evidence to validate them having the evidence that was already not explicitly stated in the warrant.

 

This case law has nothing to do with what is happening here.

---

No, jj was correct.


They're allowed to search for anything covered under the warrant. I think what you're getting confused about is when they find something not covered under the warrant. Just because they find something not covered, it doesn't mean they can't seize it or use it against the person it incriminates. It only means they can't continue looking and expect to use whatever evidence they found without getting another warrant that includes the newly discovered information.


As jj stated, they stopped and got new warrants. These people aren't stupid, and I would bet they have their best Detectives working these high-profile cases.


The case law you showed was pretty clear about how they held on to evidence outside of the scope of the warrant and waited for evidence to validate them having the evidence that was already not explicitly stated in the warrant.


This case law has nothing to do with what is happening here.

There are many lawyers in disagreement. Time will tell.


But as in all legal questions there is always two sides of the coin and usually it requires the courts to decide.

---

There are many lawyers in disagreement. Time will tell.


But as in all legal questions there is always two sides of the coin and usually it requires the courts to decide.

 

What lawyers?

 

I'm not even sure how you could make your argument unless you knew what was on each computer? It's hard to say if they went outside the scope of the warrant without knowing what they found.

---

What lawyers?


I'm not even sure how you could make your argument unless you knew what was on each computer? It's hard to say if they went outside the scope of the warrant without knowing what they found.

Orin Kerr who teaches law at George Washington University.

---

Funny how the narrative has magically moved from "nothing there" to "inadmissible"...

 

That's not how people of integrity react.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."