The only way to stop the unwarranted smearing of this fine women is for a Blanket Presidential pardon of Hillary and the associated parties. For the good of the election process of course. And because she is totally innocent! To allow this to continue is just another way of twarting the will of the peeps. It's just another vast right wing conspiracy. A conspiracy that can not be allowed to sway this election of the first women President.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....tion/article/2606000


Whispers of "payback" are being directed at Hillary Clinton after she decried as "unprecedented" the surprise FBI revival of its probe of her email scandal.

That's because 24 years ago, as former President George H.W. Bush was surging back against challenger Bill Clinton, a special prosecutor raised new charges against Bush in the Iran-Contra probe, prompting Clinton to claim he was running against a "culture of corruption."

Many Republicans claimed that the indictment made by special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh against former Reagan-era Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger the weekend before the 1992 election cost Bush a second term. The indictment, later thrown out, challenged Bush's claim that he did not know about a controversial arms-for-hostages deal that dogged the Reagan-Bush administration.

When it came, Clinton seized on it, saying for example, "Secretary Weinberger's note clearly shows that President Bush has not been telling the truth when he says he was out of the loop." Clinton added, "It demonstrates that President Bush knew and approved of President Reagan's secret deal to swap arms for hostages."

Powerline blogger Paul Mirengoff wrote, "What goes around comes around."

He concluded:

The Clintons seized on the new indictment, howling about a "culture of corruption" that supposedly pervaded the administration. Bush's poll numbers declined and Bill Clinton won the election.

Shortly after the election, a federal judge threw out the new indictment because it violated the five-year statute of limitations and improperly broadened the original charges. President Bush then pardoned Weinberger.

Keep this history in mind during the coming days when you hear Democratic hacks talking about how awful it is for law enforcement officials and/or prosecutors to "interfere" in the presidential election process.


http://www.powerlineblog.com/a...und-comes-around.php

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:
The whole notion of a "warrant" being needed, and Lynch possibly refusing, is nothing but a red herring that was floated by the Clinton Campaign to try to slow down the bleeding. They and Lynch cooked up this misdirection to buy a little time. The media has been a most willing participant.

Comey can move on this info anytime he wants. He needs nothing from Lynch and she is powerless to stop him. If what is there is indeed the bombshell we've been told of, then I'm sure Comey would like the DoJ on his side moving forward but.....Comey had to consider all of this before going public. He knew there would be pushback. He has a plan for getting where he wants to go.

An "unreasonable search" results in the evidence discovered being inadmissible. Having a warrant insulates you somewhat from this risk.

What specifically causes you to claim no warrant is required?

Does a warrent need to be issued by the DOJ specifically or can any federal judge do it?

quote:

Originally posted by AzMikeCFD102:
http://www.washingtonexaminer....tion/article/2606000


Whispers of "payback" are being directed at Hillary Clinton after she decried as "unprecedented" the surprise FBI revival of its probe of her email scandal.

Rather than payback, I prefer to think of it as karma.

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:
The FBI hasn't read the emails because they don't have a warrant.
Well I imagine they had to have read something to know they had something to look into.

I’m reserving most of my comments for now because, as usual, we know very little to merit such judgments. But the situation you address is hardly unusual.

Yes, someone found something that prompted all this, and that was by reading email(s). What LEOs do in such situations is stop once they believe they uncover evidence of a crime and pursue warrants to ensure that what else they uncover is admissible in court. It’s no different than an officer’s entering a house because he hears screams and calls for help and then seeing evidence of a marijuana grow. What he’s seen because of the exigent circumstances warrantless entry of the house can be used as a basis for a warrant, but he has no right to continue searching the house once the emergency basis for the original entry has been resolved.

Can we expect any additional information from the FBI in the coming week, or will this be handled entirely behind the scenes?

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
Does a warrent need to be issued by the DOJ specifically or can any federal judge do it?

Read the prior posts.

A warrant must be issued by a judge. The DOJ is the prosecutor that goes to court to present the request and the facts justifying it. The FBI in effect is represented by the DOJ, as are all Federal agencies generally.

quote:

Originally posted by Fla. Jim:
The only way to stop the unwarranted smearing of this fine women is for a Blanket Presidential pardon of Hillary and the associated parties. For the good of the election process of course. And because she is totally innocent! To allow this to continue is just another way of twarting the will of the peeps. It's just another vast right wing conspiracy. A conspiracy that can not be allowed to sway this election of the first women President.

I am always amazed that the Democrats continue to use the term "Vast right-wing conspiracy".
Hillary was the first to popularized the term when Bill was being accused of sexual misconduct in the Oval Office with an intern.
Then came the blue dress with a semen stain having matching DNA with Bill.
The conspiracy turned out to be factual.

Who has an expectation of privacy in the device?

Not Hillary, no matter how many emails came from her. They're delivered emails stored on a physical device. You have no inherent REP in an email you send once it's delivered to an intended recipient.

Weiner does, if it's his laptop. Huma arguably so, but she'd have to argue that she had that subjective expectation, which would go completely against her argument that she has NO idea how those emails wound up on that machine.

There is an immense difference between the status of an email in transit, an email in the possession of a provider (think Google or MSN/Hotmail/Outlook.com/Yahoo) and one that's been delivered. The laptop is no different than a three-ring binder or diary we find in a physical search. The statutes and precedents that require me to obtain a warrant for your mail-- held on a provider's server-- don't apply here. I just need to have lawfully come into possession of the laptop.


Really, even if the .gov came into the laptop UNLAWFULLY, the only people who would have standing to object (and seek suppression in a criminal proceeding) are those who had a manifested and reasonable expectation of privacy in the laptop. Hillary doesn't, unless the next revelation will be of some bizarre three-way polyamorous "marriage" arrangement and a co-owned laptop.

Screwed, and not in a good way.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The incredibly frustrating part of Comey's letter is that we don't know how much Comey knows right now.

The other side would like to bound this up, and that ain't happening.

FBI found stuff that made them realize they had been premature in closing the investigation.

What on earth could make them decide, in the 10 days left, to turn 180 degrees yet again and decide they now know everything and could declare another end? Nothing but pure political pressure, rather than investigative findings or procedures.... and Comey's 10-year appointment is good till 2023.

If it does get dropped, that would be incontrovertible evidence of the amount of corruption dripping from the Clintons yet again.

Personally, though, having rediscovered his backbone, I doubt anything could persuade Comey to misplace it again.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:


The laptop is no different than a three-ring binder or diary we find in a physical search. The statutes and precedents that require me to obtain a warrant for your mail-- held on a provider's server-- don't apply here. I just need to have lawfully come into possession of the laptop.


Really, even if the .gov came into the laptop UNLAWFULLY, the only people who would have standing to object (and seek suppression in a criminal proceeding) are those who had a manifested and reasonable expectation of privacy in the laptop. Hillary doesn't, unless the next revelation will be of some bizarre three-way polyamorous "marriage" arrangement and a co-owned laptop.

Screwed, and not in a good way.

We don't know how they came into possession, only some irresponsible speculation. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and maybe, given the stakes, the DOJ wants to be careful in the warrant request, anticipating arguments in future prosecutions about admissibility.

quote:

Rather than payback, I prefer to think of it as karma. Cool

Payback, Karma. I will take either. Both tend towards the same end.

RMD

I think sigfreund's post above may be a good summary of where we are.

It is indeed possible we hear no more for 8 days.

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:
The whole notion of a "warrant" being needed, and Lynch possibly refusing, is nothing but a red herring that was floated by the Clinton Campaign to try to slow down the bleeding. They and Lynch cooked up this misdirection to buy a little time. The media has been a most willing participant.

Comey can move on this info anytime he wants. He needs nothing from Lynch and she is powerless to stop him. If what is there is indeed the bombshell we've been told of, then I'm sure Comey would like the DoJ on his side moving forward but.....Comey had to consider all of this before going public. He knew there would be pushback. He has a plan for getting where he wants to go.

An "unreasonable search" results in the evidence discovered being inadmissible. Having a warrant insulates you somewhat from this risk.

What specifically causes you to claim no warrant is required?

You are letting the media lead you where they want to take you.

You're talking in legalese. In terms of an indictment, admissibility of evidence, a subsequent conviction and appeal.

What if none of that means a RAT'S ASS to Comey? What if his OVERWHELMING PRIORITY is to make sure Hillary is not elected. If it makes the evidence tainted and unusable later, what if he doesn't give a damn? If he truly cared about an indictment and prosecution, would he have passed back in July? Something has changed and what was good for Comey back in July is no longer so. Comey is scum and he is in this for Comey. He is not a dedicated, American patriot. Why do you think Obama chose him in the first place?

Think of it in those terms and then tell me what Comey needs other than a microphone and the media? He can announce it, he can let it be "leaked"....there's 10 ways he can get it out there for all to see. If he is holding the bombshell with which we've been teased, and he drops it tomorrow, and Hillary is destroyed....maybe Comey's wishlist ends right there.

Amazing how eager CROOKED hillary and the entire CROOKED and turgid cabal are now so eager to 'see' what's in all of those e-mails!

ROTFLMAO!!

After almost what, 1 1/2 to 2 years of stonewalling at every possible turn to keep them hidden and/or destroyed?!

Bunch of frig'n GDC Asshats!!!!

Not mine, I just think it's funny.

I honestly don't believe Comey wanted to do this. He would have been plenty content to let sleeping dogs lie. Something forced his hand. It will be very interesting to find out what that is. Like others I believe that even if she is elected her administration is absolutely doomed from the word go.

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:

quote:

Originally posted by Mainframe Coder:
The whole notion of a "warrant" being needed, and Lynch possibly refusing, is nothing but a red herring that was floated by the Clinton Campaign to try to slow down the bleeding. They and Lynch cooked up this misdirection to buy a little time. The media has been a most willing participant.

Comey can move on this info anytime he wants. He needs nothing from Lynch and she is powerless to stop him. If what is there is indeed the bombshell we've been told of, then I'm sure Comey would like the DoJ on his side moving forward but.....Comey had to consider all of this before going public. He knew there would be pushback. He has a plan for getting where he wants to go.

An "unreasonable search" results in the evidence discovered being inadmissible. Having a warrant insulates you somewhat from this risk.

What specifically causes you to claim no warrant is required?

You are letting the media lead you where they want to take you.

You're talking in legalese. In terms of an indictment, admissibility of evidence, a subsequent conviction and appeal.

Thank you. I was, after all, a lawyer for 40 years. It's gratifying to think that after several years of inactivity, I can still think like a lawyer.

Comey is a lawyer, too. I bet many of the DOJ prosecutors are lawyers, maybe all of them! Their job is to prepare to prosecute, not just trade press releases. They know that there are certain requirements that must be followed, scrupulously observed, at the risk of blowing a good case of criminal wrongdoing.

Why should you speculate and deny that entertaining privilege to others?

The media is not some amorphous blob, although several individuals in the media might be. There is some risk of media influence of us, since all we have to go on is media reports. OTOH, Comey and the DOJ are sitting there with potential evidence of potential crimes, and the rules. How should they play it?

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
If HRC really wanted the FBI to release all information, Obama and/or Lynch would not be holding up the warrant. That warrant could be issued in 15 minutes, no problem.

They wake Federal judges up in the middle of the night, even Supreme Court Justices, when the need arises.

That's my opinion too. And Trump ought to make this point – perhaps in a tweet.