Huma says neither she nor her husband

[triron]

received a warrant for searching Weiner's laptop

http://nypost.com/2016/12/15/huma-says-she-never-received-fbi-warrants-for-email-searches/

[zippythepinhead]

1. she should sue them

Why not?

[uponit7771]

2. +1

[Baitball Blogger]

3. Am I tinfoiing here, or are they suspecting that the FBI obtained those emails

illegally, as part of the Russian email hacking incident?

[FBaggins]

4. I'm not sure that they would have seen one either way

The FBI already had the laptop in their possession on a warrant related to his sexting investigation. I don't think that they have to show the owner the warrant in order to use it in that case.

[NWCorona]

5. Didn't Anthony hand over the laptop freely? I think looking at her emails is a

different story tho.

[HoneyBadger]

7. So complicated

So on a laptop, you have to get a warrant for each set of emails? How is that even possible unless you know who the emails belong to, meaning that you must already know what is in them. Weiner would have to say, this is my laptop, those are not my emails. I imagine that folks under investigation must say that all the time.

[Lurks Often]

6. Early stages of the story, watch it change substantially before we get the full answer

If neither Weiner or Abedin saw a search warrant, why did one of them surrender the laptop?

If they didn't surrender the laptop to the FBI who did?

Who had possession of this laptop when it was seized?

Who is the legal owner of the laptop, if it is US Govt property the warrant would be served to the government agency that "owns" the laptop.

Did the emails go through a US government server/US Government email account?

Or did the FBI go to Weiner and/or Abedin's internet e-mail provider and get the emails from the internet provide?


Not sure I believe one or more FBI agents are going to risk getting fired or jailed for failing to follow the law regarding serving warrant.

[Chiyo-chichi]

8. The question here, I think, relates to probable cause.

As CNN reported it, Weiner's computers were seized in early October.

"By mid-October, Comey learned investigators in the Weiner case might have found something that could have an impact on the now-closed probe into Hillary Clinton's private email server, according to one law enforcement official."

The DoJ obtained a new warrant in late October.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/clinton-emails-fbi-abedin/index.html?adkey=bn

The public has a right to know what probable cause was shown to justify the search. Randol Schoeberg is suing the FBI to make the warrant public.

Especially now that we know for certain that there was nothing in those emails, it is very unclear how prosecutors could have met the probable cause standard. But that has also been part of the issue all along.

This from Politico on 10/31:

"'The big issue to my mind is: In order to seize evidence on the computer, it needs to be just immediately apparent that it's evidence of a crime. It's hard to know how that would be the case here,' said former federal computer-crimes prosecutor Orin Kerr, now a law professor at George Washington University. 'It sounds like the government thinks this information might be relevant and they'd like to take a look at it, but it's not immediately apparent to me that it would be evidence of a crime.'"

"The Constitution prohibits general warrants, requiring that evidence seized be expected to connect to specific crimes. So while the warrant used to seize the devices from Weiner is not public, it almost certainly contained some limitation focused on the probe into the former congressman's sexting and alleged electronic contact with an underage girl."

"Of course, if Abedin gave the FBI permission to search the newly found email cache, that might have made a second warrant unnecessary. However, since the laptop apparently belonged to Weiner, it's unclear whether Abedin's permission would have been legally sufficient unless he also consented to the search."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/huma-abedin-emails-clinton-weiner-comey-230512

[Justice]

9. Huma said the FBI never asked Huma or Weiner to agree to search either.

The FBI had the laptop for weeks yet never asked Huma or Weiner if they would agree to a search.

Emails were from 3 accounts—Yahoo, clintonemail.com, and Gmail.

http://nypost.com/2016/12/13/judge-could-unseal-warrants-that-uncovered-more-anthony-weiner-sexts/

Govt wants the warrants for Huma's emails to remain top secret. (Not the content, the warrants themselves)

Judge seems inclined to release the warrants in full, or possibly with redactions of information government says is top secret.

This is very curious.

[okieinpain]

12. this whole election is becoming very curious. n/t.

[PRETZEL]

10. Maybe I'm not connecting the dots right,

but I'm not sure about the timeline in all this.

Weiner's sexting scandal apparently started in June 2015 but Clinton's tenure as SOS ended in 2013.

I would have thought that a matter of procedure when Sec. Clinton resigned her position she would have turned that server over.

[zippythepinhead]

11. I trust the fbi as much

as I trust the kgb.

Remember what the fbi did to John Lennon?

Remember the fbi agent provocateurs during the vi et nam protests?