General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe other shoe drops. Huma Abedin says was NEVER SERVED the warrant
the FBI claims to have gotten -- to dive into her emails on Weiner's computer -- and neither was Weiner.
Karen Dunn, Abedin's lawyer, says the law required Abedin to be served a warrant.
So what happened?
ON EDIT: The only copy of Dunn's letter that I could see was on the public FB page of E. Randol Schoenberg, the attorney.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/15/abedin-claims-never-received-fbi-warrant-for-weiner-emails.html
Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin told a Manhattan federal judge in a court filing Thursday that neither she nor Anthony Weiner ever received FBI search warrants for emails found on her estranged husbands computer raising questions about whether FBI warrants for the emails were ever issued, and if so to whom.
In the letter, Abedins lawyer said she is unable to comment on a Los Angeles lawyers request for FBI warrants tied to her emails, because the government has never provided her with a copy of the warrant it reportedly obtained to search certain emails.
We understand that Mr. Weiner has likewise not been provided with a copy of the material, said the letter from lawyer Karen Dunn.
Abedins letter is tied to a request by E. Randol Schoenberg, a genealogist and lawyer based in LA, who has asked a Manhattan federal judge to help him get to the bottom of FBI Director Jim Comeys late-October surprise announcement that emails tied to the agencys probe into Clintons email server were found on Anthony Weiners computer during the FBIs probe into his sexting with an underage teen.
http://nypost.com/2016/12/15/huma-says-she-never-received-fbi-warrants-for-email-searches/
Dunns letter Thursday cites law that states an officer executing the warrant must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt or the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premise, the property was taken.
Dunn also requests copies of the warrant and warrant application so Ms. Abedin may formulate her position on Schoenbergs request.
The FBI did not immediately return a request for comment.
Reports at the time said the Justice Department was required to obtain separate warrants because Abedins emails were not related to the probe into Weiners sexting.
Judge Castel suggested at a hearing on Tuesday that he was inclined to release any warrants tied to the investigation, but said he wanted to hear first from the parties that had been served.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)gives me hope that much is going on behind the scenes.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)the presidency, and he still has his fucking job.
Thanks, Obama.
Johnathan146
(141 posts)Who the hell knows who trump would choose.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)Right after he appoints Andrew Napolitano to the Supreme Court.
?itok=j6agBV3N
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)TrollBuster9090
(5,954 posts)with one of those glass desks they use on Fox News.
JCMach1
(27,558 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)FATNED
(113 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)stillcool
(32,626 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)See: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41850.pdf
stillcool
(32,626 posts)that doesn't mean a new director is appointed with each incoming President. The purpose of the 10 year term is continuity, is it not?
aggiesal
(8,914 posts)That way no one president can force their will on the FBI.
I don't know how that would work if the Director gets fired
or what constitutes a fire-able offense.
mazzarro
(3,450 posts)Considering Louis Free and Comey - both of which have been reThug agents at the head of FBI?
The fact is that in practice these reThugs tend to be partisan when it is necessary for the reThuglican party's benefit. Same goes for USC.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)Instead he ran a Stalinesque police state.
Ok, I overstated that by five percent.
sueh
(1,826 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Johnathan146
(141 posts)I dont really know who we would choose. Im just not sure abybody he chooses will be an improvement.
How wonderful
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)1: amass enough evidence for 30-35 GOP electors to flip to Hillary
2: Hillary fires Comey January 20th, 2017
3: ????
4: Profit
a man can dream
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)
Secret Service Agent.
He also works well with an ohrangutang.
Nitram
(22,800 posts)Johnathan146
(141 posts)But he could be replaced with Joe Arpaio.
Granted, even if we don't fire him, he still could be replaced by Arpaio. There is no guarantee.
DK504
(3,847 posts)Why hasn't ANY fucking thing been done to Comey??? WHY????? Where the hell is the AG? Where the hell is the president, the vice-president the Senators? The Representatives? Where are they?
ananda
(28,860 posts)we have a non-functioning or very dysfunctional justice department.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)Last edited Fri Dec 16, 2016, 01:02 AM - Edit history (1)
Mr. Evil
(2,844 posts)I'm hoping dozens of people in the Obama Administration are gathering facts and are diligently putting in proper place the pieces of the puzzle. Hopefully they'll be quick about it and let the shitstorm begin.
Also, the judge stated that he wanted to hear from those that were served before releasing any info regarding the warrant. If Weiner and Abedin were never served then what is he waiting for? He should release everything available now.
Chasstev365
(5,191 posts)Maven
(10,533 posts)milestogo
(16,829 posts)stillcool
(32,626 posts)I like this a lot.
Freeman0311
(25 posts)How this guy sits in an office versus a jail cell is beyond me.
Takket
(21,565 posts)Comey interfered for no reason other than affecting the election. he's a criminal. we can't jail putin, but nailing the #2 guy is almost as good.
HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)I just re-read some of the news stories about the seized computer and it's not clear who actually owns it. Most of the stories say that Ms. Abedin and Mr. Weiner "shared it", but never say who actually owned it. The reason I bring this up is that IF the computer actually belonged to the State Dept or some other entity, then a warrant to a representative of that entity may have been sufficient. At my last workplace (a government agency), our IT policy was explicit that we didn't own the devices issued to us and that we should have no expectation of privacy with regard to their contents. If a warrant had been issued against my agency for any of my devices, they would have been entitled to turn them over without my consent or notification.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)would have nothing to do with it.
And his Wiki entry says he has been working as a "consultant" -- which means he is most likely using his own computer.
Response to HeartachesNhangovers (Reply #13)
Botany This message was self-deleted by its author.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)got a subpoena either.
Also, Huma's emails belonged to her, no matter what device they were found (or planted) on. That's why they said they had to get a new subpoena -- because the original subpoena was only for Weiner related material.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)If they had a digital copy of the drive from that computer, then the search warrant would have been directed to that copy, which was not in Abedin or Weiner's custody.
Here's the thing... let's say you are driving down the road and you get pulled over for whatever. The police develop a reasonable suspicion that you are transporting drugs, and they ask you to open the trunk. You refuse permission to open the trunk. They can seize the car, tow it down to the yard, and then go before a judge to get a warrant to search the trunk. That warrant isn't going to be served on you - it's going to be served on the guy at the impound lot who is in possession of the car at the time.
So, let's back up a sec. What is it that was directed to be searched by the warrant? The computer, or a digital copy of the drive of the computer that was already in FBI custody? Do you know?
scscholar
(2,902 posts)They should notify every owner of property before making the decision to steal it.
niyad
(113,302 posts)HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)Wiseman32218
(291 posts)I work for the Dept of Education, they can do what ever they want to any device issued or that we use to access any information. Most devices have the USB ports blocked and there are many foreign countries a Gvmt issued device can be taken to.
herding cats
(19,564 posts)Also, it was said to be a computer, "belonging to Anthony Weiner" which they had shared. Not one used by him, but belonging to him.
HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)is what I've seen on TV. But I think that the FBI is smart enough to ask questions like: "Who legally owns this device? What's the easiest way to legally grab and inspect this thing."
Botany
(70,504 posts)This was a coup.
briv1016
(1,570 posts)Can't have this story in the news for months on end.
Takket
(21,565 posts)remember this guy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Boris_Nemtsov
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)briv1016
(1,570 posts)Not to mention it would keep the story in the news cycle and leave open the possibility of a tell-all book in the future. Much better to blame it on the actions of liberal extremest "before all the facts where known."
LaydeeBug
(10,291 posts)briv1016
(1,570 posts)He has to get re-elected for them to hold power, in order to make money.
LuckyLib
(6,819 posts)got the emails from hackers and couldn't reveal it.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)the first letter bomb. And that they contained nothing of import.
A Round Tuit
(88 posts)when he sent the letter prior to the election.
His feeling were hurt after the intense criticism he received from the right, when he cleared (for want of a better word) Hillary during the hearings.
He was butt-hurt enough to do a "I'll show them" and probably did not realize or even care, for that matter, the consequences of the letter he later wrote to Congress.
If his sensibilities are that close to the surface, I hope Trump does replace him...because Trump will learn to play him like a fiddle and we'll see the most partisan FBI since Hoover.
Loretta Lynch will be gone, without argument...she'll probably have her letter of resignation on Trumps desk before the last word of the oath of office is issued on Inauguration Day...and whoever Trump puts in will also play Comey...to the detriment of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
The left loses all the way around on this one, and without a majority in the Senate or the House, we have little oversight.
It will take 2+ plus years for this to play out, unless Comey is so butt-hurt by Trump, that he trumps up another scheme.
No pun intended.
LisaL
(44,973 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)pnwmom
(108,977 posts)They already had the computer because of the Weiner investigation, but they couldn't search for Huma's emails because the original search warrant only covered Weiner.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/11/huma-abedin-clinton-emails-fbi-231931
Shortly before the election, the FBI found new messages to and from Abedin, while examining Weiner's laptop as part of an unrelated investigation. FBI Director James Comey disclosed that discovery to Congress, generating renewed press and public attention to Clinton's email controversy attention many Democrats blame for Clinton's loss in the presidential race earlier this month. Comey told Congress on the Sunday before the election that the new emails didn't change the FBI's conclusion that Clinton should not be prosecuted.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Anthony Weiner's latest round of sick sexting has attracted the attention of the citys top sex crimes cops and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Daily News has learned.
The Manhattan U.S. Attorneys office issued a subpoena for Weiners cell phone and other records, CNN reported Thursday.
...
The Manhattan Special Victims Squad and the Manhattan District Attorney's office are also examining the latest allegations against Weiner.
Detectives are looking into the incident, an NYPD spokesman told The News.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/anthony-weiner-latest-sexting-scandal-probed-nypd-article-1.2802042
It was after NYPD detectives looked in a folder named "insurance" and found Huma's emails that they alerted the FBI to the fact.
blue neen
(12,321 posts)This is an interesting development.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)What was the FBI doing investigating Weiner in the first place? I doubt sexting is a federal crime. Its not on the list of areas the FBI investigates.
https://www.justice.gov/usam/organization-and-functions-manual-9-fbi-organizational-structure-and-investigative-jurisdiction
I wondered if somehow sexting could be twisted into a civil rights violation but that requires somebody to have color of law, to be working for a federal, state or local government.
https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights
It appears the FBI had no business investigating Weiner in the first place. They exceeded their authority on a wild goose chase to get something on Hillary. This probably came from the New York office members who were out to get Hillary.
Shouldn't somebody be asking about this?
LisaL
(44,973 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)LisaL
(44,973 posts)If minor lives in a different state then it could become a federal issue.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Mike B
(19 posts)Anthony Weiner was being investigated for sending and receiving pornographic images and messages for several months with a 15 year-old girl. Investigators felt that some elements of the crime satisfied the requirements to make the case a federal one.
As far as warrants...there is no legal requirement that law enforcement agencies give you a copy of a search warrant, nor any requirement to even show you the warrant, especially since some warrants are obtained after discovery of evidence, or warrants that are called-in and do net yet exist in physical form. As long as the warrant is valid and was executed properly, then there is no issue. The only thing Huma Abedin's attorneys can do is ensure that all rules of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act were followed.
Personally, I believe they only did it to influence the election in favor of the Great Orange One.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)If he had child pornography that is definitely a federal crime. However, from what I've read, Weiner sent images but didn't receive any. Obviously, investigators claimed that there was a crime there, or they wouldn't have investigated. I don't know which one though. I don't see anything illegal about it except some state charge about corrupting the morals of a minor or something similar. If you know something about this, could you please tell me the law they claim was violated?
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/is-sexting-a-federal-offense.htm
Welcome to DU
Mike B
(19 posts)...for the welcome
As far as the investigation, there have been no formal charges so far, but I would be willing to bet that they are wanting to prosecute under the 'Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act' to get a heavier sentence. It is a federal crime when a computer is used, as well as the fact that the girl claims that he directed her to perform acts on herself. The DOJ claims it is a crime to; persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for purposes of producing visual depictions of that conduct.
notdeplorable
(36 posts)Is it child porn to pose with an erection next to your sleeping son? That's how this started, right? Or was it something more?
Calista241
(5,586 posts)HoneyBadger
(2,297 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,972 posts)How will Drumpf and the Repukes cover this shit up?
triron
(22,003 posts)in postmortem discussion?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)First off, what is it, exactly, that was searched?
Was it the physical devices, presumably already in custody to be searched, or were they digital images of the storage devices on those devices which had been made when they were initially seized in the Weiner investigation.
This news article is really hazy on the procedural details of the actual proceeding in which the letters were submitted.
Here's the thing... Let's say that two people, A and B, share a computer. A is suspected of doing something illegal on that computer. In the ordinary course, a warrant will issue for the computer and the investigators will make a copy of the drive - a complete image of everything stored on it. The physical computer at that point is irrelevant. The image can be searched for everything related to person A.
Then, if there is reason to believe that person B has done something illegal, or that person B's use of that computer is believed to have produced evidence of activity relevant to an investigation, in order to search the image for stuff that person B did, the investigators can get a warrant to search that image for person B's stuff. However, that warrant doesn't need to be served on person B - the investigators already have possession of the digital image pursuant to the warrant that was used to seize the computer in the course of investigating person A.
If you recall, this was the scheme that the NSA was working on at one point to capture vast swaths of digital communications on the internet and store it at a facility in Utah. Then, whenever there was a reason to look for something in particular, they could obtain a warrant and search that stored data for whatever in particular they were looking for. In other words, the stored data itself would only be searched pursuant to a warrant.
What seems to be going on here, and this news article is a trainwreck in terms of relating the actual proceeding in question, is that pursuant to a motion that the article doesn't even describe, the court is considering a request to unseal documents in the Weiner investigation. Hence, the court has sought input from parties that might have interests affected by unsealing those documents as to whether or not they should be unsealed in whole or in part.
But this part here doesn't strike me as all that relevant to anything:
must give a copy of the warrant and a receipt or the property taken to the person from whom, or from whose premise, the property was taken.
Presumably that already happened when the computer was seized in the first place. Otherwise, why on earth would anyone have handed it over.
But if the warrant to search Abedin's emails was in relation to a digital copy of the drive of that computer, then that digital copy was not "taken" from Abedin or Abedin's premises.
This article needs a lot more detail fleshed out in order to reach any kind of conclusion about WTF is going on. However, it is instead written in a sensationalistic style without any clue as to the relevant procedural circumstances.
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)whether it's Weiner's laptop itself or a digital image.
But this court proceeding is not about Weiner's case.
It's about attorney E. Randol Schoenberg's lawsuit asking that the warrant used to examine Huma's emails in Weiner's device be unsealed. (First he filed a FOIA act request that the FBI ignored, and then he filed this lawsuit.)
There had never been an earlier warrant with regard to Huma's emails; she had turned them over voluntarily, and wasn't aware there were some on Weiner's laptop.
Justice
(7,188 posts)any that were on PC because they were printed from PC on home computer.
rumdude
(448 posts)IronLionZion
(45,442 posts)And millions of people voted on the belief that Hillary must have done something wrong with those damn emails.
The continued existence of that Weiner is proof that the Clintons probably don't kill people who are problems.
the dude is definitely a strange one. It's a shame because he used to be a good liberal fighting the good fight
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Maybe there was a national security reason for any warrant to examine the SoS's possibly classified material be a FISA warrant???
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)in the initial hearing before the judge? Wouldn't they tell the judge -- hands off, this is FISA?
ffr
(22,670 posts)Conspirator to sway the election against HRC. Clear. As. Day.